Politics – Page 297

A 50 year plan: Eminent domain/property rights

I actually wasn’t going to do this particular subject yet, but I received an e-mail at work yesterday that bothered me and I wanted to share my reaction. In turn, since I’d planned on doing a “50 year plan” post on the issue anyway, this was as good of time as any to do so.

Recently, partially at the behest of my company but moreso to keep my continuing education requirements straight (and maintain my architectural license) I rejoined the American Institute of Architects after a hiatus of about 5 years or so. So now I’m a member of AIA Chesapeake Bay instead of AIA Toledo, but the national song seemingly remains the same.

I figured out that my membership had gone through when I started receiving AIA e-mails at work, which I have zero problem with. But yesterday’s e-mail was a newsletter called The Angle, which documents their political lobbying efforts and other related items the AIA pursues. Part of this newsletter was soliciting input for an AIA position statement, as follows:

Proposed Position Statement 46 – Eminent Domain

The American Institute of Architects believes that eminent domain is a critical tool for revitalizing our cities and improving the quality of life in urban and suburban neighborhoods. State and local governments must ensure that eminent domain laws do not curtail smart growth efforts, brownfield cleanup, or otherwise limit new development and improvements to existing development.

Well, since they asked for my input, they got it…

I would feel much better about this if the statement read as follows:

“The American Institute of Architects believes that eminent domain is a critical tool for revitalizing our cities and improving the quality of life in urban and suburban neighborhoods. While the AIA acknowledges and agrees that private property rights are paramount in our free society, we also feel that state and local governments can and should balance the rights of existing property holders with eminent domain laws that do not curtail smart growth efforts, brownfield cleanup, or otherwise limit new development and improvements to existing development.”

As I read it, the AIA is taking a position of property holders be damned, we just want to develop sites regardless of who’s hurt in the process and all these damn libertarians who insist on actually following the “takings clause” in the Fifth Amendment are just meddling with our profession.

Many eminent domain proceedings in the last decade have stretched the term “public use” way beyond its intent. Personally, I do not believe in government using its power and taking one’s private property to benefit another person simply for additional tax revenue.

And so begins this portion of what I’ve come to call my “50 year plan.” It’s pretty simple, really. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution reads, in part, as follows:

(N)or (shall a person) be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (Emphasis mine.)

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court handed down what’s popularly known as the Kelo decision. In a 5-4 decision (Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer the majority; O’Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas found for Suzette Kelo) the Court held that, despite the fact that “the city is not planning to open the condemned land – at least not in its entirety – to use by the general public.” They noted, “this…Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the…public.”

You know, sometimes the Supreme Court gets it wrong. The idea behind eminent domain was to allow the taking of private property for a public use, such as a highway, airport, or a building that would be owned by the taxpayers rather than a private entity. But in the case of Suzette Kelo, her property would be used by a private developer – a developer who was planning on developing the land to boost the city’s tax base.

In the time since, many states have enacted laws to prohibit this practice. According to the Castle Coalition, 34 states either have a prohibition on this practice or strengthened its position on the law in 2006. Maryland is not one of them.

There is a fairly weak reform bill in the hopper in the Maryland Senate this session, SB3. A similar bill last session, also SB3 (along with HB1137), was referred back to committee once it was amended to change from a legislative matter to a Constitutional amendment by an amendment from Senator Allan Kittleman. (The House bill did not make it out of committee at all.)

Interestingly enough, the eminent domain power in Maryland has not been used much recently for “traditional” items such as highways, airports, government buildings, etc. The heaviest user of eminent domain in recent years has been the Maryland Stadium Authority, as they cleared out blocks of homes and businesses to build, among others, M&T Bank Stadium and Oriole Park at Camden Yards.

I like the idea of a Constitutional amendment at the state level, as long as the amendment clearly states that the power of eminent domain is to be used only for the public good and not to enrich one powerful private entity at the expense of a class of lesser entities as happened in New London, Connecticut. Theoretically, the federal level is already taken care of in the Fifth Amendment; all that needs is a Supreme Court which remembers that our laws are based solely on what the Founders wrote, not what they feel is in our best interest at the time or on incorrect precedents.

Because this eminent domain issue has a fairly simple solution and can be settled rather quickly, it’s one of the easiest planks to rectify in my 50 year plan. So I’m going to expand on the subject a little by talking about private property rights and other property issues.

Obviously in our nation one has some restrictions on property rights, which are mostly common-sense sorts of things. For example, it would not be a good idea if I built a rifle range in the midst of a residential area. If I had complete property rights theoretically I could do this, but most areas have some sort of zoning to prevent such incompatible uses from occurring on adjacent plots. Generally things like usage, setbacks, building area as a percentage of a lot, and building height are covered. These can also be waived if the property owner presents a compelling reason to do so in front of an elected or appointed local body.

However, I see a trend where government is restricting land usage by regulation. A recent example was embodied by the number of National Monuments established by President Clinton by his interpretation of the Antiquities Act of 1906. Whereas national parks need Congressional approval, in many cases national monuments do not. Clinton established a total of 19 national monuments, mostly in the final year or so of his term. While much of the land was already federally owned, this action also further restricted its usage. With the strokes of his pen Clinton placed over 5 million acres of land out of reach to mining and development. (That’s about 2/3 of the size of Maryland.) By comparison, President Bush has enacted just one land-based national monument of about 1/3 acre in New York City. A summary of concerns can also be found here.

While local zoning codes are generally fair, the scale of regulation of private property by the federal government is much less so – and much harder to combat. Another area of regulation that concerns me is hypersensitivity by people concerned with environmental issues such as endangered species. A number of projects have been thwarted nationwide because some so-called endangered species MIGHT have a nesting ground or habitat there. While there’s a case for preserving habitat, the balance is currently way too far in favor of militant environmentalism at the expense of economy.

Now I’ll shift my focus to a more local level.

In last year’s state election, Maryland voters unwisely placed the General Assembly in charge of the disposition of state land rather than retaining it under executive authority. This ballot issue arose from the proposed sale of state land in St. Mary’s County to a developer – something I personally had no problem with. Just like the argument in the Kelo case about the economic benefit to the city of New London, the land in question could have possibly benefitted the coffers and overall economy of St. Mary’s County. But in this case government took the opposite side.

Ideally to me governmental entities will own the least amount of land necessary to function. Further, land that is owned by the government should be as free of restrictions to private use as possible. While development would have limits, something where the public good outweighs the risks (such as drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) can be done if managed properly and carefully.

This portion of the 50 year plan will take much longer to implement than the eminent domain issue will because again it’s going to take a sea change in attitude by the powers that be. The more land they have, the more power. It’s going to take a forceful voice from the people to make government give back to the private sector what is rightfully theirs.

“So let’s get to work.” (Then we’ll pick your pocket.)

Once again, I probably saved a half-hour in my life by reading over Martin O’Malley’s “State of the State” address. Obviously he’s only been in office two weeks so he has no accomplishments to speak of – hell he doesn’t even have his full cabinet yet.

But of course, he had to get in his gratutitous slams. Moments after noting that Maryland has “good and decent people on both sides of these debates (over the death penalty, slots, etc.)” he then remarked, “We cannot resolve every unsettled issue in just 90 days; nor can we heal in 90 days divisions that were four years in the making.” He also opened the speech by noting, “the drift of recent years.”

On a philosophical level, O’Malley is making mostly proper initiatives insofar as most of these items will be paid for (and paid for, and paid for some more) by Maryland’s taxpayers. The only whining he did about something he wanted from the federal government was asking for an expanded National Capital Region (ostensibly to receive more federal funding.)

But on a practical level, there are many problems that I think Maryland will face because of O’Malley’s so-called solutions. I can just run right through the text of the speech to point out a few of the more egregious ones; it’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

I’ll start with where O’Malley states, “we now have an opportunity to put professional regulators back on the job at the Public Service Commission.” Regardless of who he places on the PSC, the fact remains that energy is going to cost more in the near-term future. A sustainable business model cannot be had by going back to the days where utilities have to beg and plead to raise rates. Further, in order to comply with the almost-certain state mandates on pollution control, the utilities need to raise the money from someplace. Putting anti-business hyper-environmentalists on the PSC will do nothing for consumers in the long-term, but by then O’Malley will be on to his next political stop.

“(W)e will also start making regular, measurable strides toward increasing the participation of minority and women-owned businesses in the economy of our state,” continued the governor. To me, that sounds like just more set-asides and other discriminatory programs in state government. I want the best businesses to succeed, regardless of ownership. How many times has it been the case where the money behind the business is from white males, with the token woman or minority owner just to qualify for the set-asides?

Martin then worked through a number of spending programs for both K-12 education and working to freeze the cost of college tuition. The sad fact is that college costs will continue to rise regardless, and the costs passed on through additional fees or a higher cost for room and board. A tuition freeze sounds great, but tuition is only part of the outlay. Meanwhile, I suppose building new facilities for K-12 is a good idea, but I’m not sure at all that bricks and mortar will solve the problems within our public schools.

O’Malley spent a good deal of his effort on proposing his solutions to our health care issue. “Among other things the (Maryland Healthcare A)ct will create a Health Insurance Exchange to help small businesses find more affordable coverage for their employees – on a pretax basis. It will require insurance companies to allow younger adults up to age 25 to be covered under their parents’ policies. And it will also provide healthcare coverage to more children in our state.”

The biggest trouble I see with this concept is that it applies more of a burden on the companies that sell health insurance in the state of Maryland. Unfortunately. O’Malley doesn’t address how this HIE program will promote competition. With the number of coverage mandates Maryland has, it’s like giving the consumer a choice of a Cadillac, Lexus, BMW, or Ferrari when their budget dictates a Chevrolet.

(As an aside, MPPI Senior Fellow Marc Kilmer has a good commentary piece regarding health insurance in today’s Baltimore Examiner. Kilmer also touched on this subject in a recent monoblogue interview.)

You know, Governor O’Malley worries a lot more about “saving the bay” than I do. Believe me, I lived by Lake Erie and if mankind couldn’t kill that body of water, I’m not worried much about Chesapeake Bay. Obviously there are a lot of common-sense solutions and Salisbury getting a good chunk of the $138 million O’Malley pledges toward improving local water and wastewater systems would help a great deal.

However, saying that, “(e)very dollar of Open Space funding this year – an estimated $289 million – will be spent on open space” means that the state will spend huge money buying land to take it off county tax rolls and further burden the counties who need the revenue themselves. And re-establish the Office of Smart Growth? Martin, let’s just call a spade a spade – it’ll be the office of anti-growth. It’s bad enough your party’s established a terrible business climate in Maryland (with the possible exception of one being a woman or minority), now you want to really make things tough by killing residential development.

And of course we come to where Marylanders “accept our responsibility in the fight against global warming.” Leaving aside that we really don’t have a lot to do about global warming, this was the opening for O’Malley to press for passage of the Clean Cars Act.

The biggest problem I see with the CCA is that it’ll raise the price of new cars anywhere from $200 to $1000. It’ll be a boon to car dealers in adjacent states that don’t have similar restrictions, but it also may mean that older, more polluting cars stay on the road longer. Moreover, those polluting heaps will sit in traffic that’s becoming worse.

Martin O’Malley and his allies seem to think that if you throw more money at mass transit, people will take advantage of it. Of the billion-plus dollars devoted to transportation in his budget, over 20% will go toward mass transit projects. The reality is that these modes of transport won’t ever carry more than a small fraction of the workforce and negligible amounts of non-commuter trips. These budgetary dollars simply do not address where the demand is and will be.

These are the monetary issues I have with the “State of the State” address. I also have an issue with some of the attitude.

“This year, together, we are choosing to make progress on the priorities of the people who elected us. Implicit, however, in the choices we make this year is the faith that we have the courage to face up to the fiscal reality before us in the year ahead.”

“If not, we risk going back to a time that we were not particularly proud of — making life less affordable for middle-class families. Cutting funds to local government. Stealing from our children’s future by taking money away from open space, and shifting transportation dollars away from reducing traffic. I don’t believe that is the sort of future we would choose.”

Well, Governor O’Malley, what I chose was to have a fiscally responsible governor who didn’t find every excuse in the book to balloon the size of government. Unfortunately, I was in the minority in the last election. However, I don’t plan on being in the minority in 2010, nor it is likely you’ll earn my vote by advocating the programs you advocate.

Unfortunately, the GOP’s response left me wanting as well. It did a brief job of comparing and contrasting the Ehrlich record with O’Malley’s proposals, but I wanted to see some alternatives given to the people of Maryland as well.

Start by making Maryland more business-friendly by instituting tort reform and allowing more competition in the health insurance industry by reducing or eliminating coverage mandates. Worry less about the school buildings and more about the students. How about allowing state school funding to follow the child regardless of the schooling choice made by the parents?

Rather than re-establishing an “Office of Smart Growth”, let those who know the local situation best in the counties and municipalities decide what is smart growth for them. Instead of more regulations for the auto industry, accept the choice that most Free Staters have made as far as their personal commutes go and build better, safer highways.

The Maryland Republican Party missed an opportunity in their response. Let’s not be like the Democrats in Congress, who won not because they presented a better alternative, but simply because the GOP House and Senate members failed in living up to their promises. We are the party of better ideas, let’s act like it.

A 50 year plan: Role of government

The other night I read the State of the Union speech. Since I was out enjoying life (it was bowling night) I didn’t actually watch the speech but reading it took about 5 minutes, thus saving me about an hour of my life. These are just a few of many Bush Administration initiatives in the speech that I’ll use for illustration:

Setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels by 2017.
Dictating new fuel mileage standards for autos and light trucks. (I’ll bet Rep. Gilchrest is all over this.)
Changing tax laws regarding employer-paid health insurance and direct Federal funding to assist states that provide help for poor or hard-to-insure residents with health insurance.
Reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

For years Presidents of both parties have used the SOTU speech as a showcase for whatever programs they wanted to push. Invariably, these were billed as panaceas for problems that faced our nation, and always it was a Federal solution that would cure the ailment. To use Bush’s speech as an example, these new programs either create or extend Federal mandates on what states or private enterprise may do.

Unfortunately, these energy-related items may all have unintended consequences.

The most likely way that our country would meet the 2017 alternative fuel mandate is by the additional use of ethanol. While ethanol is more environmentally-friendly and comes from a renewable resource, it actually takes MORE energy to create a gallon of ethanol than a gallon of gasoline, and ethanol costs more to boot. It also drives up the price of corn, which is a food staple, so grocery prices would increase from the twin factors of higher prices for the raw food material and transporting the finished product. That’s going to be most apparent in prices for produce, which is almost always shipped long distances.

A similar conundrum exists with the government mandating additional CAFE standards. In recent years, the market has favored large SUVs which come in below average on the fuel efficiency chart. These also provide the largest profits for the Big Three automakers, and with less profit coming in because they can’t sell so many of the profitable SUVs the automakers are cutting costs the one way they can – laying off workers. The Michigan economy is already hurting as the Big Three buys out as many employees as they can, and raising the CAFE standard bar would be another blow to their efforts at recovery.

In regard to the other two SOTU items, these fall into a category that has bothered me for as long as I’ve been a student of politics. It’s the basis of this essay on the role of government.

I keep a small booklet-sized copy of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution on my desk. The Tenth Amendment reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The first and foremost objection I have to the current method of government (practiced by both parties; neither is blameless in this) is when Congress puts together a bill that holds either the carrot of giving additional Federal funds or the stick of a Federal money cutoff to a particular state based on their action or inaction on a particular measure. One example I see as I drive into Maryland is the sign stating that .08 BAL is the law in Maryland. Apparently Maryland was one of the last states to lower the BAL but got with the program once their highway funding started to (or was scheduled to start to) suffer.

One Senator was responsible for this, Ohio’s now-former Senator Mike DeWine. Tragically, he lost one of his daughters to a car accident involving a drunk driver. But if he had been a proper government servant he would have lobbied the state of Ohio to lower its BAL limit as a statewide effort to promote highway safety. Instead, after trying for a few years to get this adopted, he managed to place this stick in some Congressional legislation and thereafter states had the gun of losing part of their federal highway funding put to their head if they didn’t follow the .08 BAL standard.

A couple days ago I heard a radio news item talking about Delaware not having a compliant open container law, thus it loses a small percentage of its federal highway funding (the figure I saw was 3% based on a 2001 article.) Yet again, it’s an example of the stick being applied to a state government to bend over to the wishes of the federal government, which is once again overreaching its Tenth Amendment rights.

With the latter two SOTU examples listed above, state and local governments will be placed at the beck and call of what some bureaucrats and do-gooders in Congress want them to do. If you give health insurance to your heretofore uninsured residents, we’ll give you more money. If you don’t enact the federal NCLB regulations, we’ll take away your federal education funding. (The same principle applies to taxation for individuals as certain actions are either encouraged or discouraged, but that’s a topic for another day.)

There are three principles I’d like to see the next generation embrace when they get to the positions of power. First and foremost is an end to these government mandates. Let the states be individual laboratories of government as the Founders intended. It’s a shame that all the faceless bureaucrats who get to push paper and make sure that the lower reaches of government do exactly as they have dictated to them would lose their jobs, but perhaps their talents can be used effectively in some other task. Lord knows eliminating red tape would open up a lot of jobs in the private sector!

The second principle is not something that the Founders intended, but I’ve come to believe in the last few years they’ve become necessary. Additionally, the Constitution now has a precedent for it in the 22nd Amendment.

I think there needs to be term limits for Congress. Where I live now, this district has had the same Congressman since 1991. Maryland has one Senator who has held her seat since 1987, with the other just beginning his Senate career after two decades in the House of Representatives. He takes over for a Senator who served 30 years.

The Founders intended a legislature composed of public-minded citizens who would serve a short time in Congress then return home to their communities. President George Washington embodied this principle by refusing to serve a third term, despite the fact he would’ve almost certainly won in a landslide. It’s been suggested that a person be limited to three terms in the House of Representatives and two terms in the Senate, and that seems like a fair number. Ohio has term limits for its state officeholders of eight years. Of course, what’s happened in a few cases is that legislators who run through their four (two-year) terms in the Ohio House run for the Ohio Senate to take advantage of its eight-year limit (two four-year terms) and vice versa. Since the Ohio law was enacted in 1994, I haven’t noticed yet if the switchers will try to return to their original legislative body for another eight years. To combat that tendency, I’d also like added to the law a lifetime limit of 18 years in Congress (three terms in the House plus two terms as Senator.)

The third principle I’d like to see adopted is the automatic sunsetting of government rules and regulations after a point in time, say, ten years. Just as many government programs need to be reauthorized from time to time (like NCLB) encoded laws themselves need to be revisited occasionally.

After the 9/11 attacks, Congress enacted the PATRIOT Act, which curbed some of the civil liberties that libertarians in particular hold dear. If I recall correctly, the original authorization was for three years so it had to be reauthorized in 2005 – meanwhile, some of the supporters called for the provisions to become permanent.

I understand how curbs on certain rights are required during a time of war. During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus for a time as part of prosecuting the war. President Franklin Roosevelt interred thousands of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

But to me these provisions need not become permanent, as at some point in our future the War on Terror will be won. (If it’s not, then the diminished rights we enjoy now would become meaningless. I don’t think there’s a right of habeas corpus in Sharia law.) Occasionally someone will write a newspaper column or a website post about some archaic law that has long since outlived its usefulness but still languishes on the books. (A Maryland example is the concept of ground rent.)

The other factors in this are sort of sneaky. If a Congress is debating the merits of existing laws that have come to the end of their sunsetting period, they have less time to dream up new restrictions! Also, because of the term limit principles I’ve touched on earlier, it would be an almost entirely new Congress that debates the issue, and they wouldn’t have the ownership aspect to color their view. To use one example, would John McCain (a Senator since 1987) or Russ Feingold (occupying his Senate seat since 1993) be in favor of repealing their campaign finance law? It’s doubtful, but if it came up for renewal in ten years their successors may feel differently.

In my thinking about government, I think I have envisioned something a little closer to what the Founders intended. As it stands right now, the governmental pyramids are inverted – power is concentrated at the top, but that’s where the fewest people wield it. I believe government was intended to have the maximum power placed at the bottom of the pyramid with the people, then the “several States”, with the federal government at the peak of the pyramid – only intended to do things that have a national interest like coining money and defending our nation. The Constitution addressed the failings of the original Articles of Confederation and defined the roles of government more clearly.

As I stated when I began this occasional series, this change is not one that’s going to happen overnight – it’s going to take decades and the generation of my stepdaughter and whatever children she’s blessed with to accomplish these goals. But I believe it’s possible and it just may refresh the tree of liberty without shedding any blood of patriots, tyrants, or bystanders.

Political dreams smacking the pavement of reality

No, this is not a post about John Kerry.

Actually, a couple little news items from the world of Annapolis politics came to my attention and I thought they deserved some comment.

First of all, I came across this news story where State Senator Allen Kittleman (Republican and Minority Whip) wants to assure that all bills that are introduced in the Maryland General Assembly and get to the Senate at least receive a committee vote. Apparently these things are at the discretion of the committee chair. Kittleman’s point is that the people who testify on behalf of a bill’s passage deserve to have the item they testified on receive an up-or-down vote.

But that’s silly. There’s a lot of what the Democrats don’t want to happen in government that gets introduced. Here’s an example of an actual bill that might be affected. GOP Senator E.J. Pipkin (from the Eastern Shore) introduced Senate Bill 40, which would temporarily suspend toll collection on the Bay Bridge if the traffic backup grows to 30 minutes or more. In general, anything that denies the state government money is a no-go with the General Assembly (except that when it comes to land slated to be developed, the state is happy to buy that and take it off the tax rolls.) However, SB 40 appears to be a common-sense bill that one would be foolish to vote against.

As things stand now, it’s solely up to Sen. Ulysses Currie of PG County whether that bill gets voted on in commitee, and for all I know, he may not like the idea (particularly because it has a GOP sponsor.) By right as committee chair, he can sit on the bill and kill it by bottling it up in his Budget and Taxation Committee without a vote. No recorded vote against the bill – no ammunition for an opponent when election time rolls around again.

Now Kittleman’s measure has a “promise” to be “considered” when the Senate takes up rules changes later this month. But I can hear the “splat!” now as that idea bites the dust.

The other dream is where Governor O’Malley’s budget will be at least somewhat frugal. I got this press release from the Maryland Republican Party today. I suppose I’m not surprised (after all, the last Democrat governor did put the state in a $4 billion hole) but O’Malley’s first budget blows through just under 60% of the state’s current “rainy day fund” to the tune of almost $1 billion (in a $30 billion total budget.) Included in this spending spree are an additional 1,100 government jobs, which I’m betting will either be unionized (as a payback to his Big Labor toadies) or contract jobs (where the state doesn’t pay benefits.)

Remember, the governor won’t have that large rainy-day cushion anymore for FY 2008 but I’m certain he will want to increase spending even further. Even the cigarette tax pushed by radicals like Delegate James Hubbard (he of the ill-fated Wal-Mart bill) is only slated to raise $200 million in its first year – that plus the remainder of the rainy-day fund would still leave a big hole for next year’s budget.

At least Hubbard is honest about his intentions. Quoted from the Sun: “I know (O’Malley) said he’s not going to initiate any new taxes. That’s fine. He’s not going to initiate this. We’re going to initiate this and put it on his desk.”

Now I know a dream I have would drop and splatter like a water balloon, but why doesn’t the General Assembly consider (gasp!) spending cuts? Or find other ways to raise revenue?

Right off the top of my head, I have one idea. Why doesn’t the Chesapeake Bay Foundation – which was so proud about the state buying the bulk of the land slated for the Blackwater development in my link above – buy that land from the state government for the $10 million the state paid for it and place it back on the tax rolls (which would help Dorchester County as well)? Put your money where your mouth is, CBF. $10 million isn’t pocket change yet in this state, that’s half a month’s worth of the supposed revenue from the buck-a-pack additional cigarette tax.

Unfortunately, this sort of common sense that seems to occupy the Eastern Shore gets lost somewhere along Route 50 and just doesn’t exist anymore in Government House.

WCRC meeting – January 2007

Little did I know that when I walked into our WCRC meeting tonight it would be a local bloggers’ convention of sorts – but, through a strange convergence of events it turned out to be one. Ironically, the main item on our agenda tonight was discussion of a new website for the Wicomico County Republican Party as a whole. But this local blogger subplot will be related a little bit later.

We began the evening with the usual club business (Pledge of Allegiance, a prayer given by Bonnie Luna, then Secretary and Treasurer Reports) and acknowleged the two County Council people who were present (District 2’s Stevie Prettyman and my councilman, Joe Holloway of District 5). It was also revealed that we’d gotten two additional notes of gratitude from last year’s candidates for the help our club provided to them. One was from the aforementioned Prettyman and the other was from Clerk of the Courts candidate James Gillespie.

County chair Dr. John Bartkovich added a few remarks. The bulk of them reminded us of what we were there for, as he brought along a poster-sized rendition of the Republican Principles. He also wanted to inform the club that the Central Committee was getting set to meet with our cohorts in Somerset and Worcester to plan a tri-county Lincoln Day dinner with a springtime date, rather than June like last year. It was hoped we could get a more prominent speaker that way.

We then got the registration rundown from Woody Willing and in the last 2 months of 2006 we gained 128 Republicans in Wicomico County while the Democrats only picked up 40 voters. The margin is now just a shade over 4,000. (4,000 voters in 48 months? I think it’s doable.)

At that point, we had a surprise announcement from club member (and one of the Central Committee people I succeeded) Louise Smith. Today she placed herself on the primary ballot for the Salisbury City Council. In her remarks she stated that she wasn’t necessarily aligning herself with the anti-Dream Team per se, but that she was “aligning (her)self with the taxpayer.” Her main campaign theme is going to be accountability and she was already armed with examples of recent city financial mismanagement. With Louise adding her name to the ballot, it means that if Council President Michael Dunn decides to run again a primary will be required because seven people will have filed.

With that, we also got to hear from two other previously announced candidates who came in just before we got our meeting started. Terry Cohen told us about her main focus, which was responsive government. As part of that she sought to “focus on current resources rather than invest in special interests.” Fellow City Council hopeful Tim Spies also addressed our group, noting that his main focus as a City Councilman would be to adequately fund public safety, and that he was “interested in making Salisbury work for the people.”

Also, we heard briefly from the elected officials present, with Prettyman telling us it was just “business as usual” for the county and Holloway adding that the honeymoon wasn’t over yet. To me, this is a definite advancement over the previous County Council.

We then heard from Chris von Buskirk, who’s proposing to upgrade and maintain our party website. He gave a nice presentation that illustrated what we could do with the site under his tutelage. It would place a good face on the county party and become a one-stop shop for those interested in joining us (like those 4,000 voters I’m shooting to sign up in the next 4 years.)

Also, the club began the process of enacting two pieces of “inside baseball” – one to correct minor errors in and amend the bylaws; the other to nominate new officers. Both will be acted on next month in accordance with these same by-laws. We did place seven people into nomination as new officers, and I’m one of those duly nominated.

That turned out to be pretty much the extent of club business. So, about the bloggers convention…

As it turned out, the planned Salisbury City Council meeting turned out to be a relatively short one because the main zoning law change that was supposed to be discussed magically disappeared from tonight’s agenda, tabled for a future meeting. So several people who started there found their way over to our meeting.

Thus, sometime tonight or tomorrow you should see Louise Smith’s smiling face on Salisbury News because Joe Albero was there snapping away. (I think if he snapped a pic of me, it’s going to be a profile shot.) And I got to meet and talk to “Cato” of Delmarva Dealings (and his lovely wife) for the first time. I’d been looking forward to meeting him someplace since he runs a superb website. They’re a very nice couple, and one who appears to be interested in some further involvement with the club. (Could it be that their interest was whetted by my monthly meeting reports?) Unfortunately, we didn’t get Bill Duvall (Mister Duvafiles himself) away from his compound down in Allen or we would’ve had a real news event.

So next month there’s a good possibilty that I’ll become an “insider” of the club – that is, unless someone wants to tell us why they’d be a better person for the job than I or any of the other nominees who have stepped up to the plate. They’ll have their opportunity in 5 weeks, February 26th. We may get another visit from Salisbury City Council hopefuls as well since that’s the night before the primary (should one be required) – so that looks to be a fun meeting!

A view on health insurance for Maryland

Recent monoblogue Ten Questions subject Marc Kilmer is the author of the Maryland Public Policy Institute’s first 2007 Maryland Policy Report. In it, he makes some common-sense remarks about how the so-called “Massachusetts Plan” may not be a perfect fit for our state and backs that up with some suggestions on how the problem may be solved (hint: it’s probably not something that Martin O’Malley and his Democrat cronies in the General Assembly are thinking of.)

At just a shade over 5 pages, it’s short but well worth the read. With this, Marc has made a great contribution to the debate surrounding the issue.

01.20.07

I’m sure you see the little black oval stickers on the back of some Volvo or Subaru that simply say “01.20.09” on them. Normally they’re on the other side of the bumper as the “You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war” bumper sticker (the quote is attributed to Albert Einstein.)

Imagine what they would feel if they woke up that day to hear a somber newsbabe:

Today at noon President-elect Newt Gingrich and Vice-President-elect Tom Tancredo take the oath of office – this despite Senate Minority Leader Hillary Rodham Clinton’s continuing assertions of disenfranchisement of Hispanic voters who gained amnesty 2 years ago and other fraudulent voting. (What the infobabe didn’t say was that she lost by ten points.)

Meanwhile, both newly-minted House Speaker Mike Pence of Indiana and Senate Majority Leader Tom Coburn of Oklahoma vowed to complete the dismantling of our government featured in the “Second Contract With America.”

(Pence soundbite: “We now have a historic opportunity to work with the originator of the first ‘Contract With America’ to roll back and cut out the excesses of government while preserving its essential functions.” For the 2010 elections, the unions would use the same quote but have it say “We now have a historic opportunity to…cut out the…government.”)

Also, Hillary Clinton is denying internet reports that as she vowed to work with the new administration, a blogger from the widely-read ‘Maryland Bloggers Alliance’ posted a video of Hillary from behind showing her fingers crossed behind her back.

It seems to me that (and maybe my memory’s a bit hazy, after all it’s been 8 years) that there was nowhere near this much speculation and buzz on who was going to be President at this time in 1999. Then again, we did have a heir apparent in media darling Al Gore, so nobody in the mainstream media cared too much about who the Republican sacrificial lamb would be.

But I couldn’t let this occasion of the midway point of George W. Bush’s final term go by without commenting. Of course, if the above happened the owners of these Volvos and Subarus would simply slap on “01.20.13” stickers, wouldn’t they? Some people just can’t be happy.

I suppose if I were into that sort of symbolism, one one side of my bumper I’d put my “Don’t Blame Me – I Voted For Ehrlich” sticker and the other side would have a sticker with a Maryland flag on it that read “01.19.11”. But I’m not into symbolism, I’m into solutions. Maybe it’s because I have a blog that suggests solutions rather than simply whines about what was.

Links and new members

A couple things as we go into our second-to-last NFL weekend. After Sunday, I’ll have to do stuff like reading and cleaning my house all weekend. I hate that 2 1/2 months between the end of football season (save for the Super Bowl 2 weeks hence) and the beginning of baseball season. Nonetheless…

Today as I promised a couple weeks back I’ve posted the campaign websites of hopefuls for President – not just Republicans and Democrats, but also from those minor parties on the Maryland ballot. I was informed via the Maryland Green Party website and the Libertarian list-serv that both of those parties turned in what they deemed as a sufficient number of signatures by the end of 2006 to maintain their status for the 2007-2010 election cycle in Maryland. So I have their potential candidates linked online as well.

For this effort, I give a large hat-tip to Ron Gunzberger’s Politics1 website as well as fellow MBA member David Wissing (The Hedgehog Report). It was through both websites that I found the appropriate links.

And speaking of the MBA, in the last couple weeks we’ve expanded in both number and subject content.

In the last couple weeks we’ve added The Pubcrawler from Gaithersburg, who does mostly political commentary with a libertarian tone, plus we’ve added Charles Dowd (C. Dowd’s Blog), an illustrator and Web designer from Lansdowne who writes on a variety of topics. And with a website after my own heart (despite his allegiance to an inferior ballteam), the “Maryland Orioles Fan” brings Orioles Post to the MBA. As a long-suffering Detroit Tigers fan (until 2006) and a follower of the Oriole-affiliated Shorebirds, I feel his pain. He writes out of Silver Spring.

You know, it would be intriguing to know just how many people read one or more MBA-affiliated sites on a daily basis. I’m sure we reach thousands of Marylanders…even if I’m an “average” website with a couple hundred daily readers, that puts us respectably into four figures. Of course, I live in the area of Maryland outside the main population base so my numbers are likely on the low side. I’d bet we get at least 10,000 readers a day between all of us. Perhaps we need to start charging to advertise with these numbers.

I’ll likely add to my “50 year plan” this weekend (I know, where have you heard that before?) so check back. Meanwhile, check out the Presidential contender websites and my cohorts of the MBA, new and old.

Oh, by the way…the Presidential links have been set to appear in random order, not in order of my preference. So being at the top of my list doesn’t construe my endorsement.

Death or Glory? How about “victory”?

I’ve heard the name before and it’s obvious he reads monoblogue, but Isaac Smith of The Old Line took offense to my criticism of newly-minted Senator Cardin the other day.

In particular, he sniffed:

Our Army and Marine Corps is on the point of breaking just in Iraq and Afghanistan. How the hell does Swartz think they can up and depose the Iranian regime, the Syrian regime, the Lebanese regime, etc. without drafting every able-bodied male, including me and him, into a war that would last decades? Swartz may be willing to gamble with other people’s lives, but I am not, and neither is the majority of Americans. Oh, and the troops Swartz claims understand the danger of his “Long War”? They’re against the war too.

So I read the short articles he cited in this passage. One thing that stood out among the two polls he cited was this passage from the AP poll:

Just 35 percent think it was right for the United States to go to war, a new low in AP polling and a reversal from two years ago, when two-thirds of Americans thought it was the correct move.

All this tells me is that the constant beatdown by the partisan media has borne fruit and turned Americans against the War on Terror. As I noted before, back on September 12, 2001 we couldn’t wait to turn our guns on whoever knocked over the Twin Towers. But Americans now seem to be cursed with a short attention span and the enemy is smart enough to see how the steady drumbeat of criticism is yielding results much as the antiwar slant in the media eventually doomed South Viet Nam to a Communist takeover.

The other poll Isaac Smith cites is a Military Times mail poll that states 35% of military members approve of the way President Bush is handing the war while 42% disapprove. Also it claims that “in this year’s poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place.”

But then we have this disclaimer:

The results should not be read as representative of the military as a whole; the survey’s respondents are on average older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more career-oriented than the overall military population.

And I liked this passage:

But (those surveyed) are convinced the media hate them — only 39 percent of military respondents said they think the media have a favorable view of the troops.

That’s interesting since it’s “the media” that did this poll: the Military Times is a subsidiary of Gannett, Inc. (the folks who publish everything from USA Today to our local Daily Times.)

And there’s another item I’d like to address before I finish this tonight.

If I had my preference, we wouldn’t have to see young men and women die in some foreign land. Unfortunately, I don’t think we had much of a choice given the series of attacks that have occurred to America and its interests for nearly 30 years in the Middle East and elsewhere which can be traced to radical Islam. (There. Is that a better description than Islamofascist?)

Honestly, Isaac, do you think that if America had done nothing in response to 9/11, that we wouldn’t have had another similar attack?

I have a philosophy that government should be proactive rather than reactive when used in its proper context. Because of that, I see the logic of the methods (if not necessarily the means) by which we are fighting this war. We are using people who have volunteered to fight the war knowing full well what they are signing up for and taking the battle to the original instigators on what is essentially their turf.

I’ll close with some of what President Bush said on September 20, 2001. It sounds like Isaac and his cohorts on the left may need a refresher course.

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. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime…the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows.

(…)

The civilized world is rallying to America’s side. They understand that if this terror goes unpunished, their own cities, their own citizens may be next. Terror, unanswered, can not only bring down buildings, it can threaten the stability of legitimate governments. And you know what — we’re not going to allow it.

(…)

Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment. Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom — the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time — now depends on us. Our nation — this generation — will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.

It is my hope that in the months and years ahead, life will return almost to normal. We’ll go back to our lives and routines, and that is good. Even grief recedes with time and grace. But our resolve must not pass…I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people.

Nor will I.

A 50 year plan: Introduction

Tonight it’s time to get sort of philosophical. I’ve spent a couple days between posts thinking about a number of things and how best to express them.

To start out, the reason I got into the political world was that I saw it as a way to make a difference. Back then I was younger and more idealistic but unfortunately had not a clue how to accomplish what I wanted to do. As I got older, I learned much more about things which are my strengths and those that are my weaknesses, and I tried as much as possible to manage my life to bypass those areas that aren’t my main strengths. One thing I found out rather quickly is that I’m not the prototypical politician by any means. I don’t have the gift of gab and the part about raising money and sucking up to people for votes just doesn’t appeal to me very well either, at least in a large-scale sense. I just deal better with small groups.

On the other hand, I do seem to have an ability to put words to paper (or onto a computer screen) that can become a good argument for the position I’m advocating. And political movements have room for people like myself, so I’ve been graced with attracting notice from various people and getting opportunities that not just anyone can take advantage of. Years ago I helped with the newsletter for our Young Republican club and would write the occasional letter to the editor of our local rag. But this political phase began with my being accepted to write on an occasional basis for the Patriot Post, continued with my original Blogger site, and evolved into monoblogue. And this site continues to grow – this week will be my first 1,000 visitor week according to my Site Meter. Part of that is being in the Maryland Bloggers Alliance and some of that comes from being featured on BlogNetNews Maryland. However, I think there’s more to this modest but blossoming success and I’m led to believe that it’s because I put together a website that doesn’t go into the personal attack mode like some others do. Further, when I write about a problem, more often than not I have some thoughts or suggestions for a solution to this issue.

And this in turn brings me to what I’m going to attempt to begin today.

When I ran for my current post on the Wicomico County Republican Central Committee, the main goal of mine was to make Wicomico County a county where Republicans outnumber Democrats. Part of achieving this in my mind was to get the younger people in Wicomico County to become Republicans because of my belief that it’s in their best interest to follow conservative Republican principles, and that American society will be more successful in the long run if they do. I have no idea of the demographics of my readership but I’m betting the average age is less than 40.

Last year I devoted a lot of time and post space to the Maryland election cycle, which gave me an opportunity to see issues from many different sides. In District 37B there was a candidate named Jim Adkins who, while I didn’t agree with his stance on a number of issues, couched them on the premise of looking at their impact 20 or 30 years into the future. Obviously, parents want what’s best for their kids and I believe that may have been a part of his thinking, but there’s a LOT of politicians on both sides who look only 2-4 years ahead and think solely about maintaining their position of power.

I noted earlier that I was not born to be a politician because my skill set isn’t the same as, say, a Jim Mathias. In some ways this is a bummer because I think I have a lot of good ideas.

But, on the other hand, this is liberating as well. Because I’m not a legislator or seeking an executive-type post, I don’t have to deliver a lot of hollow promises. In fact, my political philosophy may turn some types of people off because I’m the sort who doesn’t believe that government in and of itself should enrich people nor do I think it’s a proper vehicle for wealth transfer. Unfortunately, it’s been noted that “a democracy…can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury.” Since I’m opposed to that concept, there’s no way in hell I could be truthful about my beliefs and ever reach a high enough office to put these plans into action.

In my small way, by beginning these writings I’d like to help begin a movement much as the Federalists did at our nation’s birth. More recently, at least parts of this goal have been accomplished by leaders like Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich. Unfortunately, President Reagan is no longer with us to lead but Gingrich continues to write and speak with a similar eye on the future of America. Like me, he’s not currently shackled by having to pander to an electorate which frees him to state his case for a movement. Whether or not you agreed with the concepts, the Gingrich vision embodied in the 1994 “Contract With America” changed politics in our country.

And therein lies the reason I term this as a fifty year plan. In my eyes, it’s going to take five decades and a dedicated generation to turn back the tide of government that’s not for the people, but for only some of the people and taken from others – particularly taken from those who achieve financial success. Indeed, it’s possible I may not live to see that day come, and there’s always the threats from without that could doom our society as we have come to know it.

For my generation (I’m on the cusp between Boomer and Gen X’er), it may be too late to make a significant change in America. Our hope for change lies in the Millennial Generation, those born after 1980. It’s a group that came of age with Bill Clinton and 9/11, and it’s the one who’s bearing the brunt of the sacrifices in Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s for them that I begin this series of writings, which will be on an occasional basis and focus on one particular area that I’d like to see the next generation improve our nation in.

Something tells me that they’ll be more than willing to meet the challenges we face.

Updating Pumpin’ and Dumpin’

On January 2nd I put a post on monoblogue called Pumpin’ and Dumpin‘. In essence it was a study of how the stock picks which come unsolicited to the place of business I work at actually performed and also who’s really making the money off these stocks. This was a post that didn’t necessarily deal with Delmarva in particular, but something I have an interest in because I do invest in the stock market (just not in those particular shares.)

The first item of business is to thank all of the commenters who have taken a few minutes of their day to add their input. When I make comments on other blogs (here are a number of examples) generally I’m trying to add to the conversation by either making a point in agreement with the blogger, adding to the post through relating experiences I’ve had, or making a cohesive counterargument to his/her point. On the Pumpin’ and Dumpin’ post I’ve had 21 comments (which is the record for monoblogue’s 300+ posts so far) and they’re apparently people who found the post because they were frustrated by spam faxes and were led here by a Yahoo search (or other search engine.) Best of all, they’ve added to the conversation, which in a local blogosphere that sometimes sees comments stoop to simple personal attacks is extremely refreshing.

While going through the regional media the other day, an idea struck me. (Fortunately it didn’t hurt.) I was reading an article about Doug Gansler, Maryland’s newly sworn-in Attorney General, and how he’s promising to crack down on polluters and modeling himself after former New York AG (and now Governor) Eliot Spitzer.

Think about this. How many hundreds of trees are killed in a week to provide the reams of paper that these faxes waste? And, while it so happens our fax machine sits right over our recycling bin and makes recycling our waste paper easier to achieve, how much landfill space is needlessly wasted promoting stocks that plummet the moment the folks at Gemini News sell out? Doesn’t that toner eventually separate from the paper and find its way to Chesapeake Bay?

But seriously, this did get me thinking further about the problem of these junk faxes.

A couple years back, there was a bill passed by Congress called the “Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005.” Unfortunately, it seems to have had the opposite effect as businesses are allowed a loophole based on an “established business relationship.” Apparently, having a semi-public fax number (ours is on my business card for example) is good enough to consider an “established business relationship.” Proponents of the bill were legitimate businesses (realtors were one prime example) who do depend on faxes to get information to and from clients but were technically violating previous rules. But the EBR loophole’s big enough to drive a Mack truck through so the federal government was no help. Big surprise there.

Also, here’s part of a short article I found on the MSNBC website:

First, you need to figure out where the call is coming from. If you don’t have caller ID, you can use the *57 call trace service (there is a small charge for this). You may be able to use your phone company’s “call rejection” service to block the call.

If not, you’ll need to contact your local phone company. Most have a call annoyance or unlawful call center. They can help identify where the call is coming from and may be able to figure out a fix.

If you get the runaround from the phone company, contact your state’s utility commission. They may be able to help.

The problems I see with this are twofold. Spam faxers tend to have more than one number in a lot of cases – block one, the person just uses another number. The other problem is anecdotally I’ve found that many of these come from Canada or overseas. It’s not clear whether the phone company can block those numbers, but even if so that just leads back to problem #1.

I guess I did a service in some respects though by tracking their performance. If the word gets out that these stocks are about to become absolute dogs, then maybe the companies recommending them will be shunned.

By the way, with the Dow hitting another record close, thus far this year 3 of the 7 stocks are up, 2 are even, and 2 down. If I readjusted my imaginary portfolio to the end of 2006 numbers, that $7,000 would be $8,318.53 (mostly because HSFI has gone from 4 cents a share to 9 cents a share.) Apparently the dumping is complete but don’t be surprised if we see these and other over-the-counter stocks pushed on a fax coming soon to your machine.

Moving backwards in the Senate

Today I went to my political mailbox and found a note from my “friend” Senator Cardin called “Moving Backwards in Iraq.”

Dear Friend,

Last night, President Bush presented the American people with his plan for the future of Iraq. Unfortunately, his plan is not the change of course we so desperately need. It will only put more American troops in harm’s way and will not bring us any closer to achieving success in Iraq.

Later this morning, I am scheduled to deliver my first speech on the Floor of the U.S. Senate. I will use this opportunity to voice my strong opposition to the President’s plan to escalate troop levels. I’ll offer my own vision for moving forward in Iraq, which acknowledges that the country is in the midst of a worsening civil war.

The President’s plan to send thousands of additional troops to Iraq is not a change in strategy; it’s an escalated version of the same ‘stay the course’ policy that has not worked. The circumstances on the ground in Iraq are worsening. More American troops are dying each week and there’s no end in sight. A new policy in Iraq is long overdue.

By choosing an escalation in troop levels rather than a drawdown, President Bush is ignoring the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and the advice of many military experts, including several of his own generals. He is also ignoring the wishes of the American people, who last November spoke with a unified voice against the current policy in Iraq.

Like the majority of Americans, I believe we need to bring our troops home, not send more troops to war. Iraq is in the midst of a civil war and victory will not be achieved by flexing our military might.

Success can come only through aiding the Iraqis in establishing a government that protects the rights and enjoys the confidence of all its people. It must be a government that respects both human rights and democratic principles. The efforts of U.S. soldiers, no matter how heroic, cannot accomplish these objectives for the Iraqis.

Our objective must be to escalate our political and diplomatic efforts, not our troop levels.

I sincerely hope the President reconsiders his plan and works with Congress to bring about a real change in policy that allows our troops to start coming home.

Thank you for your continued support.

Sincerely,

Ben Cardin

Ben Cardin was born in 1943, so that makes him 63 years old. Unless he lives to his father’s age, he may not be around for the conclusion of this Long War against Islamofascism.

The reason Iraq is in the middle of what he terms a “civil war” is that we have taken the fight to the Islamic extremists on their turf. And much like Viet Nam, the enemy’s not fighting on a strictly military basis. They seem to have studied our Viet Nam experience and are using much the same strategy as the Viet Cong did. On a strictly military basis, the enemy has much less firepower than we do but they use the guerrilla tactics perfected in the jungles of Southeast Asia very well.

Even more so, our Islamofascist enemy is taking advantage of the same propaganda style that turned the country against the war in Viet Nam. I’m old enough to remember Walter Cronkite leading off the nightly news with the day’s body count from over there and then the second or third feature being an antiwar protest someplace. While the term may or may not be attributable to Vladimir Lenin, “useful idiot” does capture the flavor of the 1960’s mainstream media and their reporting on military events.

But I digress. Getting back to the Cardin letter:

I guess the very first objection I have is that American troops understand when they sign on the dotted line that they will be in harm’s way. To place a local slant on this, I’m sure Eric Caldwell knew that he may lose his life defending our country since he signed up for the military in 2003 and the Army in 2005, well after we began operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately for him and his family, that’s the very thing that happened.

And I have to disagree that sending more troops to Iraq is automatically a mistake. It seems to me that many on the Democrat side were pleading for more troops to be sent over there not all that long ago. Well, now they get their wish and they bitch about it. And frankly, I’m sick of their whining and pouting about how badly the war is going. Much of this may have been avoided if the last two Democrat presidents had grown a pair and aggressively gone after those who attacked us and our interests abroad.

Next, I don’t believe that the American people “spoke with a unified voice against the current policy in Iraq” in November. Yes, they elected a Democrat majority. But how many of them actually ran against the war? They ran against the “culture of corruption” and against President Bush in general. Many made themselves out as just as conservative as their GOP opponents.

And even if Americans did speak with an antiwar tone in their vote, it still doesn’t mean they’re right. If they were truly antiwar, they would’ve had the attitude they have now on September 12, 2001. But I seem to recall back then most Americans were girded for battle with whoever did this to us at the World Trade Center and Pentagon. By golly, that’s what we’re doing now – how soon they forget!

So this is a message from me to both of my Senators, Senator Cardin and Senator Mikulski (who also had remarks about the troop buildup.) It will be time for the troops to come home when we have achieved victory in the Long War. That will be the point when the threat from Islamofascists and their allies has subsided to an internally manageable level because of the use of our force to a point where free and elected governments thrive – not just in Iraq, but Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and any other country that yearns for freedom in the Middle East.

The only front we can lose this war on would be the home front. I brought up the term “useful idiots” earlier. With their remarks today, the Democrats have firmly shown themselves to be perfect examples of this, and I’m betting there’s smiles all around wherever the Islamofascists are holed up for tonight.