National politics – Page 155

1500 people in a parking lot?

Barack Obama came to Maryland the other evening. Speaking in one of the most prosperous minority strongholds in the country and charging between $15-25 for admission (not a whole lot considering the average income), as an outside observer I’d have to classify just 1500 people bothering to turn out as a blow to the Obama campaign, showing the strength of the Clinton machine in Maryland Democrat circles. He may have done better with the high-end donors he spoke to after the outdoor event, but the $30k or $40k he made on the Prince George’s Community College event is pretty much a drop in the campaign bucket.

For their part, Barack’s campaign seemed to spin this as part of their appeal to youth. The problem with approach this is twofold: youth do not vote in nearly the numbers their elders do nor do they have the large amounts of money required to fund a national campaign. The puny turnout also may put a little egg on the face of our state Attorney General, Doug Gansler, who’s serving as a co-chair of Obama’s Maryland campaign.

As for the content, here’s how Sun writer David Nitkin pegged it:

Obama deliver(ed) a stump speech thick with anti-Bush rhetoric.

“People are yearning for justice,” said Obama, who had spent most of the day in New Hampshire. “They are hungry for change.”

In the heart of one of the wealthiest African-American communities in the nation, Obama attracted a diverse crowd that greeted with relish his call for a new energy policy and an end to the Iraq war.

Yes, that would appeal to a college crowd which still succumbs to rumors about reinstating the draft and hears daily the global warming propaganda. For example, here’s an excerpt from Obama’s campaign website on energy policy:

Global warming is real, is happening now and is the result of human activities. The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years… Scientists predict that absent major emission reductions, climate change will worsen famine and drought in some of the poorest places in the world and wreak havoc across the globe. In the U.S., sea-level rise threatens to cause massive economic and ecological damage to our populated coastal areas.

So Barack, even with his carefully crafted populist image and self-positioning as an outsider to Washington politics, went in front of a youthful crowd and delivered a gloom-and-doom, hate-Bush, America is the source of global evil speech. People, especially young people, are indeed hungry for change but they also believe in, at least in some part, the vision of America as a shining city on a hill. If anything, Obama and his party represent a group wishing to jump farther from the ideal than leading us into it. Fortunately, the low turnout at the event (and lack of media attention leading up to it) may also show that people are not buying a negative 2008 campaign.

Odds and ends no. 8

Haven’t done an “odds and ends” post since February but I have a few itty-bitty items tonight that I wanted to touch on:

Saw this in my e-mail box today. Apparently Mike Huckabee’s campaign manager Chip Saltsman agreed with my assessment last night about his amount of face time:

Well that debate was definitely different. Gov. Huckabee hit every question out of the park but he wasn’t asked nearly enough questions…Given the actual amount of air time the Governor had at today’s debate, we are clearly going to need the financial resources to cut through the media filter and speak directly with voters.

Yes, he couched it as a fundraising appeal but it’s nice to have my observation validated. However, one thing I’ll promise Governor Huckabee is as much time to answer my questions as he desires. On his blogsite he does solicit “blogs for interview” and I’d certainly be happy to ask him a few tough but fair questions that I feel would better inform the voters. And he can take just as many words as his heart desires to answer them. After all, while I’ve endorsed Duncan Hunter bear in mind that even my bottom choice among the GOP hopefuls is far, far better than any Democrat.

Speaking of Democrats, another e-mail I got was from Bill Richardson’s Presidential campaign. I’m not sure he’s yet gotten the memo where President Bush can’t be elected to a third term. But he sure borrowed a page from his cohort John Edwards and is one of eight governors suing President Bush over his veto of the SCHIP reauthorization. Richardson notes:

The President has been openly hostile to children’s health care. New SCHIP regulations that his Administration issued in August violate the intent of Congress, interfering with the states’ existing SCHIP programs and limiting their expansion.

And now we’re joining forces with New York, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Washington, Arizona, and New Hampshire — and we’re taking President Bush to court.

Somehow I KNEW Maryland would be in on that. Naturally, all of the governors involved are Democrats.

On another recent post, the results are in for the “In Honor” fund drive. 35 blogs helped with the effort, and the total raised was $5,823. It was short of their revised $10,000 goal but blew by the original $2,000 benchmark they set. So if any of you donated, give yourselves a hand.

I’ll leave you with this for tonight. On a totally unrelated note, it’s time to crank up the Iron Maiden. I didn’t notice it until the very end but my last post on the Green Fund was post number 666. It’s sort of a funny milestone I guess, and given the tendency of radical environmentalists to equate their cause to a religion it’s possibly more appropriate than one would think at first glance.

All quiet on the western front

A couple quick items about the Presidential race and Maryland’s part in it to start this evening. I may scope out the rebroadcast of the GOP debate just to hiss at Chris Matthews. Who puts a debate on at 4:00 in the afternoon anyway?

Over the weekend, I pledged to keep tabs on Barack Obama’s upcoming Maryland visit. It’s not like I expect him to say anything other than his faux-populist big government solutions to all of America’s myriad problems; no, the reason I find it interesting is the split that it puts in Maryland’s highest offices because our Attorney General Doug Gansler is listed as a co-host for the Obama stop while Governor O’Malley endorsed Hillary way back in May. And while my memory is that a big deal was made days ahead of Hillary doing a fundraiser in Annapolis a few months back, I’ve heard nothing from Maryland’s or DC’s major news outlets regarding the Obama stop in Largo.

The other interesting note comes from the Maryland for Fred Thompson blog as blogger Ted Pibil participated in a conference call with Thompson campaign manager Bill Lacy. As would be expected, Lacy was upbeat about Thompson’s camapign and having done a similar conference call myself with Duncan Hunter, I would expect nothing less.

I’m still a little p.o.’ed about Thompson skipping the Maryland debate, but in a conversation I had recently with a political strategist I’ve come to know from a local campaign he postulated that Thompson had everything to lose by participating in a debate with the so-called “second tier” candidates. If he dominated the field, well, it was just a bunch of the also-rans in the polls that he beat. On the other hand, if he were outshone the Thompson campaign would have to deal with spinning a number of excuses for his poor performance.

Thompson is already getting a reputation as not too great of a speaker on the campaign stump. There’s at least one national story circulating just today about Dan Bartlett, onetime aide for President Bush, who’s quoted that Thompson “peaked in the spring before he became an official candidate and has little chance now to become the nominee,” and that Fred was the biggest dud thus far compared to expectations. However, a close reading of the story by AP writer Jennifer Loven shows that Bartlett made these comments in a speech back on September 13, shortly after Thompson entered the race. Interesting how that timing works, huh?

What I think I’ll do is post this now and add accordingly after I’ve watched some of the debate. The monoblogue world headquarters is situated where I can’t see my TV so I’ll shut down for now and come back with quick reaction to what was said this afternoon.

Debate notes, 12:30 a.m.

No, the debate didn’t last that long, I was waiting for a storm to clear since my lights flickered a couple times. Anyway, did it seem to those few of you who watched (after all, the debate was on MSNBC) that Rudy, Mitt, and Fred got the most face time? Much like a TV show cast, you had three lead stars, the comic relief (Ron Paul) and the people who get a couple lines in the background (Huckabee and McCain to an extent, but Brownback, Hunter, and Tancredo really got the shaft.)

And they had their share of annoying questions – are topics like CEO profits and the “shrinking American dream” really questions or editorial comments? Quit playing the class envy card already.

So how did I rate the participants? In order, I’d say Giuliani and Tancredo did the best, Hunter did well, and Fred Thompson scored well with his points but for an actor he really stammered through a couple questions. Romney was sort of a mixed bag for me, while Huckabee and Brownback went back to pandering again on a couple questions. I wasn’t impressed with John McCain and frankly Ron Paul was irritating.

That’s how I looked at it, but I’m sure several comments are forthcoming with a lot of differing opinions.

Catching on to the earmark bus

As I alluded to over the weekend, I received a missive from Congressman Wayne Gilchrest’s campaign informing me that he’s for doing away with some of the pork too:

As more stories emerge linking egregious spending in Washington in the form of earmarks with campaign contributions for members of Congress, the need for full disclosure of earmark requests is needed now more than ever, U.S. Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (R-Maryland-1st) said.

Gilchrest signed a discharge petition last week that would force a vote to allow all earmarks to be challenged and debated on the House floor, regardless of what type of bill they are included in.

“Earmarks have been around for a long time and in some cases they make sense,” Gilchrest said. “We’ve requested earmarks for highway safety projects that otherwise might not have received the same level of funding in our state because of other high profile projects previous Governors have deemed priorities. But it’s clear that secretive earmarks slipped into bills in the middle of the night is not good government. If legislators believe that their earmarks are worth funding, they should be able to get up and explain them to their colleagues. We’ve got to begin to restore the faith of the American people that this system we have established is working, and that it’s transparent to prevent even the hint of impropriety.

“It’s why I have also always supported a line-item veto to give the President the power to strike some of this egregious spending in many of these bills. As it stands now, the President has to veto the entire bill and we’re heading down the path of a fiscal showdown that won’t benefit the American people.

The discharge petition currently has 196 signatures, and needs the signatures of 218 members of Congress for it to go forward.

Obviously the question I and most of my regular readers have is: what took so long? To be honest, the timing is suspicious as it came a week after the issue was brought up by opponent Andy Harris. The discharge petition in question still has 196 signers, as Gilchrest became signer #183 on September 26. Oddly enough, Gilchrest signed right after Presidental candidate Duncan Hunter; fellow Oval Office aspirants Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul signed it September 20. Needless to say, Democrat Presidential candidate and House member Dennis Kucinich has yet to sign.

Whether this discharge petition has any sort of hope or not will obviously hinge on the majority Democrats, since the GOP only has 201 members with both currently vacant seats formerly held by Republicans who died in office.

On a broader, more philosophical note, much of the earmark reform needs to come from a change in attitude among the voting public. Too often they grade their Congressman on how much bacon they bring back to the home district. It’s the same philosophy where John Q. Public wants all the bums thrown out of Congress – except their own representative. Voters want as much pork brought back to their district as their person in DC can scratch out, forgetting that in order to get it he or she has to allow the other 434 members of the House their respective chunks of the meat too. There’s very few altruists in our nation’s capital.

So while this discharge petition is a start, it does nothing to promote and educate the voters about what should be the proper role of the federal government, and that role certainly isn’t that of paying for the “Bridge to Nowhere” to be built.

Crossposted on RedMaryland.

Carnival of Maryland 17

Once again, welcome to Maryland’s Eastern Shore for this ~~semi-weekly~~ (biweekly, thanks to John at ShoreThings for pointing that out) version of samples from the Free State’s best blogs and websites. (So how did mine get included?)

For those of you who are new to the concept of a blog carnival, this is a collection of linked articles built around a theme. In this case, we all hail from Maryland, hence the name. Many of the contributors come from a group I belong to, the Maryland Bloggers Alliance, whose members hail from every part of the political spectrum. Not all of us focus on politics, though, and a number of submissions this time don’t fit into the political realm at all. I have a veritable smorgasbord of items submitted this week, so like a good wandering roadtrip on a sunny day, I’m going to wander the back roads and city lights of Maryland with today’s Carnival.

I think I’m going to start with another blogger who’s done some wandering in her time. At The Greenbelt, a lady we know in the MBA as The Ridger reminds us about the natural activity this time of year in her post October. On the other hand, what happens to some of that natural flora and fauna is worked into Kevin Dayhoff’s humorous treatise Living and Loving in the Age of Asparagus.

The humor doesn’t stop there, though. Always good for a smile, Attila at Pillage Idiot checks in with a clash of cultures in Polyglot. Meanwhile, Paul at Capital Punishment has come up with a message for the Geico gecko. And while his post isn’t as recent as the others, Anthony McCune has a clever interaction with the IRS with his Resumania – Installment 1.

And that’s just as good a segue into politics as my feeble mind can make so I’ll go ahead with all those politically inclined submissions I have. For those of you not in Maryland, it bears telling you that our state is facing a large budget deficit and a number of solutions are being discussed. Brian Griffiths cautions us not to expect miracles from one proposal in Why Slots Won’t Work. Then he demolishes one liberal arguing for high taxation with his post Owing Favors. Brian Gill of Annapolis Politics also takes his turn at the liberal pinata, skewering our state’s so-called living wage law in Minimum Wage/Living Wage.

Our contributors didn’t ignore national politics, though. One of my pet topics there is what I call the Long War, and Bruce Robinson at GOPinionPlus speaks out about liberal talking points in Dishonorable Discharge: Democrats soil themselves. Then we have Stan, writing as Blogger1947, letting his Congressman know how he feels about the subprime mortgage “crisis” in Elijah, Elijah, Elijah! Plus, Mike Netherland at the appropriately named Mike’s Nether Land blog looks at Social Security with Strange Bedfellows? While he has a funny take on the issue, it does make you wonder why those groups are working together.

For those of you who follow politics and consider all the national surveys that are done as pollaganda, here in Maryland we have a website called Hedgehog Report, a place where you can get the lowdown on national political polling. But Dave Wissing decided to do his own poll on a development in the town of Columbia, and he gives his results on What The Online Gang Thinks. (No word on margin of error, though.)

And for whatever reason this time around education was on the mind of three of my contributors. The local school blues are sung by Streiff in his post Henry Kissinger Validated (from RedMaryland, a blog I contribute to); P. Kenneth Burns of Maryland Politics Today with an essay entitled The Difference Is Night And Day…Or North And South, and Zinzindor of Leviathan Montgomery, who goes into the lack of charter schools in his home county of Montgomery.

Maryland also has its passionate sports fans, but while most of Maryland follows the Baltimore Orioles, a long skein of losing seasons has tried many fans’ patience. Fellow MBA member Soccer Dad was kind enough to contribute one story about the end of an era for one family.

Before I get back to the Bay Bridge though I have a couple back roads to wander, posts that didn’t quite fit a particular category. Mark Newgent at The Main Adversary discusses movie director Elia Kazan in Tearing Down the Facade. When you see how it ties together at the end, Mark’s done a nice job of relating two distinct Hollywood eras. Hollywood also ties into another intriguing post as Undercover Black Man celebrates the tenth anniversary of the David Simon/Edward Burns book “The Corner.”

One thing I also wanted to bring out in hosting this affair was the talented bloggers who inhabit the Eastern Shore. I’m not the type to just grab posts, so I was disappointed that only one of my local cohorts submitted. But the one who did is one of the more talented writers from the heart that I know, and Karen submitted three separate items from A Woman’s Point of View. Enjoy reading 1942 Was a Very Good Year, a timely message in The Pink Ribbon, and her tribute to her parents in The Vow.

Now as the headlights shine on my home and the journey concludes, I want to leave you with one of my own posts. I’ve contributed to almost every one of the previous 16 Carnivals, usually with some political screed or another, a serious, lengthy thought piece. All right, I’m doing the same here but it’s not so long and it cured a case of writer’s block I was suffering from. The title of the piece is Bad senior, no donut.

So I hope you enjoyed the journey around Maryland, and our next edition will eminate from Prince George’s County, where a timeout will be taken from Creating a Jubilee County to host Carnival of Maryland 18 on October 21.

Reevaluating Fred Thompson

Since I have a couple or three new readers, let me start out by saying welcome to monoblogue. This isn’t a new site, so you pick me up doing something I promised to write last weekend for those who get a weekly e-mail update that I do (if you wish to be added to the list, my e-mail address is in the upper left-hand corner.)

Back in May I attended the Maryland state GOP convention. Yes, we have a few Republicans here despite Governor Martin O’Malley’s bid to tax us out of existence. Anyway, at the convention it was encouraged that we figure out which candidate to throw our support behind and do so relatively early. And since I’m one that really HATES campaigns based on thirty-second commercials and writes a website dedicated in part to informing voters, I decided to make a public show and series of posts on how I arrived at my decision. In turn, the issues I base my decision on come from what I call my “50 year plan”, in which I make suggestions to the future leaders of America on policies they should follow and attempt to base my ideas on our founding principles.

So the original series of posts is here, and if you go to the start of the 50 year plan topic to the left you’ll see where I stand on them.

Now, to Fred Thompson. I originally included him in my evaluation but could only base it on the little I knew at the time in July and August. Now that he’s a full-fledged candidate this gives me an opportunity to finish this job. Each of my topics was assigned a point scale that increased with greater importance, so I’ll go through what I know about Fred from his website. However, feel free to add items if you think I’m incorrectly interpreting something said…I’ve added points when people have pointed out items I didn’t see.

Unfortunately, Fred doesn’t go into eniment domain or property rights (as in the Kelo decision) in any meaningful way, so I can’t give him any points there. Not many candidates did, so his zero points of 5 don’t put him far down the list.

On the Second Amendment, here’s what Fred has to say:

I strongly support the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Gun control is touted as a major crime-control measure. But some of the places with the strictest gun-control laws also have high violent-crime rates. Disarming law-abiding citizens does not prevent crime. The answer to violent crime is smart, effective, and aggressive law enforcement. The real effect of these gun-control measures is to place onerous restrictions on law-abiding citizens who use firearms for such legal activities as self-defense, sport-shooting, hunting, and collecting. I am committed to:

Strictly enforcing existing laws and severely punishing violent criminals.

Protecting the rights individual Americans enjoy under the Second Amendment.

In comparison to the rest of the field, Fred is better than average – but I wish he’d talk as much about repealing some of the more egregious federal laws as he does about strict enforcement. I’d rerank him about where I ranked John McCain, who got 5.5 out of 7 points in my previous Second Amendment post. So Fred has 5.5 points and would move up to tie McCain for third. Since I’d previously talked about Fred, he jumped 3.5 points from my original ranking.

Unfortunately, Fred still doesn’t go into election or campaign finance reform so he remains with no points of the nine I gave on that topic. And on trade and job creation, aside from a call to “open markets abroad to American goods” he doesn’t go into nearly the specifics that other candidates like Duncan Hunter have on their individual websites. However, having used the Club for Growth as a guide to many of the other candidates, I’ll defer to their generally positive evaluation of Senator Thompson’s record and award him points accordingly. Sam Brownback had top marks among the candidates on my original post, and I think Thompson deserves the same 7 points of 11. He now has 12.5 points overall and would rank second at that point.

Education also ranked as an important issue with me. Fred has generally agreeable things on his mind for what to do with the federal government and education:

A well-educated citizenry is vital to our security, our economy, and our democracy. Despite the tens of billions of dollars spent on education by Washington each year, and the hundreds of federal education programs now in place, our children are still falling behind, particularly in subjects crucial to the global economy in which we live. At a time when America is behind other developed countries in education excellence, the federal role in education is too intrusive and too bureaucratic, and has become part of the problem. State and local governments are closest to the parents, the kids, and the schools, and best situated to implement changes and innovations that best educate children. I am committed to:

Giving parents more choices in education and schools less bureaucracy.

Reviewing federal programs for cost-effectiveness, reducing federal mandates, returning education money to the states, and empowering parents by promoting voucher programs, charter schools, and other innovations that enhance education excellence through competition and choice.

Encouraging students and teachers to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and math—fields that are crucial to our security, competitiveness, and prosperity.

Promoting transparency to assess performance, promote accountability, and share innovations in education at all levels.

There’s only two quibbles I have with this set of ideas. One is asking the question of how he would encourage the students and teachers to pursue particular careers and the other regards transparency. Keeping something valuable behind glass is less useful than taking it away altogether. Let the states be laboratories as you stress in the opening paragraph. And how about money following the child? What Thompson says is good, but a couple others say better things in my view. I’ll award him 8 of 13 points, which leaves him with 20.5 points but puts him in the overall lead!

Only John McCain among Republicans talked about my next subject, which touched on veterans affairs. More or less it became a look of the role of the VA since I decided to defer actual military strategy to a later discussion of the Long War. So no points of 15 for Fred, but it didn’t affect his ranking any among the GOP contenders.

My next topic was energy independence. Senator Thompson has this to say about it:

The energy challenges our nation faces today are real and significant. Our dependence on foreign sources of oil threatens our national security and puts our economic prosperity at risk. America must rise to the challenge and take the steps necessary to become more energy independent before this becomes a crisis. No one solution will solve the energy challenges we face; all ideas must be on the table. Greater energy security will enhance our ability to pursue our foreign policy and national security objectives. Increasing our energy independence and investing in alternative energy sources will also produce a healthier environment. And while we don’t know for certain how or why climate change is occurring, it makes sense to take reasonable steps to reduce CO2 emissions without harming our economy. Overall, I am committed to:

A balanced approach to energy security that increases domestic supplies, reduces demand for oil and gas, and promotes alternative fuels and other diverse energy sources.

Investing in renewable and alternative fuels to promote greater energy independence and a cleaner environment.

An energy policy that invests in the advanced technologies of tomorrow and places more emphasis on conservation and energy efficiency.

Conducting research and development into technologies that improve the environment, especially the reduction of CO2 emissions.

My biggest question is who makes all these investments that Fred speaks of? Shouldn’t we leave that to the private sector and not give out the opportunities for boondoggles and pork we see too often with federal research grants? This doesn’t really jibe with where I stand on the issue, but also talking about increasing domestic supplies saves him from a deduction. I think one point of a possible 17 is fair since there were other candidates I docked here. Fred loses the lead but stays in contention with 21.5 points, falling to third.

On the subject of entitlements, Fred doesn’t touch the third rail but does discuss his thoughts on health care:

Americans have the best healthcare in the world. Some, however, choose not be insured; others cannot afford it. Every American should be able to get health insurance coverage that is affordable, fully accessible, and portable. Coverage should meet their individual needs and put them in control. Those who propose a one-size-fits-all Washington-controlled program ignore the cost, inefficiency, and inadequate care that such a system offers. Access to affordable, portable health care can be made available for all Americans without imposing new mandates or raising taxes. Current government programs must also be streamlined and improved so that those who truly need help can get the health care they need. I am committed to a healthcare system that:

Realigns programs and creates a system around individual consumers and patients by providing more information and more opportunities to choose affordable health care options that best meet their needs and those of their families.

Improves the individual health of all Americans by shifting to a system that promotes cost-effective prevention, chronic-care management, and personal responsibility

Modernizes delivery and administration of care by encouraging the widespread use of clinical best practices, medical information technology, and other innovations.

Increases competition and consumer choice while streamlining regulations through free-market solutions that benefit individuals and reduce costs for employers.

Promotes and speeds medical research and life-sciences innovation.

In many ways, the criticism I have of the Thompson healthcare plan reflects that I had of his energy plan. For his talk about federalism, it seems like he looks to the bureaucracy to push particular solutions rather than vowing to decrease federal involvement. None of my contenders achieved more than 9 points and Mike Huckabee looked more to the private sector for his healthcare solutions for the most part. So I award Thompson 6 points, raising his total to 27.5 points and jumping him back to second overall.

I noted in my introduction to the next part that “Ben Franklin noted that nothing in life is certain except death and taxes. While you can’t argue with those two truisms, a third corollary one is that Americans feel like they’re being taxed to death. I know I do.” So how does Thompson look at taxes? Here’s what he says on his site:

The U.S. tax code is broken and a burden on U.S. taxpayers and businesses, large and small. Today’s tax code is particularly hostile to savings and investment, and it shows. To make matters worse, its complexity is a drag on our productivity and economic growth. Moreover, taxpayers spend billions of dollars and untold hours each year filling out complicated tax returns, just so they can send more money to Washington, much of it for wasteful programs and the pet projects of special interests. We need lower taxes, and we need to let taxpayers keep more of their hard-earned dollars—they know best where and how to spend them. And we need to make the system simpler and fairer for all. To ensure America’s long term prosperity and economic security, I am committed to:

Fundamental tax reform built on the principles of simplicity, fairness, and growth.

A new tax code that gets the government out of our citizens’ pocketbooks, while enhancing U.S. competitiveness abroad.

Dissolution of the IRS as we know it.

Well Fred, you certainly identify the problems, but to borrow a phrase from a long-ago Presidential campaign and commercial slogan, where’s the beef? Originally I awarded Ron Paul 2 points based on the same idea and lack of specifics, I think that’s fair for Fred as well. No one got more than 14 points of the possible 21, so the small increase won’t hurt Fred a lot. He sits in third place with 29.5 points.

I said this about Fred regarding my next topic, one I call “role of government“:

As far as Fred Thompson’s treatise on federalism goes, it misses the target by just one tick as he says, about education, “It is appropriate for the federal government to provide funding and set goals for the state to meet in exchange for that funding.” No it’s not. Other than that, the man almost sounds like me and I’ll leap him into the running with 22 points. He may become a formidable candidate worth my support once he fleshes out some of the underlying issues he’s not gone into yet.

I’ll stand by what I said then, give Thompson the 22 points (of a possible 23) and now he vaults back into the lead at 51.5 points.

Now we talk about my second-most important topic, immigration. It was worth 25 points to start with and many candidates really helped themselves on the subject. Fred looks at immigration thusly:

The United States is a nation of immigrants. Throughout our history, legal immigrants have brought energy, ideas, strength, and diversity to our country, our economy, and our culture. This must continue. But in the post-9/11 world, immigration is more of a national security issue. A government that cannot secure its borders and determine who may enter and who may not, abrogates a fundamental responsibility. I am committed to:

Securing our borders and enforcing immigration laws. Amnesty is not an option and the toleration of “sanctuary cities” must end.

Reviewing our immigration laws and policies to ensure they advance our national interests.

Uniting Americans by welcoming legal immigrants willing to learn English, assimilate into our communities, and become productive citizens.

Again, a lack of specifics hurts him to an extent. Some of the other candidates are very thorough with their plans and if I agreed with them ranked pretty highly. I’d have to rank Thompson among the lower tier of candidates at this time, giving him 6 points of 25. Since I deducted from people like John McCain, this isn’t so bad and keeps Fred in the running at 57.5 points. He’s right near the top.

Finally, we talk about the Long War, or as Fred puts it, national security. My views are here, and Fred’s are here:

The first responsibility of government is to protect the American people, the homeland, and our way of life. Today we face the urgent threat of radical Islamic terrorists. Al Qaeda is committed to attacking us here at home, and wants to use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to kill millions. We must never give them that opportunity. We must defeat the terrorists abroad, and that begins in Iraq and Afghanistan—the central fronts in this global war. We must show the world we have the will to fight and win. A weakened America – or an America that appears weaker – will only encourage further attacks. We must persevere. As Commander-in-Chief, the president must ensure the United States has the means to achieve victory. Presidential leadership requires talking to the American people about these stakes, mapping out a clear vision for success, and devising a comprehensive strategy for achieving it. I am committed to:

A larger, more capable, and more modern military that can defeat terrorists, deter adversaries, and defend the U.S. and our interests.

A missile defense system that can protect the U.S. and our allies from long-range ballistic missiles.

An enhanced intelligence community, with robust human-intelligence capabilities, focused on terrorism and proliferation.

A robust approach to homeland security that will protect our nation from terrorists and WMD, regardless of where they come from.

A strengthened system of global alliances to better combat terrorists, proliferators, and traditional threats to our interests.

A judicial system that deals with the realities of terrorists and unlawful enemy combatants.

Perhaps the only two I’d rank higher are Rudy Giuliani and Duncan Hunter, and it’s only because I’m wondering about whether the global alliances Fred speaks of would or wouldn’t include the UN that I don’t give him the full point total. As it is, I’ll rank him next down with 23 points. That puts him right next to the top at 80.5 points.

There were also categories I called “intangibles”, topics that didn’t rise to major issues with me but were enough to swing the totals by a point each. For Fred, he has one negative intangible, which is “(c)ombating the spread of obscenity over TV and other media by making sure parents can better exercise their responsibilities.” It sounds just a touch too much like censorship, so he loses one point from the total. He’ll finish with 79.5 points.

So I’ve now reevaluated Fred Thompson and added Alan Keyes to the mix yesterday. This is how the candidates shake out then:

Duncan Hunter, 82 points
Fred Thompson, 79.5 points
Rudy Giuliani, 79 points
Mike Huckabee, 76 points
Alan Keyes, 62.5 points
Mitt Romney, 45 points
Tom Tancredo, 41.5 points
Ron Paul, 34.5 points
Sam Brownback, 20.5 points
John McCain, 18 points

Really, I’d be happy with any of the top four candidates at this time. Thus, I’ll add Fred Thompson to my list of “recommended” candidates along with Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee, while still maintaining my endorsement of Duncan Hunter. But I’m still a little miffed at Thompson for skipping “our” debate in Baltimore since some of the proceeds from ticket sales were supposed to go to our state and local county parties. I hope he really doesn’t think that poorly of Maryland, since it’s a state I chose to live in (being born originally in Toledo, Ohio.) Maybe an appearance at Wicomico County’s 2008 Lincoln Day Dinner next February will make up for that. (hint hint)

And one final note for the Rushalanche of folks: if you’re curious about my blogging origins this post may answer the question.

Looking at the Keyes campaign

Faithful readers know I went through all of the Presidential candidates and how I felt about their stances on the issues. It culminated in mid-August with my endorsement of Duncan Hunter for President. That post also links to each issue as a reminder.

However, Alan Keyes jumped into the race after I did all of these evaluations so I wanted to see where he stacked up. Thus I’ll go through the issues as I did with the others – luckily with one candidate it’s one post. Keyes has a laundry list of topics on his website but fortunately for keeping this a short post I can link to each as needed!

We’ll start with eminent domain. Keyes talks about the broader subject of property rights on his site. It doesn’t really read to me as addressing the issue of eminent domain, so I’ll give him just 1/2 point of 5 possible. So he has 1/2 point so far and would rank 4th.

The next issue in line was the Second Amendment. Keyes goes deeper into this issue and I agree with the sentiment, but without more specifics I can’t give him many points. I noted in July that Duncan Hunter had a similar statement without specifics, so I’ll give Keyes what I gave Hunter: 3 of 7 points. That brings the Keyes total to 3.5 points and he’d slip to 7th place.

On election and campaign finance reform, Keyes makes quite a statement and also has a video link. I agree with part of what Keyes says, the second principle and the idea of repealing McCain-Feingold. But I can’t abide the first portion because corporate entities and unions, despite their donation patterns, don’t forgo their First Amendment rights. In the video, he does show support for term limits which gave him a couple bonus points.

For that I’m going to give Alan 4 of a possible 9 points. Now he has 7.5 points and a tie for second.

Trade and job creation was my next pet issue. Keyes has a long spiel on the subject of fair trade. Alan really didn’t address the area of job creation, and while he makes some good points I thought he went a little too far toward protectionism. He is a little like Duncan Hunter in that he wants to renegotiate bad trade agreements so I think 5.5 out of 11 points is fair. It would bring Alan to 13 points overall and keeps him in second. At that time Ron Paul led with 13.5 points.

My next step up deals with education. Here’s what Keyes has to say about school choice. He wasn’t doing very well until the last sentence, which saved him to an extent but it’s still sort of vague what concrete steps he’ll take to achieve that end to the government monopoly. I’ll give him 5 of 13 points. At 18.5 points so far, he’s right up near the top – second behind the leader at that point, Tom Tancredo.

Surprisingly, Keyes had nothing on veterans’ affairs or energy independence so he gets no points on either subject. Luckily for him, no one else really made a big move in that time period so he only fell to fourth place overall.

On entitlements, here’s what Keyes states on health care and Social Security.

There were 19 points at stake in my original post. On the plus side for Keyes is his advocacy of HSA’s and his eventual Social Security stance, although it doesn’t go so far as to eliminate it. Deductions include drug importation (which would harm the drug companies) and the preventative care portion, which is similar to something I jumped on Mike Huckabee about. Since Huckabee is in favor of a national smoking ban in public places, would Keyes react the same way? No one had more than 9 points in my original posting and Keyes is not better than any of those. I’ll give him 7 points of 19. That gets him up to 25.5 points and bumps him to third place overall.

Now we move to taxation. Keyes has this to say about the subject and also covers the next area with it as well (role of government vis-a-vis spending.) Had Keyes talked about the other necessary step of repealing the 16th Amendment, he’d get all the points. I’ll match what I gave Tom Tancredo as the highest total for a candidate: 14 of 21 points.

And while I like the idea of a balanced budget amendment, I can just see how many devious ways the government and courts will come up with to get around it. Fiscal conservatism doesn’t need a Constitutional amendment, just a President with cajones to risk a government shutdown to get a steamlined budget to pass. With a lack of specifics, I have to match what I gave similar remarks from Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, 10 points for that aspect. By combining the two and adding them to his total, Keyes is moving smartly up the list – 49.5 points at this stage is one point off Tom Tancredo’s lead at the juncture.

Two to go, immigration and the Long War. On immigration Keyes is for enforcing existing laws. While it’s well put, just wish he were a little more specific on how you’d secure the border and treat employers who hire illegals. It’s reasonably close to what Ron Paul advocates, so I’ll say it’s worth 15 of 25 points. Surprisingly, Keyes grabs the lead at this point with his 64.5 points.

Unfortunately for Alan, this is where he blows it. When he talks about the war in Iraq, he notes:

I will not for the moment go into the question of whether it was right or wrong to choose Iraq as some kind of strategic priority in the war against terror. I frankly have said in the past and would say now — and not with the wisdom of hindsight either — it was not what would have been my choice.

I take that to mean he would have left Saddam Hussein, a member of the Axis of Evil, as a continuing supporter of groups like Hamas and al-Qaeda. Unacceptable. In particular, I think the statement contradicts what he says in the video here. Since the video is from his Illinois U.S. Senate campaign in 2004 and I’m assuming the statement above is more recent, to me it could even be considered a flip-flop.

Alan makes some good points with what he says about the Long War in general but I cannot let the first part stand. I’m not going to hammer him like I did Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo, but he does deserve some deduction so I’ll dock him 5 points. He’s at 59.5 points now before I look at intangibles, some of the other subjects he goes into on his website that are minor issues to me.

On the intangibles:

Add ponts for being a supporter of Israel, against embryonic stem cell research, abstinence-based sex education when parents allow it, and his stance on the United Nations.

Subtract points for supporting a Constitutional amendment banning abortion. I’m pro-life but don’t think that belongs in the Constitution because it’s a states’ rights item.

His net on intangibles is +3, so his final total is 62.5 points. Here’s how the field now stacks up with Keyes included:

Duncan Hunter, 82 points
Rudy Giuliani, 79 points
Mike Huckabee, 76 points
Alan Keyes, 62.5 points
Mitt Romney, 45 points
Tom Tancredo, 41.5 points
Fred Thompson, 37 points*
Ron Paul, 34.5 points
Sam Brownback, 20.5 points
John McCain, 18 points

*Thompson will be discussed tomorrow since he’s updated the information on his positions for some of the issues since I originally did the list.

I sort of suspected Keyes would be up there and if not for his misunderstanding of the role of Iraq in the Long War he would’ve at least made the “recommended” list. But if you’re one who lies strongly in the “moral conservative” camp Keyes would be at or near the top of your candidates for President.

Gilchrest hits the road

I heard about this last Thursday on the AM Salisbury radio show, over the weekend he made it official:

U.S. Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest plans to travel to Iraq with a small delegation of Congressmen next week to see first hand the security situation in the region, to meet with Iraqi government officials about the progress of establishing a stable government and to talk to American troops and commanders on the ground in combat.

He will be traveling to Iraq October 4th through October 9th, 2007. It will be his third visit to the region since the war began in 2003. He visited troops in October 2003 and again in August 2004. Gilchrest has also traveled to the Middle East to meet with leaders from Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian government and Israel.

“There is no substitute for going to Iraq and talking to the men and women who are in this fight every day. This opportunity comes at a critical time in U.S. policy and I’ve always found the best information comes directly from the people involved. When we have to make decisions that will determine the fate and the lives of tens of thousands of American troops, not to mention the Iraqi people, you owe it to them to have the best information,” Gilchrest said.

In addition to visiting Iraq twice since the beginning of the US invasion, Gilchrest has had extensive meetings with returning government officials, veterans and even Iraqi government officials. The Congressman, a former Marine who served in Vietnam, has also attended almost every funeral of the 28 soldiers and sailors from the 1st Congressional District who have lost their lives since this war began.

I have no idea if anyone reading monoblogue is actually serving our nation overseas but it would be interesting to know what type of reaction he gets from the troops if they find out he’s voted to cut their mission short prior to its victorious conclusion. Or, is he trying to get on record for the winning side as well and what will it do to the part of his base who wants out of Iraq?

Regardless, hopefully he makes it there and back in one piece. As I noted in the Election Calendar below, it’s likely he’ll talk about this on October 11th as a guest on AM Salisbury.

Election Calendar: October 1-14

A very, very, very slow Election Calendar this time, at least with events I’m aware of. So I’ve added a few short election-related items at the end.

Saturday, October 6: State Senator Rich Colburn has scheduled a fundraiser at the Cambridge American Legion Post #91. Festivities start at 5:30 p.m. and dinner’s set for 6:30 p.m. Admission is $50 – checks should be made payable to “Citizens for Colburn Committee” and mailed to: Citizens for Colburn Committee, 5210 Heron Road, Cambridge, MD 21613. Reservations should be made by calling (410) 924-0098. Congressional candidate Andy Harris is the featured speaker here too as he was yesterday.

Thursday, October 11 (tentative): Once again, it should be Congressman Wayne Gilchrest‘s turn to wax poetic on the AM Salisbury radio show with Bill Reddish. As always, the fun begins at 7:40 a.m. on WICO-AM 1320. This is assuming Wayne gets back from Iraq in time – more on that in my next post.

I also found another intriguing event that will occur just outside the boundaries of my area on October 10, and I’m curious what the press reaction will be. Apparently Barack Obama’s “Countdown to Change” tour will be in PG County so he’ll tread into what’s ostensibly Clinton territory given O’Governor’s support of Hillary. Maybe there’s a Gansler/O’Malley schism brewing because Doug’s listed on the sponsor bill along with Rep. Elijah Cummings.

So juicy doings among the liberal set. Meanwhile, I’ve found out that Joe Arminio pays attention to those things I write about him because he now cites me properly on his site and my coverage of the Wicomico Straw Poll is his top news item. Very good.

Also relating to last week’s events was John Leo Walter, who trumpeted his Straw Poll win from last Monday in the paid vote category. I’d be curious to see the pictures from that since I believe it was his wife Wendy snapping away as we went on. Hopefully I didn’t break their camera.

Hey, I managed to mention all four Republicans running for Congress. So let me talk about the Democrats – while Chris Robinson has done a nice update to his website, his opponent Frank Kratovil hasn’t updated in months. What gives? Makes my job a LOT easier if there’s an updated event list.

Thus ends another week’s Election Calendar. I’ll probably have to update it tomorrow as Andy Harris updates his site – most likely he has other area events besides the Colburn fundraiser.

A free state half-debate

Last night we had a half-debate (plus one) up in Baltimore as just six of the leading ten GOP Presidential contenders bothered to show up for the event purporting to be about “minority” issues.

With the “presumption” that the GOP is for the “majority”, in opening remarks Michael Steele noted that the GOP and blacks had been traditionally at “arm’s length” to the benefit of neither.

Steele was also joined in the crowd by former GOP head Ken Mehlman and Newt Gingrich. It would’ve been much more intriguing had Newt been onstage, but we’ll see what he does in future days. As for the debate itself, here’s how I scored the contenders, in reverse alphabetical order. (I’m standing up for those of us at the tail end of the alphabet – and ballot.)

Tom Tancredo

I was afraid when he stated that he was the only GOP candidate to attend the NAACP convention that Tom would descend into an evening of pandering. But he recovered when he told the assembled he wanted his legacy to be one of helping “all” Americans and that the politics of race was “destructive.” He continued on with that vein, noting that he couldn’t agree with the “race-baiting” of the employment disparity question, saying it had “nothing to do with race”.

Overall, Tancredo made the case for fewer federal laws, particularly in the area of drugs. He also scored points with me on his answer to the DC statehood question, saying that if they want representation they could simply dissolve and become part of Maryland (he also incorrectly stated the same about Virginia, which long ago annexed the portion of the District south of the Potomac.) Another nice touch on the same answer was saying voter ID was “not too much to ask.” Tom also made a winning comment at the end, saying that it was “racist to assume you couldn’t teach” minorities and coming out for school choice.

The only faults I found with Tancredo were the slight pander in the opening statement and talking in favor of drug importation. Overall, I think he showed the best of any candidate including my personal choice, Duncan Hunter. He increased his standing in my view, but I’m still not totally sold on his Long War stance yet – that’s what cost him my endorsement.

Ron Paul

It was obvious by the audience reaction that the “Paulbots” were there in full force. Paul also did his best to advocate for his issues and show that they crossed racial lines. In his answer to the opening question about his absent colleagues, Ron said that he shows up wherever he’s invited to “talk about freedom.”

Much of what he said then was couched in the idea of “emphasizing rights” and building a “free society.” In particular, I enjoyed his citation of black (by popular demand) economist Walter Williams on the minimum wage. In most of his answers, his idea was getting government out of our lives, which I agree with. Unfortunately, Paul spent some of his time talking about a war we entered under “false pretenses”, a “non-declared” war. Like it or not, we are there so I think we need to finish the job with victory. He also struck a negative tone with me by his opposition to the federal death penalty.

Like Tancredo, I agree with Paul on a lot of issues but his opposition to the Long War is the millstone around his neck as far as endorsing him goes.

Alan Keyes

Keyes had a chance to introduce himself as a candidate both to the debate viewers and to me personally since I haven’t looked yet at how he compares with other aspirants on my pet issues. And to start out, if he was attempting to be humorous about him showing up at debates where the “top-tier” candidates skip but not invited to debates where they show, he came across as whining a bit. I doubt they’re really “afraid” of him.

Alan spent a lot of time speaking about a return to morals, referring to the minority community as being affected by “promiscuity” and “hedonism” and their morals being destroyed via government policy. I found his comment about restoring local justices of the peace intriguing, too.

Keyes did do a little bit of pandering though, referring to “corporate interests” and invoking the name of Katrina in his answer to illegals’ path to citizenship. He also talked about creating jobs in black areas – personally I’d like the government to get out of the way and allow job creation in all areas. On foreign policy, he was “appalled” by the “fortress America” attitude some of his cohorts exhibited on Darfur, but also chided President Bush for not choosing “security over democracy” in Iraq.

But looking at his performance overall, he didn’t do a lot to help himself in my standing. I’m thinking he’ll be a middle-of-the-pack candidate on my scale.

Duncan Hunter

Duncan did a good job of sticking to message, even getting a complaint from the moderator that he didn’t answer the question on equal justice for blacks and Latinos. He started out well by not talking about his absent opponents but instead talking about leaving Iraq “in victory” and the border being “on fire.” He refused to pander on the legacy question, correctly pointing out that the GOP led the civil rights effort in the 1950’s and 1960’s. He also made a point on the voter rights/DC voting question that it was Democrats who were allowing their votes to be diluted because illegals were also voting fraudulently. Also I found humorous that he’s in support of statehood for the District if they get the right to keep and bear arms – that was the sticking point in recent legislation to grant statehood.

Hunter also gave a good reply to the question on health care, refusing to make it a racial issue and talking about being able to buy insurance across state lines and tort reform – items that would help all races. I’m not as wild about the idea for tax credits for income derived from home visits, but on the whole Hunter represented himself well. Overall, I’d rank his performance second to Tancredo’s.

Mike Huckabee

Being a top-tier candidate in my ratings and moving up the scale nationally, I expected more from Huckabee. Unfortunately, like Tancredo, he slipped a bit on his opening statement and he never really got back on track as I saw it. First of all, why are you “embarassed” about the other candidates not showing up? It makes you look better. And saying we have a “long way to go” on racial issues only creates more excuses and makes the problem worse.

On too many issues, I was disappointed with Mike’s answers, which to me smacked of various levels of pandering. From talking about a legacy for blacks (as opposed to all of us), to saying there’s “not equal opportunity yet”, and supporting a “Veteran’s Bill of Rights”, Mike went on an opposite tack to those who look to government as needing to become smaller and more colorblind.

While Mike has his heart in the right place about prisons being too crowded with people who simply let their drug and/or alcohol problem get the best of them, I don’t think the three strikes and out policy is “nonsense” like he does. Huckabee’s answer on health care makes sense on the intervention vs. prevention front, but I’m not sure if he wouldn’t succumb to the allure of the single-payer system.

But Mike had company at the bottom of my rankings.

Sam Brownback

Similar to what I said about Huckabee, don’t apologize for those not there. He was correct about the GOP expanding by growing its base, but to do this we need to stick to our principles, not play to whichever specific group is in the crowd. Like Huckabee, Brownback did a lot of pandering. It gave me more questions than answers.

No, we do not to apologize for slavery. I can personally say I’ve never had a slave, since it was illegal for almost a century when I was born. So why apologize?

And if you say we don’t have a colorblind society, does that not become a self-fulfilling remark?

It’s admirable that you spent nights in jail and in a homeless shelter (by choice, not through illegal or immoral activity). Does that really qualify you to be President?

With the three-region solution for Iraq you advocate, do you honestly think that it won’t disintegrate into the civil war some claim is already going on? Wouldn’t that give al-Qaeda three bases of operation?

And finally, why is it so important that education be integrated through affirmative action? It correlates in reverse with what Tom Tancredo said about being racist to think that you can’t teach minorities unless they sit next to a white child.

The only thing Brownback said that I liked was bringing up HSA’s in his answer to the health care query. But overall, he and Mike Huckabee did the least to help themselves in selling their campaign to me.

That’s how I saw each candidate. What was actually said aside, here’s what I really thought of the event and the surrounding aura.

The Maryland GOP is already in somewhat dire straits financially, although because Maryland didn’t vote Republican in the last election we’re all going to be in more dire straits financially as the redistribution of wealth from the producers to the slackers continues apace.

*ahem* Back to my point. There was an effort to have a breakfast featuring the candidates as a fundraiser but that was cancelled when too few expressed an interest. And given the participation tonight, we can see that the so-called frontrunners a) are apparently afraid to debate issues in what’s likely a not-so-friendly setting, and b) value trying to raise money so they can do yet another 30 second commercial more than actually interacting with willing voters in the Maryland GOP. (Yes, we have a few, and we’re working on getting more.)

So here was a chance for Presidential candidates to help out the state party, and many chose to do something else. This should be remembered as you make your selection February 12, 2008.

By the way, I found (h/t to Caughtit and WorcesterRight) a website that matches you with the candidate who agrees with you most on the issues. It’s actually sort of similar to how I came up with my choice but they don’t weigh the particular issues to the extent I do nor do they cover all of them I did. So this is how I matched up with each on the site:

Tom Tancredo – 86.11%
Sam Brownback – 83.33%
Fred Thompson – 83.33%
Mitt Romney – 79.63%
Ron Paul – 77.78%
Duncan Hunter – 76.85%
John McCain – 66.67%
Rudy Giuliani – 64.81%
Mike Huckabee – 64.81%

As I said, Tancredo led my personal rankings for awhile until we got to the Long War. What I find odd is that this site almost comes out in reverse of how I ranked them, with the exception of McCain being near the bottom in both. The website qualifies in the “things that make you go hmmmmm….” category.

They also gave me the Democrats. My highest “match” was a tie between Joe Biden and Bill Richardson, both at 24.07 percent.

Crossposted on RedMaryland.

Harris hammers Gilchrest on illegals and franking

I’m certain I won’t be the first to put this up, but I aim to be the best article on the subject.

Today I got the latest press release from the Andy Harris Congressional campaign:

“Gilchrest Misleads Voters on Illegal Immigration”

The full color franked mail Gilchrest’s congressional office sent out at taxpayer expense is misleading the public on Gilchrest’s record on illegal immigration. “The taxpayers are funding Gilchrest’s misleading statements concerning his record on illegal immigration,” said Chris Meekins, Political Director for the campaign.

The truth is Gilchrest supports AMNESTY for illegal immigrants (co-sponsor of H.R. 371, 2007). “Unlike the incumbent, I will never support any form of amnesty,” Harris added.

Gilchrest’s real record on illegal immigration:

H.R.1885 5/21/2001 Vote 127: Gilchrest voted to allow illegal immigrants who overstayed their visas to pay a $1,000 fine and stay in the U.S. while they completed their residency application.

H. AMDT 655 7/8/2004 Vote 341: Gilchrest voted against an amendment that would have increased funding for enforcing current federal laws against sanctuary policies for illegal aliens.

H. AMDT 745 9/9/2004 Voted (sic) 439: Gilchrest voted against the amendment that would have barred illegal immigrants working in the U.S. from receiving Social Security benefits.

H.AMDT 138 5/17/2005 Vote 177: Gilchrest voted against the amendment that would have denied federal homeland security funding to state and local governments who refuse to share information with federal immigration authorities.

Not only is Gilchrest misleading the public about his record, but he is also using taxpayer dollars to do it. “Apparently Gilchrest has so little respect for taxpayer dollars, that he votes for billions of dollars in wasteful spending and then uses taxpayer dollars to fund campaign activities,” Meekins said.

“It is one thing to send a letter to a constituent who asks about a specific issue, it is a completely different thing to mislead them,” said Chris Meekins, Political Director for Harris for Congress.

Using taxpayer funded franked mail for his own political benefit is nothing new for the office of Wayne Gilchrest. In the first quarter of 2007, Gilchrest’s office was in the top 10% of all members of congress in his abuse of franked mail.

Personally, I think I was to blame for a lot of that “abuse” as previous posts show. I’ve gotten maybe a half-dozen letters from the Congressman this year pertaining to his incorrect stance on the Long War. That aside, I looked into each vote the press release alluded to.

The first vote (Vote 127, H.R. 1885 from 2001) was “On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass” and it passed 336-43. The bill in question was called the “Section 245(i) Extension Act” at the time of the vote, but was rolled into another bill later in 2002. As the THOMAS website notes:

H.Res. 365 incorporated the text of H.R. 3525, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, in H.R. 1885, originally the Section 245(i) Extension Act dealing with certain immigration petition filing deadlines. Subsequent action on border security returned to H.R. 3525. H.R. 3525 became Public Law 107-173 on 5/14/2002.

In other words, it’s part of the laws that aren’t being enforced now.

Second up is the vote on H. Admt. 655, which was part of the process of voting through H.R. 4754, “Making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes.” In other words, a budget bill. Again quoting the THOMAS website:

Amendment sought to provide funding for the Department of Justice to enforce section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 which forbids localities from preventing their police officers from reporting immigration information to the Federal Government. (This amendment was by Rep. Steve King of Iowa, and would have increased funding by $1 million.)

The amendment failed 278-139, Gilchrest in the majority with 86 other Republicans and 190 Democrats (plus the “independent” Bernard Sanders of Vermont, who is practically a Socialist.) In this one, Harris is exactly correct as Gilchrest helped to deny the added funding.

Next is a vote on amending another FY2005 budget bill, this one “Making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes.” (Those “other purposes” always scare me.) The amendment in question was sponsored by Rep. J.D. Hayworth of Arizona, and was “An amendment to block payments of benefits under the proposed Social Security totalization agreement that was signed with Mexico.” Hayworth noted in arguing for the amendment (from the Congressional Record):

The principal problem with the agreement is that our Social Security Administration assumes that only 50,000, only 50,000, Mexican workers will apply for Social Security benefits. But with estimates of over 4 million Mexican workers here illegally, I think the number in fact will be significantly higher.

In this case, the amendment was shot down by a 225-178 vote. Gilchrest joined 60 other Republicans and 164 Democrats in voting to kill the idea. Once again, Harris can correctly say that Gilchrest voted directly to favor illegal immigrants.

The final vote in question was a FY2006 appropriation for the Department of Homeland Security. It was on an amendment sponsored by Congressman (and current Presidential candidate) Tom Tancredo, who stated in advocating the amendment (again from the Congressional Record):

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prevent State and local governments who refuse to share information with Federal immigration authorities from being able to obtain Federal funds under this act. These so-called “sanctuary” policies are not only misguided and dangerous; they are also illegal.

Section 642(a) of the illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 already makes it illegal for State and local governments to prevent their police from interrupting the free exchange of information between State and local police and Federal immigration enforcement authorities. Nonetheless, many local governments adopt policies that explicitly prevent their police officers from cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

When local governments refuse to share information with Federal immigration authorities, police departments often stop and/or arrest criminal aliens time and again, only to release them without ever having checked their immigration status. As a result, instead of being deported, these aliens move on to commit other crimes oftentimes.

On principle I don’t like seeing the hammer of denying federal funds being used against local and state governments if they don’t pass certain laws, so I’d be inclined to be against this amendment solely on that basis despite its bid to increase enforcement. I don’t think Gilchrest voted against that amendment on my particular principle though. It lost 258-165, Gilchrest joining 64 other Republicans, 192 Democrats, and that lone independent in voting “nay”.

So Harris has accurately portrayed Gilchrest as having some favor on illegal immigration, or at least doing his part to look the other way.

Now the question of franking. I’m not in possession of the “full color franked mail” Congressman Gilchrest’s office has sent out, but I did ask Chris Meekins for a .pdf copy. (Of course it’s 12 MB so it may not make it into my mailbox.) To be honest it may come to me tomorrow since I originally planned this post for then and told him that; instead I’ll do my Morgan State GOP debate wrapup tomorrow afternoon instead of late tonight – too many late nights recently.

Anyway, the idea of franking was to encourage the elected representatives of the people to keep in contact with the voters in their district. In my case, I get a lot of mail from the Congressman because he knows I’m interested in a number of subjects he votes on and he informs me of the reasons for his decisions. On the other hand, a previous Congressman in whose district I lived (Rep. Marcy Kaptur) truly abused the privilege, sending out several puff pieces a year featuring all of the pork she spread around the district. They generally had a voter survey in them too but obviously she ignored my input since she voted pretty much the straight liberal line.

Simply put, I don’t have a problem with the principle of franking, but perhaps a full-color piece may be abusing the idea a little bit.

A discussion with Presidential candidate, Congressman Duncan Hunter

Tonight I was invited to participate in a conference call for supporters in the Maryland and Virginia region, so I accepted the invitation and found out a few interesting things going on with the Hunter Presidential bid. I also got a question in as you’ll read below.

Duncan started out by talking about the “great momentum” his campaign was building, from winning the townhall.com Texas Straw Poll earlier this month to a enthusiastic reception (he was “overwhelmed”) by Michigan Republicans last weekend at their conference on Mackinac Island. A key factor in his reception among Michiganders was his tough stance on trade, vowing to stop allowing China to “cheat” on our existing trade agreements and devaluing its currency. Further, China was using these ill-gotten gains to purchase military hardware that (in my personal opinion) will be used against us in the next couple decades.

While the Congressman is low-ranked on most polls, at this point Duncan saw the race as still one predominantly based on name recognition, where candidates like Fred Thompson have an advantage. Once the campaign got more into issue mode, Hunter thought he’d start moving up the ladder. To that end, beginning next week Duncan would start buying TV time in key states – one thing that surprised me was how inexpensive commercial time is in certain early primary states ($100 for a spot on Fox News, as one example.) Also Hunter pointed out that these commercials would be featured on his website.

This was in response to the first question that was asked. I asked the second one addressed in the twenty-minute call. It was one I’d ask any Republican candidate given the situation here on the Eastern Shore: what policy do you feel is your best for attracting the conservative Democrats to our side to vote for you?

The Congressman likened the situation to that which attracted the Reagan Democrats in 1980, and it was about the same key issue – jobs. There’s pressure on good jobs in this country coming from two fronts – China cheating on its trade agreements as discussed above and illegal immigrants undercutting wages. Hunter gave an example of a drywall contractor who he met in Iowa that employs all American workers getting underbid constantly by unscrupulous contractors employing illegals. Further, Duncan claimed that the established Hispanic community in our country is dead-set against amnesty. I think he qualifies as an expert since he represents San Diego in Congress.

So I thought he gave me a good answer to my question. Then he went further into talking about his efforts to secure the border – Rep. Hunter wrote the law authorizing the double border fence to continue along the entirety of our Mexican border. This is a fence style that has cut smuggling 90% in the San Diego area where it exists now.

Finally, Congressman Hunter urged us to tune into tomorrow night’s Baltimore debate. Locally, it’s on cable channel 22 – for the rest of you it’s the proverbial “check your local listings.”

I’m a bit concerned about that debate. First of all, most of the so-called “top tier” aspirants are skipping out. Participating are Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Hunter, Alan Keyes, and Ron Paul. (Late note: Congressman Tom Tancredo also participated.) Secondly, the focus will be on “minority” issues and the audience likely will be less-than-friendly to the GOP. According to the Sun:

Debate planners have been working behind the scenes to produce a program that won’t be overly hostile to the Republicans, including an effort to seat an audience that is as neutral as possible, according to a person with knowledge of the preparations.

Still, the candidates who show up will expect tough questioning on issues such as immigration, the federal response to Hurricane Katrina and their party’s dismal standing with black and Hispanic voters.

Personally, I’d love to see Hunter or someone else turn the tables and ask why minority voters continue to vote for a party that has promised them so much yet delivered so little over the last 50 years. I don’t believe in “minority” issues, I believe in American issues.

We’ll see what Duncan and the others say tomorrow night. It’ll be a rare PBS viewing for me, that’s for sure.

Crossposted on RedMaryland.