Politics – Page 296

Odds and ends no. 7

A little bit on a lot of subjects tonight, with some help from the Sun and Gazette.

Today Governor O’Malley testified in favor of Maryland repealing its little-used death penalty, which is already on hiatus following a Court of Appeals ruling late last year. But there was a good point made by State Senator Nancy Jacobs, who related that David McGuinn, already serving a life sentence, stands accused of murdering a guard at the Maryland House of Correction last July. Jacobs noted that if McGuinn is convicted that this killing would be “a freebie for him” if the death penalty were repealed since the state would have no higher punishment available.

Personally, I thought the statistics cited by O’Malley were dubious at best, particularly on the cost of housing the inmate vs. the lengthy appeals and court battles that seem to be necessary to see justice served. It’s the tying up courts with endless and sometimes frivilous appeals that adds to the cost of the death penalty, and a limitation on the number of appeals would cut the cost significantly.

Leaving aside the irony that the party pushing the rights of people tried and convicted of taking another’s life in cold blood is also the one who advocates keeping the wholesale slaughter of unborn babies legal, I think the death penalty needs to stay and does serve as a deterrent. Further, it’s because of DNA testing and other forensic advances that Kirk Bloodsworth and others have come off death row, so the argument that an innocent person may be executed rings much more hollow as well.

Speaking of pushing rights of people tried and convicted, hearings are set for at least one bill that would repeal the three-year waiting period already in place for multiply-convicted felons who have served their sentence to regain voting rights. The gentleman who was quoted in the story only has to wait a few more months to be legally granted the right under Maryland’s current law anyway – and had he been convicted of just one count he’d already be eligible. Interestingly enough, the bill also removes the prohibitations on people convicted of buying and selling votes to regain the franchise.

And of course, here’s more voting madness brought to you by Maryland Democrats. As expected, the early voting bill cleared the House of Delegates 101-31. On the majority side locally were the three Democrats (Cane, Conway, Mathias) and Page Elmore, while Delegates Addie Eckardt and Jeannie Haddaway correctly voted against this measure. (A similar bill passed the State Senate 31-16, and I’m guessing both our Senators were in the minority simply because that roll isn’t on the General Assembly website quite yet.) As I’ve said before, there’s no need for this early voting when we already have “shall-issue” absentee ballots. Those multi-vote bus trips to Ocean City for inner-city Baltimore residents who get the (also legal) “walking-around” money from their Democrat ward heelers might not be as much a joke as I thought when I came up with that analogy.

I’ll put an end to the bad news from Annapolis for tonight by commenting that not only are Democrats trying to pick up votes through the devious means of adding convicted felons to the registered voter list and allowing them weeks to vote as many times as necessary, they’re also trying to buy union votes by ramming through a so-called “living wage” – that hearing was yesterday and all of the anti-business types made it to testify. While state Labor Secretary Tom Perez stated that the goal of this effort was to “strengthen and grow the middle class”, this will certainly make state contracts more expensive by arbitrarily increasing the salaries of particular workers in private companies, and in turn discourage bidders on state contracts who don’t want to deal with the additional red tape – fewer bidders means less competition and higher bids. And of course taxes have to pay for these contracts. So the state puts money in some middle-class pockets but takes it out of a whole lot more of them through higher costs. Plus, see for yourself the bill’s enforcement provisions, which sound like they could be a real good witch hunt against a business who may innocently slip up.

And before I finished, I wanted to make some comments on the coverage of last night’s candidate forum. Apparently my assumption that “Cato” and Joe Albero were both present was correct, as were commenters from Duvafiles – “sneeky peek”, “sbygal”, and “iyeska” – based on what they added to Bill Duvall’s post.

Saying that, I’m a bit disappointed by the bloggers’ heavy emphasis on how poorly Gary Comegys did. Like it or not, I do have to agree with what Tim Spies said this morning on Bill Reddish’s radio show – most voters in Salisbury get their news from the Daily Times so all that they know about Gary Comegys from last night is that he essentially ran on his record. The DT also pegged Terry Cohen as a tax raiser, as well as citing Louise Smith and Tim Spies’ calls for an Adequate Public Financing Ordinance. This effectively plasters the reformers with a high-taxation label. Meanwhile, John Harris and John Atkins were placed in the “growth pays for growth” camp that the current City Council people seem to believe is the case (giving out TIF’s to developers aside.) This implies that they’ll not pass along what are sure to be increased city costs to taxpayers.

This election is not just a referendum on one City Councilman. And Joe, because of what I’ve stated above I doubt Gary will finish out of the top six as you think he will – in fact I’m of the opinion he’ll be the number one vote getter in the primary, solely on name recognition. It’s a lot like people think about Congress – Congress as a whole is terrible and corrupt, but my Congressman isn’t one of those terrible and corrupt people.

While we as bloggers are gaining influence in the city of Salisbury, I’d still guess that 80% of the voters in Salisbury couldn’t name one of the local blogs. Obviously our writing community is one made up of people who are more than average in the motivation department; otherwise, I wouldn’t sit here for two hours writing this, perusing the Maryland media for backup items to my assertations while trying to make this effort sound like one that makes sense to the reader AND one they enjoy reading. The same sort of thing applies to my cohorts, who spend a lot of time on their websites as well.

So when bloggers complain about the lack of balance in the regular media, they need to avoid being the pots that call the kettle black. While as a group they may not like the actions of “Bubba” Comegys, they also need to give reasons that people should vote FOR the alternative candidates too.

One final note. Speaking of the regular media, yours truly is going to get a crack at it on Tuesday morning. I’ll be filling the “hot seat” at 7:40 on Bill Reddish’s AM Salisbury radio program (1320AM, WICO). This is literally hot off the press, so there’s a scoop for you all.

Missing the event

Well, I have to apologize to “lwd”, whoever he or she is. I didn’t get the e-mail message in time yesterday to post on tonight’s candidate forum, nor could I make it myself. I did see that there was notice posted on the other three “major” blogs in town so I’m sure hundreds read it.

But I was surprised that there were no articles regarding the forum up yet on Salisbury News or even Delmarva Dealings (as of about 10:30.) The reason I would’ve liked to have seen something on either (or both) website(s) was to gather the attendance and mood of those present. To be honest though, my guess is that there were almost more candidates and hangers-on than general public. The Daily Times story cites “dozens” but that could be as few as two dozen. So I’ll figure about 60 folks and hope I’m quite low.

The larger point that I want to make is that I spent a little time upon my return home looking up the numbers from previous Salisbury elections. My supposition for this election is that about 2,200 voters will vote. I believe they get three votes apiece, which leaves a “pool” of about 6,600 votes. Thus getting 1,000 votes should be enough to make it into the general election field, but more often than not the contest is between the top four in a race that eventually is weeded down to three.

So who looks like the top six? It’s very hard to figure since there really hasn’t been all that much said about most candidates. Aside from incumbent Gary Comegys and Terry Cohen, who both seem to have decent financial backing and name recognition so they should easily advance, I think most of the other eight could finish anywhere from third to 10th. But I’d say the “bubble” candidates are Neil Bayne, Patrick Hannon, Keith Wright, and maybe John Harris. John Atkins, Don Ewalt, Louise Smith, and Tim Spies are probably the middle tier but turnout will be key for them, making sure their supporters make it out to the polls. If they can’t get people out for them, they could slide down to 7th or 8th and not advance.

A lot of decisions will be made based on a small number of factors, though:

How the candidates come across in the media – in particular what is said about them in the Daily Times, their performance in Saturday’s televised debate, and to a lesser extent, their interviews with Bill Reddish on WICO and their coverage on the local blogs.
How much actual door-to-door and face time campaigning they can get in.
And how much assistance they get from loyal supporters in putting up yard signs, making sure people get to the polls to vote for them, etc. etc. Don’t be surprised if there’s not a push to vote for a single candidate (bullet vote) sprung up someplace along the line.
Name recognition may help here. Obviously Gary Comegys has been on the ballot before, as has Neil Bayne in the recent past. I know Louise Smith has been on for GOP Central Committee, and I believe Patrick Hannon, Don Ewalt and Keith Harris have ran for some public office as well. It’s my recollection that the other four are first-time candidates.
On the other hand, any gaffes made will hurt their cause, like the “blite” mailing debacle.

I do want to open up a little more as far as comments go regarding tonight’s performances, which is why I brought up the topic. Not knowing what the other blogs will do regarding their coverage, I did feel that it was important to post on the Salisbury Council race even though I have no say in the matter. So feel free to share your impressions if you were there!

President’s Day appeal

I actually wrote this piece about 2 weeks ago (on the day before Reagan’s birthday) as an e-mail to my fellow GOP office holders and a few other candidates. To date I’ve received more responses telling me that my mail has bounced back to me than responses to the actual e-mail (exactly ONE.) It’s a pretty sad state of affairs.

You’ll understand what I’m attempting to do once you read this message. By the way, through the magic of postdating my post, I’m sitting here Sunday morning doing this but the post will come up at midday Monday. In reality I should be sitting at work when this posts, because I’m a member of the productive private sector!

So here is the appeal I sent out to perhaps 30 to 40 people. Let me know if you’re interested yourself or know someone who is…

Greetings to my fellow Central Committee members, and others:

With today being the eve of Ronald Reagan’s birthday, I thought this would be a great time to recommit ourselves to the task of building our local Republican Party. Among other things about this great President, he inspired me to get involved in my local political scene. Naturally the outlet I chose once I learned of the opportunity was joining my local Young Republican chapter.

It is part of our task as Central Committee members to “establish and support Republican clubs.” While there is a Lower Shore Young Republican Club, insofar as I know it’s currently inactive and this leaves a serious void in getting our message to resident voters between the ages of 18 and 40. And let’s face it, the membership in the “regular” GOP organizations is graying. It’s time to start to rebuild the party structure here lest we begin to suffer the demographic decline that already affects the Democrat Party.

So today is the day we need to recommit ourselves as a group to building up the Lower Shore Young Republicans. I’m starting this by seeking contact information for those folks you know who could be interested in giving the Lower Shore club a boost. (This is also why I’ve added other former candidates and elected officials to the mailing list; some of their younger campaign volunteers or they themselves would also be likely to want to join the reestablished YR club.) Once I can get a database of current members and other who are interested, we can begin the work of making this club more active.

Because I’m (barely!) over the age of 40, I technically cannot be a member of the Lower Shore Young Republicans. However, I’m willing to take some time to be a facilitator and mentor to this group, as I was a member of the Toledo Metropolitan Area Young Republican Club from 1995-2001 and served as TMAYRC President in 2000. So I have a little bit of expertise on the subject, and I’m sure the state chapter would help with whatever blanks we would need to have filled in.

I did a little bit of research over the weekend. There are 36,282 registered GOP voters between Somerset, Wicomico, and Worcester counties. Based on the Wicomico numbers, roughly 1/4 of these are considered active voters, and about 1/8 of that active group are between 18-40. That leaves about 1,100 voters in the tri-county area who fit both categories. (There’s probably more now as many have just registered and voted in 2006, my information on active voters is pre-election.)

But a good club can be formed and run with 25 dedicated people – that’s just 2% of these voters. And as the group becomes more active, more people join, and more can be accomplished.

A modest YR club can be just a gathering of people who meet on a regular basis to socialize and discuss political issues. As they become larger and/or more ambitious, they can add to this effort by sending their representatives to state conventions. The next step would be campaign involvement – volunteering as a group to start, then taking the step to assist in fundraisers (eventually hosting their own). Some ambitious YR members may run these campaigns or even become candidates themselves for local or state offices.

Eventually, a YR group can become large enough to host a state convention or hold standalone events for the general public like a Ronald Reagan Birthday Party or their own straw poll. I know all this because I was a member of a club that did all of these things. At our peak, we had about 55 registered members. While the base population is smaller here than in Toledo, the Lower Shore is also far more Republican.

What the reformed Lower Shore Young Republican Club will do is totally up to them. But this is the perfect time to push for a renewal. We’re already seeing the disastrous effects of Democrat leadership on the state and local levels, yet we have plenty of time to build momentum for a big push in 2008 for the Presidential election and then again in 2010 for our next state election.

One reason I ran for my Central Committee post was to get more youth involved in the party, because of my firm belief that our next two generations can be the ones who return the country to the path our Founding Fathers intended. Thus I apologize for the length of this communication; however, America’s freedom is a subject I’m damn passionate about.

So here’s how you can help. If you know of people who would be interested in becoming a YR, please get their contact info to me – heck, forward them this note if you want and they can put in the effort. My e-mail address is michael@monoblogue.us.

Right now, in our state our party has nothing, and on a federal level we only have the Presidential post assured for two more years. When you have nothing, you have nothing to lose. But our nation has everything to lose if we don’t begin to act.

Sincerely,

Michael Swartz

Member, Wicomico County Republican Central Committee

Let’s see if this does any better at creating a database for me to work from. As I said, I can’t be a member because I’m over the age but I can be the person who helps get things underway again. Despite the voting record of some of our GOP representatives (who shall remain nameless, you know who you are) we at the grassroots can create a push to reinvent the GOP if the youth want it to be reinvented in a manner to become more reflective of its principles. Reinventing the party and making it a majority locally, statewide, and nationally is the goal I’m out to achieve.

A 50 year plan: The Long War

Editor’s note: In breaking news, the Senate did not advance this resolution, voting 56-34 in its favor. Sixty votes were needed to advance it. Seven Republicans broke ranks and nine did not vote; meanwhile, save for Joe Lieberman, all 50 healthy Democrats voted “aye”. I found it most interesting (and it buttresses my point below) that Sen. Harry Reid stated that any subsequent actions would not be nonbinding. I’m not surprised.

I actually hadn’t planned on doing this chapter quite so soon, but yesterday’s vote in the House on a non-binding resolution (H. Con. Res. 63) goaded me into action. First of all, I’m quite disappointed that our Congressman, Wayne Gilchrest, was one of 17 Republicans who broke ranks and voted for the resolution. So I wrote him an e-mail, which reads as follows:

As you’re probably aware, you and I have had a number of policy disagreements over the course of the last two years I’ve resided in Maryland. It’s apparent from your voting record and the words that I write on my website that my political philosophy is quite a bit to the right of yours even though we both are elected officials in the same party.

However, I’ve not been so disappointed with a vote you’ve cast than the one you cast today on H. Con. Res. 63. In your press release, you tell us that “(o)ur troops deserve to know that their elected leaders back home care enough about their lives to make sure that their mission is justified and their cause is just. As a former Marine platoon sergeant, I know I hoped for that when I was in Vietnam.” But my contention is that the majority Democrats are going to use this resolution as the first step on a slippery slope to start squeezing our forces in Iraq; and knowing this, the enemy can bide its time and wait until President Bush has no choice but to withdraw, handing the enemy a victory they surely could not accomplish on the battlefield in a fair fight.

In June 1970 the Senate passed a similar resolution regarding the Viet Nam war. This resolution, known as the Cooper-Church Amendment, ended funding for U.S. troops and advisers in Cambodia and Laos, banned combat operations over Cambodian airspace to support Cambodian forces without prior congressional approval, and cut funding to support Southern Vietnamese forces stationed outside of Vietnam. It was a small step and seemed harmless enough because it would have no real effect on American troops fighting within Viet Nam. (In fact, the original bill died because of a veto threat, only to have a slightly modified measure pass a lame-duck Congress that December.)

But Cooper-Church opened the door, and once the GOP was blown out in the 1974 elections, Democrats felt free to cut off funding from the Viet Nam war entirely. We all now know what tragedies awaited the people of Southeast Asia in the years immediately after our shameful withdrawal. After Saigon fell, did it not make you wonder as a Viet Nam veteran whether the lives of friends and fellow servicemen that were lost in Southeast Asia were sacrificed in vain?

My stance on this war has also been in support of our troops. But further, I support their overall mission and I support the President’s prayerful handling of this mission. I have to believe that President Bush made the decision to add more troops after consulting with his top military brass, and decided as Commander-in-Chief that it would be the best course of action to take. No President has ever handled a war flawlessly, if he did, we would have lost no lives while attaining victory. To me, the increase in troop strength combined with more aggressive rules of engagement when it comes to Iranian interference in Iraqi affairs would go a long way toward victory.

Moreover, we face an enemy that does not deal fairly at the diplomatic table; where lying and deceit are acceptable tactics in their effort to spread radical Islam globally, and sacrifice of one’s self is considered noble as a shortcut to Paradise. The only way we can defeat this sort of enemy is to wipe them out in whatever manner necessary to demoralize them into surrender. Words will not do it, but in my mind military action has some chance of success. But by your vote today, you’ve made our nation take a step backward in this fight, and it’s a sign of weakness our enemies will surely find a way to take advantage of.

It also bears repeating that we were warned at the start about the time this effort would take. Noted President Bush on September 20, 2001:

“This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.”

Americans have seemed to forget that these words were spoken just over five years ago. We also seem to forget that several other countries have felt the sting of radical Islamic terror in the last few years, with major events in Great Britain, Indonesia, France, and Spain just to name a few. With the exception of the British, none of these countries have (or had in Spain’s case) a significant number of combat personnel in Iraq or Afghanistan, the main military fronts in this war.

By its nature, this war is totally different than the “Cold War” of my youth. However, the fear of nuclear annihilation is still present. Instead of the fallout shelters and drills of the 1950’s that were to prepare us for a missile attack from the Soviet Union, the threat is now just as great of a so-called “suitcase nuke” or “dirty bomb” rendering a city uninhabitable and costing untold American lives. Additionally, China has demonstrated an ability to destroy satellites, which could be another tool terrorists engage eventually. With warm relations between China and Iran and Tehran’s support of radical Islamic groups we’re currently engaged with in Iraq, it’s not difficult to imagine this technology becoming another weapon in the Islamic arsenal.

But Democrats seem to be in favor of diplomacy rather than solving this through the aggressive use of force. I heard this point made Thursday as Bill Reddish on WICO radio had a short interview with Maryland’s junior Senator Ben Cardin. Senator Cardin made the following point:

“Sacnctions will work in Iran if we have the support of the international community.”

I placed the emphasis on “if” because, as was proven in the “Oil-For-Food” program and in the assistance Russia and China have given the Iranians in their war efforts, that the so-called international community will cheat when they feel it’s in their best interests to. Combine that with the stated tendency of radical Islamists (and for that matter Communists like North Korea) to extend one hand at the negotiating table while readying the knife in the other hand for that stab in the back, it’s clear in my eyes that the only way diplomacy works is when one side is completely subdued and has its terms of surrender dictated to them.

Yesterday the Patriot Post published an essay that enlightened me about the two main and competing sects of Islam. I found it interesting that just 10 percent of Muslims subscribe to the Shi’ite sect, but that 10 percent are a majority in five nations. These five include both Iraq and Iran. So I looked a bit further and found that on the other hand, the Salafists (or Wahhabists) consider themselves as a purer form of the majority Sunni sect. This is the brand of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and to which Osama bin Laden subscribes. Also, the Taliban in Afghanistan are another subsect of Sunnis. In essence, our fight against radical Islam is against a small portion of the entire Islamic world – however, that small portion tends to congregate in countries that are some of the leaders against us in the Long War.

Because of this factor, we will likely be fighting these enemies for quite a spell; thus a difficult question arises as to what sort of help we can get. One theory I have on this is that we need to identify and support Islamic nations that are more moderate to help in this battle. To me, this is part of the reason we’re in Iraq and Afghanistan, making an effort to install leadership that is more friendly to our interests. Other countries such as Bahrain, Turkey, and Kuwait have also been helpful in providing forward bases for us to work from.

It’s here that I depart from the more mainstream conservative movement. Part of reinventing Republicanism is facing the fact that we are the source of freedom for the globe, and a healthy chunk of the world economy. Thus, our national interests transcend our borders and isolationism cannot succeed in the world today. While we do need to secure our borders better and work on free but fair trade (more on these subjects in future chapters) we need to realize that having American troops in far-flung places on the globe is going to be a fact for the foreseeable future. It’s one thing that our Founders may not have thought of in their era.

For example, George Washington opined in his Farewell Address:

“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.”

But he then stated:

“Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”

Where I differ with Washington solely lies in the fact that we are not in a “detached and distant situation” anymore. As I spoke of earlier, our interests are now global and our foreign policy must reflect this fact. To this end, we must do whatever it takes and resort to whichever “temporary alliances” are needed to subdue the threat posed by radical Islam.

I do have one other main point to make. Some are of the opinion that we need to pull out of the United Nations, and I tend to agree with them.

Unfortunately, by its nature the UN is populated with all nations, regardless of their devotion to the freedom of their citizens. A tyrannical nation like China has an equal say and veto power there as we do, therefore I believe it’s truly not in our best interest to be fully invested in such an organization. Add in the fact that it’s a bloated and relatively corrupt bureaucracy saddled by its inertia (hmm, sounds like the federal government) and the benefits from divesting ourselves from the UN grow. After all, the UN did nothing to a tyrant who violated seventeen of their own resolutions until we took it upon ourselves to build a coalition to take care of the problem, which we solved. Truly we have a better solution in “going it alone” if we must than having to beg for a hall pass from the international community.

Laboring to coerce workers

I knew this had been coming for awhile, but finally it got a name and a number put to it. Last week in the House of Representatives H.R. 800 was introduced, erroneously billed as the “Employee Free Choice Act”. In reality, what this bill would accomplish is end the practice of union representation elections held by secret ballot – rather, the workers would sign cards that state they would favor union representation. Apparently the 61% success rate for union elections in fiscal year 2005 isn’t good enough for the unionistas, who want to have the perfect right to strongarm and intimidate 50 percent plus one of the workers in a place of employment into signing a card guaranteeing that the union collects dues from 100% of the workers.

But this practice is not really for the workers’ benefit; instead, it’s to collect a piece of their wages to advocate for political favors. Not surprisingly, all but a handful of the over 230 co-sponsors to H.R. 800 are Democrats. The few Republicans who have signed on are from Big Labor strongholds New York, New Jersey, Ohio, and Connecticut.

I did some checking on opensecrets.org and found out that these Republicans were (for GOP members, anyway) pretty deeply in the pocket of Big Labor. With one exception, they received 10% or more of their PAC money from labor groups, and most were above 25%. By comparison, local Congressman Wayne Gilchrest has only a 4.6% lifetime percentage of labor PAC contributions (none in the 2006 cycle) and California Democrat Rep. George Miller (lead sponsor of H.R. 800) had about 60% of his PAC money come from organized labor.

To be fair, I don’t have a problem with workers organizing, nor does a group that I’ve used as a resource in writing this post (and whose e-mail alerted me to this recently introduced bill.) In fact, The Center for Union Facts notes that they’re not against unions, but, “against union officials’ abuse of power, often at the expense of their own rank-and-file members. We are against corruption, violence, and intimidation. We are against the misuse of union dues. We support employees who elect to join a union, as well as the right of employees to remain non-union without intimidation.” A good summary of their position on “card check”, along with a copy of an ironic 2001 letter from many of these same HR 800 sponsors urging Mexican officials to support a secret ballot for unionization, can be found here.

(With regard to my stance on unions, I find it funny that I’m somewhat to the left of Gunpowder Chronicler, based on the post and comments he wrote a few days back.)

However, I’m bringing this subject up not because I’m under any assumption that this bill won’t pass the House (with over 230 sponsors passage there is a fait accompli); but it’s still possible that the GOP minority in the Senate can grow a pair and bring this to a halt like they did with the unamended minimum wage bill. Failing that, possibly President Bush would see the irony of signing a bill denying democratic rights to millions of America’s workers after expending billions of dollars and several thousand lives to bring democratic rights to millions of Afghanis and Iraqis, and properly veto the so-called Employee Free Choice Act.

There’s nothing wrong with the system as is. Workers should be free of intimidation from either side when making a choice whether to organize or not, and it’s been proven that a secret ballot is the best way to bring out the honest feelings on whether the union has made a good case for itself or not. Reverting to “card check” just stacks the deck in favor of the unions and against the employers who hire the workers in the first place.

Give Doris a chance

I really do not understand why this is such a big deal. From the Wicomico County Charter, Section 304, here are the duties of the Council Administrator:

Council Administrator. There shall be a Council Administrator who shall keep minutes of its meetings, maintain its journal, and perform such other duties as the Council may direct. The Council Administrator shall serve at the pleasure of the Council and shall receive such compensation as the Council may determine.

The County Council could theoretically have Doris make coffee for them if they so direct. And in both Daily Times articles I read about this appointment that’s the position she was named to. It’s almost making me wonder if her position is being confused with the Director of Administration’s position, which is a much more powerful post. From Section 412 of the Charter:

The Director of Administration shall perform administrative duties and exercise general supervision over the departments and agencies of the executive branch as the County Executive may direct. Prior to assuming the duties of the office, the Director of Administration shall be a resident of the county and shall continue to reside in the county for the duration of his term of office. The Director of Administration shall cause all county budgets to be prepared and submitted to the County Executive for modification approval and submission to the County Council. Such budgets shall be prepared in the manner and form provided in Article VII of this Charter. In addition, the Director of Administration shall study the organization, methods, and procedures of each department of the county government and submit to the County Executive periodic reports on their efficiency and economy.

And I think the reason for this confusion can be traced back to something Joe Albero said on Salisbury News. From January 26, 2007:

There is a buzzing rumor going around that Doris Schonbrunner is now THIRD in charge of the County. She was supposedly voted in yesterday as the new assistant county administrator.

However, it’s far from certain that, even if she is third in the pecking order, Doris really would have a lot of power – after all, in her position she serves at the pleasure of the Council with duties as Council may direct.

Some people on the local blog scene seem to be under the impression that Doris Schonbrunner will be a power-mad Cruella de Vil. Having met and spoken to her at some length on several occasions, I can’t see that happening at all. Her new position is an administrative job somewhat like the one she had in the Sheriff’s office, but without the law enforcement component. (Perhaps it’s a job more befitting a lady, since I heard some say during the campaign that we weren’t ready for a lady Sheriff.)

So give the woman a chance to do her job. If she’s not up to it, one of the four who voted for her on the County Council will certainly have the opportunity to change his or her mind, and they can dismiss her. I think she’ll do just fine myself, at least until a higher-level job that she’s interested in opens up.

Legislative checkup, February 2007 (Maryland)

After dealing with Congress yesterday, I’m going to look at the influence our local legislators have in Annapolis. Similar to Congress, I’ll look at bills sponsored or co-sponsored by each of our local Delegates and Senators in Districts 37 and 38. This information can also be found on the Maryland General Assembly website. Since there haven’t been many votes to speak of involving the General Assembly, I won’t have much of a voting record to go on quite yet (oh, but just wait.)

Working in district order:

Delegate Rudy Cane (District 37A) is a co-sponsor of a whopping 104 bills. The majority of these (60) haven’t even had a hearing scheduled yet. 37 bills have a hearing scheduled, and seven have had a hearing. One bill co-sponsored by Cane (HB 61) has cleared its committee.

District 37B’s co-Delegate, Addie Eckardt, has her name lent as co-sponsor to 92 bills. 45 do not have a hearing scheduled, 38 bills are scheduled for a hearing, and 7 have been heard. Eckardt is also a co-sponsor of HB 61, which got through committee, and HB 89, which didn’t survive committee. Her counterpart, Delegate Jeannie Haddaway, has co-sponsored 82 bills – 51 with no hearing scheduled, 26 that have a hearing scheduled, 5 which have been heard, and the above-mentioned HB 61. She’s also the sole sponsor of HB 540, which would set up a laptop computer distribution program to the state’s 7th grade students. No hearing is slated for this measure at this time. As a tandem, Eckardt and Haddaway sponsor three bills, two of which are to establish a state debt for items in Talbot County.

Turning to District 38A, I note that Page Elmore has co-sponsored 96 bills. 50 of these have not had a hearing yet, 40 have one scheduled, and 6 have been heard. Page has also been a solo sponsor of 6 bills, all having to do with Somerset County affairs. Two bills he’s sponsored are already through committee – HB 54, a bill that assists the seafood industry in Somerset and Queen Anne’s counties; and HB 145, a bill that will give the next Somerset County Treasurer a 35% raise beginning with his or her term commencing in 2011.

One of my Delegates is Norm Conway. He has co-sponsored a relatively pedestrian 45 bills, 2 of which he shares with his 38B cohort Delegate Jim Mathias. These bills (HB 683 and HB 964) would extend the power of Worcester County fire investigators and prohibit oyster dredging in the Atlantic Coastal Bays, respectively. 32 of these bills (including the aforementioned two) have no hearing set, 12 have a hearing scheduled, and one hearing has occurred for a Conway-sponsored measure. Conway also has a solo bill (HB 1078) for “(a)ltering the purposes for which the Maryland State Firemen’s Association may use money appropriated in the State budget.” No hearing is set for that one. Similarly, Mathias is a co-sponsor of 48 bills – 31 with no hearing set and 16 with one slated. Like Conway, Mathias is among the sponsors of the one bill which has had its hearing.

Additionally, Wicomico County’s delegation as a group sponsored HB 102, which exempts training fires from any “burn ban”. This bill’s already had its hearing.

Now I’ll shift over to the Maryland Senate and see how our two local Senators are faring. Those of you roughly west of Salisbury are represented by Senator Rich Colburn, who’s co-sponsored 81 bills in all. The Senate’s a bit more efficient in hearing schedules, with 37 of these bills having a hearing date scheduled while just 33 do not yet. Nine bills have already had their hearings completed.

In addition, SB 54, which Colburn co-sponsored, has been withdrawn (as of last Wednesday.) This was an act that would’ve mandated young female students receive the controversial cervical cancer vaccine. On the other side, SB 203, a bill he co-sponsors with Senator Stoltzfus of my District 38, has passed committee. It’s an interesting bill that has to do with the Salisbury Chamber of Commerce and existing law.

Speaking of my Senator, J. Lowell Stoltzfus, he has the fewest co-sponsored bills of any local Assemblyman (29.) But he has the highest number of solo-sponsored bills, 12. While most of these bills have to do with local issues within the district, there’s a couple other interesting ones which have to do with the practice of health care (affecting dental hygenists and radiologists) plus a bill requiring a hotel to keep on reserve an accessible room on the lowest floor until either an individual requiring its use reserves it or it’s the final room available. (It’s sort of like codifying common sense to me.) 19 of the proposals he’s sponsoring or co-sponsoring have a hearing scheduled while 21 do not, plus the aforementioned SB 203 that’s through committee.

With over 1800 bills already introduced, the pace will slow down as effective last Friday new bills are automatically sent to the Rules Committee first. So the last 2/3 of the session is set up for hearings and votes on things already introduced. In fact, a number of these bills bear watching as they embark on a path to become law. With over 100 bills co-sponsored and being in the majority party (not to mention an almost certain safe seat for as long as he wants to hold it), note that District 37A Delegate Rudy Cane is a co-sponsor of all of the following House bills (unless noted otherwise.)

HB 44/SB 51 is the “Maryland Clean Cars Act of 2007”. The bill has had its hearings already and awaits committee votes.

HB 148/SB 634 is the bill D.D. Crabb posted on a few days ago, a measure to change over Maryland’s Presidential electoral votes to reflect the winner of the national popular vote rather than Maryland’s results. This had a hearing in the House last week, no Senate hearing is yet scheduled. While Maryland has been a reliably Democrat state (thus sort of defeating their purpose if, as in 2004, a Republican wins the national popular vote), this is part of a nationwide effort to subvert the Founders’ idea of an Electoral College, a body that gives smaller states more power in determining national leaders. Rudy Cane is not a co-sponsor of this bill, surprisingly enough.

HB 225/SB 211 repeals Maryland’s seldom-used death penalty once and for all. A Senate hearing on this proposal is slated for February 21.

HB 273 eliminates the waiting period and other conditions already extant for felons to regain their voting rights upon release from prison. No hearing has yet been scheduled.

HB 288/SB 207 is the “Healthy Maryland Initiative”. It should be titled the “Extra Dollar a Pack Cigarette Tax” because that’s the true purpose of this legislation. Saying that, there’s a LOT more to it and it deserves a careful reading. The House hearing is set for February 16 and the Senate does its hearing February 21.

HB 289 is a local interest “bond bill” – it establishes a $2.5 million grant to Wicomico County to fix up the Wicomico Youth and Civic Center if county matching funds are provided by mid-2009. This bill’s sponsored by local Delegates Cane, Conway, Elmore, and Mathias. No hearing is scheduled.

Similarly, HB 312/SB 373 is a “bond bill” granting $500,000 to the Salisbury Zoo for an Animal Health Facility with the same timeframe for matching funds. The same four sponsors are on the House bill; on the Senate side both local Senators are the sponsors for this measure.

HB 359/SB 91 is the “Clean Indoor Air Act of 2007”, which essentially bans smoking in any building open to the public. Along with Delegate Cane, District 38A Delegate Page Elmore is also a co-sponsor. (Uh, Page, how about leaving these things up to the business owner? Very disappointing.)

HB 365 codifies a date certain that absentee ballots must be received by, taking discretion away from the state Board of Elections. A hearing on that is set for February 28.

HB 400 is known as the “Maryland Universal Health Care Plan”. One of its purposes is to, “(p)rovide public financing of health care services for all residents of the state.” That hearing is slated for February 28.

HB 430 mandates state contractors and subcontractors to pay a “living wage” (set in the bill at $11.95 per hour less any health benefits) to their employees. They do exempt non-profit companies from this law, though. Does this mean a business that will lose big money by following this law? February 20 is the hearing date on this proposal.

HB 537 is a Republican bill (which our three local GOP Delegates are co-sponsoring) mandating compliance with the federal Real ID Act and preventing the issuing of drivers’ licenses to those who cannot document legally being in the United States. Not surprisingly, no hearing for this has been scheduled.

HB 620/SB 494 is a bipartisan (all local Delegates except Rudy Cane are co-sponsors) bill that mandates insurers cover property in “coastal areas” within 50 feet of certain bodies of water. No hearing has been set for that item yet.

HB 754 is the “Children and Working Families Health Care Act of 2007”. Along with Delegate Cane, Delegates Conway and Elmore also serve among the co-sponsors. The hearing on this bill is set for February 16. HB 754 is a long, involved bill that bears reading as well.

HB 890/SB 409 is entitled “Global Warming Solutions – Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Geez, like more regulations in Maryland will solve the problem. One nice part of this request:

“MARKET-BASED COMPLIANCE MECHANISM” INCLUDES:

(1) A CAP AND TRADE SYSTEM THAT SETS DECLINING ANNUAL EMISSIONS LIMITS AND ALLOWS EMISSIONS TRADING WITHIN A SYSTEM THAT IS GOVERNED BY RULES AND PROTOCOLS ESTABLISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT; OR NONTRADING POLICIES AND MEASURES, INCLUDING

(I) TAXES ON EMISSIONS;

(II) LABELING REQUIREMENTS;

(III) LIABILITY MEASURES;

(IV) PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS;

(V) PROGRAMS COMMONLY KNOWN AS FEEBATES. (Emphasis mine.)

Anyway, that hearing is February 20 for the Senate bill.

HB 909/SB 674 is called the “Maryland Energy Efficiency Standards Act of 2007”. Once again, Delegate Elmore joins with the predominantly Democrat co-sponsors of this bill. This bill was just introduced Friday so all I have on it is essentially the title and a short synopsis. Thus, no hearing’s been scheduled yet.

The GOP is once again trying to enact “Jessica’s Law”, in this term it’s known as HB 930/SB 413. Our two local Senators, along with GOP Delegates Elmore and Haddaway, are among the co-sponsors. No local Democrats are on that list.

HB 994/SB 475 wishes to establish a “Task Force on the Policy and Funding Implications of Requiring Passage of the High School Assessment for Graduation.” So the poor souls who couldn’t pass the state graduation test (and most likely the teachers’ unions, who are held somewhat accountable by these tests) must have whined to the right people. Just introduced in the House Friday, no hearings are set yet.

SB 564 would submit a proposed Constitutional Amendment to voters in 2008 establishing that in Maryland, a legally recognized marriage is only that one between a man and a woman. Both local Senators are co-sponsors, as they should be. Look for a lot of gay activists in Annapolis on March 1st, the date the hearing on this Senate bill is slated.

Senator Stoltzfus is a co-sponsor of SB 597, which would require election judges to verify a voter’s identity and address. Like that has a chance in Annapolis? It’s not shocking to me that no hearing on this has been scheduled.

He’s also a co-sponsor of SB 598, a measure that would put telephones already on the federal “do-not-call” list off limits to politically related calls as well. No hearing is set on that, which is surprising given the number of people I heard complaining about this very subject last fall.

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

It looks like I’ll be doing a LOT of tracking in the weeks to come, just to see how these bills fare in Annapolis. Those are far from the only bills of importance out there, but these 21 I picked out give a pretty good rundown on some of the most important issues.

Legislative checkup, February 2007 (Congress)

I’m going to try to make this about a monthly or so series – of course, sometimes Congress takes long recesses and our General Assembly only operates from January through April (thank goodness) so this time of year is probably going to be the busiest. And because this part dealing with the Federal side turns out so long I’ll do this one tonight and the state one tomorrow.

The information comes from the THOMAS website run by the Library of Congress. This is probably one of the best uses of the Internet out there. It’s also going to save me a lot of time linking these since anyone else can just as easily look up their particular Congressman on these issues (it’s quite simple to do there! One case where the federal government gets things pretty much right.) I’m just doing this as a “compare and contrast.”

And I’ll begin in the House. Thus far my Congressman, Wayne Gilchrest (MD-1) has sponsored just one bill, which has 24 co-sponsors – mostly comprised of Congressmen whose districts lie within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. H.R. 16 is better known as the “Chesapeake Bay Restoration Enhancement Act of 2007.” This bill was assigned to committee upon introduction January 4 and has not made it out yet.

Across the border in Delaware, Mike Castle has been somehat busier, sponsoring three bills. None of these bills have made it out of their respective committees yet. H.R. 96 and H.R. 97 were both just moved into a subcommittee, so there’s been some action on those bills recently.

The three bills Castle has sponsored: H.R. 96, the “Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007” (with 3 co-sponsors); H.R. 97, the “Accountability and Transparency in Ethics Act” (which has one co-sponsor), and H.R. 334, which “require the House of Representatives and the Senate to each establish a Subcommittee on Intelligence in the Committee on Appropriations, and for other purposes.” The “other purposes” include placing intelligence-related expenditures “on budget.” That bill has no co-sponsors.

Now I’ll turn my attention to our four Democrat Senators from Maryland and Delaware.

Maryland’s senior Senator, Barbara Mikulski, has sponsored just one bill thus far. S. 414 is the “Cloned Food Labeling Act” and languishes in committee.

Newly elected Senator Cardin has done a little bit more, offering two amendments to bills that were tabled. His one sponsored bill, S. 137, is the “Preserving Medicare for All Act of 2007”. This bill is also bottled up in committee.

Turning to the First State, their senior Senator’s been a busy beaver (when not running for President), sponsoring five Resolutions and five bills.

Joe Biden’s Concurrent Resolution on Iraq (S. Con. Res. 2) was shut out when it couldn’t attain cloture (on a 97-0 vote.) But S. Res. 24, which declared January 2007 as “National Stalking Awareness Month” passed by unanimous consent (with 2 co-sponsors).

It was not as quick for S. Res. 30, a resolution “regarding the need for the United States to address global climate change through the negotiation of fair and effective international commitments” – it’s standing in committee. The same fate is true for S. Res. 64 (regarding expenditures of the Committee on Foreign Relations) and S. Res. 65, which “condemn(s) the murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist and human rights advocate Hrant Dink.” Only S. Res. 30 has a co-sponsor.

Biden’s five bills are as follows: S. 345 is a “bill to establish a Homeland Security and Neighborhood Safety Trust Fund”; S. 368, the “COPS Improvements Act of 2007” (with 29 co-sponsors); S. 392, “To ensure payment of United States assessments for United Nations peacekeeping operations for the 2005 through 2008 time period”; S. 449 (with 4 co-sponsors) is a bill that adds regulations for state and local law enforcement agencies; and this week he introduced S. 534, “A bill to bring the FBI to full strength to carry out its mission.” Each of these bills is still in committee.

On the other hand, Senator Carper is a comparative back-bencher, having introduced just one amendment that was tabled to show for his month plus in the 110th Congress.

Now it’s on to the roll call votes. In the House:

On H.R. 1, which implemented the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, Castle voted “aye” and Gilchrest “no” (passed 299-128).
On H.R. 2, the “Fair Minimum Wage Act”, both Castle and Gilchrest voted “aye” (passed 315-116).
On H.R. 3, the “Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act”, Castle voted “aye” and Gilchrest did not vote (passed 253-174).
On H.R. 4, the “Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act”; again, Castle voted “aye” and Gilchrest “no” (passed 255-170).
On H.R. 5, the “College Student Relief Act” (which lowered interest rates for student borrowers), both Castle and Gilchrest voted “aye” (passed 356-71).
On H.R. 6, the “Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives” act, both Castle and Gilchrest voted “aye” (passed 264-163).
On H.Res. 78, allowing the delegates from the District of Columbia and U.S. territories voting rights in the House, both Castle and Gilchrest voted “no” (passed 226-191).

So on 6 of the 7 votes here regarding “major” bills, Mike Castle voted with the majority Democrats. Are you sure you’re a Republican, Rep. Castle? Meanwhile, I’m not happy with Gilchrest on the minimum wage or energy bills where he voted with the Democrats.

The Senate votes are much easier. All four Senators voted as a block for the Democrat side in most instances (although Biden missed several of these votes.) The only exceptions were:

On an amendment to S.B. 1 to permit travel hosted by preapproved 501(c)(3) organizations, Carper and Mikulski voted “aye”, Biden and Cardin voted “no” (passed 51-46).
On another S.B. 1 amendment, this to “establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity”, Biden and Carper voted “aye” while Cardin and Mikulski voted “nay” (failed 71-27).
Another S.B. 1 amendment “to prohibit authorized committees and leadership PACs from employing the spouse or immediate family members of any candidate or Federal office holder connected to the committee” was tabled. Sen. Mikulski was among those voting not to table the amendment (tabled 54-41).

Because of its position as the “saucer that cools the steaming cup of coffee” (geez, what a terrible but often-used analogy) the Senate hasn’t seen the voting action that the House has; also, a number of their votes have been confirmation votes for various positions.

Tomorrow I’ll shift gears and look at our legislators’ roles in the Maryland General Assembly.

Reinventing the Republican Party

Lately I’ve been putting in a lot of thought about the political scene in general, and my small role in it. Some of that has been put down for all to see in my “50 year plan” series of posts, but other portions are still swirling around in my mind waiting to coalesce into the words I’ll eventually post on monoblogue. (Rest assured I don’t have writer’s block, more like life and time block sometimes.)

A couple items that I stumbled across thanks to my local blogging brethren have shifted my thinking into a different but just as tangible action. Crabbin’ linked up to a commentary by WorldNetDaily founder and columnist Joseph Farah while Delmarva Dealings hooked me up to a post on a website called “Conservative Times” which was also thought-provoking.

So it got me to thinking: is conservatism really dead as Joe Farah believes?

To me, the principles that are regularly considered “conservative” are generally correct; however, just as the left wing politicans abandoned the sobriquet “liberal” once the connotation was successfully changed by conservative pundits, it now appears those who favor a less intrusive government but also favor an interventionist foreign policy where it’s required may have to abandon the term “conservative”. (As noted in the Conservative Times post, many people who bill themselves true conservatives are isolationist, and I part from them in that regard.) The politicians and media on the left have successfully given the term “conservative Republican” an almost equally bad name as that assigned to liberalism – note the lefties’ pet term for themselves is now “progressive.”

In a way, the name changes are quite ironic, given that many of the principles of what’s been known as conservatism evolved from what’s known as “classical liberalism” – embodied by the writings of Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill among others. It wasn’t until the last century that those who favored a more interventionist federal government reallocated the term “liberal” for themselves.

But Farah’s article, in particular, got me to thinking. He notes, “First, one must understand that conservatism is, by definition, a defensive agenda. When one’s goal is simply to “conserve,” or preserve, or to hold onto what is good and right, you have abandoned the idea of advancing. In military terms, your objective would be holding on to turf, rather than attacking, defeating the enemy, taking new ground.”

If you’re familiar with the board game “Risk”, it’s a game that bills itself “The Game of Global Domination.” Quite simply, the object is to take over the world by eliminating your opponents’ armies off the board through a combination of good strategy and a little luck. One option in playing the game is to simply defend and build up a small number of armies on the territories a player holds, which would equate with Farah’s analogy. But, in Risk, by seizing territory one receives cards that entitle a player to eventually attain additional armies as well as gaining proportionally more armies as the number of territories held increase. Thus, holding on to a small number of territories in a defensive posture eventually seals a player’s doom as he’s overwhelmed by opponents who have become stronger by seizing the remaining territories.

But the way I see government is completely different. Perhaps it’s because I do planning for a living (granted on a small scale) but I feel that government should follow a few basic principles:

The government should be as small as possible with limited tasks, those that cannot be done as well by the private sector or the market. For example, a standing army is a legitimate federal task, but federal involvement in the health care industry is beyond their assigned duties.
The closer the government is to the people, the better and more responsive it is. Tasks which have been usurped by the federal government should, where possible, be reassigned to the states or even counties. I think this would encourage a bevy of possible solutions to problems which crop up, rather than the “one-size-fits-all” approach that the federal or state government seems to come up with.
Above all, the reason I prefer government that’s as close to the people as possible is that smaller government can more easily be proactive rather than reactive. It’s a lot easier to steer a rowboat around an iceberg than to steer the Titanic around it.

For all of these reasons I think that it’s time for people who feel like me to abandon the “conservative” moniker. Unfortunately, even though we’re really much more in favor of progress than the so-called “progressives” (a group whose idea of progress is adding layer upon layer of laws and regulations on average folks while exempting themselves), we have long since ceded the use of that term.

Saying that, though, there are elements of the past that we want to keep. I still believe that the Constitution as written is the law of the land, and where it says something like, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”, that means what it says. Just as importantly, where the terms “right to privacy” and “separation of church and state” are not included, the silence of the Constitution on these matters meant that they were supposed to be determined by the states and the people – not by judicial dictate. The Founding Fathers have placed within the Constitution a means to change it, but they made it difficult on purpose – thus it’s only been successfully done 17 times, and just once in the last 35 years. (Awhile back, I had some suggestions for new amendments as well.)

As I’ve noted before, I’m a fan of two contemporary leaders in our government. One was Ronald Reagan and the other is Newt Gingrich. While I don’t agree with every little thing both these men have done or advocated in their exercise of governmental power, more often than not I’ve seen their ideas work when put into practice. And what I truly admire about Newt Gingrich is that he’s a forward-thinking individual. Like me, I feel he espouses government that’s proactive rather than reactive.

I’m on the e-mail list for “Winning the Future”. Last week I got an e-mail that spoke about something more important to him than running for President. Regardless of whether I or anyone else thinks he has a legitimate chance to become President, I’m enthusiastic about the idea of someone of his stature and beliefs putting together an organization like American Solutions; one that professes to work on solutions, that, as Gingrich notes, make it possible to, “move the entire system — if we can have school board members committed to incentives, hospital board members exploiting new technology, and state legislators who understand how to bring market principles to public problems — this country can and will fix itself.”

So I think it’s high time Republicans like me and dare I say Newt Gingrich (and on a posthumous basis Ronald Reagan) should really be known as “reinvention” Republicans. We want to move the party away from staid, defensive conservatism but also want to maintain the principles embodied by our Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution. Not only that, I think we’re in favor of keeping many of the ideas which were later written into our founding document.

Unlike the view of true libertarians, I think government does have a place and once in awhile there’s a compelling public interest that outweighs individual freedom. But the place we’ve arrived at after 230 years of independence does not leave the people too independent at all. It’s time to work toward rolling back the influence of the federal nanny state and shifting the balance of power in this nation back to where it belongs. And I think reinventing the Republican Party to one that advocates this change is the option we as the GOP need to follow.

So no longer am I a conservative. It’s time to go on offensive, retake our rightful territory, and become a “reinventionist.”

Quick link(s)

Well, the first one out of the chute for the Salisbury City Council insofar as the Internet goes is, not surprisingly, the incumbent Gary Comegys. Challenger Terry Cohen is probably going to be second since she’s secured a URL, just hasn’t placed anything on that website yet.

I’ve added Gary’s link to the side, and the 2007 Salisbury race will be on top of the board since my bloglist comes up in alphabetical order. Obviously, if more people have websites I’d love to know about them. I truly don’t have a horse in the race since I can’t vote in this election. But I will say that I know a few of the candidates a little bit, since I spoke at some length to the aforementioned Mrs. Cohen at our last WCRC meeting and know Louise Smith from her service as one of my predecessors on the Republican Central Committee. I also covered Neil Bayne’s County Council efforts last summer, so I’ve spoken to him briefly a time or two.

Soon I would think that the candidate forums and such will get underway and hopefully I’ll be able to devote a bit of coverage to this race to join Debbie Campbell and Shanie Shields on Salisbury City Council. (Speaking of Debbie, she had a quite informative 20 minutes on the radio today.)

I’m going to expect that I’ll end up with 4 or 5 linked sites when all is said and done. My feeling is that each of the three eventual winners will get their votes in part due to having a website. With the blogs in Salisbury becoming home to much of the political discourse, an Internet presence is vital in my opinion.

I have other surprises and events coming up in the next few weeks on monoblogue, so stay tuned.

Salisbury News wins again…

I figured I’d get people ready because I know Joe Albero will be excited again after he sees this.

On January 26 Joe placed a post on Salisbury News claiming that Doris Schonbrunner was to become the new assistant county administrator.

I was just looking over the Daily Times website and at 5:24 p.m. today Joe Gidjunis posted an article for tomorrow’s paper, “Schonbrunner to become Council Administrator“. However, this selection was only confirmed today by the Wicomico County Council.

So Joe’s going to be pretty pleased about beating the DT by what, 9 days?

As for myself, having supported Doris in the primary election I’m happy she’s staying in the county and I think the naysayers who commented on the Albero article will be won over by the professionalism that I’m sure Doris will handle her new duties with. If not, I guess they’ll just have to stew in it, won’t they?

Replying to a comment I received…

This morning (before my server went down for about an hour – come on midPhase get with the program here!) I moderated my comments and came across this one regarding a post I did awhile back:

Bashiir wrote:

The war in Iraq obviously has degenerated to intra Iraq sectarian violence of the worst kind. Killings of children, bombing of schools, torture with drills to the face, the brain, the body are commonplace. Anarchy could easily be the result with the strongest and most violent the most successful. In the middle ages, this was a pattern as well. George W. Bush has created perhaps the most profound political mistake in history.

Instead of responding as part of a comments section of a post that’s now sort of buried, I’m going to answer this one right up front and center (at least for a few days.)

The background on the post in question stretches all the way back to a note I got in my e-mail box from Senator Cardin about the Iraqi situation back in early January. Issac Smith of The Old Line was offended and off we went.

But to address Bashiir’s comments, I’m going to ask a simple question: With the coverage of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal that was broken by and amplified daily through the partisan media, how can you honestly think that the torture and mayhem you describe would not be known about if it were being done by our forces? I have yet to see or hear about anything of the sort being blasted over the airwaves.

However, if I’m misreading your comment and you’re inferring that the killing, bombing, and torture is part of the sectarian violence you speak of, you’re right. War does tend to feature tactics that aren’t conducive to survival amongst the unfortunates who are in its path, generally innocent bystanders. This was true in the Middle Ages and true today.

But I’m not of the opinion that President Bush is to blame. Tactics that won World Wars One and Two do not work when a) the enemy is not a nation-state or group of nations as the Axis powers were in WWI and Germany and Japan were in WWII; and b) the fighting is of an asymmetrical nature. In Iraq, we’re using the standard issue warfighting equipment against an enemy brazen enough to take advantage of our rules of engagement and use nonstandard weapons such as IED’s and truck bombs. They also have no qualms about taking innocent people with them, such as yesterday’s incident where a homicide truck bomber leveled a Baghdad market. However, the strategy is to eventually have the Iraqis police themselves, with most likely a small American force remaining there as backup. This strategy already works in much of Iraq.

I’ve stated this before: the enemy has learned well from our missteps in fighting the Viet Nam War. When the enemy, both then and now, went toe-to-toe with our forces in conventional warfare, they’re usually wiped out by our superior firepower. Both the Viet Cong and the Islamic zealots we’re engaged with now have won their battles in the field of public opinion here in America.

The one difference between our era and the Middle Ages was that now there is one country that was founded on the belief that mankind yearns for freedom, not submission or simple survival to see another day.

History will judge in the years and decades to come whether GWB had a solid strategy against al-Qaeda and other nonnational Islamist enemies. But I don’t question the need to fight back in some manner, as attacks on U.S. interests here and abroad culminated in the terror of 9/11. Nor do I question the need to persevere and win the battle. While it may be a fatalistic view of the consequences of pulling out, I think Kevin McCullough’s column today on townhall.com is more plausible if we leave Iraq before the task is completed than if we don’t.

And another thing: (hate it when I think of stuff after I turn the computer off!)

I’d like to know if Bashiir, who remarked about staying involved in a sectarian civil war in Iraq, also felt the same way about our involvement in Kosovo (which was essentially a sectarian civil war where we took the side of the Muslims) and thinks we should get into the pet intervention cause of many Democrats, the sectarian civil war in Darfur.