Who will they be in it for?
This goes in the category of “I had to laugh.”
Because I have one of the millions of e-mail addresses that makes up Barack Obama’s list of internet friends, I get his campaign missives on practically a daily basis. Yesterday’s was a hoot, and I excerpt here:
Mark your calendar: On May 10th, George Clooney is hosting an event at his home in Los Angeles to support President Obama.
If you donate $3 or whatever you can today, you’ll be automatically entered to be there, too.
We’ll take care of airfare and accommodations — all you need to do is think about who you’d ask to join you for an evening with President Obama and George Clooney.
At least twice in the last few months there was been the enticement of having dinner with the President, but the unwashed masses don’t seem to be coughing up enough $3 donations to make that work anymore. If it were he wouldn’t need a SuperPAC, even though it’s not making a ton of money either.
I suppose that’s the risk you run when pandering to the food stamp generation. So Obama needs a little bit of star power now, and anyone with half a brain for popular culture knows that when one uber-liberal Hollywood star has a political event, a whole flock of them (along with assorted other beggars and hangers-on) show up. So the thought in the Obama campaign must be that a million people will cough up $3 to show up at George Clooney’s house to be laughed at as that giant sucker who won the contest. Maybe they’ll put the winner in a closet so they can have the real party and stick their hands into the Obama stash.
Unfortunately, the same fundraising approach is being used by the Romney camp (as is the dinner one) and it’s beginning to make me wonder if our culture is just too starstruck and obsessed with celebrity to think rationally anymore. It used to be that people donated money because they believed in the candidate, but what message does it send out when one can donate a trivial amount to be entered into a contest as the longest of shots to have to rub elbows with the President? Okay, the chance to see the Red Sox at Fenway Park on Patriot’s Day wouldn’t have been a bad enticement for me but I resisted. It would have been a good game to watch, too. (I wonder if Romney stayed for the whole thing? Reason number 8,564 I couldn’t be a politician: if I go to a ballgame I am there until the final pitch. I don’t care if they play 20 innings.)
We all know Barack Obama decries the Citizens United decision out of one side of his mouth while eschewing campaign finance limits with the other. But if people want to donate against their self-interest in the slimmest of hopes of hobnobbing with Hollywood elitists, Obama is all for that. And considering no one has to report donations under $200 to the FEC, no one will really see where the money comes from, just that they’ll have the cash to spend on glossing over the Obama record.
Something tells me there’s something for George Clooney in this too. Those elitists really hate spending time with real people from flyover country, so I’m guessing there’s a Department of Energy grant or farm bill earmark somewhere chosen especially for him. Good luck to the person selected from among all the donors, because the rest of us are going to lose if Obama wins.
More observations on the RNC races
As I mentioned the other day we had our quad-county meeting earlier this week, where the members of the four Lower Shore GOP Central Committees (Wicomico, Worcester, Somerset, and Dorchester) get together to discuss issues and find common ground. For the most part, this meeting (ably ran by John McCullough of Dorchester County) focused on the upcoming Spring Convention, including what was supposed to be a frank discussion of the two National Committee races.
In the runup to the meeting, we debated whether we should invite the candidates to speak or not. Three of the four county chairs decided to say no, while the other was neutral on the issue. Because of that consensus, none of the hopefuls was invited to speak; however Audrey Scott got her “wires crossed” in the words of McCullough and showed up anyway. It created an awkward scene where we had to have her leave the room so an open discussion could take place.
But before she left, she made sure to tell everyone not to believe what was read on this site. And while she was careful not to single me or my site out by name, I must say that I will abide a lot of things because I bend over backwards to be fair but I will not be called a liar. In fact, I have taken steps to have the information I was provided by several reliable sources disproved and if I find out it is so I will make the correction. As of this writing I’m awaiting the confirmation, after asking a person I frankly thought she threw under the bus when the subject was brought up.
Unfortunately for Audrey, some of her more fervent supporters adopted the same condescending tone Audrey adopted when she discussed what’s been said about her in the campaign. This was especially apparent when one (female) backer wondered aloud if Nicolee Ambrose could handle the position while having a family, ignoring the fact that many women who serve in politics already do so quite well. These supporters as a group believed Audrey’s experience sets her apart, and I won’t deny she’s experienced. But that’s not what the position needs at this time; instead it needs bold leadership and frankly I feel Audrey Scott will treat the post like a retirement gift from a grateful party.
And then we have several points brought up by quad-county members about Audrey’s actions: the Rule 11 controversy, attendance at the rally supporting the gas tax and her weak retort that she only attended the rally to support a bill to keep the Transportation Trust Fund from being raided, and of course the “unelectable” Roscoe Bartlett comment. I found it fascinating as well that, just hours after Roscoe announced his support of Nicolee Ambrose in the NCW race, Audrey Scott slapped up her own grainy picture with Bartlett, taken at the Montgomery County Lincoln Day Dinner last Friday. She also rehashed the “let’s get behind our nominees” mea culpa but the damage has been done.
I also found out, in speaking to some of those attending, that at least two of them who are listed as supporters of Audrey Scott have no intention of voting for her. Of course, Audrey mentioned she would be happy to remove any names from the list but who wants to ask about something like that? It’s almost embarrassing, but more importantly these admissions chip away at her facade of support she’s attempting to build.
Compared to the NCW discussion, the contest between Scott Shaffer and Louis Pope was rather mild. There were some who wanted the change and some who didn’t, but for the most part neither drew many negative remarks.
But I wanted to bring up something I was told today, as a letter from Louis Pope arrived in my mailbox. It proves one thing that Scott Shaffer brought up earlier this week and that I wasn’t sure of: Pope is indeed sending out re-election items paid for by the RNC (at least the stationery is, and presumably postage too.)
I’m not worried about the couple hundred dollars which the RNC may be giving to Pope for his re-election (although it is an important item to point out) as much as I’m interested in this line that Pope wrote:
Over the last decade I have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for MDGOP and our local and statewide candidates here in Maryland, as well as presidential candidates.
I’ll take that at face value, particularly since Pope has led fundraising seminars in the past and has several entries on his political resume regarding fundraising for Bob Ehrlich, Michael Steele, and George W. Bush. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in a decade seems like a realistic amount.
Yet Audrey Scott claimed to raise $1.5 million for the MDGOP along with $1 million from the RNC for Victory Centers, all in the one year she was Chair. I’d be glad to believe that if the numbers were there, but as I dissected them last Sunday they are not. But even if she did, I quite frankly believe that her presence at the quad county meeting may have lost her more votes than she gained, particularly when the Allen West fundraiser that Nicolee Ambrose helped to organize was described in glowing terms. I don’t think MDGOP fundraising would suffer under Nicolee, particularly if she can bring those kinds of personalities to the state.
Out of a two-hour meeting, we spent well over an hour going back and forth about the National Committeewoman race. To me that points out the distinction between the two candidates, and I’ll be quite interested to see how the votes come out from the four counties involved in the quad-county meeting. Our votes may not mean a lot but they have to be earned, and coming down to attend a meeting where her opponent obeyed a specific request not to show up gives me the impression that Audrey Scott believes she’s entitled to be National Committeewoman because she’s served in the Republican Party at a high level for a long time.
I don’t believe in entitlements. I believe we need a leader, and Audrey Scott isn’t translating the success she had as Chair into a good campaign for National Committeewoman.
Free (if politically incorrect) speech
It’s billed as a non-political event, but something tells me that they’re not going to sit around sipping on Coca-Cola.
I got the invitation from Robert Broadus, who will be a speaker at the Take Back Maryland Rally on Saturday in Federalsburg. It’s organized by a group I was heretofore unfamiliar with called the League of the South, and I’ll get to them in a little bit.
First of all, the topics seem quite interesting: during the three-hour Saturday afternoon event, Broadus will speak on “Defending Marriage in the Old Line State,” State Senator Rich Colburn talks about “A 51st State: Partitioning ‘Red’ Maryland from ‘Blue’ Maryland,” and David Whitney of the Institute of the Constitution pondering “Is the 14th Amendment Legal?” All seem like intriguing topics worth listening to, particularly since they don’t seem to come from an orthodox point of view in Maryland.
The sponsoring organization bills itself as maintaining the spirit of the Confederacy, noting ”We seek to advance the cultural, social, economic, and political well-being and independence of the Southern people by all honourable means.” Obviously this brings up the familiar images of the rebel flag, white-hooded Ku Klux Klan members, and separate but equal facilities. And of course we’ve already fought one War Between the States that their side lost.
Still, if you ignore the racial portion of the equation (as Broadus is apparently doing, since he is a black man) there are some aspects of Southern life which could stand a revival. A couple in particular are the restoration of state’s rights and the Southern emphasis on family and community – the definition of which comes from achieving the greater good through local, privately-based efforts rather than a government program. Taken in that context, the selection of speakers makes a lot of sense.
Without question, this will be the kind of event that liberals fall over themselves condemning because they see almost everything through a lens of perceived racism. But the League of the South contends (and I think to a significant extent rightfully so) that southern Maryland, the Eastern Shore, and lower Delaware are bastions of the old South trapped inside northern states; on the other hand portions of Confederate states like Florida and Texas are no longer “southern” as they define it because of Yankee and Latino influences.
And while there isn’t a shooting war going on between the blue and the gray, there’s no denying we have a cultural and social war going on between the principles being stood for by the League of the South and ideologically similar, socially conservative and even libertarian groups versus those promulgated by their perception of government policy and the influence of Hollywood and the mainstream media.
Just witness the GOP Presidential primary schedule – Mitt Romney didn’t win any states in the Deep South except Florida, and Florida was won only because Romney carried the urban areas. The northern tier of the state and panhandle was Gingrich country, as was Newt’s adopted home state of Georgia and South Carolina. Rick Santorum carried Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Tennessee during his Presidential bid.
They didn’t call the South the Bible Belt for nothing, and over the last many decades it’s been Hollywood’s task to sell the idea of Southerners as white trash while government enforces policies which many evangelicals in the South disagree with. Yet Southerners are proportionally more likely to fight and die for their country.
But I guarantee that some of those who read this article are going to shake their head and think to themselves that these speakers are making a mistake appearing before such a group, one which believes the South should rise again and eventually secede from the rest of the Union. I have news for them: we already live in a polarized and divided nation, made so because it benefits certain people and groups at the expense of the rest of us. We don’t have to agree with everything the League of the South says, but we should give it the respect due any other group of citizens who have a political or social view to express. A country which allows both the hatred of Fred Phelps and the perversion of the Folsom Street Fair (just Google both, I’m not linking) definitely should make room for a group advocating a return to the better points of tradition.
Colombia scandal closer to home
The latest news sensation blown up by the need for content to serve the master of a 24/7/365 media, the Colombia Secret Service scandal has many of the ingredients of a juicy tale, with sex and celebrity among them.
But it’s also ensnared a collateral victim in all this, as recently nominated U.S. Senate candidate Dan Bongino is a former Secret Service agent who apparently knew some of those involved. Needless to say, those on the Left have been quick to tar him with the same brush and Bongino has responded:
With regard to the ongoing investigation into the activities of a group of Secret Service Agents in Colombia, I have chosen to defend the agency publicly & will continue to do so. I will not defend the abhorrent choices made by the individuals involved as they have tarnished the reputations of an elite group of men & women I am proud to call friends. I have been clear from the beginning both publicly & privately that I had close personal relationships with those involved but out of respect for their families, I adamantly refused to release their names. A left wing media outlet intentionally leaked the name of my brother without the surrounding facts. ALL of those involved, without exception, pursuant to a thorough investigation, must be held responsible for their choices. Integrity and leadership matter.
Already several of those involved have faced punishment or termination from the Secret Service, but if you look at this in a political sense this is a needless distraction in a race already made an uphill climb by Ben Cardin’s financial advantage – David Moon of Maryland Juice mocks Dan, writing that Bongino has “dustballs in (his campaign) wallet” while bragging about Ben Cardin’s millions in the bank. (Living in a high-tax Democratic state too many of the rest of us working Marylanders have dustballs in our wallets too, David.)
Now I’m not paranoid enough to see this as a conspiracy against a single Senatorial candidate in a race that’s really not on the national radar screen yet, but this sort of attention is going to be detrimental to Bongino until it clears its way off the front pages for the next scandal. This is true even though Bongino left the Secret Service nearly a year ago, when he began his campaign.
Instead, the campaign should be reset – even if some of us have to force the agenda in that direction – to speak about the real issues. Let’s look at a Facebook statement Bongino made Monday, for example:
It’s time to have a genuine conversation about what the administration refers to as “fairness”. What is “fair” about a limitless spending agenda which places untold burdens on my children? What is “fair” about a tax code written by insiders, paid for by insiders and benefiting insiders and their political acolytes? What is “fair” about telling parents just looking for a fair shot that education is the govt’s choice and not their’s? This is a conversation, we as Republicans, should embrace.
Ben Cardin supports all these things: the escalating spending, the tax code cronyism, the blind throwing of money at a dysfunctional public education system; above all, it’s all about preserving political power and he’s played that game at a variety of levels for 45 long years.
The early April primary makes the campaign a marathon – with just a small fraction of the voters casting their ballots most haven’t gotten into the political frame of mind yet and probably won’t do so until the national conventions later this summer. So the scandal comes at a good time insofar as Dan is concerned because it will be forgotten by this fall, but it also takes just that little bit away from the movement building we’ll need to oust an entrenched incumbent.
A new entry
As I alluded to the other day, I found out about this last week but waited until the person in question made it official. Two-time Salisbury City Council candidate Muir Boda is throwing his hat into the Congressional race under the Libertarian banner:
I have been asked by the Chair of the Maryland Libertarian Party to consider seeking the Libertarian nomination for Congress in the 1st District of Maryland. After much prayer, talking with Dr. Richard Davis and discussing it with my family, I have decided to seek the nomination. This is a couple years ahead of schedule on my political calendar, however the opportunity to represent my party and to be a part of the debate on the direction of our country is an honor and a duty that would be a disservice to my country if I turned it down.
(snip)
I am currently planning to have my Statement of Organization paperwork to the State Board of Elections by the end of May if the Central Committee meets before then. In preparation for that I am diligently working on my website and meeting with people who have expressed interest in serving on my campaign.
Like each of you, I am deeply concerned about the near future of our country. The National Debt, failed immigration policies, out of control government regulations, budget reform and tax reform are going to be the central focus of my campaign.
I look forward to sharing and debating ideas by offering solutions. The focus and tone of my campaign will be much like my previous two City Council campaigns, positive and solution oriented.
Once the campaign begins I will be issuing a regular campaign message that I will send to you.
Thank you for time and I look forward to saving our country together.
Of course, the Libertarian candidate hasn’t come anywhere close to winning the First District, but Davis drew 10,876 votes in the 2010 election, good for just under 3.8% of the vote. His 2008 effort was just enough to deny Frank Kratovil a majority of the vote as Davis drew over 8,000 votes in an election decided by far less. It may be a more Republican district this time around, but surely Andy Harris may have preferred the Libertarians take a pass this time around given he has a Democratic opponent who is trying to sound like a populist and a target on his back from national Democrats.
It should make for an interesting race.
Shaffer responds
This was addressed to the members of the “quad county caucus,” which presumably means that the 36 or so members of our four central committees (Wicomico, Worcester, Dorchester, Somerset) received this e-mail. It was in reply to the post I did endorsing Shaffer’s opponent, Louis Pope. I am posting this as closely as I can to the original, with slight edits as needed for formatting and shortening links. I’m also choosing not to blockquote the letter; instead I’ll divide it manually.
**********
In a recent article on Monoblogue, Michael Swartz of Wicomico County endorsed Louis Pope in the National Committeeman’s race, because as he put it it’s “a case of six of one and a half-dozen of the other.” With respect to Michael (Monoblogue is one of my favorite reads), I’d like to point out some differences between Louis and myself. At the end of the day, I’ve never been the type to hold grudges. Whether a Central Committee member endorses or votes for Louis is his/her prerogative, and I’m not going to let that stop me from working with said Committee member in trying to make our party better. But if anyone votes for Louis simply because they see no difference between the two of us, then I have utterly failed in communicating my vision for National Committeeman.
First off, Louis Pope is a two-term incumbent who believes that he is entitled to the position as long as he wishes to hold it. He has characterized the National Committeeman role as a job reserved only for the most senior member of our party, essentially nothing more than a reward for past service. On the other hand, I am an advocate of term limits (at my very first county Central Committee meeting after being elected, I proposed a bylaws amendment instituting term limits for Anne Arundel Central Committee members). I have stated that I would not seek this position beyond a second term, because it is imperative to the party that we bring in new people and new ideas on a regular basis. Allowing the party to be run by the same small group of people for decades at a time has done nothing to advance our cause. Furthermore, I believe that any election like this should be based on future expectations – what the candidate is proposing, not what they’ve done in the past. The NCM role is too important to be treated as a retirement package or social club membership.
Second, Louis was responsible for the Rule 11 waiver in 2010. But this is only one example of a demonstrated pattern of behavior. He has consistently used his position to sway the results in contested primary elections, by giving unfair advantages to one Republican candidate over another. This year he served as state campaign chair to the Romney campaign, dismissing the other candidates. Now, he is attempting to force a slate of at-large convention delegates and alternates on the State Central Committee at our upcoming convention. My view is that no party officer should be publicly favoring one candidate over another in a contested primary – whether by waiving Rule 11, joining a campaign staff before the primary election, or otherwise endorsing a candidate before the primary. Contested primaries make our party stronger, and the job of our party leaders should be to create a level playing field that allows all factions of our party to be heard, and ensures all candidates have a fair chance at winning over voters. Louis believes he should decide the primary outcomes; I believe the voters should be the ones making those decisions.
I also believe that one of the main responsibilities of this role is constituent service. For Louis, constituent service means nothing more than showing up twice a year at our conventions, and delivering a speech dictating the RNC’s decisions to us. My pledge as National Committeeman is to contact all 24 county Central Committees before each and every RNC meeting I attend; finding out what you need from the RNC so I can truly represent you. Any speech I give at the MD GOP conventions will include status updates on those items important to you. Along the same lines, the state party needs to do a better job of ”sharing the wealth” within our state. For example, the annual Red, White, and Blue fundraising dinner should be rotated around the state – and not simply handed to Howard County each year.
Louis believes it’s ok to spend RNC money on his reelection efforts (despite claiming he pays his own expenses). I’m sending you an email (not a “Paid by the RNC” mailing). As the minority party in Maryland, I believe we need to do things better and cheaper, like making the MD GOP’s communication efforts with the Central Committees 100% electronic. Besides cutting out wasteful spending, this also makes us more efficient. We all know what happens when we have to have a 10 day notice required because we’re relying on the US Mail.
Louis has lost the respect of many of his RNC peers, first by mismanaging spending on the Tampa convention and approving a budget putting the RNC in unprecedented debt, then by trying to stonewall RNC efforts to investigate that misspending and related rules violations. I have already been extended an invitation to join the Republican National Conservative Caucus and the RNC Conservative Steering Committee by other RNC members should I win this election. As much as my opponent would like you to believe it, Maryland’s stature within the RNC will not be diminished if he isn’t returned to the post. In fact, our credibility will be restored.
Here are two articles you should read about Louis Pope’s tenure on the RNC, and here are two items you should read about how my vision differs from that of Louis Pope.
As I alluded to earlier, our state party has been held back by a small number of people in positions of power, who put their future ahead of the party’s future. We have “leaders” who seek to hold on to their titles indefinitely. We have fundraisers who would rather take their rolodexes to their graves than pass on their skills and contacts by mentoring and training the next generation. We cannot survive as a party as long as there are people within it who are “too important to lose.” A big focus of my campaign has been on the need to grow our party within the younger generations of voters, to begin recruiting younger candidates who can reach those voters, and to ensure that our institutional knowledge doesn’t end once our current leaders are gone. But this will not happen as long as there are people at the top who refuse to get out of the way; people who would rather horde their few table scaps of power than ensure our party’s future.
Thank you for your consideration as your next National Committeeman. I look forward to seeing you at the convention. In the meantime, please visit my Facebook page to learn more about me and my campaign.
**********
In all honesty, I wish Scott had written this position paper about two to four weeks sooner because one of my chief complaints about his campaign was that it was so low key for several weeks. Because he was unknown to so many of those who serve on the 24 various Central Committees, it was truly up to him to make the rounds and explain why we need to topple the lone incumbent running. You can’t run your campaign in the last few weeks, because first impressions mean a lot in this particular election. His effort doesn’t favorably compare to the one Nicolee Ambrose is running in terms of mileage driven and meetings attended, at least that I’m aware of.
Now I’d like to respond to a few of the points Shaffer brings to the table. First of all, I don’t believe Louis Pope should be on the RNC for the rest of his life; in fact, I would make the case that 12 years is enough should he be fortunate enough to win this time. It’s why I believe Scott should pursue another party office in 2014 and if he’s still interested make a 2016 RNC run, which I’m more likely to support should I be able to win another term myself. If I do, that would be my last one because I’ve no interest in serving beyond 12 years either.
On the question of neutrality: I think some confusion over that was part of what doomed the Rule 11 resolution Heather Olsen and I put up at the Fall 2011 state convention. It’s a double-edged sword – for example, I was a Herman Cain backer at the time but I was also careful to note that the remainder of my Central Committee may not have agreed with me.
Yet being on the Central Committee should not preclude having an opinion on who is the best candidate. Where I object is when the party places its imprimatur on one candidate over another. And while Louis was one of those who invoked Rule 11 in 2010, he was a backer of our amendment last fall – even though he didn’t think it would be necessary anymore.
While I think Scott is understating Louis’s role to some extent – I recall Pope going through the finer points of fundraising at a seminar during a convention held in my first term, before Shaffer joined the AARCC, as one example – I do agree with Shaffer that communication could be better and Pope could be more of an advocate for individual concerns. That extends to Shaffer’s next point as well, although I would have to look and see about the “RNC money on his re-election efforts” since I don’t have any of Pope’s correspondence in front of me.
As far as the next charge, I would be interested to see those invitations. I’m quite aware that Louis is not the most conservative Republican in the Maryland party.
Yet I most agree with Scott’s final assessment of the state of our party. Having said that, though, and taking into account his paean to conservatism regarding those invitations he’s received, I’m having a hard time reconciling his conservative stance with his opposition to the effort to overturn Maryland’s newly adopted same-sex marriage law – a bill that almost every Republican in the General Assembly voted against. This places Scott on the opposite side of many who attended our quad-county meeting tonight. (I have much more on that tomorrow or Wednesday, depending on when I receive a certain piece of information.) Given that particular stance, I have a hard time supporting Scott. It doesn’t mean I couldn’t work with him if successful (so far in my five years on the Central Committee I haven’t voted for a single Chair on the first ballot, having voted against Jim Pelura, Audrey Scott, and Alex Mooney in succession) but I’ve grown to support them in time because they generally seem to have the party’s best interests at heart.
So it’s still pretty much six of one, a half-dozen of the other. I’m voting for Louis Pope, but I can see the case for voting in Scott Shaffer’s favor as well. Aside from one fundamental disagreement, he and I aren’t all that far apart. Shaffer can do a lot of good and prove his worth if he can lead Anne Arundel County as a testing ground for his GOP growth theories. We have 24 counties, and if something works in one it may be worth a shot elsewhere.
Where’s the beef?
During a political campaign of any sort, the candidate and his or her handlers will spin any information they can control in order to make himself or herself look completely golden. Massaging the image is the name of the game, so getting a peek behind the curtain can be a real eye-opener if you know where to look.
The other day I had forwarded to me an interesting e-mail from a member of a particular Central Committee which National Committeewoman candidate (and former MDGOP Chair) Audrey Scott had visited – it was not ours, since as of this writing Mrs. Scott has not visited Wicomico County as part of her bid. (Rumor has it she will come to our quad-county meeting later this week.) Aside from thanking them for their consideration and asking for their support, one of the key quotes from the note was this evidence of her financial savvy:
As State Party Chair, I retired a $250,000 debt in the first 5 months of my term and raised over $1.5M, in addition to obtaining another $1M from the RNC for the Victory Campaign.
To me, that seemed quite odd. Read more
Another legislative wrap-up (or two)
Here are a couple items as we await the determination whether there will be a special session for the General Assembly.
First I have a legislative wrapup from a pair of Baltimore County Delegates, Susan Aumann and Kathy Szeliga. Take your pick; they are essentially the same. I find it interesting how the two have pooled their efforts, which I suppose makes sense since their constituencies are relatively similar.
This leads me to note that I’ll have the final chapter of the McDermott notes in the next few days. Whether he will be as breezy as the duo of ladies seemed to be remains to be seen, but I’m sure he was frustrated by the overall tone of the session and most of the outcomes.
And then there was the assertion, repeated by Annie Linskey at the Sun, that the budget is not balanced. Yet it seems to me we’ve made a number of midcourse corrections in the past when revenues weren’t as expected, so the only difference is that in this case the cuts have to be made by July 1st, when fiscal 2013 begins. Meanwhile, now that the $218 million Maryland Mega Millions jackpot has been claimed the state already has a little bit of unexpected revenue. Somehow the money is always found.
Meanwhile, from the perspective of the pro-business advocacy group Maryland Business for Responsive Government, the “doomsday” budget is misnamed:
“Ironically, the Governor and legislature could have called the doomsday budget a ‘new day’ budget, declared victory and gone home,” said (MBRG President Kimberly) Burns. ”But it was never intended to be taken seriously, and there will now be a mad scramble to continue government spending at record levels as a special session looms on the horizon.”
When spending is up hundreds of millions of dollars (instead of over a billion, as Governor O’Malley would have liked) the fight over semantics is fairly meaningless, and the ‘doomsday’ is more like the day of reckoning when state taxpayers have their last dimes shaken from them. What really matters is the fact the state is spending more money than it did in fiscal 2012 and it has to come from somewhere.
But I can say that one local business is thriving, and perhaps that’s in some small part due to the patronage of my readers. I’m pleased to announce that the Robinson Family of Business has extended their sponsorship of my enterprise! So look for their advertisement atop the website for awhile longer – if you’d like to join them and my other sponsors, the details are here.
Tolerance: the Left doesn’t practice what it preaches
If you thought the debate over same-sex marriage was going to be genteel and conducted by adults, don’t say you weren’t warned of what was to come.
This was sent by Protect Marriage Maryland as an example of some of the sign vandalism and theft which has occurred since churches and supporters of traditional marriage around the state began putting up signs urging people to “protect marriage” over the first few months of the year in response to the bill signed by Governor O’Malley legalizing same-sex marriage in 2013. Of course, PMM is among the groups seeking to place the issue on November’s ballot.
And with a number of events where people are expected to gather before the initial May 31 signature gathering deadline (including next weekend’s Pork in the Park celebration and the Salisbury Festival the following weekend) we could see efforts made at intimidating those who would seek or give their signatures to petition the bill to referendum. The template is already there based on some of the events surrounding last year’s petition drive to put in-state tuition for illegal aliens on the ballot, not to mention the controversy which swirled around California’s gay marriage referendum and its aftermath. The price of deviating from political correctness can be steep.
Yet I’ve often wondered why those who believe gay marriage must become the law of the state are so afraid. They trumpet polls which state their side is winning, and while it takes the signatures of just 3 percent of those who voted in the last gubernatorial election to place a referendum on the ballot, it was nearly a 20 year hiatus since the last time Maryland had seen a successful push for allowing voters to decide. If they are so right there shouldn’t be a need to deface signs and perhaps intimidate petition signature gatherers and contributors to the pro-marriage effort, should there?
I happen to believe in traditional marriage and I’ve already signed the petition to place the issue on the ballot. Hopefully somewhere around 150,000 to 200,000 Marylanders will do the same, and while they’re at it place our gerrymandered Congressional districts to referendum as well. (Somehow I don’t think anyone will be putting out signs exhorting us to save the Congressional districts, though.) Perhaps I will take a little flak for doing so, but I happen to believe that changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples will eventually lead to it including adult-child weddings and unions between multiple partners of one or both genders. Once one threshold is crossed, those who will take a mile when given an inch won’t be satisfied with the one notch in the bedpost they’ve achieved.
And spare me the equation of the relatively recent legalization of interracial marriage and same-sex marriage. Once civil rights advocates got their desire to eliminate racial barriers to marital bliss, they were completely satisfied. Yet getting all the legal benefits and protections of marriage through the adoption of civil unions isn’t good enough for the radical queer movement – it has to be considered the equal of marriage between one man and one woman, or nothing.
Finally, it’s worth reading this gay man’s theory that being gay is more of a fad than anything, done for shock value. If what he’s saying is true – and admittedly this is very anecdotal, single-source evidence – then perhaps we should rethink the idea of changing a century or more of law (not to mention many generations of custom) for the flavor of the day.
Remember, the maturity level of some gay marriage proponents is measured by the behavior they exhibit. Is defacing a sign an indicator that the merits of same-sex nuptials can be rationally argued? I don’t think so.
Last race standing
About 35,000 votes were cast, and as of tonight’s results there were just 82 votes separating the two front-runners. But this evening John LaFerla conceded the Democratic nomination in the First District Congressional race to Wendy Rosen. In a statement on his Facebook site LaFerla wrote:
Now that most of the absentee and provisional ballots have been counted, it is clear that the result of the Democratic Primary in the 1st Congressional District will not change and I will not be nominee of our party.
I would like to congratulate Wendy Rosen for winning the nomination of our party and I wholeheartedly endorse her candidacy and urge all my supporters to get behind her so we can defeat Andy Harris this November.
I want to thank everyone who supported our campaign to bring common sense to Congress. While we came up short, the issues we talked about remain vital to the future of our District and our Nation. While I won’t be in Congress, I hope to continue working with all of you in other ways to build a brighter future for everyone in our community.
So for the first time in recent memory no one from the Eastern Shore will be among the two major-party contenders for the Congressional seat, after a streak of Eastern Shore representatives for the First District – which for the decade between 2000 and 2010 was roughly a 50-50 voter split between Eastern and Western shores – came to an end with the election of Andy Harris. Both Wayne Gilchrest and Frank Kratovil lived on the Eastern Shore; while Harris owns a condominium on the Eastern Shore his principal residence is in Baltimore County, as is opponent Wendy Rosen’s.
Yet while the First District was perhaps made even more Republican, there is peril in Andy’s re-election bid. There’s no doubt that the public perception of Harris as stiff and uncaring will be made even more apparent as he faces a female opponent for the first time as a Congressional candidate. Certainly the Sun and other media outlets will do their best to soften Rosen’s image over the summer. (Harris defeated female Democratic opponents in both his State Senate re-election runs in 2002 and 2006, however.)
In an interview on Forbes.com Rosen describes herself as a “recovering Republican” who left the party for because she perceived it as unfriendly to small business:
Her frustration has grown to disenchantment with the Republican Party, which she says only supports big business and eventually led to her decision to run for Congress as a Democrat.
“I always thought the Republican Party supported small business and included small business in that definition (of being pro-business),” she says. “I think the Democratic Party is more receptive to creative ideas needed to revitalize our smallest businesses. The Republican Party represents the defense industry and the insurance industry. They talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.”
I have to chuckle on that one because she’s about 180 degrees out of phase, at least when it comes to the current occupant of the Oval Office and titular head of the Democrat Party. If there’s anyone who is selling government to the highest bidder who can afford the largest group of lobbyists it’s those in Rosen’s current political home.
And if you look at Rosen’s key issues, it’s clear she’s trying to portray herself as a friend to small business. But what I see from her is more micromanagement and government picking winners and losers. I’m not seeing the big ideas which will level the playing field and allow all companies a fair shake like a reduction in regulations and a more sound tax policy which would put more money in their pockets, allowing them to hire more workers and create more jobs. That’s how you “fill those vacant shops and give small business owners the tools and support necessary for them to succeed” – you get out of their way.
Wendy rails about how too many items come from other countries and aren’t American made, but has she considered why the products are made overseas? Well, there is a cost of labor advantage, but by the time you add shipping costs that is practically negated. Yet taxing business at the industrialized world’s highest rate (as of April 1 Japan lowered its corporate tax rate below that of the United States) and writing reams of regulations (a study for the Small Business Administration in 2010 pegged the annual regulatory cost at $1.75 trillion – yes, that’s trillion with a “tr”) isn’t going to create American jobs. Nor will it win many friends in the business world – that is, unless you have the lobbyists and clout to write the rules in such a way to stifle competition. She’s suspiciously silent on those aspects of the issue. And what about the energy industry and gasoline prices?
I’m pleased Wendy seems to have found a way to succeed in her chosen field, although when she talks about walking the halls of Congress for over 10 years she begins to sound like the lobbyists she detests. But I think we have tried things her way for a number of years and those methods don’t work anymore. Back off the entrepreneurs of America, give them breathing room from excessive burdens, and watch them grow.
A fork we stick in Rick
So it ends, not with a bang but more of a whimper.
The news that Rick Santorum has opted to suspend his campaign just two weeks before a multistate primary where opponent Mitt Romney would be expected to do well in all the states – except possibly Santorum’s home state of Pennsylvania – coupled with the withdrawal in all but name by Newt Gingrich over the weekend (“he had more things to hit with than I did”), means that Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee come September. Sure, Ron Paul is still in the race but he hasn’t won a primary yet.
Obviously that’s frustrating news to Santorum backers (like The Other McCain) as well as residents of the five states (including Delaware) who were expectantly awaiting their turn in the national spotlight, but it also brings up a couple interesting questions.
- Who will be the second banana on the ticket? We saw a rejuvenated Republican Party for a brief time in 2008 when Sarah Palin was selected, so one would hope Romney assuages conservatives with a strong pick.
- Will the electorate in the remaining states which have not conducted primary elections embrace Mitt as the nominee?
I don’t know what the rules are for ballot withdrawal in the remaining states, but it’s quite likely that the last four standing (Romney, Paul, Gingrich, and Santorum) are on the ballot in 17 of the 19 remaining states (Nebraska and Montana are caucus states.) And we can look back at Virginia for a case study in just how much anti-Romney sentiment was out there – in a contest limited to Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, Romney couldn’t even carry 60 percent of the vote. Had it been Santorum or Gingrich on the ballot straight up against Romney, Rick or Newt may have carried the state.
It would be quite surprising now if Romney didn’t get a clear majority of the votes, but the depth of anti-Romney sentiment may be most expressed in states where Santorum or Gingrich were thought to be strongest (most likely Texas, Kentucky, Arkansas, Indiana, and South Dakota among remaining primary states.) But this ceding of the Presidential field could also have a detrimental effect on conservatives in downticket races as well – one example being the U.S. Senate primary in Indiana where moderate Senator Richard Lugar faces a primary opponent in Richard Mourdock.
But all the talk of a possible brokered convention and a white knight coming in to save the GOP will now be replaced by emotions from anger at the establishment to outright despair from the Right that Romney can’t win and we’re doomed to another four long years of Barack Obama. Yet if every conservative in the country came out and voted, we would win because Democratic turnout tends to lag behind Republican regardless of whatever tricks the Democrats try to pull. It’s simple math – around 40 percent of the country self-identifies as conservative while only 20 percent or so self-identify as liberal. Even if the squishy middle splits evenly, we win.
And it’s not like the incumbent has much of a record to run on, unless you define record deficits, record number of adults out of the work force, and record high gas prices as records to brag about. Obama has those.
So here we are: Obama vs. Romney. It wasn’t my personal choice (since I voted for Santorum after all my other good choices split the scene) but that’s the way it’s going to be.
And now for something (almost) completely different:
I have it on very good authority that someone familiar to local voters is going to jump into the First District Congressional race. That’s all I’m going to say for now, but watch this space for more details.
The terror is not over, folks
From the sounds of a wild last few minutes of the 2012 General Assembly Session, we have a budget without the means to pay for it. Fortunately for the state, it wouldn’t take effect until July 1 so it’s extremely likely we will have a Special Session called by Governor O’Malley.
The state had 90 days to get this done – and they failed. But we have the distinct possibility of gay marriage and we ratified the 17th Amendment nearly 100 years after passage. Way to go, guys…that’s the leadership we deserve I guess for voting so poorly all these years.
I’ll surely have more reaction in the morning.
Update: First out of the chute, Delegate Nic Kipke:
In unprecedented action the House stands adjourned Sine Die and the Senate stands adjourned Sine Die. Hundreds of bills did not pass including all of the tax increases! The people have won a huge battle! Now Governor O’Malley will have to call a special session to raise taxes on Marylanders giving you another chance to contact your elected officials to voice your concerns.
Update 2: Delegate Donna Stifler’s reaction:
WOW!!! Worst sine die since I’ve been down here. No balloons and confetti this year. Never seen anything like what I saw tonight. Rules changing to fit results, people not being allowed to speak, just unreal. Glad to be done. Or at least until the Governor calls a special session so we can finish.
The “mainstream” media weighs in: Washington Post and Baltimore Sun. Maryland Reporter also has their take.
It sounds to me like the state has a budget, but one just not as large and laden with tax and revenue increases as they would like. If so, it seems like there is no need for a Special Session because the so-called “doomsday” budget (which, if it’s $500 million less than proposed, is STILL larger than last year’s) is balanced and approved. Governor O’Malley cannot veto a budget, by state law.
But it’s most likely that a Special Session will be called because we know better than to think Martin O’Malley will leave Democrat leadership hanging out to dry in this state. They both have something the other wants: O’Malley makes the Democratic leadership relevant as they jockey for position in a post-O’Malley political landscape and the Democrats have the power to make this state into the liberal Potemkin village the governor wants to show for his 2016 Presidential bid. For example, O’Malley probably has no use for the gay population of Maryland aside from their votes, but gay marriage is one of those progressive issues he has to show “leadership” on to be a national Democratic contender, sort of like being pro-abortion became required for national Democrats a couple decades back.
Update 3: Delegate Michael Smigiel calls out the “doomsday” misnomer:
I need the help of everyone who reads or posts on this site. I need you to call the media, radio, TV and newspapers around the State and make sure they stop reporting the “Doomsday Budget” means “deep cuts in services”. The simple fact is the “Doomsday Budget is $ 400 million more than last year’s budget. How can cuts be necessary when you grew the size of the budget by 400 million dollars? O’Malley is trying to spin this as some great tragedy for entitlements and education. It is an opportunity to show fiscal restraint and responsibility.
Because, Michael, the spoiled child Martin O’Malley and his special interest buddies didn’t get all the wealth redistribution they wanted. In the end, it’s not really about how much is spent and raised, it’s all about power. If they hold the money and they get to decide what to do with it, that’s a huge ego trip which can’t be replicated if We the People control our own purse strings and spend as we see fit. Don’t ever forget it.
Update 4: The pithy Maryland Democratic response:
Only (Maryland Republicans) would gloat over the prospect of firing teachers and police officers.
Prove it. And let’s not forget exactly who could have passed anything they wanted because they have enough of a majority to do so. Sorry, Democrats, you OWN this mess but I don’t foresee you taking any steps to clean it up soon because it will give you a convenient excuse to blame Republicans. That narrative doesn’t play here.
Eastern Shore 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.)
