One piece of advice

Thanks to fellow MBA blogger Baltimore Reporter, here is an article outlining steps for the GOP to take to regain power in 2008. And I agree wholeheartedly, this is a war that was taken to the Republicans and it’s time to fight back!

I keep hearing the mantra, “conservatives didn’t lose, Republicans did.” Well, if this is true, time is a-wastin’! We only have 722 days until November 4, 2008. That’s not a lot of time to win a war and find a good conservative Republican presidential candidate in the vein of Ronaldus Maximus.

But there’s another topic I wanted to add my two cents about as political talk winds down for a short while.

Something that was sort of lost in all the hubbub about the 2006 election was a discussion about the good young candidates who made their first political runs on both sides of the political aisle. (For the sake of argument, I consider “young” as being under 40 like the Young Republicans dictate.) While most weren’t successful, this becomes the “farm team” for later campaigns.

Among the Democrats locally were Sheree Sample-Hughes (who won a County Council seat in District 1), Gary Tucker (he lost in the County Council at-large primary), and Patrick Armstrong (who lost to Page Elmore in the general election for the District 38A seat.) From the GOP we had even more youngsters, starting with Clerk of the Courts candidate James Gillespie (a hardworking officeseeker who deserved better in the general election), Bill McDermott (at 20 the youngest to ever run for the General Assembly; he lost in the District 38B primary), Bryan Brushmiller (who made a good election showing in District 4, a heavily Democrat area), and John Herweh (who lost in the primary for County Council at-large.) And we can’t forget Delegate Jeannie Haddaway, who won election to a full term in the General Assembly after her appointment 3 years ago.

When I think about politics I know that we have our issues with the world today, particularly what’s been called the “Long War”, better known as the “War on Terror.” But I also like to concentrate on what’s going to be around ten years, two decades, even a half-century down the road.

I’m a person who has a political outlook that’s conservative with a little bit of libertarianism thrown in to make things interesting, and just enough of an ’80’s punk “Question Authority” attitude to where I don’t fit into the typical GOP mold and dislike the “politics as usual” games. But I’m also realistic enough to know that my generation (I identify more with the Gen X’ers than the Boomers, as I was born smack dab between the two eras) has pretty much become settled in its ways to a point where neither conservatism or liberalism has a large advantage. The great memories of those of us born in the mid-to-late ’60’s of coming of age in the Reagan era are negated by the 1970’s version of Gen X’ers remembering the good times of the Clinton era.

So I look to the future and hope that those men and women of what I call the Milennial Generation (the oldest of whom are just turning 30 now) rebel against the excesses in government that both parties have perpetuated over the course of their youth and become a modern-day “Greatest Generation”. With the Long War as a constant threat, theirs will likely be a generation of sacrifice much like the fathers and grandfathers of the Boomers had to endure (World Wars 1 and 2 plus the Great Depression.) This stands in stark comparison to the relative ease that Boomers and Gen X’ers have grown up with.

This is why I’m encouraged by the influx of youth into the political process, particularly on the Republican side. Politics can be a nasty game at times. But the ideal of public service puts a much better spin on what’s essentially the same task, being elected to office and held in the public trust by your peers. A country led by our most level-headed and rational youth of today will again be a good place for coming generations to grow up in.

Gilchrest pre-election rally

My server was down last night, I wrote this about 11 p.m. See you at the polls!

Tonight prior to my Central Committee meeting I stopped by a pre-election rally hosted by our Congressman, Wayne Gilchrest.

Signs, signs, everywhere signs.

Some of the approximately 80-100 people in attendance.

As one would expect at a political rally, signs and balloons were plastered throughout the room and I thought turnout was pretty good, I figured close to 100 candidates, volunteers, and Republicans gathered to hear our Congressman and the other candidates in attendance speak. This picture was taken early before the crowd all came in from the lobby.

Congressman Gilchrest addressing the crowd.

Gilchrest spoke of his early days campaigning here in Salisbury and also talked about working together with all people, regardless of party or even nationality, particularly when it came to the Middle East. As an example, Wayne talked about his meeting with the head of the Tehran Chamber of Commerce, who is no fan of the Iranian leadership. He also cited President Eisenhower inviting Khrushchev to America after the “we will bury you” speech to the UN, President Kennedy’s diplomacy during the Cuban missile crisis, and Richard Nixon’s trip to China after they threatened us.

Our Congressman is one of those “80%” guys I wrote on previously – I don’t agree too much with his stances on the War on Terror or energy policy, but he’s much closer to my ideal than his opponent is.

Some of our GOP candidates in attendance.

Left to right: County Council District 3 incumbent Gail Bartkovich, Gilchrest, District 38A Delegate Page Elmore, District 38B officeseeker Michael James, County Council at-large candidate John Cannon, and County Executive hopeful Ron Alessi.

Other GOP candidates who got to speak.

Left to right: Clerk of the Courts hopeful James Gillespie, County Council at-large candidate M.J. Caldwell, Worcester County Commissioner candidate Linda Busick, Sheriff officeseeker Mike Lewis, County Council District 5 aspirant Joe Holloway, County Council District 4 candidate Bryan Brushmiller, Bartkovich, Gilchrest, and Elmore (at podium).

He then introduced the candidates who were in attendance, and each would be given a chance to speak. I had the Central Committee meeting mentioned above so I didn’t stay for the speeches. But I’m sure they did their part to keep the troops motivated for one more day.

So as Rush Limbaugh says, “tomorrow we meet at dawn.” And that’s when I’ll be out – I have a trunkload of Steele signs to place and I’ll be at the appointed polling place right about opening time, ready to sway those last minute voters!

Election Guide 2006

This is going to be all the information I can muster on the election, based on the many posts I’ve done this election season. Don’t forget, I also link to most of these campaigns on my right-hand sidebar.

First of all, here are my overall summaries on various races:

Governor
U.S. Senate
County Executive
House of Delegates/Senate District 37
House of Delegates/Senate District 38

I also attended several candidate forums over the course of the campaign, summarized here (with attendees):

Pittsville (October 12)

Both candidates for Wicomico County Sheriff.
County Council candidates Caldwell (at-large), Holloway (District 5), McCain (at-large), Werkheiser (District 5), Sample-Hughes (District 1, unopposed), Pretl (District 3). Cannon (at-large) was a latecomer.
County Executive candidates Pollitt and Jannace. Rick Pollitt comments on one of my statements here.

The other forums were pre-primary so more participants were invited.

NAACP forum (August 3)

All three State Senate candidates from District 37, along with the five candidates vying for the District 37 Delegate seats.
Delegate Elmore from District 38A, along with all four District 38B contestants.

NAACP forum (July 27)

State’s Attorney (Davis Ruark is unopposed).
All five candidates for Orphan’s Court Judge.
Both candidates for Sheriff.

NAACP forum (July 13)

Register of Wills (Karen Lemon is unopposed).
Both candidates for Clerk of the Court.
County Council candidates Sample-Hughes (District 1, unopposed), Prettyman (District 2, unopposed), both District 3 candidates, David MacLeod (District 4), both District 5 candidates, and at-large candidates McCain, Caldwell, Cannon, and Graf (who is a write-in for the general election after losing the GOP primary.)
County Executive candidates Alessi and Pollitt.

FOP Sheriff’s Forum (July 6)

Both candidates for Sheriff.

Another item that proved to be interesting was the Ten Questions. I actually reuse them on the summaries of the U.S. Senate and General Assembly races, but here’s the link to each individual candidate’s answers.

Kevin Zeese (U.S. Senate)
Lih Young (U.S. Senate). She lost in the Democratic primary but re-entered the Senate race as a write-in. I didn’t know this when I did the summary.
Rich Colburn (Senate District 37)
James Adkins (House of Delegates District 37B)
Addie Eckardt (House of Delegates District 37B)
Patrick Armstrong (House of Delegates District 38A)
Michael James (House of Delegates District 38B)

Additionally, as some of the GOP candidates have been the featured speaker at the Wicomico County Republican Club meetings, here are summaries of what they had to say there. Note that pre-primary, other candidates who lost in September are also featured speakers.

September (John Cannon, M.J. Caldwell, both County Council at-large)
August (Bonnie Luna, District 38B Delegate candidate)
July (Rich Colburn, District 37 Senator, and Mike Lewis, Sheriff)
May (Michael James, District 38B candidate)
March (Ron Alessi, County Executive)

As far as candidates go, I have covered the most of the five recognized write-in candidates someplace in here. Most in Wicomico County are familiar with Charles Jannace’s bid for County Executive, and as alluded to earlier, Lucy Graf is running for County Council at-large again. I also have listed in my Governor’s summary the John Simmins write-in campaign, but was not aware that Charles Ulysses Smith, an also-ran for the Democratic Senate nomination (along with Lih Young, who I discussed earlier as rerunning for U.S. Senate) has also filed as a write-in for Governor.

Finally, I wanted to touch on the various issues that are on the ballot. I’ll start with state issues, and rather than type the whole text out, an explanation prepared by the state is here. (This is an 8 page .pdf file, the final two pages are irrelevant to Wicomico County.) In Wicomico County, we also have Question A, which deals with allowing the Sheriff’s Department collective bargaining power with binding arbitration.

State Question 1 deals with state parklands. In my not-so-humble opinion, this is yet another attempt by the Democrats to both usurp power from and embarrass the Ehrlich Administration. The Question stems from an attempt to sell over 800 acres of surplus state land in St. Mary’s County to a private developer.

I wrote a letter to the Daily Times on this subject back in March of 2005 (pre-blogging days). In part, I argued that:

To me, the word “surplus” implies not needed for any purpose. In an era where the trend is for government to overuse its power of eminent domain, I find returning state land to the private sector (and to tax collection) a refreshing trend…I would like to see a lot more state land turned over for private use. The extra taxes collected could help lower that burden on the rest of us.

As is the case with much of our state government, the Democrats were fine with executive authority when they had the executive. But once Governor Ehrlich came into office, it was no fun anymore. Join me in voting NO on Question 1.

Questions 2 and 3 are a matter of cleaning up judiciary laws. At the risk of allowing frivolous appeals to continue up the court ladder, I’ll vote YES on Question 2 and allow the $10,000 limit by voting YES on Question 3 (with some reservations there too.)

Several election law changes are involved with Question 4. Among them:

E-poll books at each polling place
Separate precincts at college campuses. (I believe SU would be exempt from this as the Asbury UMC is right by campus.)
Supermajority (4 of 5) decisions by the Board of Elections, which is currently 3-2 Republican
Voter registration and absentee voting assistance at nursing homes, assisted living facilities, etc.
Provisions affecting only Baltimore City (and Somerset County)
A study of Election Day voter registration

Because of last four provisions, we don’t need to pass this. This Question came about from the petition drive done this spring to stop early voting (which succeeded in court without needing the petition) so rather than get the half a loaf we would’ve gotten by passing this, we can get the whole enchilada now by dumping this question. Vote NO on Question 4.

Now I turn to Question A. I asked a friend of mine in the Sheriff’s Department who would be the collective bargaining agent for the deputies and was told FOP Lodge 111. This friend gave me a hypothetical:

“…let’s assume that LEOPS is achieved and that may well happen, even if Question A fails. What happens if Question A is voted into law is that the FOP can then demand arbitration on schedules, uniforms, cars, management, etc., which as you are keenly aware of relinqueshes (sic) management issues to the union.”

Here’s the way I look at this. The even better solution would be to elect a Sheriff, County Executive, and County Council who are willing to work in harmony and hammer out the improvements in pay and benefits our law enforcement officers deserve, rather than place all in an acrimonious position from the start by passing Question A. So vote NO on A.

Wow. I believe that’s about it. We do have to reconfirm one judge to the Court of Special Appeals, Ellen L. Hollander. I see no reason not to.

There will be six pages on my particular ballot, and that’s a lot to vote on. Hopefully you’ve been paying attention, and no matter what choices you make I hope they are careful and learned as I advocated in the Daily Times.

Election Calendar update 11-1

Tomorrow, candidate for U.S. Congress Jim Corwin has a bus tour of our part of the Eastern Shore lined up. From his calendar:

8:35 – 9:00 AM OCEAN CITY RETAIL/COFFEE SHOP
Location: Layton’s Family Restaurant
Address: 1601 Philadelphia Ave, Ocean City, MD

9:30 – 10:30 AM OCEAN PINES GOTV BREAKFAST Location: Ocean Pines Yacht Club
Address: 239 Ocean Parkway, Ocean Pines, MD 21811

11:30 – 12:30 KITCHEN TABLE WITH COLLEGE STUDENTS
Location: Salisbury University, Gulls Nest
Address: Guerrieri University Center, off Dogwood Drive

1:30 – 3:00 PM VOTER EDUCATION RALLY
Location: Bethel AME
Address: 623 Pine St, Cambridge, MD

It sounds like there may be other candidates from the Democrats on board as well (Martin O’Malley’s blog alludes to being on the Eastern Shore tomorrow), so if you’re still undecided and want to hear their message (hopefully without “jokes” like John Kerry’s was) this is an opportunity.

On the U.S. Senate race

This post is going to be quite the interesting one. Back in July I had U.S. Senate candidate Kevin Zeese answer what I called the Ten Questions. However, his counterparts in the Senate race did not.

So what I’m going to do here is use the same questions, distill Mr. Zeese’s answers to some extent (the original ones are here), and use what I can find on Messrs. Cardin and Steele to complete the post. With some editorial license to make the answers “flow” better, I’ve used quotations and platform planks culled from the Cardin and Steele websites as their responses.

I decided to omit Question #10 which dealt with who they’d like to see run for President, but otherwise here’s the questions I used. Where I couldn’t find info from a candidate on the particular question I left no response.

Question #1:

There are several schools of thought regarding the problem of illegal immigrants, or as some would call them, “undocumented workers.” Some solutions offered range from complete amnesty to sealing the border with a wall to penalizing employers who hire these workers. Currently there are competing House and Senate measures – in particular the House bill has spawned massive protests around the country. While I have listed some of the possible solutions, it’s no exhaustive list. What solutions do you favor for the issue?

Cardin: America is a nation of immigrants. The growth and strength of our nation is in part attributable to the hard work and contribution of immigrants from around the world that made the United States their home. America continues to benefit from its rich diversity of immigrants.

Congress should bear two principles in mind when considering immigration reform and border security legislation. First, we must restore the rule of law and enhance security at our borders. The government should require the use of a biometric entry-exit screening system for all land borders, so that we have an accurate record of who is entering and leaving the United States. The government should create a “smart” enforcement regime which will produce more efficient inspections and screenings, and will allow us to target and tailor our limited resources to combat illegal smuggling of persons and contraband. Congress must also insist that America’s employers follow the law and play by the rules when hiring and paying any immigrant workers.

Second, addressing the issue of undocumented workers that are already living in the United States, I believe that immigration reform must be fair. No one should be allowed to skip ahead in line if they are undocumented. However, we should put in place a policy so that long-term undocumented workers can come forward, and if they satisfy certain requirements can remain in this country legally as workers. They should acknowledge their status; demonstrate compliance with the other laws of our nation; and be subject to the requirements of documented workers. Congress will also need to review and adjust the annual number of permitted legal immigrants to reflect the needs of the American workforce and to promote family reunification.

Congress should improve the work visa program to insure timely review and disposition of applications for those immigrant workers seeking a legal way to work in the United States temporarily.

I was disappointed that the House passed a bill focused solely on border security, but I am pleased that the Senate has passed a comprehensive immigration reform measure. The House should follow the Senate’s lead.

Steele: Congress’s unique inability to multi-task highlights our nation’s need for common- sense immigration reform. Until we see Congress take some real and immediate steps to secure our borders, we can hardly expect Americans to seriously consider proposals for dealing with those illegal immigrants already in our county and those employers who fail to adequately report them.

Nearly 1.2 million people were arrested trying to illegally enter the U.S. through the Mexican border last year alone, and an estimated 500,000 evaded capture. This is unacceptable. When a patient has a serious laceration, the doctor’s first priority is to stop the bleeding, and then they can decide if simple stitches or surgery is needed to fix the problem for the long term. First thing’s first: secure our borders and then we can deal with meaningful immigration reform.

Zeese: I favor legal borders, legal workers, legal immigration. But to achieve that we need to face up to the real underlying issue and that is economic. I find the House and Senate as posturing rather than facing up to the real economic problems — because they have both helped cause the economic problems that spur immigration. We have tripled to quadrupled the border patrol in recent years, arrest a million people trying to cross but still have a larger problem with undocumented immigrants. Why? Because enforcement cannot trump economics and our trade and other policies have made the economic problem worse. For example, NAFTA (supported by both Democrats and Republicans) has pushed one million Mexican farmers off their farms — they get pushed into the cities where there is already economic stress and as a result millions are desperate. So, desperate they risk coming across the border. We need to renegotiate NAFTA. These and other treaties like the WTO are not really free trade agreements, they are agreements that empower big business multi-national corporations and they do so at the cost of working families in the US and south of the border. In the US workers are growing more desperate — deeper into debt than ever before, more and more without health insurance, unable to afford the rising costs — especially of energy and homes, with median family income dropping and poverty rising for five years in a row. Thus, when working families see immigrants it is easy for the big business and big government interests to divide and conquer — the immigration issue is being used by those in power to keep power. This is a phony debate, nothing was ever going to be done on it, it is pure election year grandstanding not a real attempt to solve the problem. Solving the problem of illegal immigration would require facing up to the special interests — the big business interests — that control both old political parties.

Question #2:

Another top-burner concern is the current spike in the price of gasoline. Again, this is a broad issue with many scenarios that can be played out. Possible solutions that have been bandied about in recent days are a temporary suspension of the federal 18.4 cent a gallon tax on gasoline and easing environmental restrictions on gasoline blends (as happened after Hurricane Katrina). Further down the road but possibly affecting prices on the futures market would be the approval of additional oil drilling in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico. If you were elected, what solutions to this issue would you pursue and why?

Steele: All one has to do is look at the price of a gallon of gas to know that our energy policy is not adequate. While current energy costs are a strain on middle-class families, they are a real crisis to many of Maryland’s working families. This is unacceptable and has had a negative impact on families all across Maryland.

To provide immediate relief for Marylanders, I have called on President Bush and Congress to enact an immediate moratorium on the federal gas tax – more than 18 cents per gallon – and an immediate moratorium on the 24 cents per gallon diesel tax. Moreover, Congress should approve legislation to suspend the tariff on ethanol imports.

But those actions are designed to deal with our immediate crisis. Congress must roll up its sleeves and work to solve the underlying problem – our dependence on foreign sources of energy. To do that, I’ve called on Congress to double President Bush’s budget request for biomass and bio-refinery research, and create market and tax incentives for E85 fuels, hybrid technologies and alternative energy sources. Tax credits for hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles need to be renewed and expanded. Additionally, we must increase fuel efficiency standards for automobiles – not just this year, but over the next several years.

Our dependence on foreign sources of energy has been an important issue for generations. Repeatedly, Washington has failed to act – and failed us – on this issue. Marylanders deserve leadership on creating and sustaining real energy independence.

Zeese: We need to recognize that the 21st Century economy will have to no longer be based on fossil fuels. We have the technology to break our addiction to fossil fuels, including oil and gas but it is not being applied. Once again this is about big business and big government working together for their interests. Every penny increase in the price of oil is $1.5 billion annually for the oil companies. The most recent energy bill had $7 to $12 billion in corporate welfare for the richest companies in the world — big oil. The government is taking money from working Americans and giving it to the wealthiest Americans. We need to restructure our economy for the 21st Century, part of that is shifting from a fossil fuel economy — that is causing terrible environmental damage to our water (including the Chesapeake) and air, but most significantly to the climate change that will cause chaotic weather. We need to move quickly on a variety of fronts to increase efficiency and use technology that minimizes fossil fuels. This includes transportation, home, business and government buildings. For all of these areas we have solutions and applying them will actually grow the economy and create new businesses. If we do not act to manage this transition it will be forced upon us by crisis. We need urgent action in this area.

Cardin: We need a comprehensive energy policy that will make America energy independent and a leader on energy policy that protects our environment. To accomplish this goal we need an Apollo-type commitment to develop more cost-efficient alternate and renewable energy sources. We should encourage conservation by raising Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency standards and providing incentives for energy efficiency and conservation, while developing alternative fuel sources. I have cosponsored legislation that provides incentives for alternative-fuel vehicles, energy-efficient improvements to homes and businesses, and that would establish a renewable portfolio standard, to help create a long-term commitment to renewable energy. I also support efforts to make the federal government more efficient, and to increase funding for mass transit to provide Americans with greater options. A balanced approach is essential to a successful long-term energy plan, and that balance is missing from America’s energy policy today.

Question #3:

Recently the news has featured ethics scandals involving GOP donor Jack Abramoff and former House member Duke Cunningham of California as well as Democrat House members William Jefferson of Louisiana and Allan Mollohan of West Virginia. If elected, what steps would you take to help eliminate ethical improprieties among our elected representatives?

Zeese: Money in politics is at the root cause of most of the problems we face. I don’t agree with Sen. John McCain on everything but he is right when he says that our “electoral system is nothing less than a massive influence peddling scheme where both parties conspire to sell the country to the highest bidder.” If you doubt the accuracy of the statement visit opensecrets.org and see who is funding the two old parties. If you know it is true, as most Americans know, then you have to decide whether you are going to be part of this corrupt system or challenge it. I’ve decided to challenge it and that is why I am running outside of the two old parties…We need a paradigm shift in the way we approach issues and need to make this a country that is truly of, by and for the people. That cannot be done by either of the old parties because they are in too deep with the wealth special interests that fund their campaigns.

I oppose earmarks, oppose travel paid for by lobbyists, oppose sweetheart book deals and want to see money having less influence on politics. I favor televsion and radio stations — who are licensed to use the public airwaves — to be required to provide enough time for candidates to let voters know what they stand for. I also support inclusion of all ballot approved candidates in all debates and candidate forums. And, we need to end partisan administration of elections — elections should be administered in a non-partisan way by civil servants rather than political appointees. Our democracy is in serious trouble and major changes are needed.

Cardin: Ben Cardin believes that Congress must strengthen ethics rules and improve transparency in order to clean up Congress and restore the trust of American people in their government. He believes that we need to make the following changes in law to hold Members of Congress, their staffs and lobbyists accountable for their actions. One, require lobbyists to file their lobbying disclosure reports once a quarter. Second, upgrade the current online disclosure system in order to make it easier to oversee lobbyist spending. Third, there needs to be a longer separation – at least two years – to help ensure that current Members of Congress are not compensated for work done while still in Congress. And finally, members of Congress and their staffs should not be given travel packages or gifts from lobbyists.

Steele: There are several items on Steele’s ethics agenda, some of which have been previously mentioned – quarterly electronic lobbyist disclosure, a four-year (as opposed to two) separation between Congressman and lobbyist, and the elimination of gifts, travel, etc. He would also eliminate the floor privileges of former members of Congress or any members-elect who are registered lobbyists. Further, establish and require mandatory annual ethics training for members of Congress and Congressional staff, to educate them on the rules and laws that govern Congressional ethics and require the biennial publication of an up-to-date ethics manual for Members and Congressional staff, containing any new requirements and laws that govern Congressional ethics.

Question #4:

Along that same line, many people have seen the vast sums of money that seemingly are required to run for public office and were under the impression that campaign finance reforms such as those enacted with the McCain-Feingold bill were supposed to relieve this inequity. On the whole, however, the money trail has not ceased even with these laws. How do you favor strengthening these laws to make them more effective, or do you agree with some First Amendment advocates who think these laws should be eliminated?

Zeese: The FEC is an agency that does not work (sadly like many government bureaucracies). The Federal Election Commission should be changed so that it is not a deadlocked Commission with three Democrats and three Republicans. We should add three non-Dem/Repubs so that things can get done and people are represented. According to Gallup 38% of Americans see themselves as independent of the two old parties, 31% are Dems, 29% are Republicans. The FEC should represent that breakdown rather than be an agency that protects the two parties. I favor a voluntary check off system that is well advertised so that people can contribute to a fund for political campaigns. That is how public campaigns should be financed. Re private speech, the same limits that apply to campaigns should apply to so-called 527 organizations and the reporting of who is funding these efforts should be immediately transparent so people know who is paying for the message and what their interests are.

Campaign finance is another example of many issues — where the public wants reform and where the two parties do not provide it — because reform will threaten their hold on power and weaken the special interests that fund their campaigns. According to a brand new bipartisan poll released by the watchdog group Public Campaign, 75% of voters support a voluntary system of publicly financed election campaigns – that includes 80% of Democrats, 78% of Independents, and 65% of Republicans. The poll shows this support is being fueled by the explosive corruption scandals that have rocked Capitol Hill. And even more interestingly, the poll shows that candidates who pledge to support a public financing system get a significant political boost over candidates who do not.

Question #5:

While the above issues have captured the headlines, our War on Terror (particularly in Iraq) is never far from our minds. It goes without saying that the vast majority of us support our troops; but the question is whether you favor our current approach or something different in terms of sending additional troops, seeking more multinational support, or a complete pullout. Maybe your thoughts are someplace in between these listed or would be considered “out of the box” thinking. What approach would you favor?

Steele: There is no doubt that war requires sacrifice and fiscal constraint. We have a responsibility to ensure that our armed forces have the supplies, the equipment, and the technologies they need to get the job done.

It is imperative we improve conditions on the ground so we can bring our troops home as quickly as possible and have the Iraqi people take control of their own destiny. At the same time, we should not publicly state a timetable for implementation. I do not support a “cut and run strategy.” Any politician out there talking about timetables and timelines is playing into the hands of our enemies who have an enormous capacity to wait. It would be a disaster for us to cut and run, as it would destroy our credibility in the region for at least a generation. At the same time, it is the Iraqi’s themselves that will ultimately have to make democracy work in their country. We should stay there only long enough to give the Iraqi people the tools they need to secure the very democracy they voted for three times. After that, it’s up to them.

Zeese: The United States cannot bring stability to Iraq as we have made too many mistakes, e.g. invading based on inaccurate or false information, Abu Gharib, Fallujah, Haditha, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, searches of homes in the middle of the night, checkpoint searches and killings at checkpoints. We need to announce that we are leaving and do so promptly. Actually getting out in an orderly and safe way will take approximately six months, at the longest. During that time we should go through a reconciliation process where we recognize the damage we have done and pay for it. That is the real pottery barn rule — you break it you pay for it. If the Iraqi government wants a peace keeping force we should help to organize one through the Arab League or other regional power, if that fails then through the UN. But we need to get our toops out. They are not able to resolve this matter and are just sitting ducks. I agree with many in retired military, foreign service, intelligence and national security experts who say the Iraq war was a mistake of historic purposes and the longer we stay the bigger the mistake gets. We are making the US less secure by staying, stoking the potential of a civil war in Iraq, helping a theocratic state come into existence. As General William Odom says — all we fear is made more likely by staying in Iraq. The sooner we exit — in an orderly and responsible way — the better.

The real issue in Iraq is the desire of the leadership of both parties to control their economy and the economy of the Middle East — for as long as it has oil. It is evident that the United States is not planning on leaving. We are building the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad — ten times larger than the typical embassy, the size of 80 football fields. We are building 14 long-term military bases. We are putting down long and deep roots and plan on staying. The challenge is to change our economy so we are no longer dependent on foreign oil – indeed on fossil fuels at all. That is where we should put our resources and focus — not on militarily and economically dominating the Middle East.

Cardin: I am convinced that we must change course in Iraq.

The President came to Congress in October 2002 and asked Congress to authorize force against Iraq. I voted against giving the President this authority.

I have remained an outspoken critic of President Bush’s policies in Iraq. There was no connection between the events of 9/11 and the Saddam Hussein regime. The Bush Administration distorted and misused intelligence information about Saddam Hussein’s actual WMD capacity. Saddam Hussein did not have nuclear weapons and did not pose an imminent threat to the United States.

The President prematurely disbanded the Iraqi security forces. After overthrowing Saddam the President protected the oil ministries, but not the weapons and ammunitions depots, which were looted by insurgents and are now being used to attack American forces. The President did not provide the heavy armor needed for our troops and equipment. The President did not plan for an insurgency. Finally, the President invaded Iraq and then attempted to reconstruct Iraq without seeking any significant assistance from the international community.

We have paid a heavy price. More than 2,500 American soldiers are dead. More than 18,000 American soldiers have been injured. We have spent over $300 billion to date on the Iraq war and reconstruction. Our troops have performed with honor and distinction and have done everything that we have asked of them. Yet the violence among the ethnic communities continues.

We need to immediately change course in Iraq, which should include the drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq. We currently have approximately 130,000 troops in Iraq, roughly 20 percent of which are Guard and Reserve troops. Military experts have recommended a drawdown of approximately 10,000 troops a month. It is not necessary for us to announce a specific timeline for the withdrawal of our troops. It is reasonable to expect, however, that one-half of our combat troops should come home by the end of 2006, and that all of our combat troops should come home by the end of 2007. We should make sure that our National Guard are the first to come home, as they were never intended to be used as the primary military force for overseas conflicts. Our Guard units should be available for local needs.

The United States should convene an international conference on Iraq which would include the government of Iraq. As the sole remaining superpower, the United States needs to mend diplomatic fences. Such a conference should achieve three primary goals. First, it should produce a verifiable cease-fire. Second, it would establish a mechanism for the completion of the training of Iraqi security forces. Finally, it would coordinate all international humanitarian and reconstruction assistance to the new Iraqi government.

Question #6:

Related to the above question is the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program. The oil-rich nation claims that this program is for the peaceful use of generating electrical power for its citizens, yet on the other hand its leadership has threatened the nation of Israel with annihilation hinted as being from a nuclear bomb. While the President has the final decision, what course would you advocate he take (a pre-emptive military strike, diplomacy either through the UN or some other way, or leaving them alone as a sovereign nation) and why?

Zeese: The President does not have the final decision to go to war (and a military attack on Iran would be an act of war). Under the U.S. Constitution the President cannot declare war only the Congress can. James Madison said this was the most important clause of the Constitution because they had seen Kings and Queens send countries into unnecessary and costly wars. Yet since World War II it has been the most ignored clause of the Constitution because the Congress lacks the spine to take responsibility and do its duty. If the United States bombed Iran without the Congress declaring war it would be illegal under U.S. law. Further, under international law it would be a war of aggression — the most serious offense any country can make against another. Iran is not threatening the U.S. — they are also not threatening Israel — and their religious leaders have issued an edict against nuclear weapons, indeed against weapons of mass destruction. Iran has been offering, for over a year, to negotiate with us over all issues, including Israel. We should take them up on that negotiation. Right now everything that Iran is doing is legal under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Agreement. Israel, which has 250 nuclear bombs, has not even signed the agreement. The United States is developing new nuclear weapons as well – tactical nuclear weapons — and has threatened to use nuclear weapons against Iran. This is hypocritical and undermines our moral standing to challenge Iran. Further, we are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy — President Bush lists Iran as a member of the axis of evil, then we surround them militarily with bases in Afghanistan on their eastern border, in Iraq on their western border and in the Persian Gulf to their south with our Navy. Then the Bush administration engages in the same exaggeration and manipulation that it did in the build up to Iraq. Hopefully, people will not fall for it again as Iran is a bigger challenge than Iraq. Iran is four times as large as Iraq. It we were to attack it will create further unrest in Iraq and further destabilize the region. The US will be further isolated in the world and our military force, which is already stretched to the breaking point, will be unable to handle another military quagmire. We need to change our approach. Out goal with Iran should be to make Iran our ally in the region — not our enemy. We have a lot more in common that is being discussed. If we turn them into allies we can bring stability to the region, keep our access to oil and actually resolve conflicts (including Israel-Palestine) instead of expand conflicts.

Steele: The international community, including the United States, has been clear: an Iran with nuclear capability would be a severe threat to the safety, security and stability of the world. Unfortunately, President Ahmadinejad continues to defy the United States, the United Nations and a host of nations seeking to find a workable solution that would prevent Iran from having nuclear capability. As recent interviews have shown, President Ahmadinejad is a dangerous man who cares more about power than working diplomatically to achieve peace.

Therefore, the United States and the United Nations must take the next step and demonstrate the world means what it says by following through with the toughest economic sanctions. The United States should work with the U. N. Security Council to impose greater economic, political, and diplomatic costs on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. We must also forge an international coalition of world allies to impose targeted economic sanctions on Iran’s government and assets. If and when these measures fail we must be prepared to take the next step in confronting Iran’s nuclear threat.

Question #7:

Back to domestic issues. One pillar or goal of the Bush administration was to enact Social Security reform in the second term, but it has stalled because of claims there’s no problems with the program and privatization reforms are simply a way to enable Wall Street to profit. Do you think the Social Security program is fine as it is, or what changes would you advocate happening with the program?

Cardin: There is no Social Security crisis. According to the Social Security Trustees’ March 2005 report, the program can continue to pay current benefits until 2041 without any changes. Therefore, this program is fully funded for at least the next 36 years – a longer period than virtually every other government program. After 2041, if no changes are made, the Trust Fund would be able to pay about 73% of promised annuity benefits. Privatization would result in drastic cuts in Social Security benefits and it does nothing to extend the program’s solvency. Ben has authored legislation that makes it easier for Americans to put money into retirement savings accounts, such as 401(k) plans and IRAs, that are designed to supplement Social Security rather than divert money away from it.

Steele: Most of us know we have a problem with the solvency of our Social Security program. Currently, our nation is faced with four choices: raise taxes, reduce spending, borrow money from the public, or comprehensively reform the system in order to pay for it. Sadly, Washington continues to fail our seniors by continuing to politicize this issue instead of securing and modernizing the program. It’s time to stop the noise about this issue and make some real reforms.

Our first priority must be ensuring that the system remain solvent and that the funds are in place for our seniors who are currently retired or nearing retirement. However, I would also support reforming the system to build in the flexibility necessary to allow the next generation of beneficiaries to have some ownership over their retirement choices.

Zeese: The problem is bigger than Social Security, it is retirement security. As part of re-making the U.S. economy for the 21st Century we need to develop a retirement system that works. Social Security was designed as a supplement to savings and pensions — neither exist anymore. Thus, we get starvation retirement if all people have is Social Security. I have a lot of plans for remaking the economy, democratizing our economy, so that wealth is shared more equitably.

Question #8:

Some in Congress have raised the question of “pork” or excessive earmarks because our federal budget always runs in deficit and eliminating these earmarks would be a simple way to help balance the budget. But no Congressman or Senator wants to cut their district’s or state’s project. To balance the budget, would you consider sacrificing some of your district or state’s federally-funded projects or would you prefer measures to enhance federal revenues to meet the gap?

Steele: We should start by requiring that all bills, amendments and conference reports – whether for appropriations bills, tax bills, or authorizations – identify the lawmaker responsible for each “earmark” (specific allotment of funding) and its purpose. Require this information to be posted on the Internet and publicly accessible at least 48 hours before a vote on a bill. Also, prohibit a Member from advocating for the inclusion of an earmark in any bill or joint resolution if the Member has a financial interest in the earmark and prohibit members from exchanging votes on any pieces of legislation for the inclusion of earmarks in appropriation bills.

Zeese: No question — wasteful earmarks are one of the root causes of corruption of politics and waste of taxpayer dollars. But, we need to do much more than that to balance the budget and reduce our debt… (W)e also have to end corporate welfare — over $300 billion annually — as it takes money from workers and gives to the wealthy and creates an unfair playing field for small and medium sized businesses as they do not receive the welfare that big business receives. We also cannot afford to be the world’s policeman — with military bases in 120 nations, half of our discretionary spending being on the military and spending as much as the whole world combined on military. I would look to the former military leaders at the Center for Defense Information for cuts in military programs that are wasteful, duplicative and no longer needed. Tens of billions, maybe hundreds of billions could be cut with no adverse effect on our security.

Question #9:

Now to the question of trade. When I go to a store, many’s the time that I see a product is made in China – hence we run a large trade deficit with that nation. President Bush has advocated a hemisphere-wide free trade zone that would add Central and South American countries to the umbrella originally created by the NAFTA agreement a decade ago. Given these items, and knowing also that the number of manufacturing jobs in this country remains flat to slightly lower even in this era of steadily expanding employment, where do you stand – do you see free trading eventually shifting our economy to one mostly comprised of service and technology jobs, or do you feel we should take more steps to preserve our core manufacturing positions?

Zeese: These so-called “free” trade agreements are not “free” at all — what they really do is empower multi-national and national corporations. We need trade agreements that pull up labor, consumer, environmental and human rights standards, not agreements that pull them down (as these do). Under current law, a corporation can challenge a democratically passed law by going to the World Trade Organization in Europe and complaining that the law is a “restraint on trade” that allows them to overthrow the law. Democratically enacted laws should have greater power than corporations — who should be subject to the law. The U.S. is hemorrhaging jobs and is losing money on international trade. We have a record trade deficit, record federal deficit, rapidly rising federal debt limit (more than doubled in the last five years) and record high personal debt. If we continue on this course we will see a failed economy and the catastrophe’s that go with it. We must re-make our economy for the 21st Century. We need to invest heavily in education to stay competitive in the world. We need to rebuild out nation’s infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers warns that our infrastructure is failing and there is a “looming economic crisis” because of our failure to address it. We need to shift from a fossil fuel economy to an environmentally sustainable economy that relies on abundant clean energy.

Cardin: As the Ranking Democrat on the Trade Subcommittee, I led the fight to oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement and other trade pacts that did not respect international workers’ rights standards. We need to enforce our trade laws and level the playing field so we can keep American jobs right here in America.

Steele: America’s trade with China accounted for $285 billion in 2005 alone; however, only $42 billion of that total came from products our country exported to China, creating a $200 billion trade deficit (which makes up nearly one third of our entire national trade deficit). We must work to close this trade gap which is only exasperated by China’s manipulation of it’s currency. The U.S. must take put strong, decisive diplomatic pressure on China to prevent this currency manipulation from happening and work to shrink our national trade deficit.

In the Senate, I will work to enact common-sense trade policies that encourage free trade while also encouraging China to adopt policies that allow U.S. companies to compete in China with the same freedom that Chinese companies have here in the U.S.

******************************
Hopefully, readers have found this enlightening. All three candidates have websites where these and other issues are discussed in depth for further reading. Unfortunately, the Cardin website covers far fewer issues than the Steele one does so I could only get material for 6 of the 9 questions.

Credit where credit is due: Cardin’s answers to questions 1, 2, and 5 are from a similar questionnaire by the Baltimore Sun. This was the questionnaire Michael Steele didn’t answer but posted his responses on his website.

Political day in pictures

Me and my (somewhat) trusty camera were out and about today checking out the political scene.

Signs in a nice geometric march.

The afternoon started at the Stoltzfus Picnic, which this year was held inside the Civic Center. They were tired of being rained on, last year’s event was soaked.

District 38B hopefuls Bonnie Luna and Michael James applaud remarks by Senator Stoltzfus (center).

This event worked in a pretty tried and true fashion. We all got our food first – they had the hot dogs and sauerkraut again, along with some really good pulled pork. A little cole slaw, a ladleful of baked beans, a few cookies and my lunch was filling. This photo was taken after most of us ate, when the candidate introductions started. Luna and James both made remarks. Stoltzfus even got down to introducing the Central Committee people for each of the three District 38 counties (Somerset, Worcester, Wicomico) which meant I was introduced and got a wave in.

Senator Stoltzfus introduces a U.S. Senate hopeful, Lt. Gov. Michael Steele.

We actually were introduced after Lieutenant Governor Steele got to the event. He patiently waited a few minutes and here he’s shown just before making his remarks. Steele made what’s probably a pretty typical stump speech to a crowd of supporters but he had some help. Steele spotted a toddler-age girl scampering in front of the stage and bade her come up. With her on his shoulder, Steele pointed out that his job was to help this little girl’s future (as he pointed at her for emphasis.) You couldn’t ask for a better photo-op and hopefully someone got it.

Michael Steele's ride on his 24-county Maryland tour.

This moving billboard is Michael Steele’s bus for his state tour. I snuck out after he finished to take the picture, then walked back inside to renew acquaintances with the Lieutenant Governor, as well as many other politicians in attendance that I knew. In fact, I found out that once the new Central Committee gets underway it’s been decided that I should act as Secretary (which I did for the Toledo Young Republicans years ago.) Gee, a guy with a blog doing a job that requires writing. Whoda thunk it?

Write-in County Executive candidate Charles Jannace - a.k.a. Hadley V. Baxendale of Justice For All? -  (in green on left) with fellow blogger Joe Albero, who does National Joe-A-Graphic (in green on right). Albero is helping to finance the Jannace campaign.

One person I hadn’t met yet was Charles Jannace, who is the “Hadley V. Baxendale” of the local Justice For All? blog, and also a write-in candidate for County Executive. It was a pleasure to meet him and place a name and face behind a blog that I regularly read. Now I hope Joe Albero got the picture of Steele with the young lady I mentioned above. She’s the daughter of Beau Oglesby, an attorney in the Wicomico County State’s Attorney office who’s running for the job in Worcester County where he lives.

Just like last year, the event also had a live auction that was conducted by Lewis Riley, Maryland’s Secretary of Agriculture. I didn’t keep a running count, but I’m guessing they totaled in the $2500 range on the items sold. They were also supposed to have Kristen Cox (Governor Ehrlich’s current running mate) come and say a few words but unfortunately she was running late. I did get to meet her at the next event.

Arriving at the 'Your Vote, Your Voice' event.

Frankly, I was disappointed with the turnout to this event, but it was a nice Saturday and SU doesn’t have a whole lot of on-campus housing.

A nice setup for the Senate hopeful.

U.S. Senate candidate Ben Cardin had a nice table set up even though he didn’t come to see it. At left are two Wicomico County candidates, District 4 Council hopeful David MacLeod and incumbent Orphans’ Court Judge Melissa Pollitt Bright. Seated behind them is another Orphans’ Court candidate, George Ossman.

On the other side, the Republicans had plenty of signage.

The College Republicans put together a rather impressive display. I took the shot looking down the row but theirs stood out.

Two of the Green Party contingent on the SU campus.

These two young people were very nice and polite, but they’ve never heard of monoblogue! I told them I’d make them world-famous. Well, at least they’re now on the World Wide Web.

I do have a question though. Since we have far fewer hurricanes in 2006 than we did in 2005 (with none of them being “major” hurricanes), does that mean we’re having global cooling?

County Council at-large candidate Bill McCain.

In between the band sets, there would be a speaker or maybe two who would go up there and talk about the importance of voting. Judging by the attendance though, not a lot of students find it that important. But I have to commend the folks at PACE for trying.

The politicos outnumbered the students.

However, there were times like this one where I saw mostly candidates who were running for offices speaking to their counterparts, sometimes of the opposite party and sometimes not. I spoke to Joe Albero (in green on the left) and he sadly noted the same phenomonon at forums he attended – they were 1/2 to 2/3 politicians and most of the rest were their hangers-on. Just a handful of citizens show up. At the end, I was chatting with a young lady who’d volunteered to sit at the PACE table and they’d registered only about a half-dozen voters.

U.S. Senate aspirant Kevin Zeese during his address.

There were some bright spots though. I liked Kevin Zeese’s brief message about voting for what you believe in and not against what you fear. Actually, the Green Party’s Senate hopeful is running a fairly positive campaign aside from being virulently anti-war. I did take this occasion to introduce myself and thank him for participating in my Ten Questions. Also, I got to speak at length to his son Alex, who was there helping his dad. He’s a bright young man who told me about his unusual childhood – instead of getting to watch cartoons on weekend mornings, the one TV in his house was tuned to “McLaughlin Group”. So he was immersed in politics at an early age.

In fact, I spent the largest part of my time there speaking with Democrats and Greens. Obviously I’m loyal to the GOP, but it’s good to find out about people on the other side. So I spoke at some length to Democrats like Hilary Spence, James Adkins, Melissa Pollitt Bright, and Sheree Sample-Hughes (who didn’t deny it when I told her she could be a political force to be reckoned with at a higher level), as well as the Green Party’s Zeese. Most of the time we actually spoke about things that were non-political – for example, Spence got a little bit of my history with taking the architectural exam, and Adkins told me about referring folks to monoblogue to read his Ten Questions answers.

As a group, the Democrat and Green candidates stuck around longer than the Republican ones did. I think I was about the last one on the GOP side (excepting the College Republicans) to leave, but I was enjoying talking to some of the younger people there as the affair wound down.

So like in years past the Stoltzfus Picnic will be an early-fall affair next year, but I believe that the SU event will be shelved because there’s no state or federal election in 2007. It may return in two years though as the Presidential election winds down. But after the event I told the organizer to invite me whenever it returns, I’ll be there. This year’s event may not have been what they’d hoped, but there’s no harm in trying since that generation is going to be a pivotal one in history.

Pre-election planning

Since this turns out to be a “milestone” post (number 250)* I wanted to do something “important” with it. With just over 6 weeks remaining until the general election, this seems like a pretty good time to work out some of what I’m planning to do with monoblogue for election coverage.

First of all though I’m going to go back and review my pre-primary election coverage. There were four major initiatives I began during that period, some were more successful than others.

The first part of the equation was expanded coverage of political forums, which I thought were very successful in the two most important aspects – it gave people who couldn’t be there an idea of what went on and it also brought new readers to monoblogue. With the exception of the weeks immediately after I was on vacation and also last week after the primary election, monoblogue readership has established new all-time highs week after week since about the first of June. According to my much stricter Site Meter, I had close to 800 readers in the week before the primary, and my server’s more generous hit counter has already established an all-time high this month with another 9 days left (when my last reading was taken), a hit rate that’s on pace to blow by the 40,000 mark (once only dreamed about during my “ttown’s right-wing conspiracy” days on Blogspot) and challenge the 50,000 hit mark for the first time. Obviously I’ve had some success with my forum coverage and also with my expanded links list and Election Calendar (which were part of my second initiative).

On the other hand, I don’t think the Ten Questions (my third initiative) worked out like I’d hoped, particularly on the U.S. Senate side. There’s many an expert who advises candidates not to answer open questions like those I presented; unfortunately these so-called experts think that 30 second commercials are the basis for good campaigning. I think what I’m going to do for the U.S. Senate race now is use the candidate’s own websites to answer these issue-related questions as best I can, although with Kevin Zeese I can supplement his own answers. Fortunately, that’s not going to be too time-consuming as we have just three candidates. If Michael Steele can’t even send his answers to the Baltimore Sun, he’s not going to mess with a website that has just a few hundred readers (for now.) So my thought is that the Ten Questions for candidates of that level was a good try, but likely not useful in statewide elections. I think I’ll resubmit these (with one change since early voting was overturned) to the surviving (and opposed) General Assembly candidates to either change any answers they feel like changing or answering them anew. Ten Questions seemed to work better for local-level races.

The final initiative was devoting some time and coverage to my own campaign. Unlike a website that’s specifically to boost electoral prospects, monoblogue started well before I decided to throw my hat into the ring and (good Lord willing) will continue far into the future. As I’ve stated, I’ve done local newsletters before to keep people in my precinct informed about Central Committee happenings and will do more of that after I’m sworn in. Fortunately monoblogue can cover all of Wicomico County, no more hand delivery! I found out on Thursday night that I’ll officially be sworn in during the fall Maryland Republican Party convention in Annapolis on December 2nd.

Looking back at what I did, I have to say that not finishing last was a pretty good achievement, considering that all of my opponents were a) older and b) have lived and worked in Wicomico County for a period of time, whereas I moved here in October 2004. I started with probably zero name recognition unless you recalled a Letter to the Editor I wrote at one time or another to the Daily Times or knew me from monoblogue. And as stated, my website only covers a few hundred readers, some of whom are either Democrat, independent, or live outside the county. Having no idea what kind of response I’d get, I’m very grateful to the 3,363 voters who had enough confidence in me and my ideas to vote for me. And all the votes counted – if just three fewer people voted for me I would’ve been the cow’s tail, it was that close!

But my goal for the next time is to get about 5,000 votes in the same race, in part because people saw the job I did in helping the Republican Party improve itself here in Wicomico County, and also because there’s more Republicans! Actually, I’d like to improve upon the number of ballots I was voted on to about 65-70%. John Bartkovich finished first because he was on 68.7% of the ballots whereas Ed Heath and I (the tail-enders) finished right about 53%.

However, this is now all past history. My main focus in the next 6 1/2 weeks is the biggest races – governor, U.S. Senator, General Assembly Districts 37 and 38, and Wicomico County Executive. (The County Executive race, needless to say, has been turned on its ear by events over the last 10 days.) Those are ones I’m going to try to cover and analyze in-depth as far as where each candidate stands on main issues involving the Eastern Shore. Because the Sheriff and County Council contests had a lot more play during the primary due to the sheer number of candidates, I can focus a little less on those as many of their positions are already known and previously covered.

I’m also going to try and “fill in the blanks” as far as websites go. I believe I have all of the Maryland statewide candidates linked now. There’s a few left in the General Assembly that I have to get (Jeannie Haddaway, Lowell Stoltzfus if he does one, and possibly one in Senate District 37) but most of my focus for link collection would be on local Wicomico County races as I’m sure some of the local folks will get online too. I also have expanded my Delaware offferings some in the last few days as well. Those are of more limited scope so using those links for further self-guided research will likely have to suffice. Of course, I’ll also check through things as I do the weekly Election Calendar.

Since events during election time can occur without a lot of notice (not to mention I’ll be moving my household and volunteering for headquarters and various campaigns), I’m probably not going to set any sort of schedule in stone for race analysis and such like I did with the Ten Questions, which were generally on set days of the week. The only constant I plan on keeping is Sunday for the Election Calendar and that may yet become flexible, particularly around mid-October when I shift locales.

But I think this is going to be an exciting month and a half as both Maryland and (to a lesser extent) Delaware select their respective representative governments. Of course, after that we’ll have a short holiday lull but then the races in the city of Salisbury will ratchet up after the first of the year and then the prologue to the 2008 Presidential campaign starts up next summer with early straw polls. (That will be Maryland’s only statewide race in 2008 as both of our U.S. Senators will be midterm.)

Needless to say I’m looking forward to serving the Wicomico County Republican Party on their Central Committee and the voting public on monoblogue.

* The way WordPress works, my pages also act as posts and are assigned numbers, plus along the way I’ve deleted a couple of test posts. So this isn’t actually the exact 250th post but its sequential number is 250.

Let’s see how far this gets before the court challenge

I was reading in the RSC blog about a bill called the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006 (HR 4844). This bill would amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 by REQUIRING photo ID be presented at federal elections beginning in November of 2008. (As HR 4844 was originally introduced, the date was 2006 but the bill languished too long, darn it.) The bill will also appropriate some money to states to enable indigent people to get a photo ID. I think Georgia had a similar law just struck down by a court in their state, so if it somehow gets through the Senate I’m thinking the ACLU will attempt to block implementation in record time!

The one point that made me decide to post this bill was the Constitutional reference in the RSC blog post, and sure enough it says in black and white on my copy, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” (Article I, Section 4). The reason Senators were exempt at the time was because they were originally chosen by the state legislatures, the Seventeenth Amendment did away with that practice. (Personally I think all three amendments from 16th to 18th were mistakes, unfortunately we’ve only gotten rid of the 18th.)

While I read the blog post from a couple days ago, I also saw that this bill did pass the House on a 228-196 vote, with 4 Democrats siding with the majority and 3 Republicans with the minority.

Just for fun on the Thomas website, I found a list of 89 groups opposing this bill. Here’s those groups.

A. Philip Randolph Institute; ACORN; Advancement Project; Aguila Youth Leadership Institute; Alliance for Retired Americans; American Association of People with Disabilities; American Association of Retired Persons (AARP); American Civil Liberties Union; American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona; American Federation of Labor–Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO); American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; American Immigration Lawyers Association; American Policy Center; Americans for Democratic Action; Arizona Advocacy Network; Arizona Consumers Council; Arizona Hispanic Community Forum; Arizona Students’ Association; Asian American Justice Center; Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote (APIA Vote); Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO; Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law; Center for Digital Democracy; Common Cause; Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility; Concerned Foreign Service Officers; Congressional Hispanic Caucus; Consumer Action; Cyber Privacy Project; Democratic Women’s Working Group; De.AE8mos: A Network for Ideas & Action; Electronic Privacy Information Center; Emigrantes Sin Fronteras; Fairfax County Privacy Council; Friends Committee on National Legislation; Hispanic Federation; Hispanic National Bar Association; Interfaith Worker Justice of Arizona; Intertribal Council of Arizona; Japanese American Citizens League (JACL), La Union Del Pueblo Entero (LUPE); Labor Council for Latin American Advancement; Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; League of United Latin American Citizens; League of Women Voters of Greater Tucson; League of Women Voters of the United States; Legal Momentum; Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund; National Center for Transgender Equality; National Congress of American Indians; National Council of Jewish Women; National Council of La Raza; National Disability Rights Network; National Education Association; National Korean American Service & Education Consortium; National Urban League; National Voting Rights Institute; Navajo Nation; New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc./NYPIRG; Ohio Taxpayers Association & OTA Foundation; People for the American Way Foundation; Project for Arizona’s Future; Protection and Advocacy System; RainbowPUSH Coalition; Republican Liberty Caucus; SEIU Local 5 Arizona; Service Employees International Union (SEIU); Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF); Somos America/We Are America; Southwest Voter Registration Education Project; The Multiracial Activist; The Rutherford Institute; Tohono O’odham Nation; Transgender Law Center; U.S. PIRG; Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations; United Auto Workers; United Church of Christ Justice & Witness Ministries; United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society; United States Student Association; United Steelworkers; UNITE-HERE; Velvet Revolution; William C. Velasquez Institute; YWCA USA.

The only ones I can’t figure out are the Ohio Taxpayers Association, Republican Liberty Caucus, and The Rutherford Institute. Apparently the federal intervention outweighs the fact that it’s spelled out in the Constitution and I’m betting that’s what the 3 Republicans saw as their guide to vote against the act. The OTA probably sees this as another unfunded federal mandate. There’s arguments to be had from each group but on balance I think this bill’s become necessary.

Regardless, voter ID is one step closer to reality although I doubt the Senate will take this up because; to be honest, they’re pretty gutless about pissing off some of the above groups – particularly the Hispanic ones. So this may be all ado over nothing but I’ll have to take small victories where I can find them. There was one tonight I wasn’t going to win so here’s a little consolation.

Election Calendar updates

Two items of note:

Number one, U.S. Congressional candidate Jim Corwin will be on Bill Reddish’s show Wednesday morning in the normal political slot, 7:40 to 8:00 a.m.

Secondly, I got a note from Jim Gillespie on my post that the September 19th candidate forum (tomorrow) has been scrubbed. Well, no wonder I hadn’t heard about it.

Because I “buried” the Election Calendar post, I thought it prudent to make this its own post; but the remainder of items can be found two posts hence.

Summary of monoblogue endorsements

Here are the endorsements for local and state races that have appeared on monoblogue.

U. S. Senate: Democrat Dennis Rasmussen and Republican Michael Steele are my choices to square off with the Green Party’s Kevin Zeese, who’s already on the November ballot.

U.S. House District 1: In my opinion, incumbent Republican Rep. Wayne Gilchrest should vie for reelection against Democrat Dr. Jim Corwin.

General Assembly:

Senate District 37: It’s only because he’s not a sure vote with the liberals in Annapolis, but Ronald Warden Sr. should advance to face incumbent Republican Sen. Rich Colburn.

House of Delegates District 37A: In a Democrat-only battle for the seat, I feel there should be new blood in Annapolis, thus Charles Cephas Sr. gets my nod.

House of Delegates District 37B: This four-person ballot would be best if it pitted James Adkins and Tim Quinn as Democrats against incumbent GOP Delegates Addie Eckardt and Jeannie Haddaway, although Republicans have a third solid ballot choice in Redgie Lancaster.

Senate District 38: Sen. J. Lowell Stoltzfus has no primary or general election opponent.

House of Delegates District 38A: Democrat chicanery can be prevented by voting for Patrick Armstrong to square off with Del. Page Elmore come November.

House of Delegates District 38B: Hopefully current Democrat Delegates Norm Conway and Jim Mathias will have their Annapolis careers ended by two of these five great GOP candidates (Sonny Bloxom, Michael James, Jack Lord, Bonnie Luna, and Bill McDermott.) My picks from that group would be Jack Lord and Michael James.

County Executive: My picks for the final contest would be Democrat Tom Taylor vs. Republican Bob Culver.

County Council at-large: In my view, the best final four would be Democrats Carl Crumbacker Sr. and Bill McCain against Republicans M.J. Caldwell and John Cannon.

County Council districts: November matchups should end up like this:

District 1: Sheree Sample-Hughes would be unopposed.
District 2: Stevie Prettyman, the incumbent, is set for another term.
District 3: Incumbent Republican Gail Bartkovich is up against Democrat Michael Pretl.
District 4: GOP candidate Bryan Brushmiller will hopefully compete for the seat against Democrat Neil Bayne.
District 5: Incumbent GOP councilman Larry Dodd is my pick to survive the primary and face Democrat Ed Werkheiser.

For United States Senate

Tonight I’m continuing my series of endorsements by looking at the race for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Paul Sarbanes. There’s 29 candidates of all political stripes vying for the post, but only Kevin Zeese of the Green/Populist/Libertarian Party has assured himself a berth in the November election, the others all seek the Democrat or Republican nomination. Not counting Zeese, here are the candidates from the two parties; not in ballot order but in the order they filed for the position and their hometowns.

Democrats:

Charles U. Smith, 56, Baltimore, filed 10-13-05.
Thomas McCaskill, 68, Fort Washington, filed 10-31-05.
A. Robert Kaufman, 75, Baltimore, filed 1-3-06.
Kweisi Mfume, 57, Baltimore, filed 1-20-06.
James Hutchinson, 62, Bethesda, filed 3-27-06.
Anthony Jaworski, 60, Kensington, filed 4-12-06.
David Dickerson, 44, Cockeysville, filed 5-31-06.
Ben Cardin, 62, Catonsville, filed 6-2-06.
Mike Schaefer, 68, Baltimore, filed 6-7-06.
Joseph Werner, 46, Fallston, filed 6-21-06.
Teresa Scaldaferri, 65, Avondale, filed 6-26-06.
Dennis Rasmussen, 59, Towson, filed 6-29-06.
George English, 66, Silver Spring, filed 6-30-06.
Allan Lichtman, 59, Bethesda, filed 6-30-06.
Josh Rales, 48, Bethesda, filed 6-30-06.
Bob Robinson, 62, Havre de Grace, filed 7-3-06.
Blaine Taylor, 59, Towson, filed 7-3-06.
Lih Young, 65, Rockville, filed 7-3-06.

Republicans:

Daniel Muffoletto, 51, Ellicott City, filed 7-7-05.
Corrogan Vaughn, 40, Baltimore, filed 7-7-05.
Thomas Hampton, 52, Severna Park, filed 9-6-05.
Daniel “Wig Man” Vovak, 34, Montgomery County, filed 1-11-06. He uses a Washington, DC mailing address on his application.
Earl Gordon, 56, Olney, filed 1-27-06.
Ray Bly, 57, Jessup, filed 1-30-06.
Michael Steele, 47, Annapolis, filed 4-7-06.
John Kimble, 46, Beltsville, filed 7-3-06.
Edward Raymond Madej, 61, Pasadena, filed 7-3-06.
Richard Shawver, 59, Sykesville, filed 7-3-06.

For sake of record, Kevin Zeese of Takoma Park is 50 and he filed way back on 9-12-05.

With the number of candidates on the Democrat side, one would think I had to wade through reams of material to simplify making an endorsement. But this was pretty easy because many of the candidates answered my Ten Questions and I’m on the mailing list for the two most highly regarded officeseekers (who didn’t answer, tsk tsk.)

I thought some of the candidates answered my Ten Questions reasonably well (for Democrats anyway) but overall I believe the “common-sense moderate” Dennis Rasmussen came up with thoughtful answers that could play to both sides of the aisle. I particularly liked his take on Social Security, which he termed “a disaster” – it showed he could be amenable to positive changes there. Also refreshing was his Iraq stance, where he termed that “(i)t is too late to argue the merits of being in Iraq. The question is how do we objectively measure and achieve a winning outcome? The consequences of losing Iraq will affect the next several generations.” He’s exactly right; instead of being a “cut and run” liberal, Dennis wants to see us through. Rasmussen also favors a sort of trade-off in energy policy. In exchange for stricter CAFE standards for automobile gasoline mileage, he’s willing to not just allow, but provide incentives for LNG exploration on the North Slope of Alaska.

Because of his stances on the issues and the belief that there should be more Democrats like him in Washington, I’m endorsing Dennis Rasmussen for the Democratic nomination to the U.S. Senate.

Now to the Republican side. It’s a bit unfortunate that our race has the big fish in a little pond, otherwise known as Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele. A truly unbiased Maryland GOP would allow a little more breathing room for two other candidates who I’ve found have intriguing views, Thomas Hampton and Corrogan Vaughn. Both have a few items among their policies that took me aback, but both have many items that could be considered good, conservative planks in their platforms. In particular, Vaughn (who, by the way, is the OTHER black conservative in the race that no one speaks about) has a definite sense of what duties Congress has under the Constitution, and would be unlikely to seek to go beyond those duties.

With these two men, I can see a Catch-22 situation. Perhaps it would’ve been best for them to start at a smaller level than attempting to run a statewide race with national media attention, seeing that we’re closest to the political fishbowl that is inside the Beltway. But on the other hand, had they sought and won a lesser office, that may have tarnished the shiny principles they can both run on as outsiders.

So that basically leaves the odds-on favorite, Michael Steele. Is he a perfect candidate in my eyes? No. Some of his ideas on issues lean a little more moderate than I’d like them to. But, reality is that in a statewide race in the blue state of Maryland circa 2006 we have to start someplace and if we as conservatives can get 70-80% of what we want in a candidate who can win this race, I guess we’ll have to take it. (I suppose one can call it the Ehrlich Principle.)

Because at 40 he’s the second-youngest candidate in the field, I’d certainly like to see Vaughn run for a lesser office, perhaps the U.S. House. (Maybe he could move to the Eastern Shore and 1st District in time for 2008.) But in 2006, the GOP needs to go with a person who’s a proven statewide winner, and that person is Michael Steele. I’m urging Republicans (like they wouldn’t anyway since he’s been the de facto nominee since Day 1) to cast their vote for Michael Steele in the primary.

Ten Questions…Senate Debate (part 3)

Here is the final portion of my U.S. Senate “debate” that all started when I first sent out the “Ten Questions” back in early May. Four months later, it’s time for the voters to decide if any of the responders are worthy or if those who deigned not to respond still merit their vote. For my part, I wasn’t too impressed with any of the answers I got from the Republican side, but I would’ve liked to hear from the six who didn’t reply (Gordon, Shawver, and Vovak did; Bly, Hampton, Kimble, Madej, Steele, and Vaughn didn’t.) I also never got responses on the House side from any of the four candidates.

If you want to look back, part one is here and part two is here. Part one also introduces the speakers once again, plus I have the websites of those who have them linked to the right in the U.S. Senator (Maryland) category. I’ll have a much shorter list of links in a week.

This part begins with Question #7 and concludes with Question #10. On Question #10, George English is featured, when he answered the Ten Questions he deferred to his website with the exception of that particular question.

Tomorrow, I reveal my endorsements for the U.S. Senate seat from both parties.

Question #7:

Back to domestic issues. One pillar or goal of the Bush administration was to enact Social Security reform in the second term, but it has stalled because of claims there’s no problems with the program and privatization reforms are simply a way to enable Wall Street to profit. Do you think the Social Security program is fine as it is, or what changes would you advocate happening with the program?

Richard Shawver (R): Social Security reform? Social Security is voluntary for U.S. citizen, mandatory for legal aliens.

Lih Young (D): Clean up government; lack of accountability, unreliable records, accounting, bookkeeping, records, files; improper complaint processing. Prosecute, eliminate “official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks” with unjust deprivation of resources (public, private) by various unlawful, unethical, immoral acts, frauds, crimes; deprived of people’s salaries, benefits (fringe benefits, insurance benefits, retirement, pension, annual/sick leaves), insurance benefits, retirement, pension, annual/sick leaves), unjust manipulation, influence: improper records, bookkeeping; improper shuffling of processing employees’ earnings, benefits, calculation of social security benefits; unjust deprivation of resources (public, private) by various unlawful, unethical, immoral acts, frauds, crimes; unjust manipulation, influence: improper records, bookkeeping; improper shuffling of processing and employees’ earnings, benefits, calculation of social security benefits; unjust denial of benefits; damage/harm supposedly workers, retirees, elderly, beneficiaries, families, socials relations, endless damages/harm (physical, mental, bodily, financial), unjust manipulation and influence: medical services, insurance plans and coverage, rehabilitation services, etc. .The problems are not just in SSA agencies, but also related agencies, e.g., Maryland State Department of Education, Barbara Smith and Susan Page, employees or phony persons, falsification, false records, refuse to provide information, files for inspection, etc.

Clean up government. Support universal national health insurance (all, Medicare, Medicaid, prescription, uninsured, catastrophic); single payer (government); simple, effective, equal, quality, meaningful, merit, accountability, preventive, affordable, low premium, cost containment (goods, services, wholesale, professional review); public funded research should benefit taxpayers not to benefit a few; public education, consumer protection. Eliminate deceit, frauds, “official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks” operation, unjust practices.

Prosecute, eliminate abuse, misuse, frauds, crimes, victimize people, deprive resources, capability (public, private), fraudulent charges; unnecessary medical services, drugs, medication, equipments, surgeries, catheters, etc.

Earl Gordon (R): (I oppose) every effort by the administration to tamper with the social security system. This system is the only federal program that guarantees citizens some form of social security from complete economic destitution. There are no valid reasons to disturb the program at this time, without replacing it with a system that offers better social security guarantees to the American people, something the President’s plan does not do. If the administration wants to tackle a big issue that is of value to the American people, it should tackle the national health care issue. Ducking this issue in the light of the frequency of international travel and the international medical situations that are presented by AIDS, SARS, the Asian Bird Flu, and international terrorists using chemical and biological weapons, is tantamount to ducking a vital national security issue.

Mike Schaefer (D): This is the 3rd rail of politics and we can expect little from leadership of either party on this issue. I favor more liberal IRA programs, but so many people do not understans self-saving programs or have the money to fund them annually, and we must help those least able to help themselves. I think the program is working well but would increase the investigation of abuse, there are many dead-recipients whose families continue to cash benefits without any criminal consequences, possibly a payback and that’s it; and I now personally of recipients who cash their check, report it stolen promptly, get a new check issued, and months-later the US cancels the first check and charges it back the innocent business entity having taken it—this is long after the crook has disappeared, thus there is no recourse for the trusting businessperson. The government knows who the crooks are but public policy makes them untouchables. That is wrong, they belong in jail.

Daniel “Wig Man” Vovak (R): I believe social security should only be for retired people, not for health care purposes. There must be firm, age-based eligibility requirements and they should be consistent. Before there is any financial change to the current social security system, the private amount that each person has invested into it over a lifetime must be easily accessed through the internet and through a local office.

David Dickerson (D): As U.S. Senator, I would propose that everyone has the right to maximize their contributions to an IRA. The present retirees or the citizens approaching retirement have no problem, but they do have the responsibility to sustain the system for their children and grandchildren. Current projections show that Social Security faces a long-term financial imbalance. The Trust Fund is projected to be exhausted in 2041 (according to the Social Security Trustees) or in 2052 (according to the Congressional Budget Office), after which Social Security will be able to pay only about 75 percent of promised benefits. Hence, reforms to restore long-term Social Security solvency are essential. If no changes are made, revenue transfers totaling $4 trillion, in today’s present-value dollars, would be needed to pay currently scheduled benefits over the next 75 years. The amount needed to assure permanent solvency over the infinite horizon is $11 trillion. Many of our government employees have better health and retirement plans than the normal Marylander worker, and I believe that there should be the same rights of Social Security Planning afforded to everyone!

Kevin Zeese (Green): The problem is bigger than Social Security, it is retirement security. As part of re-making the U.S. economy for the 21st Century we need to develop a retirement system that works. Social Security was designed as a supplement to savings and pensions — neither exist anymore. Thus, we get starvation retirement if all people have is Social Security. I have a lot of plans for remaking the economy, democratizing our economy, so that wealth is shared more equitably.

Blaine Taylor (D): I reject all President Bush’s suggestions regarding Social Security enacted by President Roosevelt in 1935 for what they really are: attempts to destroy the entire system. It only works if we’re ALL IN IT, with no one OUT OF IT. The major problem is that politicians of both parties are spending Social Security funds for programs other than Social Security—and I would stop that immediately. Reform CAN be achieved WITH the other 99 members of the US Senate, not AGAINST them. Common sense. listening, and a willing heart CAN prevail.

Dennis Rasmussen (D): Social Security is a disaster, and unless common sense returns to the Congress, instead of protecting and defining ideologies, we will have a new generation of poor and no system surviving past 2050. Social Security needs to be maintained at current levels to assure a reliable safety net for Americans approaching retirement. We must also assure all working Americans that their private sector pensions will be remain secure and available at their time of retirement. Borrowing from Social Security trust funds has weakened the financial stability of the system. Measures must be taken to assure that adequate funds will be in place to provide full benefits to retirees as originally promised by Congress.

Allan Lichtman (D): Social Security is a social insurance system – a basic income safety net for all working Americans. I will work tirelessly to strengthen Social Security and fight any attempts to privatize Social Security, which would cut guaranteed benefits and explode our national debt.

I also oppose “privatization-lite” as advocated by my opponent Ben Cardin. This misguided scheme would have the managers of Social Security, rather than individuals, invest a hefty share of your payments in the stock markets, rather than relying on bonds that bear the “full faith and credit” of our national government.
Privatization-lite would imperil the economic security of seniors and homeowners in Maryland. By, in effect, dumping government bonds to free funds for stock market investments this privatization plan would by simple supply and demand drive down the price of bonds and drive up interest rates, putting a drag on Maryland’s economy and eroding the property values of every homeowner in our state. The plan would reduce guaranteed Social Security benefits with private account benefits at the mercy of the ups and downs of the market. It would raise the administrative costs of Social Security by requiring a permanent new bureaucracy to handle private accounts and potentially subject its managers to political pressures on their investment decisions. Even worse would be “passive” investments by Social Security managers with no control over how corporations spend our money. If the market declined it would mean either a reduction in benefits or a government bailout, with money that we don’t have in times of deficit spending.

As the first steps to strengthening Social Security, I support committing Congress to stop the raid on the Trust Fund to finance other unrelated budget items, such as the mismanaged and seemingly endless Iraq War. Congress should pay back to the Social Security trust funds those money borrowed and spent for purposes other than Social Security programs.

I support rolling back the fiscally irresponsible Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that are draining the Trust Fund.

I support a careful study of a variety of potential reforms that will address Social Security’s funding problems while ensuring that Social Security continues to meet its purpose of providing income protection and economic security to America’s working families. Possible solutions include lifting the cap on social security taxes, while exempting from taxation the first $10,000 of income to make the payroll tax both more progressive and more responsive to changes in the economy. The payroll tax falls most heavily on low and middle income workers, and today some 70 percent of workers pay more in payroll than in income taxes. That is unacceptable.

Question #8:

Some in Congress have raised the question of “pork” or excessive earmarks because our federal budget always runs in deficit and eliminating these earmarks would be a simple way to help balance the budget. But no Congressman or Senator wants to cut their district’s or state’s project. To balance the budget, would you consider sacrificing some of your district or state’s federally-funded projects or would you prefer measures to enhance federal revenues to meet the gap?

Lichtman: Although I oppose excessive earmarks or “pork,”which should be debated in the Senate, I would not sacrifice needed infrastructure projects in the state of Maryland. There are better ways to help balance the budget.

1. Develop a plan for bringing the troops home from Iraq and recouping for domestic priorities the enormous costs of the war.

2. End subsidy payments to corporations and farm price support payments to large agri-businesses. ($25 -50 billion)

3. Stop the administration from permanently abolishing the estate tax. Even keeping in place the an eased estate tax that affects only estates of $3.5 million of or more (5 out of 1,000 estates) with a 45 percent tax would save nearly $40 billion.

4. Improve tax collections and stop the administration from cementing in place tax cuts that affect only high-income filers and one-time bonus tax breaks for business, ($100-$125 billion)

5. Replace Bush’s confusing, wasteful prescription drug plan with a more efficient, user-friendly plan like the one developed by Boston University School of Public Health. ($40 billion)

6. Reform antiquated business practices at the Pentagon and eliminate needless and redundant weapons systems. ($60 billion)

7. Eliminate tax breaks to extractive industries and other unnecessary corporate tax breaks. ($20 billion)

Dickerson: I would prefer measures to enhance federal revenues to meet the gap!

Taylor: Right now, the National Debt is our biggest monetary problem bar none, and for that reason alone the current incumbent President deserves inpeachment, as well as for his Hitlerite way of lying us into the entirely bogus Iraq War, into which he allowed himself to be suckered by Tel Aviv. The basic problem is that we have been in an overheated wartime economy since our last declaration of war on Dec. 8, 1941. We need to switch to a peacetime economy for the rest of this century, and stay there. All of the Bush tax “reforms” need to be thrown out, the minimum wage raised to $ 10 in 2007, and state pork issues examined by all Senators on a case-by-case basis, weighing how the benefit to Maryland is compatible with that of the nation at large. I will not make a blanket decision on matters that haven’t even been put before me on my desk for a decision, but I would proceed as stated above, employing common sense. That’s the best answer I can give you at this time.

Shawver: There only a deficit, because Congress won’t do their job, Article 1, Section 1-10.

Zeese: No question — wasteful earmarks are one of the root causes of corruption of politics and waste of taxpayer dollars. But, we need to do much more than that to balance the budget and reduce our debt. My tax plan, attached, would help a great deal. But we also have to end corporate welfare — over $300 billion annually — as it takes money from workers and gives to the wealthy and creates an unfair playing field for small and medium sized businesses as they do not receive the welfare that big business receives. We also cannot afford to be the world’s policeman — with military bases in 120 nations, half of our discretionary spending being on the military and spending as much as the whole world combined on military. I would look to the former military leaders at the Center for Defense Information for cuts in military programs that are wasteful, duplicative and no longer needed. Tens of billions, maybe hundreds of billions could be cut with no adverse effect on our security.

Schaefer: That’s an easy one. We can find county, city, state, or joint-powers agreements, funded with very very low-cost tax free obligations, to finance anything that is a boondoggle; the President needs line-item veto so he can “kill” a number of pork items in any budget. These items are not lost, the community and political leadership then decides (a)level of necessity, and (b)alternative ways to fund it. Do not let West Virginia’s Robert Byrd have anything to do with the budget. He is the king of pork. Always has been, always will be. We need to enhance federal revenues, but do so in order to reduce our staggaring federal debt. This is called fiscal responsibliity, which is in short supply with too many Congresspersons and Senators.

Young: For issue of economy and federal deficit:

Focus on principle, merit, fairness, cost-effectiveness; not for the best interest of the people. Redirect priorities, budget, focus. Improve productivities which increase government revenue. Eliminate: waste, abuse, nonsense projects, unnecessary expenditure, abandonment of land, properties, resources, “fraud-crime- networks”; less social problems, less government expenditures; public debt/ bond (burden of taxpayers and future generations; more time, resources for people, families, less traffic congestion; unjust abandonment/ destruction/ lease-out/ sale public land, buildings, schools (free or without fair compensation, even decades long leases); purchase/ lease-in/ construct land, facilities (at outrageous costs, many times market values); improper planning, misleading, deceit; improper reserve fund (not savings for potential capital investment, but by borrowing, public debt, bond); raising taxation, fees, bond/debts mainly to benefit a few; false excuses, unjust practices, manipulation, misleading, deceit, influence; abuse of power, litigation, legal costs; especially by legal/judicial personnel; “official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks”; false citations (issued by city manager, police, inspection; municipal, traffic, or phoney – refused to give identities or full names), improper/unjust legislative bills, proposals, appropriation, expenditures; ineffective/nonsense projects, programs (e.g., Greater Rockville Partnership, Rockville Housing Enterprise, Annual Night-Out, Rockville University, Citizen Police Academy, CALEA police accreditation, City Attorney Paul Glasgow, related law firms, “fraud- crime- injustice networks”); Rockville City Attorney Paul Glasgow: not salaried employee, highly paid contractor; conflict of interest, ethic rules (more serious than usual employees; county, state, federal); abuse of power, litigation, complaints, files, contracting (arbitrary criteria, selection); improper complaint processing, procedures, proceedings, legal services (disservice); improper land deals, abandonment of public land, resources, properties; improper procurement, not open bid (e.g., Rockville Town Center, goods, services; all stages; design, development, construction, etc.); abuse of public land, resources for private gains; benefit a few: reimburse private expenses; improper or no records, responses, files, pleadings on complaints/cases; resolution, remedies on complaints/requests; false citation, harassment, arrest, intimidation, conspiracies, cover-up numerous serious unlawful acts, fraud- crimes, frivolous cases/litigations, unjust influences, manipulation of televised camera; without proper public hearing; as part of “official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks” operation.

STOP/ELIMINATE: OFFICIAL FRAUD, SCAM, UNJUST DEVELOPMENT PLAN, e.g., Rockville Town Center Plan (misuse/abuse of power, law, litigation, public resources); public fund $99+millions (upward, city, county, state, federal) mainly to benefit a few, “fraud- crime- injustice networks”, which in turn hurt people and society further; destroy families, communities, businesses, democracy, fair election process, peace; cause serious socio-political- election- media problems; worse than Florida election 2000, World Trade Center 9-11-2001 incidences, President George Bush’s wars, President Richard Nixon’s Watergate, financial/ accounting/legal disasters (e.g., Enron/ WorldCom/ Anderson).

Reduce: the need for people to drive or get on the roads; traffic congestion, stress, accidents; the need to go to courthouses, administrative or judicial hearings/ trials; false citations (traffic, municipal infraction); abuses, unjust manipulation; taxation, fees, burden to residents; the need for more family members to work; need for multiple jobs for each person; need for cars; more trips; more stress, fatigue; abuse, waste; unjustified budget, appropriation; taxation, fees, public debt, people’s burden; improper processing of complaints, assignment of cases/hearing across all jurisdictions; unjust cancellation of hearings/ trials; unjust deprivation and rulings without affidavits, hearings, trials; need for appeals, further complaints. Provide mass transit services, bus schedules, (good, frequent, reliable); proper implementation of laws, and processing of complaints/ cases. See also other issue statements – interrelated.

Rasmussen: The system of “earmarks” has been an integral component of the U.S. budgetary process. In past years, this system, if used in a prudent and limited basis, allows the funding of priority projects when that response is appropriate. Unfortunately, in the past several years, out-of-control spending by Congress has resulted in absolute abuse of this budgetary mechanism. Earmarks have exploded from approximately 1,700 to 16,000 in the past five years. This is irresponsible and unacceptable. Earmarks should be continued as long as there is timely and full disclosure as to the sponsor of the earmark, the reasons for its request and its appropriate justification.

Vovak: Congress needs to cut spending. Period.

Gordon: This economic expansion should take the shape in many forms including the following:

(1) This country should seek an 80% improvement in the quality of life for all its citizens in the next twenty five years, because at present America is becoming one big, congested, semi-socially dysfunctional society.

(2) One of the best way (sic) to reverse this trend is by the impostition of a national economic development plan that is coordinated by a Office in the Federal Government that should be designated the National Economic Development Counsel. This counsel would be responsible for choosing at least ten different areas in this country, in ten different States where the Federal Government should then designate as national economic expansion zones and to build twelve new Philadelphia-size cities in the next twenty five years, with the surrounding industrial, living, and social infrastructure to support a population of at least sixty million Americans.

This project should be funded by private and government funds. This kind of economic activity would generate a boom in economic growth and at the same time creating a society where congestion would decrease and the quality of life would improve tremendously, not only for the present generation of Americans but for all future generations. (These cities and their surrounding areas would be built with the most advanced environmentally friendly technology and human imagination in history.)

The revenue that would be generated from all of the above economic activities would be sufficient to augment the other sources of income that would go to pay for a national health care plan as well as a more advanced and humane national education system. What the Republican Party and this nation need is not narrow minded so called sham compassionate conservatives. This nation needs constructive, visionary, and big thinking compassionate capitalists with big investment plans.

Question #9:

Now to the question of trade. When I go to a store, many’s the time that I see a product is made in China – hence we run a large trade deficit with that nation. President Bush has advocated a hemisphere-wide free trade zone that would add Central and South American countries to the umbrella originally created by the NAFTA agreement a decade ago. Given these items, and knowing also that the number of manufacturing jobs in this country remains flat to slightly lower even in this era of steadily expanding employment, where do you stand – do you see free trading eventually shifting our economy to one mostly comprised of service and technology jobs, or do you feel we should take more steps to preserve our core manufacturing positions?

Lichtman: We must take steps to preserve and strengthen our manufacturing positions. Such steps would include eliminating the current tax incentives for shipping jobs and investments abroad. We should also strengthen federal support for small businesses that are the driving engine of our economy. We should drastically reduce dependence on the fossil fuel economy and move towards the development of a robust alternative fuels industries with the promise to improve the economy and create more jobs. We should reduce the deficit to keep interest rates under control and limit the financing of our debt by foreign nations. We should support workers’ rights to organize unions which increase the number of good, stable jobs and negotiate trade agreements only with adequate safeguards for labor and the environment.

Gordon: What America needs is an economic anti-desertion law that makes it illegal for American firms to close a manufacturing plant in this country and go build the same kind of plant in a foreign country. This law should be based on the law that makes it a crime for a member of the U.S. Armed Forces to desert the Armed Forces. A clause should also be added to this law that makes it a crime for any public official or private banking entity to give support to any deserter. If we do not take these kind of legislative actions the neo cons are going to lead this nation down the path that the Romans of ancient times tread.

Rasmussen: We can no longer think in terms of the U.S. economy alone. We are truly a global economy. Free trade or limited restricted trade benefits both buyer and seller in the long run. The promotion of trade between nations also promotes peace. Nations that trade have an economic stake in each other do not make war on each other – military or economic.

Another economic truth is that production follows cheap labor and nothing will ever change that. But America can and does compete. Who does the world look to America for brain power, technology, medical breakthroughs, particularly when it comes to quality, dependable high skill-level workers? They look to the U.S.A. Where do the world’s automobile manufacturers, computer manufacturers, medical manufacturers come? They come to the U.S.A. for those skills and quality. What universities and educations are the most sought after? It is the U.S.A., again. We should welcome and embrace global trade, because in the end, the world wants and needs what we produce and consume.

The trade deficit is primarily an illusion – we are the largest market in the world today. If we buy the goods of the world in sheer volume, we buy more than the rest of the world. To believe that the rest of the world or individual nations buy an equal amount of our product is unrealistic. China may, in the future, alter that balance. We need to monitor China’s expansion plans very carefully and develop a strategy of containment.

Dickerson: Great question! Part of the reason that I decided to run for U.S. Senate is that I do not see many candidates that understand the military and global business. I’ve lived in Europe and Asia, and I can tell you, our Federal government has too many lawyers and lobbyists. We need to “make things” or we will all be working for lower wages. We need people in our U.S. Senate and Congress that understand the importance of engineering. Our wages have already been dropping over the last five years. We cannot stop outsourcing and offshoring, so we need to create new ways to gain the competitive advantage. As U.S. Senator, I will work with Maryland companies to export. I can use my international sales experience to develop business for Purdue in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Far East. Look at all of the business that Tyson Chicken got from Russia. Could that have something to do with the Clinton Administration? I would look to expand on attracting foreign direct investment in the shore to increase wages. Our US $ is at an all time low, so we are very attractive. The shore needs to think about how they can ship goods directly to Europe rather than sending them to Baltimore or Norfolk. Our country cannot sustain itself economically if we are a service society.

Taylor: Trade: I was the press secretary for Congresswoman Bentley on Capitol Hill during 1991-92 when the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) was being negotiated. From that moment to this, I have failed to see how it benefitted the US one whit. We don’t need more Mexicans, and I’d have to see what we’re getting from Canada before I’d move to repeal NAFTA altogether. As for China, we are already WAY out of whack there, with billions owed to the Chinese to pay off our OWN deficits! This strikes me as not only stupid, but also criminal! We lost the battle to maintain a manufacturing base in this country a decade ago. Should we try to reinstate it? I don’t know, but I would like to sit down for a few hours with Mrs. Bentley and just listen to her views on that subject before making a decision. No one knows better than her. Naturally, the Democratic unions would be all for that. We are ALREADY there as far as being a service-and-technology economy dominated and propped up by American bayonets, just as President Eisenhower warned we would become in his last speech from the Oval Office on Jan. 19, 1961. Ending the wartime economy—and switching it to a peacetime economy for the entire 21st Century—is truly THE domestic challenge for this and future generations of Americans. If we don’t do this, I am entirely convinced, as an historian, that we shall either destroy the planet via outright world war in the short term, or strangle ourselves in envirnomental chaos in the slightly longer term. CAN we turn all this around? Yes, we CAN! We were great under FDR and Reagan, and it’s time for greatness again. War is not greatness, but mentally dull stupidity.

Zeese: These so-called “free” trade agreements are not “free” at all — what they really do is empower multi-national and national corporations. We need trade agreements that pull up labor, consumer, environmental and human rights standards, not agreements that pull them down (as these do). Under current law, a corporation can challenge a democratically passed law by going to the World Trade Organization in Europe and complaining that the law is a “restraint on trade” that allows them to overthrow the law. Democratically enacted laws should have greater power than corporations — who should be subject to the law. The U.S. is hemorrhaging jobs and is losing money on international trade. We have a record trade deficit, record federal deficit, rapidly rising federal debt limit (more than doubled in the last five years) and record high personal debt. If we continue on this course we will see a failed economy and the catastrophe’s that go with it. We must re-make our economy for the 21st Century. We need to invest heavily in education to stay competitive in the world. We need to rebuild out nation’s infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers warns that our infrastructure is failing and there is a “looming economic crisis” because of our failure to address it. We need to shift from a fossil fuel economy to an environmentally sustainable economy that relies on abundant clean energy. How do we pay for all of this — see my tax plan.

Young: Major transaction or land deal, local- global, should be rigorously reviewed objectively by academically very well trained, based on merits, priorities, cost- effectiveness, social cost-benefits, etc., through competitive processes, general soliciting, fair market mechanism; not arranged by the developer or inner circle; should be openly discussed with residents, in official meetings, Mayor/Council/ public hearings; not misleading, concealing, unjust manipulation or influence; not rushed through as the consent agenda items as mall purchases of goods and services. Eliminate, prevent: abandonment of public resources, land, properties to benefit a few or “official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks” including developer, government attorneys, lawyers, law firms, etc.) at the expense of general public and future generations, including other jurisdictions, especially with grants and public debts from the state and federal; sold, leased out (secret hidden agenda, even huge acres, decades-long lease) with zero or no fair compensation, despite citizen’s objection; unnecessarily leased private properties for government use at very high costs even with short lease (a few years or shorter); with extra high costs to construct building, furnish expansive equipments; and when construction is done, lease expires, completed products abandoned or free to a few; often disguised by partnership, economic development, school, education, public safety, etc.; several rounds of unjust abandonment and purchase; misleading public roads, highways, when abandoned to private; unjust projects, appropriation; misuse, abuse, misappropriation; false road construction, maintenance; false records: land, roads, maps; unjust demolition of building even in good condition to initiate new construction, project, purchase, including library or school.

Schaefer: We must preserve our core manufacturing so long as it is efficient. Any country importing to the US should have equivalent exporting from the US to their country. It is disheartening to call a US firm’s help-line and be speaking to someone on the other side of the world with limited ability to speak English and not a clue as to the community or state where the caller resides. The government can do it. If I wanted to mail 100,000 political mailers from Canada or Mexico, at cheaper postage, the USPS requires payment of both the US and foreign postage for any mailings exceeding 200 items. I wish this protective attitude existed in other commerical areas of government operations.

Vovak: America should take steps to preserve our core manufacturing positions.

Shawver: NAFTA is unconstitution (sic). Article 1 Section 1-10.

Question #10:

This question should present you with the shortest answer. Given that in 2008 either you will be seeking re-election to the House and hoping for some coattails at the top of the ticket, or preparing to work with a new President (for the Senators), if you had a short list of 3 to 5 names you’d like to see seek the job, who would they be? Please note that they do not have to be candidates who are considered to be running for the post at this time.

Young: To have someone who will be willing, capable, and able to solve socio-political-election- media problems. Top 3 priorities:

(1). Society is in vicious cycles, as in need of revolution, if we don’t act. First, prosecute, eliminate “official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks”. Oppose: unjust practices, manipulation, influence; bad legislative proposals, hidden agenda with false excuses (economic development, housing, transportation, whatever) for private gain (officials, developers, lawyers, etc.); nonsense grants, programs, projects: facilitate “official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks”=cruel tyranny= robbery machine; continuing, on-going, expanding, penetrating, threat, coercion, victimization, deprivation, discrimination; endless immoral-unlawful acts, rob/destruct resources (public, private; business, civic, political), frivolous litigation, levies, foreclosures; improper processing of complaints, proceedings, docketing; cause vicious cycles: socio- political- election-media; civil-human rights, people-slave. E.g., Problems (A): OPM, DOJ, IRS, SSA, FBI, law enforcement, National Park Service (Prettyman?), Library of congress (Neil Gladd), financial/brokerage/ accounting/ bill-payment processing/ collection agencies, insurance, car-dealers Lakeforest Oldsmobile; phone/utilities/cable, judges, legal/court personnel, detective/ process server/ impersonators or with phony names; Leslie Gradet, Tamera Jones, William D Roessler; offices of treasury, comptroller, attorney general: Joel Jacob/Jacobson, Gail Malle-Davis, Sylvia J. Brokos, Mary Hawse, Linda Tanton, Gerald Langbaum, John Barry, Pamela Porter, Leo F. Partridge, Mark Vulcan, Jamis Riley, James Britt, Audrey Thomas, Jeanne Lippy, Jesse Rosenburger, Ralph Lepson; transcribers Margaret Bauer, Senators: Walter Baker, Barbara Hoffman, Thomas Middleton, Trooper: Marty Sealey, Vincent Mass, State Election Board Ross Goldstein; Lobbysts/municipal attorneys/lawyers/affiliates, Paul Glasgow, David Venable, Joseph Stoltz, Jr., Barry Gordon, Stephen Perouka, David Steinberg, Wolpoff & Abramson, Richard D. Mirsky, Poppleton, Garrett & Polott, P.C., Marc Sliffman, Samuel White, DOEd Susan Page, Barbara Smith?, accountant Hilda K. Matijevic..more.

(B): The problems are interrelated horizontally and vertically, among all issues, locak0 global. Montgomery County Circuit Court Loretta Knight, Bettie Skelton, District Court Clerk Jeffrey Ward, Administrstive Judge Cornelius Vaughey, Sheriff Elliot Tolbert, etc. government attorney John McCarthy, Kristen Bender are part of the “:fraud- crime- networks: with harassment, false arrest, imprisonment, false citation, false trespass, false testimony, withholding witnesses, etc.

( C). False frivolous levies, liens, garnishment, foreclosure, tenant-hold-over- eviction, etc. Thousands of cases are pending in the court systems for years or even decades; probably filed by “fraud- crime- networks” while continuing to victimize people; without proper services and proceedings; major causes of “homelessness” and poverty; not because of the problems of citizens, but because of unjust judicial/court/legal personnel, and court auditor Robert Romero as part of “official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks”. Judges include John Debelius, Durk Thumpson, Ann Harrington, Louise Scriver, Lawrence De Beard, etc.

(D). Further example of violating Constitution or Bills of Rights (U. S. and State), police brutality or sheriff misconduct, attorneys and affiliated law firms and related “fraud- crime- injustice networks” operation are evidenced with official misconduct, e.g., District Court Judge Gary Everngam, Judge Gary Crawford, Sheriff Earnest Turner, other court personnel for improper processing of cases, including failing to docket, concealing of pleadings, falsification, denial of fair trial or jury trial demand, counter-claim, cross-claims, etc.

(E). Problems of privatization, irresponsibility, disabilities of government attorneys and judicial/legal/court personnel. Problems are very serious, expanding, local- out of state- nationwide- global; exporting injustice everywhere, including overseas. In Rockville city, in Montgomery County, in State of Maryland, in New Jersey Monmouth County, Judge Robert McLeod, Judge Patricia Bueno Cleary (?).

(2). Restore: principle, fairness, cost-effectiveness, accountability, reliability, capability; fair election, justice, peace (including civic, non-profit organizations), “check and balance”; Restore: TRUE essence of democracy, fair election process; easy access to government, files, records, transcripts; not unjustly manipulated, influenced, misled by wrong person, information, or “official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks” = serious causes of socio- political – election –media problems, which destroy people, families, society, peace, justice, democracy. Based on merits, justification; double standards, improper processing of complaints, procedures, proceedings; falsification, false records, tampering of evidence, data; harass, intimidate complainant, witnesses; false charges, citation, bond, imprisonment, disparities, improper treatments, etc., disguised by abuse of laws, power, authorities.

(3). .Promote quality, competition, people input (policies, issues, officials, judges); televise public hearings, citizen/candidate forum/debate; maintain, disseminate meaningful accurate information, records, capability, reasoning, good sense of justice, public interest.

Zeese: I’m not impressed with any of the front runners right now. And, don’t see many on the horizon. I am most hopeful by the Unity08.org process that is seeking to build outside of the two parties or find leaders from both parties who will put the people first.

Lichtman: Russ Feingold, Wesley Clark, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Mark Warner.

Schaefer: You overlook that I am not running for the House, my term will be six years and I am up for re-election in 2012, to my 2nd and last term as a US Senator.

Have no idea who will be in Maryland’s political world in 2012. If I had to name three, they would be:

(a)John Sarbanes, assuming he wins a Congressional bid now or before 2012; Democrat.

(b)Marin Alsop, new Conductor of the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra; if she finds a “home” in Maryland, and in 2012 having six years leading our state in a cultural manner—she would be a respected candidate who would perhaps bring harmony to a cacophony of political sounds in the 100 member US Senate;

(c)Marcus Allen, a doctor of chiopractic medicine, who will at that time be a leader in city, county state or federal office, an African-American success story, who would bring credit on Maryland as a Democratic Nominee and who has a great interest in political issues affecting Maryland, health care, and is not the football legend but Maryland is used to great names…

You are right, haste makes waste, thought you wanted us to pick OUR successors, you want us to pick the 2008 President.

Of those living or dead, would pick Bob Hope, Arnold Schwarzenegger, US Army Lt. General Claudia Kennedy.

Of those expected to be on the political horizon in 2008:

1. Mark Warner, former Governor of Virginia, Democrat
2. Nancy Pulosi, who will have been Speaker of the House or perhaps a US Senator by then, Democrat
3. General Colin Powell, who’ll have time to be more
active in the years proceeding 2008. The office would seek the man. Could belong to either party.
4. Joseph Liberman, if he remains in Senate leadership and/or seniority.

Gordon: (I am) John Adams/Teddy Roosevelt/Lincoln/Goldwater/Ike/William P. Rogers/and Melvin Laird oriented.

Dickerson: Well, instead of names, I think that it is more important that all of us, as Americans, work together to define the personal profile of a U.S. Senator in 2008. I counted 18 filed candidates for U.S. Senate from the Democratic ticket, so that tells us something. That tells us that many people are not satisfied with many of the candidates that were running or that they believe our country needs a change. It could also mean that they feel that the Democratic Party needs to embrace a respect for life and family values. Everyone is winning by running because they are engaging in dialogue and provoking thought amongst the Maryland voters. I, for one, think that our next U.S. Senator from Maryland needs to embody the core competencies of Jefferson and Franklin, and many of our founding fathers. He or she must understand our militia or military, and that comes from service to your country. How would the Congress vote to send our men and women in harms way if they had their children in the military? I write this to you on July 4th, and do you think that our founding fathers were even thinking of passing a law that would permit the burning of our flag? Our independence was won with the help of the French, and it was the cross-cultural leadership of our founding fathers that spearheaded our victory. We need a U.S. Senator with a global thinking, understanding of our local needs, and most importantly, a diplomat with the trans-cultural competency to secure strategic alliances that win peace and prosperity for Maryland. Tom Friedman’s book, The World is Flat, illustrates that we do live in a global world! I ran for U.S. Senate because I care about the future of my state and nation, and I hope that we all begin to think of what type of person we need in the U.S. Senate. It is not about Republican or Democrat, but more about if the person understands the world, business and our military.

Taylor: Who would I like to see President from 3-5 names? Immodestly, I would run myself in 2008 as a favorite son candidate to see enacted the program I’ve outlined above. From the current crop of would-be candidates, let’s dispose of most of them: Sen. Clinton lied about the murder of Vince Foster and helped cover it up; she goes. I would prefer GOP Sen. Libby Dole of North Carolina if have a woman we must. I would fire Secretary of State Rice for the liar that she is, period, over the bogus Iraq War; Sen. Barbara Boxer was right about her on that score. Having read all the books by and about Sen. McCain—and having heard him speak—I am not impressed. As a fellow Vietnam veteran, I have nothing but admiration and sorrow for the many long years he spent as a POW, but if it weren’t for that singular fact, we wouldn’t be having this conversation at all! While I admire former Mayor Giulani for his performance during 9/11, when actor Jimmy Woods portrays you, that’s never good! I would prefer Gov. Scwharzenneger of California, but we’d have to change the Constitution to do that to accomodate a single man, and THAT would be a dangerous precedent. I voted for GOP Sen. Bob Dole in 1996, and Ralph Nader in 2002. I discard our own Gov. Ehrlich as a crypto fascist who has surrounded himself with butt-kissing politcal gangsters of the worst sort, and Mayor O’Malley as simply incompetent. I’m not opposed to naked ambition per se, but I’m not impressed by the former—10 years my junior—or the latter, almost 20; neither are veterans, another minus in my book. If I could not be elected myself, I would want some of the latter people to be running: our very own Republicans, like Congressmen Roscoe Bartlett and Wayne Gilchrist—the fighting Marine from Vietnam!—or Democratic Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger—the trusty lifeguard!—and current Baltimore County Executive Jim Smith. These are men’s men that I would fight alongside, and women’s men who are compassionate, are smart and dedicated, and aren’t IN LOVE WITH THEMSELVES! They are, in fact, the kind of men “to go to the well with” when the Indians attack, so to speak, and it’s nice to know that there are still men left in this world whom I can admire.

Shawver: At this time I have no one in mind.

Rasmussen: As a Moderate, Common-Sense candidate for the U.S. Senate, I would favor candidates that show an ability to govern from the middle.

I am drawn to Sen. Biden’s approach to international issues. I admire John Kerry’s plan to make sure that all children have healthcare. I appreciate John Edward’s concern for the poor. I am a fan of General Wesley Clark and his strong military leadership. However, the 2008 election is, politically, a lifetime away. After evaluating all declared candidates, my support will go to the candidate whom I believe can best lead America through consensus, integrity, and an ability to develop common-sense policies.

Vovak: Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush.

Each of those candidates is a proven winner. Ford is my favorite, though.

George English (D): Regarding my choice for President, my first choice would be Representative Dennis Kucinich, whom I have seen and heard during the 2004 campaign and my second chioce would be Senator Russ Feingold. Mr. Kucinich spoke about about his first job working for a newspaper in Ohio during the Vietnam War. He had to visit the homes of the parents of sons who had been recently killed in Vietnam to borrow photos that would be used in the deceaseds’ obituaries. Many of these homes were very modest and their dead sons obviously had been the center of their parents lives. Mr. Kucinich recalled how palpably he felt their soul-wrenching grieving and how devastating their loss was when he spoke with them. That is why he was one of the few members of Congress to resist the stampede to war in iraq and made the issue the highlight of his unsuccessful campaign for President. I hope that he runs again for President and that the citizens of this country will now listen to him and recognize how courageous he was and still is by his steadfast opposition to the war. Mr. Feingold impresses me with he personal integrity, a virtue which I find seriously lacking in most members of the Congress. Their fixation with “Political Correctness” has morphed into “Political Cowardice”. The interminable morass this country now finds itself mired in the Middle East is the direct result of their moral weakness.

******************************

And so ends this “debate” of sorts. I hope it was informative and interesting, and you managed to make it through the dense morass of Lih Young’s answers. Needless to say, she’s not the person I’m endorsing on the Democrat side.

It’s amazing to me that we have over two dozen people who have decided to basically sacrifice several months of their lives and deal with a pile of paperwork as they have to file with the Board of Elections and watch every penny, even if they don’t have to file reports. Come Tuesday, all but three of those people will have their hopes dashed as just one Republican and Democrat will remain in the race. The Green Party’s Kevin Zeese is already assured a spot on the November ballot.

What I’m going to again attempt to do after the smoke clears is get the survivors on the GOP and Democrat sides to answer my Ten Questions and keep Kevin Zeese’s close at hand. Hopefully I can do a similar debate with just one post close to Election Day so people can compare and contrast. If the Republican and Democrat don’t answer the Ten Questions, by gosh I’ll make up an answer for them from things I can find out – this will work by hook or by crook!