Ohio politics – Page 3

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.

Bucking the trend

Until the voters prove me wrong at the polls, I’m optimistic about our chances on Tuesday – not just locally but statewide and nationally too. But yesterday I read a pundit who declared that the GOP is giving up on retaining the U.S. Senate seats in Pennsylvania (Santorum) and Ohio (DeWine) to concentrate on other states where candidates once thought reasonably safe were in trouble. And this was from a nominally conservative author.

I lived in Ohio the last time Senator DeWine was on the ballot in 2000. His reelection that year was considered such a lock that I voted for the Libertarian candidate to try and keep that party on the ballot. Six years later, a combination of a President made unpopular by a constantly carping mainstream media and a scandal called “Coingate” (dug up by my hometown paper) that has tarred the Ohio GOP is resulting in DeWine trailing a liberal Congressman named Sherrod Brown in the polls. Tuesday could well mark the beginning of the end of Mike DeWine’s Senate career and place an Ohio Democrat in the U.S. Senate for the first time since 1998. Or will it? No matter what is said and written about any race, the end result isn’t known until the final ballots are counted. I’ve seen polling margins of as much as 17 points disappear in the final 10 days of a campaign.

But the DeWine situation continues a disagreement I’ve had with the Ohio GOP and to a lesser extent the Maryland state party. It seems to me they listen too much to the so-called “conventional wisdom” and pay too little attention to the actual voters. Mike DeWine is only thrown out of the Senate if the state and national GOP sends the message they’ve given up on him and the voters respond to it.

There were polls in the Maryland media this week showing that the GOP candidates for Attorney General (Scott Rolle) and Comptroller (Anne McCarthy) both trail their Democrat opponents by double-digit margins. But that can all be erased if people who support their campaigns get out to the polls with 100% efficiency. Besides, there’s a pretty good chance that the poll may have been slanted or flawed (consider the source) by its base of responders and the timing of it. After all, how much media in this state worries about what the Eastern Shore thinks?

To me each Election Day I work a poll at is like a Super Bowl – a culmination of a long campaign season. In the 2000 election campaign I was out doing nominating petitions in the dead of an Ohio winter for a State House candidate because the filing deadline was early January for the March primary. (I actually did my personal nominating petition for the county’s central committee in the summer of 1999 for a March 2000 election.) That year turned out to be a full-year process that almost literally started the day after the 1999 municipal elections concluded, so really there wasn’t much of a break between the summer of 1999 and Election Day of 2000.

But I don’t give up on a candidate nor do I give up on races. If we do happen to lose the elections this year, it will hopefully teach us lessons on how we can both educate and motivate the electorate. Unlike the Democrats, who whined after the last three election cycles that “they didn’t get their message out” while desperately trying to obfuscate what they REALLY stood for (bigger, more intrusive government), most of the disappointment with the Republicans is that they have strayed away from their principles. It’s almost a case of trying to out-liberal the Democrats and as the country gets more conservative they’re chasing an ever-shrinking pie of left-wing voters. And part of this is because they know that right-wingers really don’t have a place to go aside from staying home on Election Day.

But rather than throw my hands up in disgust and give up on these politicians, they’re still getting my vote as they should yours. It’s purely logical to think that, if someone feels the same way about 80% of the issues as you do, it’s going to be a lot easier to debate with them about the last 20% of the way and press to get that little extra than it is to start over with a person who only believes in 20% of what you do but talks a good game. Put another way, in 1994 the GOP gained control of Capitol Hill based on the principles encoded in the “Contract With America.” It’s far less likely that if the Democrats regain the majority in Congress (or more locally, take back the governor’s seat) that principles and issues Americans endorsed in 1994 and still believe in today will be advanced.

People may argue that, “well, the Democrats will only be in power for one term and then the GOP will learn its lesson and return in 2008/2010.” I’m sure that the Republicans felt that way after the 1954 Congressional elections as well, figuring a 1956 return was inevitable. But it took the GOP 40 long years to get Congress back and a lot of what conservatives target as “big government programs” were enacted during that four decade period. At 42 years of age, I personally don’t want to grow old waiting for another Congress to advance the principles of conservatism, particularly in the judiciary where we’re just one vacancy away from placing the Supreme Court back into truly Constitutional hands.

If it does come to pass that the Democrats seize back Congress (unfortunately we can’t ask the late Peter Jennings if that event would qualify as a “national temper tantrum” too) and the O’Malley/Cardin team of expansive and intrusive government takes over control of our state, conservatives who stayed home and didn’t vote will certainly be kicking themselves. Worse, it will become a feeding frenzy for the “drive-by media” as the “blue tsunami” angle will certainly be played up. The answer for some elected Republicans, unfortunately, will be to go even more moderate in the hopes of playing to where they percieve the electorate to be and the principles of conservatism will be set back even further.

You know, sometimes I wish the Democrats who get their panties in a bunch about the so-called “domestic spying” program and “eroding civil liberties” would sit down and think (yes I know this can be tough for them at times) about things like private property rights, Massachusetts-style health insurance laws, business licensing, and unfunded mandates – a million and one government regulations and restrictions that place more curbs on our personal freedom than a measure enacted in a time of war and designed to affect only a small portion of Americans who wish to damage our nation by encouraging foes from without. With as much talk as liberals have about wanting to be free from religion in schools and public places, they should be the first to support our war against the Islamofascists since I doubt they have the desire to be converted to Islam at the point of a gun either. Our enemies have no problem with dying for their cause if they take a few “infidels” with them, and they’re more than willing to sacrifice generations until they win their battle to subdue the West and make America their own caliphate.

Twice as a high schooler, I wrote and delivered a prizewinning presentation for the VFW Voice of Democracy contest. One of them had the subject of “My Commitment To My Country” and while I’ve long since misplaced the speech I wrote I’ve maintained the commitment.

A freedom fighter can be described as someone who’s brave and dedicated enough to protect our country, even at the cost of his or her life, in our armed forces. I declined to do that, as I had the fortune of going through draft age in a period where there was none, the 1980’s. But I prefer to think that I do my best freedom fighting and serve out my commitment with the words I write. Aside from that talent, I’m an ordinary citizen who works, pays his taxes, volunteers here and there, and tries to be a net contributor in life rather than a net taker. And I think most Americans are like me in that respect.

So while the state and national Republicans might not like the chances of some candidates, it’s up to the voters to decide. And if they believe as I do that the government that governs best governs least then they’ll touch the screen or punch their ballot for Republican candidates. Then they and I will work on achieving that last 20% of agreement rather than attempting to climb that mountain of an 80% disagreement.

Clarifications

When I wrote it, I knew what I meant…

“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.”

However, after the Central Committee meeting on Monday, there were a couple people (who shall remain nameless) that pointed out a couple comments I’d made here and it placed me on the defensive. But if you are a regular reader of monoblogue, you’ll notice that I will post monthly on Republican Club meetings but I do not post on Central Committee meetings. This is intentional because there’s sensitive discussions that happen there at times which have to do with overall GOP campaign strategy and I’d like to keep that stuff close to my vest.

On the other hand, WCRC meetings have a much more public face. It was stated to me by these same people that they thought it would be better to have people pay for their membership if they want to find out what’s happening with the WCRC. But I disagree because I believe my efforts would encourage membership in the long run. Yes, I give what most people who were there tell me is a very faithful rehashing of the events and speakers that grace our meetings, but the only way to enjoy the fellowship and meet the speakers is to actually attend the meetings – then sooner or later the membership dues will come in. If no one hears about the meetings, you’re not going to get a lot of people showing up. I realize this is an election year, but could it be possible that the coverage I give on monoblogue may have convinced a few extra bodies to make the effort to attend these meetings, and just possibly chip in a couple more dollars to the kitty?

I thought the best way to explain my philosophy was to use examples from my past so I went and dug out the newsletters I did during the two years of my elected term to the Lucas County Republican Central Committee (1998 to 2000). On an occasional basis, I would write up and distribute a two or four page newsletter to anywhere from 50 to 80 people in my precinct – in total I did eight editions of the newsletter I called the 16-P Leader (named for my 16th Ward and Precinct P).

This is one example of my Central Committee reporting, from the very first edition in 1998:

Talmage, Griswold picked by GOP

On June 13, at a sometimes acrimonious reorganization meeting, Dee Talmage and Mike Griswold were elected to run the Lucas County Republican Party Executive Committee and Central Committee, respectively.

Mrs. Talmage will now replace James Brennan at the helm of the local party and take over the daily operations. She was selected by a unanimous vote of the Central Committee, after interviewing with a selection committee made up of local GOP leaders. The selection committee selected her over Sylvania Township trustee Dock Treece and Senate District 2 State Central Committeman Paul Hoag.

At the same meeting, Mike Griswold was selected to head up the party’s Central Committee (the body you elected me to) by a 145 to 77 margin over 21st Ward Chair Susan Abood. Our 16th Ward went 12 to 1 in favor of Mr. Griswold, myself being the lone Abood holdout (I seconded her nomination as well). I felt that Mrs. Abood would help steer the party in a new direction away from the “old guard”.

Speaking of the 16th Ward, we elected a new ward chair in the person of Tim Kuhlman, who replaces William Outland. Mr. Outland was defeated in his precinct reelection bid.

Also of note: on May 5th, we elected Chuck Larkins to represent the 11th Senate District Republicans on the State Central Committee, replacing longtime incumbent James Brennan. Donna Owens was unopposed for her seat.

I also had articles in this newsletter introducing myself to the voters, our precinct’s results from the previous fall’s local election, a candidate focus on the Republican who was running for State Senate from our district, a short note about the state income tax deductability of political contributions, an appeal for volunteers, and fundraiser news for GOP candidates. Honestly, I should take some time and scan all these newsletters as background files because in rereading them last night, I could tell that people would see the obvious seeds of monoblogue being planted in these newsletters.

What’s most important to note is that the Executive Committee of the LCRP has much the same function as the Wicomico County Central Committee does. It’s a much smaller body made up of ward chairs and they make the decisions about candidate endorsement and appointment. The Central Committee people (also called precinct chairs) ratify the decisions made by the Executive Committee and work their respective precincts to increase GOP turnout and registration (which was my task and one thing I managed to accomplish in my 2 year term). My newsletter was one effort in trying to get people more politically involved – in later editions I added items on neighborhood issues such as the local Block Watch and a grassroots effort to redistrict City Council.

This website is an extension of the purpose behind my precinct newsletter, with monoblogue I can update on all the issues I care about and I can do it a lot more frequently. My goal on being elected to the Wicomico County version of the Republican Central Commitee (as stated before) is to make the Republican Party the majority party in Wicomico County and involve more people, particularly young adults, in the political process. Since more and more people get news from the internet, this is the perfect place for giving out the facts about the Wicomico County GOP and enhancing it with my “wonkish” conservative commentary.

The time for cynicism is over. I share many of the same goals as the rest of the Central Committee – getting good Republican candidates and helping them win their elections at all levels. Because one particular GOP candidate has a problem with certain “cancerous” local blogs, it’s no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Wicomico County GOP didn’t have too many problems with the blogs prior to September 13 and the party will have to deal with them, like it or not, after November 7. I’m hoping the WCRCC can work with and learn from the conservative side of the local blog world, the possiblility of being an outstanding amplifier of our message is there if we learn how to work with those involved.