Why add to the debt?
Obviously this post I cite is an oversimplification of the educational approach needed for many children, but I thought it was appropriate to point this out given the fact a small group of parents – backed by an all-powerful school board and sympathetic County Executive and newspaper – are putting big-time pressure on our County Council to approve the debt necessary to build a new middle school.
But Richard F. Miniter, a writer posting on the American Thinker website, makes the case that education can be as simple as applying a little discipline and effort, given the vast library now available to anyone who has an e-reader and cares enough about their child to make sure they learn. And there is a time savings, as Miniter writes:
It also sums down to a little block of time because without having to get ready for the school bus; the bus ride; dispersing to classroom; disciplinary issues in classrooms; having to raise your hand to go to the bathroom; noisy, chaotic hallways scenes every fifty minutes; noisy, chaotic lunch periods; announcements; fire drills; lectures about bullying, respecting alternative lifestyles, or strangers; then preparing for the bus ride home, followed by homework, one can do a better job with a child in two hours than a traditional school classroom setting can in eight.
Now extrapolate that to the building itself. If one can learn in the small space of time allotted to learning at home, it can also be assumed that learning can be achieved in a regular school building, regardless of the age.
Joe the Congressman?
Having lived in the Congressional district in question for a long time, I think this is quite funny.
First of all, the Republicans who are running Ohio’s redistricting process played quite the nasty trick by lumping two longtime liberals in Congress into the same Congressional district – Ohio’s Ninth District, which used to be primarily a Toledo-based district represented by Marcy Kaptur since 1983, now snakes along the Lake Erie shoreline toward Cleveland and has since the 2000 redistricting. But the newest Republican lines have now expanded the district far enough eastward to take in the residence of one Dennis Kucinich.
A chance of improvement
Obviously the political landscape is much different here than it is in my native state of Ohio, but there are times I still get missives from the Buckeye State because I’m still on a number of mailing lists.
One such case was today, and although I deleted the actual message the gist of it was a local chief of police calling out the opponents of Issue 2 – a measure that would roll back gains made against the overly powerful unions in the state – for misleading the public into thinking they’d be less safe if it passed. On the contrary, passage of Issue 2 would allow him more funding for hiring police officers since his other overhead costs would be reduced.
Is Ohio’s recovery on the line?
It’s been seven years since I left the state of my birth, and it doesn’t seem like politics has changed all that much.
Even the ray of hope provided when a solid conservative governor was elected may be snuffed out next week if voters in the Buckeye State are fooled into voting against Issue 2. A no vote would wipe out a series of common-sense measures designed to hold the power of the state’s labor unions in check along with making them contribute a little more to their benefit package (but still less than the average private-sector worker does.)
It’s telling that opponents of the measure, essentially Big Labor and its allies, are outspending those who want a yes vote by a significant margin. The unions didn’t want Governor John Kasich to be elected anyway, as one of his first priorities was to whip them into line. If they can’t beat him until 2014, they can do their level best to thwart his efforts. It’s nothing new from a state which is heavily unionized along the Ohio Turnpike corridor from Toledo through Lorain and Cleveland to Youngstown. The rest of the state is relatively conservative.
I’m hoping against hope that the smart voters aren’t fooled by the lies and obfuscation of Big Labor’s campaign and hand them a stinging rebuke. If they don’t, you can well see why I left the state – not that Maryland is a whole lot better, but the weather and vibe is what keeps me here. It would be nice to have a governor with the cajones to take on Big Labor, so let’s hope he’s rewarded next week.
‘More,’ Fedzilla screamed, ‘more!!’
I thought I could let this go, but then this Washington Times story by Stephan Dinan begged to differ.
Now I realize that the situation over the last few months was akin to walking a tightrope, but to rack up a record $239 billion in debt in ONE DAY – almost 60% of the wiggle room gained by the Republican sellout – simply boggles the mind. Notice that the previous record deficit day came in 2009, after Barack Obama took office. So don’t blame it on Bush.
In fact, consider that in one day our deficit exceeded that of the entire final Bush budget submitted with a Republican Congress (fiscal year 2007) – $239 billion beats $161 billion in any sort of math, fuzzy or not.
And the public is skeptical too. Today a Rasmussen Poll was released and it showed just 22% of the public approved of the budget deal. Of course Republicans are dead-set against it (by about a 4-to-1 margin) but the poll also showed unaffiliated voters in with the same feelings toward the agreement. Only Democrats had a more favorable impression, with 34% favoring the package with 40% against.
The reason the public doesn’t like the agreement? They don’t trust Washington to cut spending.
Another interesting facet of Rasmussen’s summary is that, despite the frenetic coverage by the media, people had expected the outcome. Perhaps it’s a natural cynicism Americans have with their government. “You can’t fight City Hall,” they often say.
While the TEA Party has made great strides in fighting the excesses of government, its biggest problem is that we only control a small portion of government. Look at the strides certain states like Wisconsin and Ohio have made in curbing their governments – they managed to elect enough conservative legislators in both their legislative bodies to complement the reformist ideas of the governors elected – Scott Walker and John Kasich, respectively.
Both Walker and Kasich also have to overcome continued threats to their reform packages as several GOP state senators are subject to recall elections this month in Wisconsin and Ohio’s Senate Bill 5 – an act which severely curbed union influence in Ohio – goes before Buckeye State voters this fall. Don’t be surprised if unions aren’t looking to dump tens of millions into the campaign to overturn SB5.
So the TEA Party fight may be over for the time being in Washington, and those of us skeptical that Fedzilla could curb its spending appetite may be vindicated based on the one-day deficit record. But we have a lot of state capitals where the fight needs to be renewed.
Come this fall, the scene in Annapolis may rival the one back in March, but contenders will on the opposite sides. I’d love to see 10,000 TEA Party members outnumber 50 union thugs in demanding fiscal responsibility.
A Wicomico County school board proposal
This is something for you to mull over, based on the promise I made on Wednesday’s post about the County Council meeting the previous night. This also extends a call for the elected school board I made in March of last year – unfortunately, the previous County Council didn’t act on that measure in time for November’s election.
As I understand it, the process can be completed as follows:
- County Council votes to put a non-binding referendum on the ballot at the next General Election. (This would be in 2012.)
- Assuming the referendum is passed by voters, legislation to allow the county to make the switch is passed by the Maryland General Assembly.
- The first elected school board members are selected at the next General Election in 2014.
I believe we could skip step one if our General Assembly delegation got the proper legislation passed, but it’s my understanding that Norm Conway wouldn’t move it without a referendum. (If I am mistaken, be patient and I’ll get to comments when I have a chance.) The other method to achieve step one would be via a petition to get a referendum on the ballot, which I have been told was tried in 2001.
But the devil is in the details, and it seems that County Council would like to have all of the parameters ironed out before passing along a proposal to voters. (Unfortunately, that may make it too complex and doom it to failure – I’d rather just have the concept presented first.) In that case, here are a few humble suggestions I’d like to make as a framework for an elected board. Obviously they would have all the responsibilities and duties that the current appointed board has.
- The Board should be a seven-member body (as it is now), with one representative from each County Council district (using the exact districts) and two at-large members. I think this addresses, at least in part, one concern of the NAACP. District representatives must be a resident of that district.
- Each member would serve a four-year term (with an exception as noted below). For any member, there would be a limit of three terms of service, whether consecutive or not. Current appointed members would be allowed to serve the full three terms if they choose to stand for election.
- Beginning with the 2014 election, members elected from districts would serve a four-year term and stand for re-election in 2018. The at-large representatives would serve a single two-year term, standing for election in 2016 before commencing on a four-year cycle. This way every two years the entire county votes on at least one school board member, whether representing their district or the county at-large.
- School board elections will be non-partisan, with no party identification on the ballot. Because of this, there would be no primary and the election winner would be determined by whomever has the most votes of all candidates, whether by majority or plurality. (This has its drawbacks, but also gives a so-called disenfranchised minority a better shot at winning.)
- In case there is a vacancy mid-term for any cause, it would be up to the County Council to vet and select a replacement to fill out the term within 60 days of the vacancy.
- State campaign finance rules in effect for elected school board officeseekers would apply.
There’s probably other language I need to make this a more complete proposal, but I think you get the idea.
I know the naysayers would tell me that the school board would be too politicized if elected, with one making the point that many of the nation’s worst school districts are saddled by elected boards. But who’s fault is that? And would it truly make any difference if the boards in these places were appointed by the same inept government that can’t run these cities properly?
What I know is that, in the situation we have currently, a governor we did not vote for makes the selections based on the recommendations of the appropriate partisan Central Committee – in many cases, our first choices have been denied for a number of reasons, even by Governor Ehrlich. (He’s the last governor we in Wicomico County actually voted in favor of; to find the previous example you’d have to go back to William Donald Schaefer in 1986.) To me, a person who came of age in a state where local districts are run by elected school boards – for better or worse, Ohioans in their hundreds of local school districts can exercise this accountability - it makes little sense. (Ohioans also get to vote on local operating and bond tax levies, which is a definite double-edged sword.)
I don’t advocate going quite that far here in Maryland, but I think we should join the vast majority of other counties in the state by letting the voters decide their school board.
Just so you know, my internet access will be limited over the next couple days so comment moderation will be spotty.
Disappointed and disillusioned
And I thought it was the Democrats who allowed incompetence to rise to the top. Apparently the GOP really wants to follow in those shoes; that is if this report by Reid Wilson from The Hill’s Briefing Room blog is to be believed. (In a related story, they’re predicting a multi-ballot race, which I’ve suspected would be the case all along with several contenders.)
This compilation of those who have announced publicly who they’ll support for the Chairmanship of the Republican Party shows that the incumbent Mike Duncan has the plurality among those who’ve expressed a preference. Granted, there’s only about half of the 168 who vote that have gone public, but one has to wonder why some would continue with a leader who’s already lost one national election.
Perhaps it’s because we’re very close to the situation and there’s a favorite son candidate representing Maryland, but the buzz around Michael Steele based on his debate performance and name recognition doesn’t seem to be permeating all that many of those who actually make the decision next week.
It’s somewhat akin to the situation conservatives found themselves in for the 2008 Presidential primaries. There are several good candidates who will probably split the vote and allow the status quo to win. John McCain was the “establishment” GOP candidate in the 2008 election and Mike Duncan represents the establishment to me.
There’s no better proof of this than noticing that, despite the state having its own favorite son candidate in Ken Blackwell, two of Ohio’s representatives are in the Duncan camp. And this is something else I feel I need to comment on.
Bob Bennett was in charge of the Ohio Republican Party while I served as a Central Commitee member there. While the setup is somewhat different in the Buckeye State, the fact is Ohio Republicans have seen their onetime grasp of each statewide office loosened and ripped away because the state party brass relied too much on their own judgment. They didn’t trust the will of the GOP base enough to select the best candidates – well, that should tell readers in a nutshell why Duncan is the wrong man for the job.
Ken Blackwell has never been the darling of the establishment Republicans in Ohio, who seem to think that candidates have to be wishy-washy moderates to have a chance to win statewide. Unfortunately, the last wishy-washy moderate to win statewide from the GOP side was the reviled Governor Bob Taft, who raised taxes and became embroiled in the Coingate scandal. Once Blackwell finally had the opportunity to run for governor (Bennett and the Ohio GOP talked Blackwell out of running in 1998 in favor of avoiding a primary against their annointed Taft) the party had been damaged beyond repair and Blackwell became the scapegoat, getting less than 40% of the vote.
Personally, I think Steele would be a good national GOP chair but Blackwell would be a better one. One thing whoever wins the nod needs to make priority one is encouraging some of the deadwood to get out of the way and bring aboard new leadership at the state level.
The old guard is what gave the Republican Party both Bushes, Bob Dole, and John McCain. While many of them came in with Ronald Reagan, they squandered much of the Reagan legacy on candidates who failed to ignite the conservative base – or when one was selected, like Sarah Palin, they turned the long knives on her.
We’ve tried it their way for the last 20 years and with the exception of the Contract with America, the GOP record hasn’t exactly been stellar when compared with the stated party principles. Selecting the wrong guy to run the party may accelerate the rush toward the exits for conservative rank-and-file party members and voters.
Opinion on Obama
It’s not my opinion, though, this article was written by someone else. And after I give credit to my fellow Wicomico County Republican Dave Parker for passing this along to me, I’m going to post what this person wrote. At the end, I’ll tell you a little about the person who penned it – you might be surprised.
This is from the New York Sun:
It’s an amazing time to be alive in America. We’re in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first frontrunning freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first. We won’t truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won’t arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.
The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him. Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He’s not. He’s the next George McGovern. And it’s time people learned the facts. Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.
Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he’s not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America.
But let’s look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial “beauty.” Start with national security, since the president’s most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists – something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.
Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on “the rich.” How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.
Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, “All praise and glory to God!” but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have “hijacked” – hijacked – Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban – ban – on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francis co values, not Middle America values.
The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don’t start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of “bringing America together” means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs. But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and – yes – they’re talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president.
Mr. Obama’s radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton. It’s time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let’s first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.
Any guesses as to who this is? The author is Ken Blackwell, who is now a columnist for the paper, and the piece is entitled “Beyond Obama’s Beauty”.
I may have tipped this off a little bit with the categories at the top, but Ken Blackwell ran and lost for the Governor’s seat in Ohio in 2006. However, had things been as I thought they should be in a perfect world, that would have been the point where Blackwell was wrapping up his second and final successful term as the chief executive of my home state. Unfortunately, the Ohio Republican Party leadership abhors contested primaries and their choice in 1998 was the moderate Bob Taft - a guy who allowed state government and taxation to grow and the one who pretty much ran the state party into the ground by 2006. It was at that point that Blackwell defied the state powers-that-be and contested the primary against establishment candidate Jim Petro. Sadly the damage was done and Blackwell lost handily that November to Democrat Ted Strickland.
Ken was a figure in Ohio politics well before running for governor, though. He first won statewide office in 1990 as Ohio’s state treasurer, then became Secretary of State in 1998 after the Republican brass talked him out of the primary fight he just might have won. He certainly had my support because he was by far the more conservative candidate running. But perhaps the Ohio Republican party thought the state and nation weren’t quite ready for a black governor at that point.
You see, a half-decade before Michael Steele became a household name in this state, we in Ohio had the conservative black guy in Ken Blackwell. I don’t know if they ever threw Oreo cookies at Ken but I’m sure he took his share of abuse from those who share his skin color but not his political philosophy.
What this means is that the article you see above can’t be dismissed as racist. It’s sad that we still have to deal with this sort of name-calling over forty years removed from the advent of the civil rights era, but there is a class of people out there who depend on these divisions for their living, and even if Barack Obama should become President they’re not going to go away quietly.
Besides, I don’t recall those people and groups making much of a fuss when Blackwell and Steele both lost their bids for statewide office in 2006. It proves my point that sometimes the civil rights movement is about power more than about race. Luckily thoughtful criticism knows no skin color and Blackwell is right on point with his column.
Sticking up for Amendment 10
I came across an interesting story today from the state of Vermont. Yesterday a State Senate committee there passed a bill to create a task force to study the effects of lowering Vermont’s legal drinking age to 18. The sponsor of the bill, State Senator Hinda Miller, called it an effort to bring the underage drinking on college campuses out of the shadows:
“Our laws aren’t working. They’re not preventing underage drinking. What they’re doing is putting it outside the public eye,” Vermont state Sen. Hinda Miller said. “So you have a lot of kids binge drinking. They get sick, they get scared and they get into trouble and they can’t call because they know it’s illegal.”
Obviously if a bill such as this came to Maryland it would have a lot of support from the SU student community and local watering holes like The Monkey Barrel or the Cactus Club. Opposing it would be local law enforcement and college-area neighborhood groups.
But my point isn’t really on the merits or drawbacks of lowering the drinking age to 18. They actually raised the drinking age to 19 in Ohio just before I turned 18, which pretty much pissed me off, but managed to wait until just after I turned 21 to raise it to that age. No, the portion that appealed to me about the story was this small effort to restore state’s rights in this country, and a short history is in order.
In my native state of Ohio, there was a statewide ballot issue back in 1983 to raise the drinking age from 19 to 21, an effort that failed by a 59% – 41% margin. (Having just turned 19, you can pretty much guess which way I voted.) In raw numbers the difference was over 600,000 votes. I was among over 1.9 million voters in the Buckeye State who clearly stated that their will was to keep the age as it was at the time. But three years later the people’s choice was thwarted by a federal bill called the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. Passed in 1984, Congress compelled states to raise their drinking age to 21 lest they lose federal highway funding and Ohio decided to forefit that right of self-determination in 1986. Seeing the option ratified by the people of my state thrown out because the federal government thought they knew best was an important lesson in politics that further galvanized my political views.
And this option is not without risk for Vermont should they choose to follow through all the way with it. At stake is their $17 million of highway funding that the federal government provides to Vermont’s state government and in an era of budget shortfalls throughout the country that money is going to yell really loud.
However, much ado has been made of late about cutting earmarks from the federal budget while little attention is paid about these infringements on the Tenth Amendment rights states have to determine their own laws. If the federal government would stop being a passthru for funds that they simply deliver back to the states, untold millions would be saved. But the problem lies with those inside the Beltway who really enjoy having the power to make states squirm and bend to their will by threatening to withhold federal funds if they don’t adopt particular laws and regulations Washington bureaucrats foist upon them.
While the idea of lowering the drinking age may or may not appeal to those reading here today, I think we should all encourage the state of Vermont to make this stand against federal laws that unjustly usurp their rights of self-determination.
Crossposted on Red Maryland.
Radio days volume 8
I don’t think this will be a full volume, but just a few observations. First of all, I made a funny and it didn’t dawn on me until now, calling something that had to do with radio a “volume”. Pretty soon I’ll be on “11″ like Spinal Tap.
Anyway, ’twas a good time this morning, and Bill handled his end professionally as always. I managed to get through all my notes I had on things to talk about and then some.
In case readers are wondering, the Ohio election I was referring to was the special election to fill the vacant Fifth Congressional District seat held by the late Rep. Paul Gillmor. It’s almost eerily like our First District race:
- Playing the part of Wayne Gilchrest is Bob Latta, a longtime fixture in Ohio state politics. He’s represented Wood County (the most populous in the overall district) at the state level for over a decade.
- Steve Buehrer has the Andy Harris role. Like Latta, he’s been in state politics for a number of years as a State Senator, and just like Andy Harris did here, Steve Buehrer got the endorsement of the Club For Growth to boot.
- Three other lesser-known candidates rounded out the GOP primary field, as in Joe Arminio, Robert Banks, and John Leo Walter here.
Personally I think at the moment the results will also end up similar to the Ohio race, with Gilchrest winning by a small margin but well under 50 percent. Since Buehrer was nominally the more conservative candidate, it may have been that the three also-rans below him cannibalized his vote enough to prevent the win. It’s the same theory that Andy Harris has charged about the late entry into the race by Robert Banks being set up by the incumbent.
One thing I thought about prior to going on but not while I was there was when there’s going to be a public poll taken for our Congressional race because of the high interest both in Maryland and nationally. I’m sure the respective campaigns are running their own internal polls or will be soon, but it would be interesting to know how this election is shaping up.
Since I covered a lot on the special session in previous posts, I won’t revisit that topic. And I plan on doing yet another look at the Congressional candidates with a second post tonight so this personal stuff won’t stay on top too long. Overall, I think I turned in a pretty good performance so I’m hoping to get back there after the holidays for an update on the race and probably more hijinks from the regular General Assembly session.
Reviewing elections and dispelling rumors
There were a lot of places where yesterday was Election Day. Most readers should know that Sheila Dixon was officially elected as Baltimore’s mayor, as the real contest there was September’s Democrat primary. That was also the case in a number of other large cities, but Indianapolis bucked that trend by electing a Republican who was “massively” outspent. And the key issue there? According to the Indianapolis Star:
(outgoing Mayor Bart Peterson)…raised income taxes, from 0.7 percent when he came into office to 1.65 percent now. That includes a 65 percent increase this summer alone, with the money devoted to law enforcement. The income tax increase came at a time when homeowners were reeling from sharply higher property tax bills caused in large part by a state-ordered reassessment.
Those may be words for a certain governor to heed, because people like me aren’t going to forget our special session. Taxes did not do well in a number of states, particularly a bid in the state of Oregon to raise the cigarette tax for children’s health care via a Constitutional amendment.
Another election I had an interest in was up in Gaithersburg as a pro-immigrant umbrella group attempted to elect a slate of candidates to their City Council. Based on the results, it doesn’t look like Gaithersburg will become a sanctuary city though as the One Gaithersburg group apparently motivated a large turnout to the opposite effect, with only one of their chosen three being elected to office.
Meanwhile voters in Kentucky turned out a GOP governor (Ernie Fletcher) who’d been tainted with the brush of corruption, but Mississippi voters kept Republican Gov. Haley Barbour in office. Strangely enough, Barbour’s victory in the aftermath of Katrina wasn’t seen as a vindication of how his state handled the cleanup and reconstruction. We know that cost outgoing Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco, a Democrat, her job as she chose not to seek reelection. In total, the three state governors involved in this election cycle kept a 2-1 ratio of Republicans to Democrats, with Louisiana switching to the GOP and Democrats retaking Kentucky after a four-year absence.
One last election result as my prediction is on its way to being borne out. In the Ohio 5th Congressional district (where I once lived) seat vacated by the death of Rep. Paul Gillmor, a man Gillmor defeated in the GOP primary way back in 1988 to win nomination is one step closer to getting it now. Robert Latta, whose father held the seat for 30 years before retiring in 1988, won the GOP side of the special primary and, unless the Democrats succeed in winning a seat held by Republicans since the Great Depression, Latta should take over the post he sought almost 20 years ago later this year.
In that Ohio 5th District race, it may be important to note that the Club for Growth PAC endorsement did not help State Sen. Steve Buehrer. He finished second in that race with 40% to Latta’s 44% in a five-person field.
All right, now the rumor. I got a note in my e-mail box today where a disgruntled voter from here in Wicomico County called the state party to complain about their support of Wayne Gilchrest because he’s an incumbent, with the backing of our Central Committee.
Well, I have news for this voter. It is our policy at the Wicomico County Central Committee to not support any candidate prior to the primary as a group, in fact it’s in our bylaws where we cannot. Obviously, the seven of us have our personal choices but as a group we are careful to be neutral. If the state party followed an “incumbent protection” policy let me assure you I’d be the first to raise holy hell about it and there’d be a lot of people right behind me amongst the party grassroots. Thus far they have stayed out of the District One race to my satisfaction.
It’s not normal for me to discuss Central Committee business in this forum but I felt that the record needs to be straight on the matter. Again, as a group we will support the winner of the Republican primary for the First Congressional District and may the best man (or woman, if one gets in prior to the filing deadline) win. Let the voters decide.
More Congressional action
This quick update from two camps:
The “big announcement” from the Andy Harris for Congress campaign was that former Governor Ehrlich will host a fundraiser on Andy’s behalf October 18th in Queen Anne’s County. The actual press release is as follows:
Former Republican Congressman and Governor Robert Ehrlich announced today he will be hosting a fundraiser for Andy Harris, a candidate for the Republican nomination in Maryland’s first congressional district.
“Andy Harris has been a consistent leader in promoting our Republican values and beliefs,” said Governor Ehrlich. “His leadership on fighting for lower taxes, eliminating wasteful spending and support for honest government is legendary in the legislature. I am proud to offer my help.”
The fundraiser will be held on Thursday, October 18th at 6:30p.m. at Harris’ Crab House (no relation) in Queen Anne’s County. A private VIP reception and photo-opportunity with Governor Ehrlich will begin at 6 p.m. The main event will run from 6:30 p.m. until 8 p.m. Veterans and current members of the military will be given a discount to the event in honor of their service.
“I appreciate Governor Ehrlich’s willingness to host a fundraiser on my behalf. As Governor he moved the state of Maryland and the Republican Party in a positive direction. His support at this event will help us get out our message of support for the traditions and principals that made America the greatest nation on earth,” said Andy Harris.
Individuals interested in attending should contact the Harris campaign at dave@andyharris08.com, or call 443-797-5144, or visit www.andyharris08.com.
So Andy’s bringing out the biggest gun in the Maryland GOP arsenal to help him out. It’s intriguing because Ehrlich supported Gilchrest in previous elections against other conservative challengers.
The second note that caught my interest was the passing of Ohio’s 5th District Rep. Paul Gillmor today. While most in this area wouldn’t know his name, he happened to be my Congressman before I moved here. So I immediately thought about succession since Ohio unwisely chose a Democrat, Governor Ted Strickland, in 2006. Could he put a Democrat in the seat?
Fortunately for northwest Ohio residents, by law a special election will be scheduled. Thus the GOP will likely not lose the seat as that area of Ohio is arguably the most “red” part of the state. My money would be on Ohio House member Robert Latta, whose father held the 5th District seat prior to Gillmor (the elder Latta retired in 1988.) But I’m sure a plethora of GOP aspirants will be gunning for the seat since it’s one of the most safe Republican seats in the nation.
Political Buzz Examiner
Syndicate
Subscribe to this site's RSS feed.
-
-
-
Advertise with monoblogue and you’ll reach a lot of people!
Click on the photo for details.
Link to Maryland Democratic Party
In the interest of being fair and balanced, I provide this service to readers. But before you click on the picture below, just remember their message:
Locals flock to monoblogue
Click on the photo for details on advertising opportunities.
Please note that the opinions expressed on monoblogue are not necessarily those of the Wicomico County Republican Party Central Committee, of which I'm a member. (But they probably should be.)
