The forum was recorded in two parts, and the videos run just about two hours total. In order from left to right, the candidates are Bongino, Hoover, Vaughn, Broadus, Jones, and Douglas.

I’m going to allow you to make up your own mind on who won; some comported themselves well and made a solid presentation and others seemed a little ill at ease. At this time I like three candidates better than the others, but I would like to study a little bit more before I make a formal endorsement down the road.

Thanks to Jacklyn Gregory for putting the videos together and uploading them. The Cecil County Patriots and AFP Maryland have done a service to Republican voters. Just for fun I did a quick search for a similar event on the Democratic side, but it was no surprise I found nothing. It’s doubtful Ben Cardin would stoop so low as to honor his opponents with his consent to debate – a common trait I’ve found among incumbent Democrats.

Because this is a Presidential election year, Republicans and Democrats in most of Maryland will only have a few choices to make when primary voting arrives in late March. (Some will also have local races to consider.) In seven out of eight districts for both parties voters will have a choice for Congress, while all Maryland voters who participate in the primary will select their party’s standardbearer for the U.S. Senate seat. Only Republicans will have a choice for President as no one stepped forth to challenge Barack Obama on the primary ballot. There is also only one Republican running in the First Congressional District – incumbent Andy Harris – while Dutch Ruppersberger enjoys a similar free ride in his Second District Democratic primary. Convention delegates are also at stake for both parties in each Congressional district.

Now that the stage is set, it’s very likely that only two or three GOP presidential candidates will be left standing by the time the race reaches Maryland on April 3. The good news is that Maryland and the District of Columbia may be pretty much the only game in town that day. Wisconsin voters will be much more mindful of the effort to recall Governor Scott Walker and, depending on whether the Texas legislative districts go to court or not, their scheduled April 3 primary is likely to be pushed back.

But the Presidential sweepstakes will likely not be the most exciting race. Rather, the key races will be:

• The Second District Republican primary, where Delegate Rick Impallaria and State Senator Nancy Jacobs are leading the field of five contestants. Political newcomer Larry Smith is also running a spirited campaign.
• Both sides in the Sixth District. While Democratic State Senator Rob “Gas Tax” Garagiola had the district drawn to his advantage, challenger Milad Pooran has shown some fundraising prowess as well. Meanwhile, State Senator David Brinkley and Delegate Kathy Afzali are challenging incumbent Republican Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, joining 2010 challenger Joseph Krysztoforski and four other GOP hopefuls in the Congressional side’s most crowded field.
• It looked like Democratic incumbent U.S. Senator Ben Cardin would face the usual cadre of perennial candidates until State Senator C. Anthony Muse jumped into the race. While Cardin is expected to handle this challenge, it will show just how many Democrats – particularly the black population they depend so heavily on – are backing the incumbent. If Cardin doesn’t carry areas like Prince George’s County or Baltimore City Cardin will have some fence-mending to do over the summer months to shore up the base.
• Meanwhile, the Republicans have their usual crowded field of ten candidates, who I’ll discuss in the next few paragraphs.

If you break down that race you’ll find that, just like the Democrats, there are several who are seemingly on the ballot just to see their name there. John Kimble is on his ninth straight federal ballot dating back to 1996, Corrogan Vaughn is on his fourth try for statewide office, Robert Broadus and Rick Hoover are on their third electoral run, and Joseph Alexander was third in the 2010 Senate race. William Capps also ran for state office in 2010. That’s not to say they have no shot at winning, but generally there’s a reason for their lack of previous success. Of that group, Vaughn and Broadus have probably been the most active at getting around the state and promoting their campaigns.

But in terms of money and backing, the two frontrunners have to be pegged as Rich Douglas and Dan Bongino. Bongino has raised the most money, and both have received a series of dueling endorsements from state and federal officeholders and other well-known figures. Both Bongino and Douglas have spoken before small groups (of which I was a part) here in Wicomico County as well.

I’ve pointed out before that the pair have a somewhat different focus in their respective campaigns.

Douglas seems to be more of the “establishment” candidate whose specialty lies more in the aspect of foreign affairs. He also plays up his experience in the Senate as a staffer for Senator Jesse Helms and his military experience. Conversely, Bongino resides more on the side of addressing economic issues and the role of government and doesn’t seem to be averse to mixing it up with his Democratic opponent. He’s also been more successful at getting national interest in his campaign. To me, it doesn’t matter so much who wins the Republican side – I’m looking for the guy who will finally represent this state as it should be represented, not a career politician building up his pension via 46 years in public office. (Yes, Ben Cardin was first elected to public office in 1966 – winning a House of Delegates seat held previously by his uncle. He was first elected when I was 2 years old!)

Although there could be a primary upset, I’d prefer that the retirement party for Ben Cardin be held on November 6. While most of the ten on the GOP side would be an improvement (I have my doubts on a couple) I would suspect the best chance of attaining that goal would rest with Rich Douglas or Dan Bongino.

Up in the Second Congressional District, GOP candidate Larry Smith is challenging his four rivals to eight hour-long debates on various issues. But considering he has more to gain than two of his rivals (who serve in the Maryland General Assembly) that’s probably a pipe dream – not to mention they would likely be in session several nights a week.

But the key complaint Smith has is simpler: “This election should not be decided on who has the most insider endorsements, but rather who would be the best representative of the voters of the district.” All that is true, but if these debates were to come to pass I would hope that a conservative runs them, rather than the debacles we have seen with the GOP Presidential debates and their “gotcha” questions.

I wish Mr. Smith the best of luck in going to Washington.

Another Congressman wanted to make sure that there are no excuses to halt the exploration for natural gas in Maryland.

Last week Andy Harris held a hearing regarding the EPA’s findings in groundwater research in an area where fracking (hydraulic fracturing) is being performed. The EPA study is being questioned by experts who contend the study is being biased to show groundwater contamination which isn’t there.

“This hearing exposes how the EPA is willing to use junk science to promote unnecessary fear about the safety of hydraulic fracturing in an attempt to carry out the President’s climate change agenda,” said Harris. “The testimony was clear that this study is not applicable to Marcellus Shale, so hopefully Governor O’Malley won’t use this flawed study as an excuse to advance his own climate change agenda.”

Both Harris’s opening statement and the webcast are available for inspection. You may recall this was the hearing where a documentary filmmaker (not friendly to the oil and gas industry) was ejected for not seeking the proper credentials beforehand.

Speaking of oil and gas, the prospect of a gasoline tax strikes fear into Maryland drivers. I’ve already covered this at some length, but I wanted to point out a quote from a release I received from Maryland Business for Responsive Government concerning the Purple Line, a proposed light-rail system between New Carrollton and Bethesda. MBRG states:

The governor claims the increase is necessary to fund transportation projects, including the Purple Line, a $2 billion light-rail boondoggle meant to run between Bethesda and New Carrollton. This unpopular scheme could result in more than 300 families being tossed out of their homes through eminent domain.

This project is typical of leftist transportation policies that seek to redistribute wealth from automobile commuters – the vast majority – to the handful who prefer a government-subsidized ride. According to the latest Census Bureau data, only 5.2 percent of Marylanders take public transit. The absurdly optimistic forecast that 60,000 will use the purple trolley means the subsidy will be $33,000 per daily rider. It would be cheaper just to hand each of them a free car. (Emphasis mine.)

Isn’t that what liberals want to do anyway? Traffic will be just as bad, and the subsidy worse because the train will go from suburb to suburb. Unless someone has done the traffic study to prove this is a popular route not directly served by highways, I suspect this will indeed be a colossal waste of money. On the other hand, at $5 million per lane mile we could build a 4-lane expressway from Salisbury to Dover to connect to the existing improved section of Delaware Route 1 and have money left over for building a few needed interchanges at major highways. That would do a lot more good for Delmarva’s economy.

Instead, Martin O’Malley wants to build a slew of wind turbines around the state and off Ocean City. Maybe he should go watch this before he spends our tax dollars tilting at windmills:

I would imagine that a number of people who live out in Western Maryland and can’t cash in on the Marcellus Shale natural gas underneath their property have fallen for this racket – and I mean that in a literal sense. Just wait until they build these offshore and another Hurricane Irene lumbers by just off the coast. You don’t need to worry about that with fracking.

Last week I pointed out some of the GOP reaction to Martin O’Malley’s State of the State address. But I missed this one, and it’s pretty cute. Delegates Susan Aumann and Kathy Szeliga had their own take:

However, I have one objection – I hope they’re not playing ‘Angry Birds’ while they’re supposed to be taking votes or attending a hearing. Aside from that, they are right on target. And as others have pointed out, losing the Amazon sales via the ‘app tax’ could really hurt their bottom lines. Not so much here, but I like having the option open – at least for my friends.

Now let’s talk a little bit of activism. At the last WCRC meeting speaker Cathy Keim described what Election Integrity Maryland is doing, but in passing remarked about efforts in Wisconsin to verify recall signatures – a process rife with fraud thanks to multiple signatures from selected signers and obviously fake names like ‘Mickey Mouse’ or ‘Adolf Hitler.’ Regardless, these were supposed to be counted unless the validity of the signatures is challenged.

Verify the Recall is looking for volunteers to help with the effort of checking for duplicate signatures and against the database of existing voters. It would be utterly hilarious if the petition effort was found to have come up short because of the absolute and insidious fraud perpetrated by Big Labor and other anti-Scott Walker liberal groups.

Voter integrity will be one of the subjects of the next Worcester County TEA Party meeting at 6:15 p.m. on Friday, February 17 in the Ocean Pines Community Hall. They’ll also receive a legislative update from Delegate Mike McDermott. Hopefully I’ll get on-the-spot coverage from my correspondent over Worcester County way.

As I have the last two times, I’ll go through the sites I’ve added on my sidebar. Both of these are national sites which many of you have already heard of, but I had heretofore overlooked Instapundit and The Right Scoop. Not anymore. You may also notice I enhanced my link to the Maryland Democratic Party with a new widget in order to be fair and balanced.

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn’t wish a happy 101st birthday to our late fortieth President, who was the first  President I cast a vote for in 1984 and for my money hasn’t been equaled in my lifetime before or since. Rest in peace, President Reagan, for you are sorely missed. The centennial hoopla may be coming to a close but the legacy remains.

Ironically, the amount in question (about $680,000) was matched by several large donors to Planned Parenthood, so they would have been all right financially anyway. Planned Parenthood is a $1 billion-plus business, so in all honesty the SGK grant was a proverbial drop in the bucket to them – yet the screaming which ensued after SGK dropped its grant was enough to bring the abortion issue back to the forefront for a time. It’s sad because SGK does a lot of good but the comparatively tiny amount at stake will likely result in a net loss for that worthwhile organization (because donors will be turned off by the fact they donate to an abortion mill) and they’ll still be on the hook for the $680,000 or so. Meanwhile, I doubt Planned Parenthood is going to return any of the donations they received under what turned out to be somewhat false pretenses.

There’s also another difference between the two that’s worth pointing out. Insofar as I could tell, SGK either receives no or very little federal funding – the vast majority of their revenue comes from donations and the Race for the Cure. On the other hand, Planned Parenthood gets millions of federal dollars each year and uses the money freed up by the funding to perform over 300,000 abortions a year. One promotes a culture of life and hope, the other a culture of death and “convenience.” If they simply stuck to other birth control methods, perhaps Planned Parenthood would be a less controversial organization, but their roots go back to the dark aspect of eugenics and the molding of society as expressed by founder Margaret Sanger.

I suppose the only shock I had wasn’t the fact Komen backed down, but just that they did so quickly.

His latest (of many) tax proposals would extend the state’s 6% sales tax to purchases of gasoline, on top of the current 23.5 cents per gallon surcharge the state takes. If adopted, Maryland would join a handful of other states which use this nebulous practice of profiting off high gasoline prices.

The other states which do this are California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and New York. To see what impact this proposed tax would have on our wallets, we need to use three methods of comparison. First, here are the per-gallon gasoline taxes charged by each of these states and Maryland, ranked lowest to highest, not including sales taxes or various fees added by each state: (Source)

• Florida, 4 cents per gallon
• Georgia, 7.5 cents per gallon
• New York, 8.1 cents per gallon
• Indiana, 18 cents per gallon
• Illinois, 19 cents per gallon
• Michigan, 19 cents per gallon
• Maryland, 23.5 cents per gallon
• California, 35.7 cents per gallon

And now the sales tax rates which are (or would presumably be) applied to gasoline, also listed lowest to highest:

• California, 2.25%
• Georgia, 4%
• Maryland, 6%
• Michigan, 6%
• Illinois, 6.25%
• Indiana, 7%
• New York, 8%
• Florida, 12%

Finally, the combined bite between all taxes (federal, state, and local) impacting gasoline in the states which charge sales tax, which includes where Maryland would eventually rank. To do their calculations, API uses the average cost per gallon in each state according to AAA as of 1/1/12. For Maryland, I couldn’t find the price on the specific 1/1 date but according to the latest AAA figures, the average price one month ago from today was $3.26 and that should suffice for being roughly the price on January 1st. Again, this is lowest to highest.

• Georgia, 47.8 cents per gallon
• Florida, 53.4 cents per gallon
• Illinois, 57.3 cents per gallon
• Indiana, 57.3 cents per gallon
• Michigan, 57.8 cents per gallon
• Maryland, 61.5 58.9 cents per gallon*
• California, 67 cents per gallon
• New York, 67.4 cents per gallon

If this is passed, Maryland would have the fifth-highest total gasoline tax in the country, trailing New York, California, Connecticut (also 67 cents per gallon) and Hawaii (65.5 cents per gallon.) Maryland drivers would be ceding a much higher bite out of their wallets than their neighbors in West Virginia (51.8 cents per gallon), Pennsylvania (50.7 cents per gallon), Washington D.C. (41.9 cents per gallon), Delaware (41.4 cents per gallon), and Virginia (38.2 cents per gallon.) Retailers in those states who are fortunate enough to be close to the Maryland line are probably licking their chops about now.

Of course, this doesn’t factor in the addition of some of MOM’s other trial balloons like a separate 15 cent per-gallon increase in the gasoline tax or increasing the sales tax to 7 percent. And as Todd Eberly points out at The FreeStater Blog, this could all be a feint to make a direct 15 cent additional surcharge more palatable.

As it is currently proposed, the gasoline sales tax would be phased in 2% at a time so drivers wouldn’t be hit all at once. But when they’re projecting $613 million in new annual revenue at a time when the state is over $1 billion in the hole, it will be a surprise if they don’t rush the process. It may get passed this way for now, but wait for the new, improved bill to accelerate the increase next session when money is still tight.

We’re also being told that a gas tax increase is about infrastructure jobs in fixing bridges and roads. But the Maryland Public Policy Institute does a magnificent job of not only blowing that argument out of the water but also pointing out the folly of public transportation while they’re at it. Simply put, it’s another component of the War on Rural Maryland as those of us who drive greater distances because we choose to live away from urban woes will be subsidizing those who ride the buses or light rail in more-developed areas. That group doesn’t quite comprise the 1% but they’re pretty darn close, and they don’t come close to paying their own way.

Putting private transport out of reach to the average family through higher prices also fits neatly into the goals of so-called “Smart Growth” and “sustainable development”, which strives to increase the usage of mass transit. Perhaps this is a line of thought more suited to the tinfoil hat crowd, but one can’t deny it’s much easier to control the population if their movements are controlled.

In any event, the first step in rebuilding Maryland’s crumbling transportation infrastructure needs to come from locking away the Transportation Trust Fund from greedy governors who can’t shake their spending addiction. And if we take back the half of transportation spending we waste on a tiny percentage of commuters and instead gave them a more appropriate share of a nickel per dollar, there are a lot of bridges, road widening projects, and traffic control measures which could be completed for the rest of us who get tired of sitting in traffic.

On the Eastern Shore, we already will bear a significant burden from the newly increased tolls on the Bay Bridge, so we should get a break when it comes to gasoline taxes. The state should quit using the knee-jerk reaction it always seems to have about raising taxes and instead consider spending the vast amounts already collected more wisely.

* I was also taxing the existing tax, not the actual price. Subtract out the 41.9 cents we currently pay in taxes and the sales tax is actually on $2.84 of the $3.26 per gallon.

Polling is in the news these days – sometimes as a real reflection of the political scene, and sometimes just to make news and push a particular agenda. There are two recent polls which I believe reflect the latter.

I’m usually not too trusting of polls in which I can’t find a political or geographical breakdown, and a recent Washington Post poll fits this bill. Taken simply as a sample of 1,064 adults in Maryland, the Post poll gives Martin O’Malley a 55% approval vs. 36% disapproval – compare that to the 53-40 split in the recent Gonzales Poll, which I can easily ascertain subgroups and methodology in. Other disagreements: a 50-44 split in favor of gay marriage on the Post poll vs. a 49-47 split in favor on Gonzales and the “key issue” question: the economy was the top choice of 49% in Gonzales but only 32% on the Post poll.

Without seeing the methodology besides the sample size, my guess is that the local Washington D.C. area was oversampled by the Post. Obviously the economy is better there than in some other portions of the state, and since the area is more liberal than the rest of the state (hard to believe, but true) the other numbers seem to point in that direction as well.

And in another poll covering part of the same region, Sixth District Congressional candidate David Brinkley’s campaign released their opinion that incumbent Roscoe Bartlett has a Mitt Romney problem of sorts: his numbers can’t get over 43 percent in the polls. But the news comes with unanswered questions that gave me pause. (And as I have said in the past, I have no dog in the fight.)

First, the Brinkley campaign cites an opposition poll:

Garagiola’s poll, commissioned by Democratic House Majority PAC, found that the incumbent received just 39% approval rating, with…only 37% of voters believing Bartlett deserves another term. Just as concerning, 60% would prefer someone different.

Approval rating doesn’t always translate into votes; moreover, we don’t know if Brinkley would have a higher approval rating because nothing is mentioned about him. This is likely because both he and Bartlett are somewhat unknown quantities in much of the Sixth District – particularly Brinkley, who actually lives within the newly-redrawn Eighth District (but in an area formerly in the Sixth.) Nor do we know what the approval rating was for Rob “Gas Tax” Garagiola, perhaps he’s only in the 20s or 30s because he’s not as well known outside Montgomery County. (Just let me and a few of my blogging friends have at it – we’ll make sure he’s known for what he does best.) Long story short – these numbers are irrelevant at this point, with the trick being to define the opponent before he defines you.

The same goes for this line:

The Congressman’s poll showed a majority of Republican primary voters were supporting someone else.

Well, considering Roscoe is in an eight-person primary with a lot of new territory, that’s not a complete surprise. The obvious question is whether he’s leading the pack or not. With that much of a field, 40 percent should win – maybe even 25-30 percent. It won’t be a majority but it will be effective.

Finally, Brinkley’s campaign makes a argument which could be effective but may be counterintuitive:

“We didn’t need polls to tell us what we have been hearing from constituents for months,” offered Senator Chris Shank, Brinkley’s Washington County Chair. “This is why so many elected officials are supporting Brinkley.”

Historical results indicate that a Republican can win, but both polls suggest that the incumbent cannot. If the GOP believes it can capture the White House because President Obama is polling in the high 40s, they can’t say they will keep this seat with Bartlett polling in the low 40s. “You can’t have it both ways,” Shank said of the inconsistency.

That’s sort of true, but there’s a little bit of an apples vs. oranges comparison there. We obviously know Obama will be the Democratic standardbearer for the White House, but don’t know how the Sixth District primary will shake out. If we had a direct comparison (i.e. Bartlett vs. Garagiola) that may be more illustrative of the candidates’ strengths and weaknesses.

Speaking of picking winners and losers, I was glad Congressman Andy Harris mentioned this little tidbit about the failed Ener1 the other day. Nice to see another $118 million down the rathole:

“In May I held a subcommittee hearing questioning the lack of transparency regarding how Stimulus funds are distributed,” said Rep. Andy Harris. “Now we have yet another company that received hard-working taxpayers’ dollars that declared bankruptcy after wasting $118 million. Ener1 is just the latest in a growing and disturbing trend of Obama Administration decisions that have wasted hundreds of millions of hard-working taxpayers’ dollars to benefit politically connected Obama donors. Picking winners and losers based on crony capitalism is wrong and must come to an end.”

It’s obvious to me that President Obama is a roulette player – but not a very good one. After all, he keeps putting big money on green and we see how often the wheel settles there. Ener1 joins Solyndra and Beacon Power as expensive losers. More troubling, of course, is that some private Solyndra investors are repaid first from whatever proceeds the company recoups.

Finally, tomorrow could be the beginning of the end of a curious election law which set Baltimore County Republicans apart from the rest of the state.

SB85 and HB90 would repeal a law which provides the Chair of the Baltimore County Republican Party is elected by a vote of the people. It’s the only instance in either party where this is so; Baltimore County Democrats and both parties in the remaining 23 municipalities elect their respective Chairs internally – this is how we in Wicomico County elected Dave Parker as our Chair.

Delegate Susan Aumann, who’s lead sponsor of the House bill, noted that:

“Deliberative bodies comprised of elected representatives and political parties throughout Maryland, and even throughout our nation, have the right of selecting their own speaker. What I want for the people of our county is parity with these other democracies.  This legislation also makes sense because it empowers the committee members to select a leader they trust and respect and in return makes the Chairman accountable to his or her committee.”

Since the last elected Chair of that county’s Central Committee resigned only months into his term, I think this is a good idea. I would love to know that the rationale was behind making the move in the first place because the rest of us have a pretty good system whether the individual members are elected by subdistricts as a few counties do or at-large like Wicomico County and other smaller counties. They, in turn, elect a chair and other officers.

As I did last time, I want to also review the new blogs on my bloglist, and point out I revamped the categories slightly. Blogs which provide new content daily go in the “Daily News and Commentary” category while those which don’t fit as local, Delaware, or Maryland sites go in “Other Great Blogs.”

For Maryland blogs, I’ve added The Quinton Report, which is Jeff Quinton’s other project besides Inside Charm City.

Out among the rest of the country, Datechguy’s Blog is a Massachusetts-based site which covers national issues. The operator is a radio talk show host and blogger who I’ve come to know through some of my other new connections.

And while it’s not a blog per se, I thought it prudent to give a shout out to my friends up the Shore and link to the Cecil County Patriots site. I may have a need for them soon since I’d like to use some of their video from a recent event if they make it available.

And seeing Da Tech Guy on my screen makes me think about doing a new poll, which will be up shortly. Check for it.

However, the timing of this perhaps shows Cain’s lack of political savvy – or, to play devil’s advocate, means he marches to his own drummer and eschews standards which would place him within the political norm. Your choice. The latter seems especially true when you consider Cain had already made his “unconventional endorsement” of “the people.”

Honestly, as a former Cain supporter, I think Herman’s post-campaign decisions have been quite disappointing. His TEA Party response to the State of the Union address was all right, but it seemed to me he pulled his punches somewhat; of course one could also argue that had he endorsed Newt earlier he would not have received the slot. As I said up top, it wasn’t unexpected that he endorsed Gingrich but doing so at this time, when Newt’s campaign is otherwise imploding in Florida, smacks of desperation on the part of both – but moreso Gingrich, who’s trying to corral onetime Cain supporters into his camp.

Too bad that, for many, the horse has already left that barn – Newt isn’t going to get much of a bounce from an endorsement eight weeks after the candidate’s withdrawal. Obviously it wasn’t needed for Newt to win South Carolina, so to do so now indeed seems like flailing from a candidate who vows to “go all the way to the convention.” That movie has played before, and usually that sort of declaration comes just before the closing credits roll on the campaign.

Unfortunately, the GOP voters and caucus participants who have come before me have seen to eliminate most of my top selections from the race. It will leave me a choice – as too often seems to be the case in Presidential politics – of:

• voting my conscience (even if he dropped out before the primary), or
• voting for my third- or fourth-favorite choice who’s still there, or
• voting against the guy I don’t want to win with his strongest remaining opponent.

A combination of the second and third options was the approach I took in 2008, basically voting against John McCain rather than for Mike Huckabee. Huckabee was pretty much my fourth option after Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, and Rudy Giuliani withdrew. (As I recall, Florida was Giuliani’s Waterloo, too.) In 2012 I’ve already lost Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry (although Perry is on the ballot here.)

But we’ll see if Cain’s backing for Gingrich is too little, too late. If it ends up I vote for Newt Gingrich, it won’t be because Herman Cain endorsed him. Instead, see bullet point #3 above and you’ll find my reason.

It didn’t take the House long to do its job, but the title of the “do-nothing” Congress belongs to the Senate. While gridlock can be a good thing in a lot of instances, not performing their Constitutional duty is inexcusable.

The House did their job, so tell the Senate to do theirs. We’re always being asked to compromise so now it’s their turn.

And if they don’t, perhaps it’s time to elect some new Senators who would work more closely with a Republican house. A few good candidates come to mind, none of them named Ben Cardin.

On Monday, Bongino struck first by calling the current electoral process “a nest of corruption.”

The current electoral process is a system designed to benefit the political insider interested in a tacit game of tit for tat, enabled by big government’s involvement in the private economy. The fundraising model, which is a necessity to run a modern campaign, is so corrupted by insider dealings that absent tremendous wealth, there are few ways to escape this nest of corruption.

In my 17 years in law enforcement, I have never run across a racket so ruthlessly protected by those in power. I have had numerous potential donors confide in me that they believe in our campaign, but cannot be revealed on public record because they have been targeted in the past by political machines.

Republicans in Maryland (and most other states, for that matter) should know going in that they will likely be financially outgunned by Democrats, and Ben Cardin was sitting on $2.3 million back in September. Fortunately for Republicans, Ben will have to spend some of that to get through his primary but will still have a significant advantage on Dan.

But I’m not going to take the second part of the statement at face value until someone decides to step forward and name some names. I’d actually be more worried about blowback if the gay marriage bill went to referendum based on what happened with donors who favored California’s Proposition 8 a few years ago.

The next day Douglas, who now sports the campaign tagline “New Blood,” hit the incumbent on the PIPA angle, calling Senator Cardin’s flip-flop from co-sponsor to opponent “double-talk…Marylanders have an absolute right to be concerned.”

Douglas continued:

Stopping internet piracy is crucial. But here is what’s really going on with PIPA. Mr. Cardin hastily signed up to co-sponsor a bill which provides sweetheart overseas process service rules for Hollywood, and increases legal burdens on American internet service providers. He was caught flat-footed by alert Maryland constituents. Now he is trying to backpedal.

In the Senate, co-sponsorship of a bill means you own it.  A Senator conscious of his duty would ask hard questions before putting his name on a bill which will force American businesses and citizens to step into the shoes of federal prosecutors to protect Hollywood.

If you read my post on PIPA (and the companion SOPA bill) you would agree that Douglas and the rest of us should be concerned that we haven’t heard the end of this. At several points we thought Obamacare was dead, too, particularly after Scott Brown was elected.

So far, so good. I prefer to see the contenders both piling on to the one who deserves it for poorly representing the people of Maryland.

But Bongino got the drop on the race by snagging two key endorsements; one of them was the candidate I supported in the Senate race two years ago:

Jim Rutledge, former U.S. Senate candidate, has officially endorsed Dan Bongino, candidate for U.S. Senate in Maryland.

“Dan Bongino will bring to the U.S. Senate what has been seriously lacking for some time in Maryland; a person that can truly relate to and speak for the average Maryland family,” said Jim Rutledge.  “Dan has an impressive life story and an accomplished record on the front line of law enforcement rising from the ranks of the NYPD to the Secret Service.  Washington is awash with a culture of corruption.  Dan Bongino is a man of courage and integrity. Dan Bongino knows that jobs, opportunity, and prosperity can only thrive in a free-market economy.  We need a new beginning here in Maryland and that will start when we elect Dan Bongino.”

He also got the endorsement of the Red Maryland website, which favorably compared both Douglas and Bongino but gave the nod to Dan based on “the energy Bongino (has) on the stump.”

These endorsements aren’t completely surprising, though. Bongino has been cultivating the support of the TEA Party audience that Rutledge won over two years ago, and Red Maryland has somewhat of an anti-establishment viewpoint when it comes to Maryland GOP politics. Fairly or not, Rich Douglas is perceived as the choice of the GOP old guard.

And Rich countered with a notice which exhibited his strong points and interests. It wasn’t an endorsement, but it was an interesting story nonetheless.

Today Richard J. Douglas, candidate for the U.S. Senate (R-MD) called on Congress to add Cuba to the text of the Jackson-Vanik law passed in 1974 in response to the Soviet Union’s refusal to permit Jewish emigration.

“Just four hours from Miami, Fidel Castro continues to imprison a Jewish man from Maryland, Mr. Alan Gross, because of Mr. Gross’s faith,” said Douglas. “Ben Cardin, Maryland’s own U.S. Senator on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has done nothing about it.”

I have to say it’s a good human interest story, but there’s only a select audience familiar with the reasons for the amendment in the first place – honestly, I’d never heard of it. The law has made news in recent days, though, because President Obama is considering its repeal. Alan Gross is a USAID contractor who was accused of being an American spy.

And on and on it goes.

I will say, though, that it appears Dan Bongino has the inside track on the nomination at this stage of the game. Remember the poll I had up last week? I can pretty much guarantee you that what I ended up with won’t be reflective of the results, but there is a lesson to be learned. This is how it turned out:

• Dan Bongino, 255 votes (93.75%)
• Robert Broadus, 7 votes (2.57%)
• William Capps, 6 votes (2.21%)
• Rich Douglas, 4 votes (1.47%)
• Rest of field, no votes

Now there’s no way Dan gets over 90% of the real vote – not even Michael Steele, who was a prohibitive favorite in 2006 because he had both name recognition and the Maryland GOP’s fairly blatant backing, got 90 percent in the primary. Of course, there are a number of perennial candidates who always run but rarely do well (as examples, Corrogan Vaughn is in his fourth try for statewide office and John Kimble has run for either Congress or the Senate in 9 consecutive cycles dating back to 1996) so there are really only a few who have a shot. Of those in the race, Joseph Alexander has actually performed the best since he received 6% of the vote two years ago and finished third.

But this poll proves a point that Bongino’s backers have their ear to the ground (or at least read this website) and the support base to see this opportunity to make a little bit of news. This time I changed the rules so there couldn’t be endless repeat voting, so it was more work to rack up vote totals.

In many ways this race is like the 2010 nominating contest, with Bongino filling the role of Jim Rutledge (naturally, because he was endorsed by Jim) and Douglas showing some similarities to Eric Wargotz, who had more of the perception of being the “establishment” candidate. Whether there will be a seven-point split statewide remains to be seen, although if this scenario held true Bongino would waltz to victory on the Lower Shore (in 2010 Rutledge won the four-county area by 1300 votes, or by 9 percentage points.) In fact, this area is probably one of Dan’s strongholds.

But winning the Lower Shore is a tiny fraction of the statewide vote, and many factors will go into who wins the overall battle. I’m encouraged, though, that all the candidates seem to be hammering away at the incumbent rather than each other – too bad our Presidential hopefuls won’t do the same.

With the meeting conducted by Second Vice-President Marc Kilmer in Larry Dodd’s absence, the meeting had a little bit of a different feel to it. Maybe it was the new year. Regardless, we went through the usual preludes and club business, also taking a moment to thank Ann Suthowski for her handling of the club’s Christmas Party last month before turning over the meeting to Cathy for her presentation.

She introduced her group, Election Integrity Maryland, as a nonpartisan watchdog group which was an offshoot of the True the Vote organization based in Texas.

In essence, what she had to share was startling – but not surprising. There’s no question that those who favor common sense steps like photo voter ID, proof of citizenship, tightened registration rules, the elimination of same-day registration, and a shorter early voting period are accused of fomenting disenfranchisement at best, and racism, homophobia, bigotry, and the remaining laundry list of liberal insults which normally follow once they can’t stand on the facts. And they can’t, instead trying to portray this as a “GOP war on voting.”

On the contrary, a Rasmussen Poll found 82% favor voter ID, no decrease in turnout has been reported in states requiring voter ID, and laws to safeguard against a mass registration dump on the eve of the election (in order to make it more likely fraudulent registrations are allowed) make it easier on legitimate voters to be registered.

Yet there are still rampant examples of the system being tampered with. As a recent example, in the New Hampshire primary, filmmaker James O’Keefe enlisted volunteers who entered and asked for ballots representing voters who had recently died to prove a point, carefully not representing themselves as the deceased voter. Because New Hampshire doesn’t ask for a photo ID, there was little chance a person who actually wanted to misrepresent himself as a voter couldn’t get away with it.

Cathy also outlined the Secretary of State Project, which is a 527 organization devoted to electing the chief elections official in each state where that post controls the balloting. Its biggest success was in Minnesota, where their Secretary of State (elected with backing from the SoS Project) conducted the 2008 recount that cost Republican Norm Coleman a U.S. Senate seat, given instead to Sen. Al Franken. Prior to that election, Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, who was elected in 2006, ended a ballot reconciliation program and refused to investigate claims of registration fraud.

Some of the more immediate goals of Election Integrity Maryland are to assure accurate voter rolls, promote an active citizenry with an interest in the voting system, conduct poll watcher training (for anyone, regardless of affiliation), and work on legislative measures which promote a clean and fair election. Along with the poll watcher training, they also seek volunteers to sift through the voter registration database and help eliminate duplicates or people registered at phony addresses. On a national level, they are also assisting with verification of signatures in the Wisconsin recall, since some have stated they signed petitions dozens of times. Election Integrity Maryland is a 501(c)(4) group so it can be involved in political activities.

All in all, Cathy put together a nice and informative presentation. But Joe Holloway rose to speak, and that’s when things got very interesting.

Joe stated up front that he “needed to see some friendly faces.” He and three other Republicans on County Council had come under withering criticism for their proper vote to hold off on building Bennett Middle School until the county was on more solid fiscal footing. Fellow County Council member Bob Culver, who was also at the meeting, said “I’ve never been spoken to like I have over this (Bennett Middle School) issue.” He had opined that we should explore the cost of remodeling the existing building instead.

Yet Holloway was clear on his intentions. “Bennett Middle School will be built,” said Joe, “but we want it done right.” However, he listened to four members of County Council and reluctantly agreed to hold a special meeting to reconsider the subject. (That meeting, held earlier today, is the subject of this update to a previous post.)

Holloway wasn’t as quick to approve the school, though, because a lot of the “new” financial information they were presented was based on a number of assumptions which he was determined to challenge.

And what impact would a new school have on county finances? Well, Holloway believed that around 80% of what we have bonded are education-related projects, and Joe also reminded us the new school would affect both the capital and operating budgets, since we pay millions in debt service annually out of the operating fund.

One questioner reminded us of the prospect of having to adopt teacher pensions at a county level, and another wondered if it was simply a tactic to have the revenue cap removed. But former County Executive candidate Joe Ollinger challenged Holloway to name a figure he could live with. Regardless of the figure, Bob Culver bluntly assessed that “we’re going to have to raise taxes.”

But Central Committee member John Palmer would have none of it. “I’m disappointed that County Council can’t move a Republican agenda,” he said. He’ll certainly be disheartened by today’s vote.

Speaking of the Central Committee, Dave Parker reminded us of the upcoming Lincoln Day Dinner, but also predicted rough times were ahead for the county. “It’s going to be worse than Martin O’Malley is telling us,” said Parker, and County Council is being “snookered” by those who would “misuse political power.”

However, Parker had some better news as he was promoting the Republican message both in a PAC-14 forum which featured Democratic Central Committee member Harry Basehart in a discussion of the differences between the two parties, and a regular point-counterpoint feature in the Daily Times leading up to the election. (I’m not the only self-promoter here.)

Mark McIver spoke on behalf of Congressman Andy Harris, who was unopposed in the primary and would use the advantage given to him by redistricting to help other GOP causes and candidates. “Andy wants to build the party,” McIver said. Mark also announced Andy had become a lifetime member of the WCRC.

A pair of relatively new faces were present as well, as Donnie Scholl and Charles Landherr stopped in to represent Dan Bongino’s campaign, which is promoting itself around the region. Bongino was a guest at our June meeting last year.

Finally, we had nominations for our 2012 slate of officers, and unless someone steps up to challenge that slate at our February 27 meeting, that group of five holdovers and two new participants will be the 2012 cadre of officers for the WCRC.

Here’s a guy who rakes in a whole lot of cash, only to finish in the middle of the pack or worse in most of the primaries and caucuses he participates in. The last time out, he turned his back on the GOP nominee, choosing to endorse a number of minor party participants. There’s no guarantee he won’t do the same this time, leaving establishment Republicans to fret that Paul may consider a third-party run.

Should Paul eventually decide to do so, he’ll have a significant and passionate base to begin from for a general election, where independents and disaffected Democrats would be allowed to participate. A large percentage of those who follow him say it’s either Paul or nothing – “There’s no one worth voting for,” said one young South Carolina supporter. Paul’s cult of personality is not unlike that of another 2008 candidate who’s running again this time around – for re-election.

There’s no doubt the policies are quite a bit different between Ron Paul and Barack Obama, but Ron Paul has a little bit of a shadowy past himself as evidenced by the newsletter flap. Obviously there’s no real comparison between that and the lack of interest by the media about certain holes in Obama’s record, particularly his college transcripts, but the pamphlets from two decades ago aroused the suspicion of a number of groups and fostered a narrative that Paul was anti-Semitic.

Yet here’s another similarity between Paul and Obama – their chosen electoral strategy.

In 2008, the overall Democratic primary popular vote was essentially split between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Each won about the same number of primaries in various states, with Obama running strongly in most of the South and Clinton doing best in the Northeast and industrial Midwest. Since there was no national primary and a dispute regarding how much support Obama would have received in Michigan, where he and several other candidates withdrew from the ballot in a protest against Michigan flouting Democratic Party rules and holding its primary too early, there’s no way of knowing for sure who had the higher popular vote total but it’s agreed both got somewhere between 16 million and 19 million votes apiece.

But in the quest for the nomination under the rules in place at the time, Barack Obama took advantage of the fact a number of mainly smaller states held Democratic Party caucuses and nominating conventions instead of spending the money on a primary election. Out of that share of states, Obama won the lion’s share with only American Samoa and New Mexico bucking that trend. While individually those caucuses were small potatoes, winning such a large share of them was enough for him to clinch the nomination.

Because Ron Paul has a small but extremely passionate fan base it would be no shock to see him win in a number of these smaller caucus states. We’ve already seen this sort of result occur where high-profile straw polls are concerned, but in the real race this assumes, of course, the establishment which runs each state party apparatus will allow this – Ron’s backers have a point regarding the devious techniques sometimes used against the upstart Texan.  Yet if Paul doesn’t have to work as hard to get his supporters out to the caucuses as the others do, so be it – if the others want to win they have to motivate their backers as well. Some do a good job of that and others are relatively uninspiring by comparison.

Yet the Paulbots seem to want to have their cake and eat it, too. More than most, it seems to me that if Paul wins they believe that legitimizes their candidate regardless of the circumstances but if they lose it’s always because the system was rigged against them somehow – they didn’t get as much time in the debates, the media misrepresents their candidate in some way, they were shut out of the process, and so on and so forth. Of course, if their guy doesn’t get the nomination they’ve threatened to say home, just like that young voter I quoted earlier.

But if you look at the impact of Ron Paul on the race, it’s not necessarily going to be counted in the votes; instead I think it will be much like Barry Goldwater’s 1964 run. It was obvious fairly early in that cycle that Lyndon Johnson would ride the assassination of John F. Kennedy to victory, so in essence the 1964 campaign was a sacrifice on the part of conservatives which eventually paved the way for future victories – after that, the GOP slowly and steadily moved away from the Northeastern moderates which were led by Nelson Rockefeller and embraced a conservative philosophy of governance expressed by Ronald Reagan.

Where Paul differs from Republican orthodoxy exploits a developing schism between neoconservatives who have espoused a foreign policy which more aggressively defends American interests abroad and has led us into actively fighting Islamofascism at its source and, in the words of Pat Buchanan, a more “traditionalist conservative” approach that reserves the projection of military power for more self-defensive purposes. (Buchanan also believes Ron Paul is an “authentic” conservative.) Paul also shows his libertarian tendencies in proposing deeper spending cuts than his peers, a stance which would cheer TEA Party participants. But critics point out that Paul isn’t immune to grabbing earmarks for his district, which may lead to questions about how seriously he would follow through on his approach when it’s certain that some Republican legislators in swing districts would hear about unpopular budget cuts.

Of course part of the issue regarding the rightsizing of government comes from the need to educate average Americans on the benefits of liberty. Ron Paul is a lightning rod for criticism from all sides, and it’s said that a leader is the one who gets the arrows.

Whether he is defeated in the primary process or helps lead to a defeat in the general election, the trouble with Paul is not with the candidate himself, but with his flock of fawning followers who threaten to take their ball and go home. Much as I’d love it to be, politics isn’t generally a pure process of either achieving a perfect pro-liberty state where the government knows its place or sliding into the abyss of statism – within our system changes tend to come slowly and incrementally. We did not lose all the liberty we have thus far in just the three years since Barack Obama took office, as he’s simply continuing a process which I argue has gone on for close to a century and others trace back even farther.

Let’s face the fact: Ron Paul will not be our 45th president. He has no chance of victory because his base, while passionate, isn’t very large. If you don’t believe that, please review these results again: 21% in the Iowa caucus, 23% in the New Hampshire primary, and 13% in the South Carolina primary. People thought the 25 percent ceiling Mitt Romney had was a problem so what is 23 percent in a primary open to Democrats and independents defined as?

But by saying that, I don’t mean to say many of the needed reforms he has advocated will lose with him. Instead, some of these are goals which we need to apply ourselves to achieving with or without the titular leadership of Ron Paul. I encourage those who fervently support Paul to be more active in the process, for that’s how real change will occur. No question there will be a lot of debate over a whole lot of issues and neither side will be satisfied.

We’ve seen what happens when liberals overplay their hand, particularly since America is a center-right country as a whole. Our side just needs to start moving the ball, and not getting everything they want should not be the signal for Paul supporters to cede the field to the centrists when they have a lot to offer.

No one said the revolution would be quick.

I’m certainly not going to be the first to bring up this point, but who knows? Maybe I can be the last.

For several years, the story has been that those on the far left have had a wealthy benefactor (or group of several) who pays them well to advance a particular narrative within the media – many claim George Soros is one such patron. Whoever it is, this person or group invests their money and those far-left website writers grab enough to make a decent enough living off spewing bilge about Republicans in general, and the pro-liberty and TEA Party movements in particular. On that point, Zilla notes:

Unlike the well funded left, Conservative bloggers get no support from any big organizations, there are no blogger Sugar Daddies for Conservative bloggers, not even from the right.

These stories go on to compare the huge money being raised for national political campaigns, of which only a small portion will go to the eventual GOP nominees, to the funding which would be necessary for the creation or expansion of a credible conservative news source. (Remember, there are already a number of conservative news outlets, but they tend to be small potatoes compared to the big guys in television and print media.) Just as one example, based on the September 30 FEC numbers for Presidential hopefuls, Tim Pawlenty – who bowed out of the race last August – still raised (and spent) over $4.5 million on his failed bid. Even at that early stage, GOP presidential campaigns had raised over $90 million. Consider that as you read on.

I daresay that $50,000 a year invested in an erstwhile conservative muckraker would do far more good for the conservative movement than having to spread it around as drops in a bucket to a dozen Congressional candidates (because individual donations are limited by law) or even into a PAC or SuperPAC that may decide to support a RINO not of your choosing.

Awhile back, I had to make a choice. While I’d love to do this website on a full-time basis along with the writing work I currently do for other clients, the money is just not there to do it as the situation currently stands. Yes, I have a reasonably decent audience for a website which is only updated once or twice a day – if you look at other websites with comparable Alexa numbers locally you’ll find they’re updated a lot more with content taken to some degree or another from other sources. On the other hand, I do more original writing and that takes a lot more time and (dare I say) thought. I’d stack my work up against pretty much anyone else out there.

But that choice also means I’ve not recently found myself in that same situation the Vails and Zilla found themselves in. I’m blessed to have a roof over my head and food on the table, partially through my outside efforts and with a little bit of help from everyone from my advertisers to those who pay me to write to the people who actually hit my tip jar every so often. To all them I give my thanks on a regular basis.

Still, I would love to have the opportunity to cover Maryland and national politics on a full-time basis and expand my audience by creating more content. In theory, I could probably have several more posts a week, cover more breaking stories on a local and national basis, and perhaps even enlist the services of other professionals when needed. My website has primarily been a DIY operation from day one, but it could be improved with more professionals working in areas where I’m not as strong – for example, it’s not easy to write and take pictures.

There’s no doubt in my mind this situation isn’t unique to me – a fact plain to see by the amount of pixels already devoted to the subject. As I stated a couple months back when I celebrated monoblogue’s sixth anniversary, one of my goals was to have 6 to 10 advertisers on my site. It wouldn’t pay all my bills by any stretch but it would be a help.

I really don’t have a need to ‘bleg’ people to hit my tip jar, but it’s always there if you feel the desire to assist me in my efforts. I’d rather sell the ads, though, because then I feel like I’m providing more of a service that way.

The way I look at it, God gave me talent in certain areas and shorted me in a few others to balance things out. For example, I’d have loved to be a professional baseball player but I couldn’t lay off the high fastball, the curveball in the dirt, or throw strikes on the black to save my life. Thus I was the guy who sat on the end of the bench until my junior year in high school, when I couldn’t play anymore due to other commitments on my time. Marketing myself is another skill which doesn’t really come naturally, but enough people have convinced me I have talent to give me the confidence to secure some nice writing jobs.

My best estimate is that, in America, there are 150 million adults in this country who are conservative in some way, shape, manner or form. It doesn’t matter if they’re men or women, black or white, gay or straight, or how they worship – somewhere they hold an agreement with at least some part of conservatism’s core beliefs. Of that group, maybe 10 percent pay close attention, so we’re down to 15 million. In turn, out of that subset, perhaps 10 percent have something to give to the conservative cause so we’re down to 1.5 million. Finally, only a tiny fraction of that group have the talent, patience, and wherewithal to express themselves well enough to have some sort of audience – I’d say that would be 1 percent of the last subgroup, or maybe 15,000 people. And my guess is that figure is representative of the number of significant conservative bloggers out there. That’s about 300 per state, if you do the math – needless to say, some states have more than others but I think 300 is a fair average.

So let’s say a number of wealthy patrons decided to undertake such a project. I assure you that if we in the conservative new media would have the funding necessary to add that missing link to the movement and enable people like Robert Stacy McCain, the Vails, Zilla, and the rest of us who have the talent to uncover the excesses of the statists, bring them to the attention of the general public, and provide cogent comment on real, pro-liberty solutions with the guidance on how best to achieve them, our team would quickly smash the dominance of the what Rush Limbaugh has called the “drive-by media.” After all, most Americans really don’t want to hear how bad our country sucks and that its best days are past, otherwise Air America would still be a thriving enterprise.

Would there still be bloggers who need to rely on the goodness of others to get through their personal financial setbacks? Of course there would, for any endeavor is fraught with risk. But there are those out there who can prove that a rising tide indeed lifts all boats. It’s time for people to step up to the plate and think about the political movement rather than the movement politician.

Update: I’m happy to report that Robert Stacy McCain found his way home and then to Florida to cover last night’s debate in person. And Marianne (Zilla) managed to do well enough with her appeal to not only stave off the electric company but pay a few other bills. “(W)hile it will still be a struggle, at least we are no longer hanging off the edge of a cliff by our fingertips,” she wrote.

And I had an interesting conversation with a friend about this as well, so it was a win-win all around. So how about a proactive strike at my tip jar, or even better: consider advertising on this site.