Dogging the blogs

Before I begin, as promised on Friday the U.S. Senate and Maryland General Assembly “debates” are posted below in the next two posts.

But I was pretty perturbed after Ron Alessi’s diatribe yesterday morning. In his “view across the river” he savaged the local blogosphere, and unfortunately some members of my own party are joining the amen chorus on Alessi’s side.

Be honest here – if it weren’t for the local blogs would we have anywhere near the news coverage that we do? There’s a lot that the citizens of Salisbury and the Eastern Shore would be unaware of had it not been for the efforts of people who have found an outlet to tell stories that may or may not have been covered in the regular media. Now the regular media gets many of its story tips from those who spend the time writing up news and first-person accounts of their investigations, discoveries, and other information that they feel is worth sharing. In this case, Mr. Alessi and his allies seem to feel they are being piled on for things they may not feel are germaine to his campaign. But Ron spent almost his entire time on the air Tuesday morning answering Bill Reddish’s questions that pertained to topics brought up by the local blogs, then went out of his way to trash them with his closing statement.

I’m going to say right here that I’m not a supporter of Alessi’s bid for County Executive, but my mind was made up long before this WICO incident occurred. Of the three candidates in the race on the GOP side, I think he’s the least desirable but that’s based on factors other than lawsuits or campaign finance. Simply put, I feel both Bob Culver and B.J. Corbin have more to offer the county.

Saying that, I do feel sometimes that we bloggers go out of bounds on occasion. Obviously we all have our points of view, and we’re not unknown to slant the facts to make our arguments. But it’s relatively easy to determine our point of view up front, and we in the blogosphere forgo the pretense of balance for the most part. (Gee, my predecessor blog to monoblogue was called “ttown’s right wing conspiracy” – where do you think I stand?)

In my case, I have a bias but when I put on my reporter hat, most say that I’m very good at recounting the events that took place. When I get reaction to my reporting, it’s more often than not positive because I write down what happened then translate it to my website so others may know what I saw and heard. And if I speculate, I say so. If you want opinion I have plenty of that to go around as well.

And one opinion I have is that, if Ron Alessi wanted to score points with the voters by trashing the local blogs, he’s got another thing coming. What he forgets is, for all the things the blogosphere may not be as it evolves and grows through its infancy, one thing they are is passionate. And it’s the most passionate voters who go out in September to pick their party’s candidates.

Speaking of passion, I came across a post today on Gunpowder Chronicle I thought was worth mentioning and supplementing with my own opinion as it ties to my campaign for Central Committee.

In his post, GC lists the members of Congress who voted for McCain-Feingold. On it were 2 of the 3 who represent the Delmarva Pennisula in the House, Mike Castle of Delaware and our own Wayne Gilchrest. (Virginia’s Thelma Drake was first elected in 2004 so she didn’t vote on it.)

And this brings me to a platform plank I have. In November I’ll have the choice between a Republican who’s no better than a 60 or 65 on the American Conservative Union ratings (most are in the 80’s or 90’s) or a Democrat who’s sure to be well under even that miserable total – only a handful of Democrats are above 50 according to the ACU. My Republican nominee voted for McCain-Feingold, voted against ANWR, and joined a call for debate on Iraq when this was already done twice before. But, of course, I have no choice in the matter because no one wanted to run against Wayne Gilchrest and I’m sure the Maryland GOP would frown on someone who dared to do so. (It’s why Michael Steele is a presumptive nominee despite having primary opposition.)

Because of my experiences in Ohio with the state GOP playing similar games, I am a strong proponent of contested primaries. If someone of a more conservative mindset wants to challenge Gilchrest in 2008, I’d welcome him or her with open arms to the race, Maryland GOP be damned. It should be up to the voters to decide, not a handful of people in Annapolis who think they know who the most “electable” person is. Those types are the people who kept Arlen Specter in the Senate rather than supporting a better candidate in Pat Toomey.

Yeah, there I go, causing trouble again and I haven’t even been elected yet. Have I told you all that I’m a guy seeking some changes in how the Republican Party in Wicomico County and the state of Maryland is run?

Ten Questions…MGA Debate (part 2)

Part 2 of the Senate debate is below, and Part 1 of this debate can be found here. Here’s a quick review of the players in each district.

Senate District 37:

Rich Colburn, Republican – website and original responses.

House of Delegates District 37A: no responses.

House of Delegates District 37B:

Jim Adkins, Democrat – website and original responses.
Addie Eckardt, Republican – website and original responses.

Senate District 38: no responses.

House of Delegates District 38A:

Patrick Armstrong, Democrat – website and original responses.

House of Delegates District 38B:

Sonny Bloxom, Republican – website and original responses.
Michael James, Republican – website and original responses.
Jack Lord, Republican – website and original responses.

And now, let’s resume with Question #4.

Question #4:

This year a state takeover of several failing Baltimore City Schools was thwarted by the General Assembly overriding an earlier veto of a bill Governor Ehrlich rejected. A few states, though, are attempting to remove themselves from the federal “No Child Left Behind” regulations for various reasons, even at the risk of losing federal dollars. Do you support the federal NCLB mandates or do you feel the state could and should go without the additional restrictions (and funding)?

Richard Colburn (R, Sen 37): Maryland can ill afford to forego federal dollars by removing schools from the “No Child Left Behind” regulations. I continue to urge my constituents to do as we have done which is to urge federal representatives to address federal “No Child Left Behind” regulations making them more reasonable. The current regulations cause the teachers to spend an inordinate amount of time and resources preparing the children to pass tests in order to graduate instead of getting back to the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic.

Addie Eckardt (R, 37B): With regard to” No Child Left Behind” there are some very good aspects, especially the focus on every child receiving a quality education and meeting reading and math standards. Yes, there are some parts that need modification and there has been much discussion with the federal government about this. I would not reject the opportunity to continue with the program. What is more important to me is that we have put over 1 billion dollars into education over the past five years and we put a plan in place to assist schools in the event that students and schools were not making progress. What will happen to those students in the Baltimore city schools who are not reading and doing math? Will they graduate? I think not. Will they be able to get jobs and find meaningful work without the skills necessary to succeed? Or will they not graduate and wind up unemployed, on the streets, or in jail? I have visited an elementary school (an Edison School) that is doing well – students are achieving. I favored the intervention from the State Board to help those failing schools.

James Adkins (D, 37B): I would have to look at the numbers and whether or not Maryland could stand to lose the funding. Right now, NCLB is placing an ever increasing burden on our school systems. The real question is whether or not our students are graduating with more knowledge and are better prepared to enter the workplace and adulthood due to NCLB. Only time will tell, but “bright ideas” from Washington and even from Annapolis may not be as effective as the appropriate resourcing of good ideas by those who have to implement policies.

Patrick Armstrong (D, 38A): Today I believe that Maryland should stick with NCLB and the federal funding it brings. As for he legislation passed by Congress, NCLB is a lousy legal mess. The problems it creates for teachers and the roadblocks it puts into place for students are numerous. While many provisions are important for the future of our schools the majority of NCLB has failed our children and our schools, as many states and school boards across the country and in Maryland have discovered. This in mind, Maryland is currently in compliance with NCLB and I believe that we should continue to accept the federal assistance for our schools at this time. As for Baltimore, if a failing school cannot be remedied by the local jurisdiction than it should be taken over by the State until a solution can be found. No school in Maryland should be allowed to fall below our highest expectations for performance and quality education.

Jack Lord (R, 38B): No child left behind means accountable teachers and schools. Most schools could not do without the Federal funding. Worcester is probably the exception. They have some of the highest test scores but receive the least funding of any School system in the state.

Michael James (R, 38B): I support NCLB.

Sonny Bloxom (R, 38B): I support the federal NCLB mandates and would urge the state to seek modifications to it where appropriate for our state needs.

Question #5:

In the 2006 General Assembly, the Blackwater development in Cambridge became a contentious issue which led to legislation that was eventually defeated. However, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation has continued to apply pressure to legislators and encourage voters to speak out on what they perceive as a threat to bay water quality. On the other hand, the city of Cambridge sees Blackwater as a needed shot in the arm for its economy and tax base. Where do you see yourself on this issue and related development matters?

Richard Colburn (R, Sen 37): Regarding Blackwater, I am a strong believer in private property rights. Also, a project that is 3 years old and $10 million dollars into the process should not be thwarted. When it comes to related development matters, I favor managed growth. Growth should be limited to regions already set aside for it in the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan should not be easily amended simply to accommodate a large development.

James Adkins (D, 37B): I don’t think we should use housing construction alone as the answer to strengthening the Eastern Shore’s economy. We need a full spectrum of employment here on the Shore and must look over the horizon to see what the Shore will look like in the next 50 years. It is a difficult balancing act to recruit the businesses and then make sure that we can provide the employees to run the businesses. The Eastern Shore needs to be able to plug into the high technology located in places like Montgomery County. Unless we can provide this type of opportunity here on the Shore, we will continue to build houses here and people will continue to drive across the Bay Bridge for work there just adding to the congestion on our roadways. Just think what our roads will be like in the future, if we don’t solve this problem. Finally, we have only one chance to get this right. We have to get a handle on growth here on the Shore or we will lose our way of life.

Addie Eckardt (R, 37B): There was a bill in Annapolis that would interrupt the local planning process regarding land development. In regards to the Blackwater legislation, the bill was introduced by western shore legislators without any conversation with the local delegation, which is the customary way of bill introduction. I did not support the bill as it did not come through the local delegation and would usurp the local process prematurely. Dorchester County is often the last frontier for development and since the development of Sailwinds Park, the subsequent focus on the Hyatt, and downtown redevelopment, I believe the process put in place through smart growth and the critical areas needed to be honored. The entire community needed the conversation about growth and the impact on the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. As I have traveled across the country, I have been impressed with development that has been managed with sensitivity to the local culture as well as the environmental assets. I have always believed that growth will come to Dorchester and it is important that it be managed carefully with as many citizens involved in the discussion and subsequently the decisions. Cambridge cannot expand services for citizens without some growth. Most of the county is not available for development due to the tidal and nontidal wetlands and the amount of farmland necessary to maintain farming as one of the major businesses. I co-sponsored HB114, which makes several changes regarding local planning and requires local jurisdictions to plan for potential annexation and include in planning documents. It also requires cities and counties to work together. I believe this legislation will address the concerns raised by the Blackwater situation.

Patrick Armstrong (D, 38A): I believe that development can occur without serious damage to the bay and surrounding waters. Unfortunately, at this time we do not have in place the proper laws requiring strict environmental protections from runoff and waste disposal. I believe that Blackwater is a dangerous development plan and should be held to much stricter environmental protections than those that are currently in place. As for the lower shore, we understand the importance of the Bay’s health and we understand the need for growth. I propose we hold developers accountable for protecting the bay as they build and ensure that every possible safeguard is in place to prevent further devastation to the waters around the eastern shore.

Jack Lord (R, 38B): Since that development is in District 37B I would defer to the wishes of the two Delegates representing that area.

Sonny Bloxom (R, 38B): The state needs to be more involved in land use issues, especially where their interest is greatest (ie. bay water quality, sensitive habitats, and road/transportation systems).

Michael James (R, 38B): From my view, the Blackwater Developers played by the rules, followed the permit process, and communicated with state and local officials from the beginning. It may have helped their cause to do more in the beginning to reach out early to their future opponents, but that is just speculation.

I feel the state government plays a needed role in protecting our environment and should monitor development to ensure that the benefits are not outweighed by problems, current or future. The state should stay active in development matters, however I feel it is unfair to legislate retroactively.

Question #6:

The last two sessions of the General Assembly have seen an inordinate amount of time spent dealing with personnel matters and political appointments. Some have claimed this as a usurpation of power properly belonging to the executive branch (governor’s office) but others see this as a proper extension of the duties of the General Assembly. In your opinion, has the General Assembly gone too far or does the Governor still wield too much power when it comes to personnel decisions?

Richard Colburn (R, Sen 37): The General Assembly has gone too far. Thousands and thousands of dollars have been spent already regarding this issue. This is a waste of time and a waste of taxpayers’ dollars. The Governor is the Chief Executive of the State and consequently should be able to work with individuals with like-minded philosophies. My question is what exactly do my Democratic counterparts not understand about the definition of an at-will employee?

Addie Eckardt (R, 37B): I believe the General Assembly has gone too far to block the Governor’s prerogative that has been the practice for the past 40 or more years. In the previous administration the changes were frequent but I don’t remember anyone questioning the Governor at that time. Government can get pretty entrenched over the years and if agencies are not functioning well, the Governor is held responsible whether he was responsible for the problems or not. The Governor answers to the citizens and if there was one message that rang true during the 2004 campaign it was that government was growing too fast and was not as efficient as it could be. The current Governor put together a transition team to review state government and to recommend changes, which they did. Outcome performance measures were established and managing for results became the expected practice. I did learn this past session that the Legislature does wield a lot of power as well and action became overreaching as bills were introduced and passed that exceeded Constitutional authority.

James Adkins (D, 37B): Maybe the answer is yes and no to both questions. The Governor was operating under expanded “at will” authority provided during the previous administration and authorized by the General Assembly. We can’t keep changing the rules depending on which party is in power. A governor needs the flexibility to have key positions filled by those who support and will implement his or her vision for operations of the executive branch. However, the chief executive and his staff must use good judgment and fairness when implementing policy.

Patrick Armstrong (D, 38A): Members of both political parties can agree that political establishments in Maryland have too much power. I believe that removing some of the more basic appointment decisions from the governor is a reasonable step to take. Our executive branch has more power than any other in the country and by reducing that power we can be sure that appointments are keep in check now and in future administrations of either political party.

Sonny Bloxom (R, 38B): The General Assembly has gone too far only because we have a Repulican Governor. They would never have done this with a Democratic Governor. They have a legitimate role to play but should do it for the right motives not for politics. Also, they need to remember they are the legislative branch of government and not the executive.

Jack Lord (R, 38B): Only since the Democrats have lost control of the appointment process and large numbers were replaced are they upset. I think the system works fine.

Michael James (R, 38B): The General Assembly has gone too far. They have now spent over $1,000,000.00 on their politically motivated hearings.

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

I tell you, this is SO much easier to put together than the U.S. Senate version. Maybe I just asked better questions? On Friday I’ll do the final four questions to wrap up the debate, and Sunday I’ll endorse the candidates I feel would be best for the Eastern Shore in all of the contested primaries.

Ten Questions…Senate Debate (part 2)

Tonight I’m doing the second of three parts for the U.S. Senate “debate” formed from the Ten Questions. This covers Questions 4 through 6, part one is here.

Question #4:

Along that same line, many people have seen the vast sums of money that seemingly are required to run for public office and were under the impression that campaign finance reforms such as those enacted with the McCain-Feingold bill were supposed to relieve this inequity. On the whole, however, the money trail has not ceased even with these laws. How do you favor strengthening these laws to make them more effective, or do you agree with some First Amendment advocates who think these laws should be eliminated?

Blaine Taylor (D): Since my first of 15 poltical campaigns, I decided to advocate the abolition of ALL PACS: Political Action Committees. In addition, all paid advertising on television and radio should be abolished for the 2008 elections, and the necessary air time seized from the private industry networks who’ve abused the trust given them by We, the People. WE own the airwaves, they don’t, and it’s time to fire them all. Sufficient air time should be provided for all candidates free of charge. That would eliminate ALL fundraising events AND clear out Washington,DC of ALL lobbyists, just as Christ drove out the moneychangers from the temple. When I filed for the current race on July 3rd, I made the decision that I would neither solicit, nor accept. any contributions whatsoever, and have, indeed, returned all such donated funds to date. I am not playing that whore’s game! I will not be had, either by Democratic unions or GOP robber barons, and that’s that!

Allan Lichtman (D): The public financing of elections is the only way to curb the dominant influence of money on our politics. For their millions in campaign contributions wealthy corporate interests reap many billions in subsidies, tax breaks, and other forms of corporate welfare. The way to get rich in America is not to drill for oil or dig for gold, but to contribute to politicians.

Look at the campaign contributions accepted by his opponent, Congressman Ben Cardin, from the pharmaceutical and health products industry. For his 2004 re-election Cardin accepted $29,500 from the pharmaceutical and health products industry, far more than any other member of congress from Maryland, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. He accepted $8,000 from Pfizer alone. In 2003, he was the only member of Maryland’s congressional delegate to follow the lead of the pharmaceutical industry and vote against The Pharmaceutical Market Access Act, which would have authorized the importation of low-cost, safe prescription medications from Canada.

For his 2006 Senate campaign Cardin has accepted $40,000 from Constellation Energy, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. This is the company that is pushing to raise electric bills for their customers in Maryland by 72 percent. Overall he has raked in more than $63,000 from electric utilities.

You cannot serve both the common interests of the people of Maryland and the private interests of lobbyists and wealthy corporations. You cannot claim to be standing up to the pharmaceutical industry and the big energy companies when you’re raking in their cash.

I would ask: Which matters more: affordable prescription drugs, a decrease in living costs, reasonable gas and electricity prices, or swelling the already deep pockets of wealthy corporations?

As a candidate I pledge to take no PAC money from private corporations. As a Senator I pledge to take no perks, as indicated above.

Richard Shawver (R): My run for office should coat (sic) less then $5000, it’s hard to think of people or company’s from out of state giving money to candidates.

Earl Gordon (R): No answer.

Lih Young (D): The way to eliminate corporate corruption is not by rhetoric legislative bills. Most likely the legislative bills are bad, and often with serious hidden agendas and appropriation to benefit a few. A lot of legislative bills are unnecessary, except to keep legislators busy, without time to think, or to deal with more important bills or other things, e.g., resolving and provide proper remedies against “official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks: operation, unjust practices; actually prosecuting and eliminating frauds, crimes or corruption (public or private, corporate or government). There are Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and other existing good laws, which need to be enforced, implemented; but are often ignored, violated intentionally, as by the rampant of “official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks” with endless immoral, unlawful acts, frauds and crimes, which breed more corruption and violence domestically and globally. U.S. Senate, or even three branches of government, law enforcement, government attorneys, prosecutors, local- federal are not doing rights; failed to carry out their responsibilities to enforce the good laws, protecting people, their rights, resources, properties, reputation, due process, etc. Important but often ignored: Prosecute and eliminate “official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks” operation, unjust practice, manipulation, influence. Stop processing bad or unnecessary legislative bills; proper processing of complaints, files, records, resolution. Based on merits, cost-effectiveness, priorities, socials cost-benefits; stop bad appropriation. Rigorous review, analysis: budget, based on merit, principle, priorities, cost-effectiveness, social cost-benefits. Promote quality, peace, justice, fair election processes; televise, disseminate, maintain meaningful information; issue, candidate, debate. Oppose: unjust practices, manipulation, influence; bad legislative proposals, hidden agenda with false excuses (economic development, housing, transportation, whatever) for private gain (officials, developers, lawyers, etc.); nonsense grants, programs, projects: facilitate “official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks”. Major transaction or land deal should be rigorously reviewed objectively by academically very well trained, based on merits, priorities, cost- effectiveness, social cost-benefits, etc., through competitive processes, general soliciting, fair market mechanism; not arranged by the developer or inner circle; should be openly discussed with residents, in official meetings, Mayor/Council/ public hearings; not misleading, concealing, unjust manipulation or influence; not rushed through as the consent agenda items as mall purchases of goods and services. Eliminate, prevent: abandonment of public resources, land, propertes to benefit a few or “official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks” including developer, government attorneys, lawyers, law firms, etc.) at the expense of general public and future generations, including other jurisdictions, especially with grants and public debts from the state and federal; sold, leased out (secret hidden agenda, even huge acres, decades-long lease) with zero or no fair compensation, despite citizen’s objection; unnecessarily leased private properties for government use at very high costs even with short lease (a few years or shorter); with extra high costs to construct building, furnish expansive equipments; and when construction is done, lease expires, completed products abandoned or free to a few; often disguised by partnership, economic development, school, education, public safety, etc.; several rounds of unjust abandonment and purchase; misleading public roads, highways, when in fact abandoned to private; unjust projects, appropriation; misuse, abuse, misappropriation; false road construction, maintenance; false records: land, roads, maps; unjust demolition of building even in good condition to initiate new construction, project, purchase, including library or school.

David Dickerson (D): Yes, let us strengthen these laws and establish a ceiling of the amount of money a candidate can raise for their campaign. Moreover, should it be allowed that candidates can dine in Hollywood and Las Vegas to obtain funding for their Maryland campaign? By establishing term limits, it will disallow candidates from Congress to use their influence on Federal government committees to raise money from around the country. Remember Corzonne in New Jersey using his own $60 million to win the U.S. Senate seat? Well, he did, and then he went on to become Governor of the state.

Kevin Zeese (Green): The FEC is an agency that does not work (sadly like many government bureaucracies). The Federal Election Commission should be changed so that it is not a deadlocked Commission with three Democrats and three Republicans. We should add three non-Dem/Repubs so that things can get done and people are represented. According to Gallup 38% of Americans see themselves as independent of the two old parties, 31% are Dems, 29% are Republicans. The FEC should represent that breakdown rather than be an agency that protects the two parties. I favor a voluntary check off system that is well advertised so that people can contribute to a fund for political campaigns. That is how public campaigns should be financed. Re private speech, the same limits that apply to campaigns should apply to so-called 527 organizations and the reporting of who is funding these efforts should be immediately transparent so people know who is paying for the message and what their interests are.

Campaign finance is another example of many issues — where the public wants reform and where the two parties do not provide it — because reform will threaten their hold on power and weaken the special interests that fund their campaigns. According to a brand new bipartisan poll released by the watchdog group Public Campaign, 75% of voters support a voluntary system of publicly financed election campaigns – that includes 80% of Democrats, 78% of Independents, and 65% of Republicans. The poll shows this support is being fueled by the explosive corruption scandals that have rocked Capitol Hill. And even more interestingly, the poll shows that candidates who pledge to support a public financing system get a significant political boost over candidates who do not.

Daniel “Wig Man” Vovak (R): My campaign is already implementing campaign finance reform. We have spent well less than $5000, the FEC requirement for filing paperwork.

Mike Schaefer (D): We should not eliminate these laws. I think they are enforced without common sense sometimes. I was once in a federal campaign and took $25,000 from my stock account, a margin loan against my securities, and considered it a loan to the campaign. The FED pointed out that loans can only be made by banks, not be national brokerage firms, and thus the $25,000 was a gift to my campaign by Charles Schwab & Co., which exceeded the then $1,000 limit and anyhow corporations are prohibited from making any donations. I was fined $3,500 and resented the total abuse of federal statutes to punish an innocent oversight—when the same amount of time should have gone to investigating some chicanery. (Soon after the laws were changed to permit brokerage firms and other non-bank financial sources to make loans to candidates—I warranted thanks for raising the issue). I prefer a level playing field and have considered limited expenditures in any election to a certain multiple of the salary of that office, like Congress(is it $150,000?) races might have a $300,000 limit in primary and $600,000 limit in general. Some of these guys have raised millions; would require that any banked political money exceeding the foregoing limits be returned to sender, or given to a charity, or confiscated by the US. Today incumbents bankroll millions to fighten-off any competition; that is not putlic service. America thinks that a good percent of its elected officials are political prostitutes and you don’t get any argument from me there. Las Vegas and San Diego,Cal. are sending at least two local legislators to federal prison this years, we need more of that. And perhaps we should cut 50% all legislative salaries, the taxpayers would benefit and this would encourage self-made financially independent men and women of character instead of ‘job seekers’ who file for any open elected job which inevidentable pays a lot more than they ever earned in their life. Really!

Dennis Rasmussen (D): Campaign financing is a more difficult issue. Money – and the ability to raise it – is a measure of viability of a candidate or cause. I do believe that citizens’ ability to express their desires and concerns via political involvement is a First Amendment Right.

Public financing has some merit, but how do you decide the criteria for who gets the money? If you leave that policy to elected office-holders, I can assure you they will create a system that will limit funds to challengers.

McCain-Feingold had good intentions, but produced the unintended consequences of creating independent 527 organizations. There are legitimate pros and cons to that occurrence. Reform is needed, but it needs study and honest input.

Question #5:

While the above issues have captured the headlines, our War on Terror (particularly in Iraq) is never far from our minds. It goes without saying that the vast majority of us support our troops; but the question is whether you favor our current approach or something different in terms of sending additional troops, seeking more multinational support, or a complete pullout. Maybe your thoughts are someplace in between these listed or would be considered “out of the box” thinking. What approach would you favor?

Zeese: The United States cannot bring stability to Iraq as we have made too many mistakes, e.g. invading based on inaccurate or false information, Abu Gharib, Fallujah, Haditha, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, searches of homes in the middle of the night, checkpoint searches and killings at checkpoints. We need to announce that we are leaving and do so promptly. Actually getting out in an orderly and safe way will take approximately six months, at the longest. During that time we should go through a reconciliation process where we recognize the damage we have done and pay for it. That is the real pottery barn rule — you break it you pay for it. If the Iraqi government wants a peace keeping force we should help to organize one through the Arab League or other regional power, if that fails then through the UN. But we need to get our toops out. They are not able to resolve this matter and are just sitting ducks. I agree with many in retired military, foreign service, intelligence and national security experts who say the Iraq war was a mistake of historic purposes and the longer we stay the bigger the mistake gets. We are making the US less secure by staying, stoking the potential of a civil war in Iraq, helping a theocratic state come into existence. As General William Odom says — all we fear is made more likely by staying in Iraq. The sooner we exit — in an orderly and responsible way — the better.

The real issue in Iraq is the desire of the leadership of both parties to control their economy and the economy of the Middle East — for as long as it has oil. It is evident that the United States is not planning on leaving. We are building the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad — ten times larger than the typical embassy, the size of 80 football fields. We are building 14 long-term military bases. We are putting down long and deep roots and plan on staying. The challenge is to change our economy so we are no longer dependent on foreign oil – indeed on fossil fuels at all. That is where we should put our resources and focus — not on militarily and economically dominating the Middle East.

Schaefer: We need to give our top military officers, generals and admirals, more influence on the conduct of the war; and Bush needs to cultivate others nations as he has done so very well as to Britain. I am shocked at Congressman Cardin’s call for a timetable for return of all troops by next year, his press release could have been written by al-Zarqawi. His view was repudiated by the Congress the next day. We need to support our President in his military posture but we have an equal obligation to question his judgment, and seek prosecution and impeachment if evidence indicates intentional misconduct. That is why it is important that the Democrats have control of either the House or the Senate so that the conduct of the Bush Administration can come under the looking-glass instead of being protected by the abusive power enjoyed by a Congress and Senate of the same party as the President. We can never know the truth when one party controls the Executive and the Legislative, and by appointments, the Judicial branch.

Shawver: Before any troops are sent to any country, it should be clerly (sic) look into, remmber (sic) Korea, Viet-Nam.

Dickerson: I served in the military as an Air Force Security Police Combat Arms Instructor, and my Chief Master Sergeant lives on the Shore, so I better be careful with this answer. We are all Americans, so arguments in the U.S. Senate do not solve problems. Our Congress decided to go to War in Iraq, and we cannot change that decision. We cannot completely pullout our troops, but we can craft an “Exit Strategy” that is endorsed by the U.N. Security Council. We need Europe, Russia and China’s financial and political support after we redeploy. A post-Iraq has to be supported by the world community. If we pullout of Iraq now, then we would be providing Iran the opportunity to invade Iraq and seek revenge for the Iraq-Iran War. We need to create a timetable for our exit, and have the Iraqi government get serious about it. When is the world going to wake up the Arab League. Do the Arabs care about the peace and stability in the region, or do they just watch us do the dirty work?

Taylor: The immediate first step is to withdraw ALL our troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan during 2007, WITH all their expensive equipment. The second step is NOT to invade Iran, Syria, and Lebanon on the behalf of the terrorist State of Israel. The third step is to abolish ALL foreign aid to Israel in 2007 and spend ALL that money to rebuild our own country in my proposed Marshall Plan for America and 2nd New Deal for American CITIZENS. The fourth step is to end our foolish and counterproductive 1948 alliance with the State of Israel in 2007, and thus end the war of terror on us. I submit to you that the interests of 295 million non-Jewish American citizens far outweigh those of 6 million Israelis and 5.2 million American Jews. The fifth step is to abolish ALL dual citizenships with other nations as inherently evil AND anti-American. The sixth step is to execute convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard, not release him. The American recognition of the State of Israel in 1948 was the worst diplomatic blunder in all of our history, and should be reversed before they drag us into World War III, which in time is exactly what WILL, indeed, happen. Of that I have no doubt whatsoever. You haven’t asked, but I would bomb all North Korean missile sites tomorrow morning, and would NOT invade Cuba, which the current President is planning to do—along with Syria, Iran, and Lebanon—the week after the Republican Party wins the coming fall Congressional elections. We should also seek a peaceful solution of our current naval differences with China, not go to war with it—also as the President is planning to do before he leaves office on Jan. 20, 2009. Our esteemed President Nixon stopped the on-rushing Sino-Soviet War in 1969 in its tracks, and so can we now!

Gordon: (I believe) that it is full time for the voters and the legislative branch of our government to give an ear to Generals Scowcroft and Abizaid, and Director Goss as well as the other Americans who are expressing grave concerns about the Administration’s Iraq doctrine, and to further warn the administration of any military ventures into Syria or Iran (1) without the expressed permission of the United States Congress and (2) acting upon irrefutable evidence that those two nations were in the process of implementing a military strike against the United States mainland or on its military bases abroad. The administration has turned the Iraq war into a quagmire and possibly worse, in terms of potential for a wider war. (I) strongly support Congressman John Murtha’s call for the withdrawal of American Military Forces from Iraq. Congressman Murtha is acting in the best interest of the U.S. long term security needs. Any one who condemns Congressman Murtha’s proposal, in light of the revelations of what is taking place in Iraq, should read the history of the German sixth army in Russia during the reign of Hitler.

Rasmussen: It is too late to argue the merits of being in Iraq. The question is how do we objectively measure and achieve a winning outcome? The consequences of losing Iraq will affect the next several generations. I do not support an arbitrary time-frame for withdrawal. An exit strategy needs to be fully developed with definitive objectives that can be measured before any meaningful withdrawal of American resources. We must win with honor, secure Iraq for the Iraqi people by providing means of law and order and basic infrastructure, and return our troops as quickly as possible!

Vovak: All wars are political since politicians begin wars, not generals. Logically, politicians are responsible for ending the wars they create. The usual method of changing a policy is for people to pressure politicians to change the status quo. Hence, to oppose a war is not an act of disloyalty to our nation (or its soldiers) but an act of patriotism, because the American system is used to make a change in American policy. In Iraq, the mission has been accomplished and most troops need to return home immediately. I believe that if troops return home gradually then American soldier deaths will ultimately increase dramatically. I sense a Vietnam-type quandary rupturing in Summer 2006 with a divided nation wanting to remove all troops from Iraq or to substantially increase the number of troops. The American public will elect leaders outside of the traditional thinking of Washington, D.C. By contrast, I support The Afghanistan War, which is rooted in stopping terrorist groups. All terrorism must end.

Young: Support humanity, peace, justice. Respect other’s cultures. Cooperate with United Nation, other countries. Oppose: horrible violent force, invasion, occupation, Deprivation/destruction (countries, population, properties, soldiers; resources, reputation; public, private); unjust practices, manipulation, influence, falsification, false excuses; problems (credibility, moral, mental, financial, fiscal), official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks Government budget to carry out necessary government function; maintain truly quality, honest, integrity employees, appointees, commissioners, volunteers; etc.; eliminate “fraud- crime- injustice networks”, corporate welfare. Define and identify the “terror” or “crime” right; not opposite, falsification, misleading, deceit; false excuses to victimize people (here or overseas), as often by the “official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks: Fighting the terror overseas, with UN, alliance of other countries. Pay for damages, restitution, reparation to victims; penalties against those who caused the problems or damages. Reconstruction mainly to benefit the general public of the victimized countries; not to benefit a few; with UN, alliance of countries.

Lichtman: Since announcing my candidacy for the United States Senate last September, I was the first Democratic U.S. Senate candidate to specifically propose and advocate a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, with specific goals and timetables. My original timetable, announced at my campaign kickoff on September 28, 2005, I specified that troops be withdrawn from Iraq no later than the end of 2006.
Unlike some of my opponents, I have consistently and emphatically challenged President Bush’s pretenses for the war in Iraq, and his lack of strategy for victory in the region for the last three years. I have also shown my disapproval for the war by attending anti-Iraq War rallies, meetings, forums, and protests throughout Maryland and the D.C. area.

Occupation creates insurgency; only sovereignty creates stability, which cannot be imposed externally, by force. Our continued military presence in Iraq inflames the insurgency and makes Iraq a magnet for terrorism. The president says that Iraq is the front line in the war on terrorism. It was not, however, before his misguided invasion. The CIA’s own National Intelligence Council warns that Iraq and future conflicts “could provide recruitment, training grounds, technical skills and language proficiency for a new class of terrorists who are ‘professionalized’ and for whom political violence becomes an end in itself.”

It will take years of renewed diplomatic ties and an unobtrusive positive promotion of humane, Democratic values ultimately to end tensions in the region. Therefore, I propose the following:

Ending the War

• As a United States Senator, I would not support any funding for perpetuation of the war beyond 2006, except financial and logistical resources aimed towards bringing American soldiers home from Iraq.

• I would also sponsor a Senate Resolution specifically calling for the prompt withdrawal of American troops.

• As part of my withdrawal plan, the United States would make it clear that it has no ambitions for permanent military bases in Iraq or American control over Iraqi oil.

Reprioritizing our Military Objectives

• There are too many urgent needs at home which are being neglected because our financial, logistical, and National Guard resources meant for homeland security are stretched too thin worldwide.

• We must utilize our National Guard to strengthen our Homeland Security by better securing domestic transportation hubs and American borders.

• National Guard personnel can assist in the rebuilding effort of American cities recently uprooted by natural disasters.

Finding and Eliminating the Threats from al-Qaeda

• The terrorist group responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks is still the biggest threat to American security.

• America must refocus our efforts to find and eliminate Osama Bin Laden and other al-Qaeda members worldwide.

Regaining American Credibility Throughout the World

• America must work proactively to restructure diplomatic ties with our allies and rejoin the world in multilateral initiatives to promote peace and protect our environment.

• I support the investigation into any unlawful abuse of detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison and Abu Gharab detention facilities.

• Those who break the law should be prosecuted, and conversely, any detainees found to be innocent should be freed.

• Promote positive Muslim-Judeo-Christian relationships in the entire Middle East, including in Iran and within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. America needs to again provide real, proactive leadership to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict such as displayed under the Clinton administration.

Leading Iraq into the 21st Century

• Monitor the development of Iraqi forces with renewed support from our allies.

• Help Iraqis establish fair labor practices and vibrant local economy that will ease transition into the world economy.

• Promote strong public education and programs that emphasize democracy, international engagement, and tolerance of all cultures.

• As an expert on voting rights and democratic systems I would travel to Iraq as a Senator and offer my assistance in developing a working democracy.

• As a Senator I would introduce legislation for an investigation similar to that of the Truman Committee during World War II to assure that aid money is well-spent and wealthy, politically-connected corporations are not making illicit profits at the expense of the American taxpayers and the Iraqi people.

Question #6:

Related to the above question is the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program. The oil-rich nation claims that this program is for the peaceful use of generating electrical power for its citizens, yet on the other hand its leadership has threatened the nation of Israel with annihilation hinted as being from a nuclear bomb. While the President has the final decision, what course would you advocate he take (a pre-emptive military strike, diplomacy either through the UN or some other way, or leaving them alone as a sovereign nation) and why?

Gordon: It must be noted that during the administration of Gerald Ford, the US wanted to sell nuclear reactors to Iran, because Iran was led by the Shah, a man they saw as America’s friend. The reactors the Americans wanted to sell to Iran were the kind that could produce the materials to construct nuclear weapons. Many of the senior government officials who wanted to sell nuclear reactors to Iran are some of the same people who are now pushing the war in Iraq and for democracy throughout the Middle East.

Today Iran is ruled by a group of men who would have loved to inherit those nuclear reactors from the Shah. Had they done so, Iran would have at least five hundred to a thousand nuclear bombs today. And they would have to be thankful to the Neo Cons.

Shawver: If Iran nuclear program, is for electrical power, fine. If it’s to threatened (sic) Israel it should go befor (sic) the U.N.

Zeese: The President does not have the final decision to go to war (and a military attack on Iran would be an act of war). Under the U.S. Constitution the President cannot declare war only the Congress can. James Madison said this was the most important clause of the Constitution because they had seen Kings and Queens send countries into unnecessary and costly wars. Yet since World War II it has been the most ignored clause of the Constitution because the Congress lacks the spine to take responsibility and do its duty. If the United States bombed Iran without the Congress declaring war it would be illegal under U.S. law. Further, under international law it would be a war of aggression — the most serious offense any country can make against another. Iran is not threatening the U.S. — they are also not threatening Israel — and their religious leaders have issued an edict against nuclear weapons, indeed against weapons of mass destruction. Iran has been offering, for over a year, to negotiate with us over all issues, including Israel. We should take them up on that negotiation. Right now everything that Iran is doing is legal under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Agreement. Israel, which has 250 nuclear bombs, has not even signed the agreement. The United States is developing new nuclear weapons as well – tactical nuclear weapons — and has threatened to use nuclear weapons against Iran. This is hypocritical and undermines our moral standing to challenge Iran. Further, we are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy — President Bush lists Iran as a member of the axis of evil, then we surround them militarily with bases in Afghanistan on their eastern border, in Iraq on their western border and in the Persian Gulf to their south with our Navy. Then the Bush administration engages in the same exaggeration and manipulation that it did in the build up to Iraq. Hopefully, people will not fall for it again as Iran is a bigger challenge than Iraq. Iran is four times as large as Iraq. It we were to attack it will create further unrest in Iraq and further destabilize the region. The US will be further isolated in the world and our military force, which is already stretched to the breaking point, will be unable to handle another military quagmire. We need to change our approach. Out goal with Iran should be to make Iran our ally in the region — not our enemy. We have a lot more in common that is being discussed. If we turn them into allies we can bring stability to the region, keep our access to oil and actually resolve conflicts (including Israel-Palestine) instead of expand conflicts.

Lichtman: I strongly oppose a preemptive strike by the Bush administration. Such action would weaken the security of Israel, undermine the war against terrorism, overextend our already thinly stretched military and pose a grave threat to world peace. I have long proposed the carrot and stick approach to Iran, with negotiations that combine both real sanctions against Iran, with cooperation on meeting the nation’s alleged energy needs.

Young: Support humanity, peace, justice. Respect other’s cultures. Cooperate with United Nation, other countries. Oppose: horrible violent force, invasion, occupation, Deprivation/destruction (countries, population, properties, soldiers; resources, reputation; public, private); unjust practices, manipulation, influence, falsification, false excuses; problems (credibility, moral, mental, financial, fiscal), official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks .

Stop minorities bashing. Improve quality of officials. Support civilian review board.

Improve race relationships, by deeds, not rhetoric; diversity in good faith, not for political reasons; or to benefit/facilitate “fraud-crime- injustice networks” operations; not relaying/shuffling at the expense of justice, productivity against good workers/citizens, especially minorities. Investigate/ prosecute/ eliminate: serious problems: unjust appropriation, siphoning resources to benefit a few, “fraud-crime- networks” Investigate/ prosecute/ eliminate: minorities-bashing, hate crimes; injustice, false excuses, imprisonment, detention, torture, unfair treatment, victimization; deprivation of resources, reputation, families, social relationship; racial profiling, discrimination, victimization, retaliation, official misconduct, falsification; unlawful acts, crimes; tampering of evidence, witnesses, etc.; three branches, local- global, especially by “official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice works”, including DOJ, FBI, law enforcement, judicial/ legal/ financial/ accounting personnel, their unjust practices (false excuses, manipulation, influence, destruction) destroy individuals, families, businesses, communities, peace, democracy. Their damages are more serious than 9-11-2001 World Trade Center incidence, President Bush’s wars, President Nixon’s Watergate, Florida election 2000, financial/ accounting/ legal disasters, notorieties (e.g., Enron bankruptcy, Andersen accounting). Illinois Governor issued moratorium, because of DNA tests disapproved the death sentences of some death row inmates. Maryland conducted a study about the disparities in death penalty. Examine inmate/detainee population, true causes of imprisonment, bond; disparate treatment; official misconduct, brutality, frivolous cases (civil, criminal), improper complaint processing, procedures, proceedings; administrative, judicial levels. Thorough investigation, using the complaints/cases, testimonies of this candidate before officials, legislative committees, public hearings, the Office of Court Administration; varieties of issues, including legislative proposals, budgets, etc.; accumulative, never properly resolved. Shame: judicial branch asked lawmaker (Maryland General Assembly) to abolish the record- keeping or accounting.

Vovak: America needs to continue to negotiate with Iran.

Rasmussen: I favor full international sanctions and isolating Iran if they fail to be part of the Community of Nations. If they truly want only nuclear power, we should assist and control the output of fusionable material. Iran will threaten to bargain with oil and access to oil. In the long run, it will destroy their economy, so I don’t believe they would withhold oil or access to oil as a long-term weapon. Military strikes are a last resort, and only after an attack or the threat of an eminent attack on Israel or others in the Middle East.

Taylor: I would favor diplomacy first with Iran to halt nuclear weapons production, but if our otherwise incompetent CIA can PROVE they are forging ahead, then I would opt for a surgical, missile first strike and take them out straightaway. As a former Vietnam veteran soldier and military affairs writer worldwide now, I do not believe a full-scale ground invasion is necessary. We’ve already had two Vietnams; let’s not spawn a third!

Schaefer: I am not optimistic as to the efficiency of the United Nations, these nations seeing how America has handled inspections problems re: Iraq might now be more open to a USA inspection team doing a credible audit of the capabilities of involved nuclear nations, both friends and foes. The UN cannot compel anything. Frankly if power-generation involves essentially the same nuclear capacity that an attack utilizes, there appears to be no solution, other than having a CIA operative reporting to the US Embassy in each county in confidence, with any discomforting information being shared with the President and leader of each house of the Congress. If the equipped nation is arrogant, or inflexible, then we must seek world opinion(media) incondemnation of that country and its leadership and perhaps termination of economic relationships with sabre-rattlers.

Dickerson: The President decided to go it alone the first time with Iraq, so let us not make the same mistake again. We have a U.N. Atomic Energy Commission, based in Vienna, Austria that should be in charge of the inspections and negotiations. Israel is equipped with a nuclear arsenal, so the other countries feel threatened as well. I have worked with people from Israel, at Motorola, in the Mossad, and I can assure you, that Israel is monitoring the situation quite carefully. The U.N. Security Council needs to be the global authority on this issue. The President of Iran is a mad man for directing his comments against Israel, but leave this one to Europe, Russia and China to work out. The world is tired of us acting as if we are the World Police with all of the answers. If the world is not united in boycotting Iran, then the boycott will not work. If they have an alternative supply chain from Russia or China, then there is no power in the boycott. A pre-emptive strike could ignite the Jihad even further, so let us use all of our diplomatic power backed by a strong military.

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

So ends part 2. On Friday I’ll do the third and final portion of this “debate”.

Ten Questions…MGA Debate (part 1)

Ok, I didn’t wait long but it IS tomorrow. Frankly, I have more interest in the local races because of the people who have submitted their answers to me, most of them have a good to great chance of winning come September 12th. It’s not like I’m getting sort of the dregs like I did for the U.S. Senate.

In this case I’m not doing a random order except where more than one contestant in a particular district is featured (such is the case for Districts 37B and 38B). The answers will be grouped by contest, starting with District 37 races.

Also, because of the untimely death of District 38A hopeful Tony Bruce, I’ve decided to omit him from the debate despite the fact I got his answers just days before his passing. We can’t count on his successor (the Democrat Central Committees from Wicomico and Somerset Counties get to select the nominee should Bruce win posthumously) to hold the same beliefs that Bruce did, which is too bad because he had some good answers.

Here’s the scorecard for those of you playing along at home:

Senate District 37:

Rich Colburn, Republican – website and original responses.

House of Delegates District 37A: no responses.

House of Delegates District 37B:

Jim Adkins, Democrat – website and original responses.
Addie Eckardt, Republican – website and original responses.

Senate District 38: no responses.

House of Delegates District 38A:

Patrick Armstrong, Democrat – website and original responses.

House of Delegates District 38B:

Sonny Bloxom, Republican – website and original responses.
Michael James, Republican – website and original responses.
Jack Lord, Republican – website and original responses.

In this case, I don’t think there were as many gratuitous website references and the answers were generally much shorter than the U.S. Senate version below. So I’ve done less editing to the responses and because Colburn is unopposed in his primary, I have at least one advancing to November like the Senate version.

Enjoy the debate!

Question #1:

Some of you participated in the recent special session to modify the large rate hikes that were to be enacted by Baltimore Gas & Electric. However, our electrical rates from the local Eastern Shore suppliers went unchanged. With that in mind, would you be more in favor of a total repeal of the 1999 deregulation laws, or do you believe the concept is sound and only needs a few guardrails and rate safeguards?

Colburn: The Special Session did not address the interests of Eastern Shore residents. Experience has taught us that deregulation has not benefited the consumer in the State of Maryland. However, with that in mind, we should move carefully in regards to totally repealing the 1999 deregulation laws.

Adkins: I, like many other Maryland consumers, have yet to see the benefit of deregulation. The restructuring that took place in the late 90’s has failed to provide the consumer with the desired results. Unfortunately, the Public Service Commission may have also failed to represent the consumer as well as it could have. This is a very complicated matter and will have to reviewed and addressed in 2007 and beyond to ensure that whatever is done protects the consumer and strikes a balance between what is fair for the consumer and what is fair for the providers of electricity.

Eckardt: I did participate in the special session and did not vote for the bill that was presented and ultimately passed. During my tenure as Delegate I have closely followed the deregulation process. My understanding of the issue is that since the market in which Maryland is a player is mostly deregulated and the cost of power was increasing, deregulation in Maryland would bring the cost to consumers down and offer choices in the market place. Some legislators were not in favor of deregulation from the beginning and put many roadblocks to the plan. One was to put caps in place so that constituents would be guaranteed a stable low rate and the caps would come off in a defined period of time in a phased-in process according to the geographic areas of the state. In the meantime, costs across the county continued to rise due to increased usage. Other influencing factors contributing to the consumption of global resources were 9/11, the War, Katrina, Rita, and China. Maryland’s rates have remained artificially low because of the cap and I do believe lawmakers never anticipated the situation to turn out the way it did given the multiple catastrophes in play. I did not support the caps because I was concerned that the longer we delayed implementation of deregulation, the greater the possibility of interference would delay competition in the market place. In other words, the Maryland legislature in 1999 gave the marketplace a double message- come to Maryland and do business but wait 6 years to do it. At the time companies were ready to do business but when legislators began to intervene, the interest waned. The new legislation has increased the cost of doing business in Maryland. The Governor and the industry were developing a phase-in of the rates which I believe could have worked. Since then I am very concerned because citizens have again a fixed rate which may help for now but the cost over time will be greater than if completion had been encouraged and choices given.

Armstrong: We have seen the effects of deregulation of energy across the country over the past several years and those who pay the bills have felt the pain in their wallet. I believe that deregulation was a mistake made several years ago by the General Assembly and I favor repealing that decision. I believe that energy is such a vital service that we must not allow shifting markets and unforeseeable problems to stand in the way of access to electricity. As it stands today I support efforts to reduce the strain of increased electricity costs to families on the shore. I do not believe re-regulation is likely to occur but I would support it and encourage it if elected. I also would have worked with the General Assembly and the Governor to address the rate hikes taking effect from Delmarva Power. We need a new leader who will stand up and give the lower shore a voice in the legislature.

Bloxom: I believe that the concept is sound but was poorly executed by the General Assembly (ie. artificially capping rates below market for such a long period). I think that some safeguards can be put into law, such as what costs are allowable to calculate the appropriate rates, which will make deregulation work.

James: I am in favor of deregulation as long as there is an adequate climate for competition. Obviously the utilities are essential to our society, so if there was a catastrophe or an accumulation of issues that forced costs to rise to the levels that harm the economy or create an unusual burden on our citizens, the Government would need to intervene until the market stabilized. The 1999 deregulation was odd in that it was accompanied by 1993 level price caps. The General Assembly should have known there would be unusually high increases once the caps expired. Instead, they ignored the issue until it could be called a “crisis”. They then used the PSE and its chairman Eastern Shoreman Ken Schisler as a scapegoat to divert attention away from their own mistakes.

Lord: No one could have predicted that Natural Gas or Coal and Gasoline would have increased so much in the past several years. The rates were capped for six years now it’s time to pay the piper. There was no relief for the customers of Delmarva Power here on the shore. It shows that an attempt to control business in this sate by the legislature usually ends in failure.

Question #2:

In the last two sessions of the General Assembly, the issue of health insurance and who pays for it has taken center stage. (Examples: the Fair Share Health Care Act and its proposed expansion with last year’s HB1510, which was sponsored by Delegate Hubbard and defeated in committee.) Recently the state of Massachusetts adopted legislation effective in 2007 mandating all residents secure coverage under some public or private health insurance plan or face a financial penalty. Do you see this concept as an idea Maryland should adopt?

Colburn: My major concern with the Massachusetts law is that I do not think government should mandate health care for everyone. However, despite the fact that I have not had the opportunity to thoroughly study the Mass law, I do see positive aspects. In regards to Massachusetts, the state acts as a conduit, or a large clearinghouse. As a result, there is a large clearinghouse with the insurance companies, so there are more people buying into the plans, it makes insurance more available, and keeps insurance costs down. In other words, the individual basically owns his/her insurance plan, and they pay a portion while the employer pays the rest. That in turn makes it easier for the employer to buy the employee’s health insurance. For instance, a cheap insurance policy would be more likely covered by the employer. Having said all of this, I want to emphasize that Maryland still needs meaningful, real tort reform to help keep insurance costs down, and the matter was not addressed during the 2004 Christmas Special Session as it should have been.

Adkins: There is a lot more to the bill than just mandating residents secure coverage. I believe businesses will have to pay $295/year for each individual that they employ but do not provide coverage for, if they have 11 or more employees. The program will also require Massachusetts to subsidize the coverage of many of its residents who cannot afford to pay for insurance. Others, who can afford health insurance but do not obtain it, could face significant fines. The devil is in the details on this one, but we will have to continue to watch for lessons learned from this intiative.

Eckardt: Health Care for all citizens has always been an important issue and one that I have worked on while a legislator. Having been a participant in the discussion of health care reform for the last 20 years, I find ourselves in a similar situation to the utility one – that in spite of all the effort to make health insurance available, affordable and accessible, more citizens find it increasingly harder to get access and the costs increase. Last year I put in a bill that was a modification of the Massachusetts plan but it didn’t get much attention because the Health care Commission didn’t think smart cards would work and did not want to provide incentives to small businesses to offer the coverage to employees. The Massachusetts plan has some excellent possibilities, for example, a central clearinghouse for the plan, but I do not think mandatory insurance with penalties is the way to go. Most citizens could afford a catastrophic plan, coupled with a health savings account in the consumer driven model. Make the premiums tax deductible. There is another proposal on the table from last session (HB1412) and I will be working on the introduction of it for the 07 session. Yes we will have this discussion and I am sure bills will be introduced (HB1412) that model the Massachusetts plan.

Armstrong: I think this idea should be given serious consideration by the General Assembly. While the infrastructure is not yet in place to a point where we can force individuals to purchase health care it is possible to however to work towards this goal. The high cost to Maryland taxpayers paying for emergency room visits by those who have no insurance must be addressed. This is an issue I feel should be taken up the legislature and I would support it with the proper safeguards in place to protect working families and the working poor.

Bloxom: Absolutely not! This would be the epitome of “big brother government” and smacks of socialism.

Lord: The proposal by Massachusetts will not work on the eastern shore until we bring in higher paying jobs so the lower middle income families can afford insurance.

James: NO. That would be too close to a nanny state.

Question #3:

Within our area, Somerset County traditionally has among the highest unemployment rates in the state of Maryland. In every election, well-paying jobs and how to secure them is an issue. If you are elected to the General Assembly, what policies would you favor commencing or retaining in an attempt to create or lure good-paying jobs for the Eastern Shore?

Colburn: First off, I would sight my experience in helping to create a good economic development program for the town of Federalsburg. Economic development flourishes when elected and community leaders work in harmony toward a pro-business atmosphere. In addition, we need to lessen, not increase, mandated costs to businesses on the Eastern Shore. There is a program called One Maryland, which covers counties like Somerset, Dorchester, and Caroline Counties. I helped sponsor and push this legislation through the General Assembly and I believe it is a good program and should be retained. The program is designed to provide incentives for large industries in these counties in order to also bring more jobs to the area.

Eckardt: Economic Development and good paying jobs have been and are an important of my platform since my election in 1994. I have been pleased with the progress but it is slow because retention of jobs is also important. When businesses are not domiciled in Maryland or on the Shore it is easy for them to pull out and move to where the cost of doing business is less. At least 85% of business in Maryland is small business and working with citizens to build small businesses is in a continual focus of the Department of Business and Economic Development – Small Business Administration, the regional economic councils, local economic development offices, and Minority business offices. The recruitment of business also means that our educational system is responsive to the need of the community and workforce preparedness is in place. Right now the Eastern Shore faces a severe shortage of health care professionals – nurses, dental hygienists, pharmacists, radiology technicians and others. I have been working with the Administration to provide resources for nursing education as well as clinical sites and experiences for the health care providers. In addition, there are many projects for agricultural based/resource based job opportunities and many high-tech business proposals being discussed. For example, I serve on a board that is recruiting some very exciting potential business that uses feathers for product. Venture capital is necessary and a greater focus on research and development through our local universities will facilitate the business development.

Adkins: This is a multifaceted issue. We must ensure the workforce is educated and trained to fill good-paying jobs. This means that we must ensure our schools are preparing their students for life after school. Good-paying jobs also means higher technology in some cases and we must ensure the Eastern Shore is “wired” so that new businesses, which require higher connectivity, can plug into the global market. More public-private partnerships will have to be established while taking advantage of our higher education resources here on the Shore to entice business to locate here.

Armstrong: I believe the eastern shore can thrive with the growth we are already seeing and that we can manage that growth to fit within our communities. I support business incentives to draw companies to the shore. I support easier access to community colleges and universities for our residents who wish to study a trade. I support an increase in job fairs and mobile job recruitment vans. I would support legislation to encourage businesses to invest in the shore and create infrastructure capable of allowing businesses to expand onto the shore. I believe growth and expansion must be managed keeping in mind the way of life of the communities involved and ensuring proper environmental protections as we try to bring new jobs and smart growth to the lower eastern shore.

Lord: Higher paying jobs and High Tech companies will not relocate to Maryland until we make Maryland more business friendly. That means changing the makeup of the legislature.

James: We need to work independently on the shore as well as work with The Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development to attract businesses to our area. I support tax incentives, tax credits for training and state grants for the county economic development efforts. I believe all three counties in District 38 have a lot to offer potential employers. I believe by working jointly the three counties have a story to tell and resources to market to future employers. The reason so many people want to relocate here are the same reasons this region would be attractive to growing companies.

Bloxom: We need to support high-speed broadband coverage for the entire shore; upgrade natural gas pipelines; need to market the region to potential new businesses and entrepreneurs.

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

After wading through the Senate answers this was a breeze, and a refreshing one at that. I did a quick count on the answers in both debate sets. For the U.S. Senate Republicans, their 8 total responses averaged about 5 lines each. Democrats (especially Lih Young) just went on and on and on, like they were paid by the word.

On the General Assembly debate, the average for both parties came in about 5 lines each. It made for a MUCH shorter post, but generally well written and to the point.

As with the U.S. Senate post below, the next installment of this debate comes on Wednesday the 6th.

Ten Questions…Senate Debate (part 1)

Today I’m going to begin the “debate” portion of my Ten Questions features. What I’ve done is taken each question and placed the answers from each of my nine responders (ten for Question #10) under each one. They are in random order so no one has an advantage by always getting the last word in, as it were.

I have done a little bit of editing this time, in that I decided not to place links or campaign website references inside the answers. (However, misspellings and poor grammar are retained.) If you’d like to see the original Ten Questions answered by each candidate I’ll link them below as I introduce each one. Unfortunately I only got about 1/3 of the candidates to return the questions and right now those who returned the surveys aren’t polling above 5% so it’s looking like the also-rans are the only ones who answered.

But I’m going to carry on anyway, because this is a public service after all and there IS usefulness to this as Green Party aspirant Kevin Zeese is assured a place on the November ballot. Thus, it’s good to compare his answers to the more mainstream parties’ folks.

First I’m going to do Questions 1 through 3 for both the Senate and the Maryland General Assembly (that post will be tomorrow.) In order of appearance on Question #1, the candidates responding are:

Mike Schaefer, Democrat – website and original Ten Questions responses.
Richard Shawver, Republican – no website, original Ten Questions responses.
Kevin Zeese, Green – website and original Ten Questions responses.
Allan Lichtman, Democrat – website and original Ten Questions responses.
Dennis Rasmussen, Democrat – website and original Ten Questions responses.
Lih Young, Democrat – no website, original Ten Questions responses.
Earl Gordon, Republican – no website, original Ten Questions responses. He did not respond to all questions either since I gleaned them from a 47 page treatise he sent to me.
Daniel “The Wig Man” Vovak, Republican – website and original Ten Questions responses.
David Dickerson, Democrat – website and original Ten Questions responses.
Blaine Taylor, Democrat – no website, original Ten Questions responses.
George English, Democrat – website and original Ten Questions response. English only answered Question #10, the rest of the time he deferred to his website.

Enjoy the debate.

Question #1:

There are several schools of thought regarding the problem of illegal immigrants, or as some would call them, “undocumented workers.” Some solutions offered range from complete amnesty to sealing the border with a wall to penalizing employers who hire these workers. Currently there are competing House and Senate measures – in particular the House bill has spawned massive protests around the country. While I have listed some of the possible solutions, it’s no exhaustive list. What solutions do you favor for the issue?

Schaefer: My campaign demands we think outside the box.

In WWII we prohibited the sending of US dollars to countries we were at war with. And I think with any country as we needed our monetary base at home to remain strong.

We need to promptly ban the sending of US dollars by wire, mail, or personal delivery, from a USA base to a recipient in Mexico. Most of these dollars are untaxed US earnings. And the act of modest-income earners fulfilling their moral equivalent of our athlete’s “Buy Momma a House” with their new-found riches, works to impoverish the Mexico illegals who are struggling to find decent housing, decent food and clothings, and assist their children with the new-found costly lifestyle. We must force those who earn bucks to spend it here, this helps our economy too, and the incentive of the Mexican poor to come to Lama-land and send hom the riches to their loved ones, will VANISH and so will the desire of many to leave their loved ones if they cannot be sending them pots of gold.

Shawver: Illegal immigrants, are illegal. Anyone hiring illegal’s are breaking the law. Send the illegal’s back, fine the employer’s.

Zeese: I favor legal borders, legal workers, legal immigration. But to achieve that we need to face up to the real underlying issue and that is economic. I find the House and Senate as posturing rather than facing up to the real economic problems — because they have both helped cause the economic problems that spur immigration. We have tripled to quadrupled the border patrol in recent years, arrest a million people trying to cross but still have a larger problem with undocumented immigrants. Why? Because enforcement cannot trump economics and our trade and other policies have made the economic problem worse. For example, NAFTA (supported by both Democrats and Republicans) has pushed one million Mexican farmers off their farms — they get pushed into the cities where there is already economic stress and as a result millions are desperate. So, desperate they risk coming across the border. We need to renegotiate NAFTA. These and other treaties like the WTO are not really free trade agreements, they are agreements that empower big business multi-national corporations and they do so at the cost of working families in the US and south of the border. In the US workers are growing more desperate — deeper into debt than ever before, more and more without health insurance, unable to afford the rising costs — especially of energy and homes, with median family income dropping and poverty rising for five years in a row. Thus, when working families see immigrants it is easy for the big business and big government interests to divide and conquer — the immigration issue is being used by those in power to keep power. This is a phony debate, nothing was ever going to be done on it, it is pure election year grandstanding not a real attempt to solve the problem. Solving the problem of illegal immigration would require facing up to the special interests — the big business interests — that control both old political parties.

Lichtman: I strongly oppose a punitive approach to immigration, including any laws like H. R. 4437 that could potentially punish teachers, clergy, social service workers and doctors who have a moral duty to serve all people in need, including the immigrant community. No American should be forced to choose between helping those people in urgent need of assistance because of excessive fear of facing penalties. I also favor a rigorous approach to citizenship for undocumented workers such as that provided in the Kennedy-McCain framework, much of which is incorporated in the current Senate bill.

Although I believe that we need to secure our borders I believe that only long-term approach to illegal immigration is a comprehensive North American solution to immigration and Homeland Security which would include the United States, Canada and Mexico working conjointly as a community on economic development, mutual security, infrastructure, education, and labor policy.

Rasmussen: First and foremost – the flow of illegal aliens must be stopped. If that means more patrols, enhanced technology, bringing in the National Guard and building barriers, then let’s do it!

Second – we need to implement formidable disincentives so that businesses do not hire illegals. That means sizable fines and other legal sanctions. We need to be able to have employers verify an immigrant’s status.

Third – we need to register all aliens. If you do not have a valid “citizen” or “visitor” I.D., then you discontinue all public assistance.

Fourth – We need to recognize that we can’t deport 12 million people. Currently, we cannot track down all the individuals for whom there are open arrest warrants, and we know their names, where they live and where they work. Identifying, much less deporting, 12 million illegal aliens with no incentive to identify themselves is unrealistic. For those who meet the requirements on a selective system, we must assimilate them into our society.

Basically, I like the concept of “Closed Borders and Open Doors” with a selective, but fair, immigration policy. Diversity has been a strength of America. However, we are a nation of laws, which must be enforced.

Young: Stop minorities bashing. Support civilian review board. Improve quality officials. race relationships, diversity in good faith, not rhetoric or abuse as often by “fraud-crime- injustice networks”. Clean-up; not relaying/shuffling at the expense of justice, productivity, good workers, minorities, immigrants. Investigate/ prosecute/ eliminate: unjust appropriation, siphoning resources to benefit a few.
All people, including minorities have a lot to contribute; should have opportunities to reach their potential. Support: good-faith diversity, not rhetoric or bad-faith (used for wrong purposes: unjust practices, unlawful acts, falsification, false/misleading testimonies, bad proposals, or for token only etc.), equality (opportunities, education, employment, business, procurement, contracting, promotion; learning, environment); fair election process; people input, open public hearings, town hall meetings (not for formality only); accurate timely information, report, statistics; assistance to needy, disability, elderly, vulnerable, but not to be diverted to benefit a few or “official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks” operation. Protect people (rights, resources, reputation, liberties, constitutional, litigation, jury trials, due process, grievance, complaint, records), families, affiliations, social relationships, heritages. Improve: accountability, cost-effectiveness; benefit people, all ethnic groups, (not like current system siphoning public fund/resources (local- federal) mainly to benefit a few); quality of officials. Support affirmative action, smart growth, “proper growth”. Restore principle, function, fairness, non-discrimination. Examine/ eliminate: racial profiling, endless unjust practices, double standards; false arrest, citation, charges, detention, incarceration, bond/bail, unjust sentencing, police brutality, “official misconduct- fraud- crime- injustice networks”; improper accounting, records; abuse/diversion of social benefit programs, distortion of fund; disparity of inmate population, false excuses/disguise of abuse, detention, imprisonment. Many officials (3 branches, past, current) are problems, not solution; unjust manipulation, influence, misleading, deceit; controlled by or be part of “official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks” = 4th branch which overlap private and public sectors. Eliminate serious problems: public agencies, private businesses (e.g., financial, legal/judicial, accounting, etc.); unjust practices, manipulation, influences; immoral, unethical, unlawful acts, fraud, crime; falsification, false excuses, false arrest, citations, liens, foreclosure, etc; deprive/ damage/ destroy people (individuals, families, business; personal, political, civic, association, social relationship); silencing people down with threats, coercion, discrimination, victimization, retaliation, civil/human rights backwards, socio-political problems, vicious cycles, people-slaves; official violation of laws, unjust schemes; bad-faith; sole sources, secret deals, abandonment of public resources especially without public knowledge; distortion of fair market mechanism in many aspects: planning, construction, land deals; disregarding important factors, justification, priorities, cost-benefits (whether education, school construction, economic development, affordable housing, medium priced dwelling units, traffic, parking…,); heavy burden with taxation, bond/debt, fees.

Issues are interrelated, horizontally, vertically, local-global; e.g., budget, education, public safety, health care, etc. See other issue statements. Problem solving approaches: proactive, diagnostic, cost-effective, preventive; not minorities-bashing. America: founded, grown, because of immigrants. Declaration of Independence, US Constitution: simple, valuable for hundreds of years, result of immigration. Republican candidate Steve Rosen seems to forget that with false excuse of illegal immigrants; disregards real problems of “official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks”= “EXIS OF EVILS” IN OUR HOMELAND = “super classes of crimes, welfare, parasites” = “cruel tyranny” = “robbery machine” = penetrating, expanding everywhere (inc. non-profit, civic organization) = the most terrifying terrorists on daily basis; worse then World Trade Center 9-11-2001 incidence, pre-emptive wars with Patriot Act, Florida election 2000, President Nixon’s Watergate, Financial/accounting/legal disasters (e.g., Enron bankruptcy), etc; opposite the purposes of education, government function, judicial missions; destroy our society, democracy, justice, peace; with double standards; endless unlawful, criminal acts, unjust schemes, scams, depriving of resources (public, private); fraud, theft, identity theft, hate crime, false arrests, citation, detention, imprisonment, contempt of order, bond/bail; murder, attempt of murder; harassment, victimization, discrimination, retaliation; cause homelessness, poverty, serious socio- political- election- media problems in vicious cycles; civil/human rights backward, people-slave. Scapegoat on minorities: bashing, harassing; false excuses to benefit, facilitate “official misconduct- fraud- crime- injustice networks” operation. In a local candidate forum at Jewish Community Center, Steve Rosen arrogantly said that he could influence media. Candidate LIH YOUNG pointed out that Rosen should examine the violation of “rule of law” (Rosen’s own quoted words), problems about media (LIH YOUNG testified on such and other problems frequently), Rosen’s preference treatment from LWV with earlier access to Dnet, uploading more issues, lengthy statements; evidence of unfairness, unjust manipulation, as often by “official misconduct- fraud- crime- networks”. Note: Candidate LIH YOUNG’s repeated requests, including placing Young’s photo on Dnet was denied, when supposed to. LIH YOUNG SUPPORT: measures to promote democracy, productivity, heath, education, public safety; equality, employment, reaching potential to contribute most. Focus: strengthen the implementation, enforcement of Constitutional law, good existing laws; not abuse, misuse. Protect people’s rights (liberties, constitutional rights, litigation, jury trials, due process, resources, properties, reputation, association); not deprived, damaged, destroyed; not secret detention, deprivation, disparity treatment, sentencing. Investigate/ prosecute/ eliminate the false arrests, detention, falsification, false excuses, unjust practices, manipulation, influences, as often by “official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks”. OPPOSE: anti-immigrants approaches, hate-crime; obstruct, destruct, hinder productivity, employment, job search, purchasing power, family life; deprive, damage liberties, rights, resources; bad legislative bills with hidden agenda (regarding unjust heavy penalties, driving, license, vehicles, etc.) to benefit/ facilitate “official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks” operation at the expense of the people, especially minorities.

Gordon: The United States does not face an immigration crisis. The United States is just lacking an appropriate refuges policy to deal with people who were displaced by the socioeconomic disaster that was created by the pro American Neo Cons brutal military-political dictatorships in Central and South America over the past years. The United States should treat these refugees with respect and human dignity, mindful of the contribution many are making to the economic stability of the food supply (farm workers) and housing market (construction workers.) Whatever financial cost is incurred by the United States in its treatment of some of these refugees should be charged to the nation from which they came, by subtracting the cost from the foreign aid that is given to these nations by the U.S. (All foreigners should be fully aware that English is the official language of the United States, there is no need for an amendment to the constitution on this issue).

Vovak: Our borders are out of control to the point where private individuals are exceedingly more effective than the government at protecting America against terrorism. The federal government has a department that controls immigration, called the Immigration and Naturalization Service. That department needs to be eliminated or its laws enforced beginning immediately.

Dickerson: We are Americans first, so we all have to stand united and protect the constitution. We cannot offer Amnesty to any illegal immigrants, but we can be humane and offer processes for everyone to work towards becoming American citizens. We need to secure the border, and we can start by requesting the Mexican and Canadian governments to work with us. The Great Wall of China and the Berlin Wall did not work in the long term, but we can start ‘cracking down’ on the businesses that hire illegal immigrants. Every human being is looking to make a better life for themselves and their family, so there is no need for us to act against many of the illegal immigrants. If companies cannot find the employees, then the U.S. government needs to do a better job of issuing ‘Temporary Working Visas’ as a rapid response to small business needs, in the event an American cannot fill the job.

Taylor: No amnesty. English is and remains the official language of the land. Deport all Mexican flag wavers back to Mexico where they belong. Deport all 11 million illegal aliens before they become 30 million. Secure all frontiers: Mexico, Canada, seacoasts. Shoot invaders. Halt ALL immigration for the six-month period of January-July 2007 so that the new Democratic Senate and House of Representatives in Congress Assembled can get us OUT of the mess we’re now in, rather than getting in deeper. Simultaneously, open a national debate about the merits and demerits of halting ALL immigration for good. We’re going to have to do it in the end or risk being infiltrated by foreign elements who will, in fact, take over the United States and end our civilization as we know it. Of that I am absolutely convinced—and history is on my side, too. Europe is experiencing huge problems. The will expel all aliens first, and we will be forced to follow suit. If they don’t, won’t, or can’t learn and speak English, they should ALL go.

Question #2:

Another top-burner concern is the current spike in the price of gasoline. Again, this is a broad issue with many scenarios that can be played out. Possible solutions that have been bandied about in recent days are a temporary suspension of the federal 18.4 cent a gallon tax on gasoline and easing environmental restrictions on gasoline blends (as happened after Hurricane Katrina). Further down the road but possibly affecting prices on the futures market would be the approval of additional oil drilling in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico. If you were elected, what solutions to this issue would you pursue and why?

Gordon: The energy policy of the Neo Cons presents another act of deception. The American people are told that, due to the demands for oil by nation such as China and India, the availability of oil on the world market is very limited. So based on the gospel of supply and demand, the prices are high at the gas pump.

The claim by the administration is as deceptive as Iran/Contra and Iraq WMD claims. There are absolutely no shortage of oil on the world market. The former Soviet Republics have so much oil that they can sell America that, even if the Middle East was up in flames, gas prices should not have been where they are. Moreover, whether one believes it or not, there is enough oil and gas in Central and South America that could serve this nation’s needs for the next one million years at the rate of the present consumption level. This oil could be made available to the American people in a flash, if America’s politics were free of corrupt Neo Cons influences.

Vovak: If Americans want to pay less in gasoline costs, America should use Iraq’s oil. It is a small price for that country to pay for giving them democracy.

Rasmussen: The energy issue is solvable, but it may require the American people and American businesses to compromise to achieve a strategy of conservation and energy independence.

First – The mileage standard for auto and truck performance must be increased at least an additional 4-5 miles/gallon, including SUV’s.

Second – We must provide incentives and approve exploration of the liquefied natural gas resources located on the northern slope of Alaska.

Third – We have limited refining capacity. We must build more. In addition, we need the ability to produce and blend bio-fuels, particularly ethanol.

Fourth – Mobilize the scientific community and provide researchers the funds, facilities and mandate to develop alternative, commercially viable fuels and sources of energy.

Fifth – We need to re-allocate subsidies to the large oil companies and utilize those funds to encourage the development of new power plants and install environmental technology to existing fossil burning power plants to eliminate dangerous mercury emissions.

Shawver: I see no reason why companys can’t drill for oil, as long as they are responsible for any spills.

If we are in Iraq, they should be paying for the war. And we should have all the oil we need.

Zeese: We need to recognize that the 21st Century economy will have to no longer be based on fossil fuels. We have the technology to break our addiction to fossil fuels, including oil and gas but it is not being applied. Once again this is about big business and big government working together for their interests. Every penny increase in the price of oil is $1.5 billion annually for the oil companies. The most recent energy bill had $7 to $12 billion in corporate welfare for the richest companies in the world — big oil. The government is taking money from working Americans and giving it to the wealthiest Americans. We need to restructure our economy for the 21st Century, part of that is shifting from a fossil fuel economy — that is causing terrible environmental damage to our water (including the Chesapeake) and air, but most significantly to the climate change that will cause chaotic weather. We need to move quickly on a variety of fronts to increase efficiency and use technology that minimizes fossil fuels. This includes transportation, home, business and government buildings. For all of these areas we have solutions and applying them will actually grow the economy and create new businesses. If we do not act to manage this transition it will be forced upon us by crisis. We need urgent action in this area.

Taylor: The immediate solution is for the Federal government to take over—nationalize/socialize—ALL gas and oil production faciltiies in this nation, and I make no bones about it, either! The REAL solution, however, is to turn completely AWAY from gas, oil, ethanol and all other fossil-based fuels and TOWARD wind, solar, water, and controlled nuclear power to meet our country’s energy needs for the rest of the 21st Century. In the end, we will, indeed, do exactly this: the only remaining question is: How soon? My answer is to START in 2007, and forge ruthlessly ahead.

Schaefer: Additional oil drilling is a positive, we need to be less energy dependent. Tax credits for purchase of hybrid or electric vehicles need to be increased and promoted. A luxery tax on inefficient new cars is needed, let people buy Hummers but pay a 20% federal luxery tax for any vehicle that does not meet certain standards of efficiency to be set by the states or the feds.

And we need a cap of $2 million on CEO pay, it would be five times the pay of the US President, now 400K. They can have stock options but the $60 million pay taken last year by at least l0 CEO’s earns them prosecution for misapproriaton of shareholder equities. This would not mean much at the pump but the oil companies are prominent among the violators.

Young: Major transaction or land deal should be rigorously reviewed objectively by academically very well trained, based on merits, priorities, cost- effectiveness, social cost-benefits, etc., through competitive processes, general soliciting, fair market mechanism; not arranged by the developer or inner circle; should be openly discussed with residents, in official meetings, Mayor/Council/ public hearings; not misleading, concealing, unjust manipulation or influence; not rushed through as the consent agenda items as mall purchases of goods and services. Eliminate, prevent: abandonment of public resources, land, properties to benefit a few or “official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks” including developer, government attorneys, lawyers, law firms, etc.) at the expense of general public and future generations, including other jurisdictions, especially with grants and public debts from the state and federal; sold, leased out (secret hidden agenda, even huge acres, decades-long lease) with zero or no fair compensation, despite citizen’s objection; unnecessarily leased private properties for government use at very high costs even with short lease (a few years or shorter); with extra high costs to construct building, furnish expansive equipments; and when construction is done, lease expires, completed products abandoned or free to a few; often disguised by partnership, economic development, school, education, public safety, etc.; several rounds of unjust abandonment and purchase; misleading public roads, highways, when abandoned to private; unjust projects, appropriation; misuse, abuse, misappropriation; false road construction, maintenance; false records: land, roads, maps; unjust demolition of building even in good condition to initiate new construction, project, purchase, including library or school.

Lichtman: With gas prices soaring above $3 a gallon it is time to stop talking about cutting prices and start taking action. The following is my plan for cutting prices at the pump for the people of Maryland and the nation, both now and in the long term. This is a real plan for change, not the purely rhetorical gesture made by George W. Bush:

1. Provide new powers for the Federal Trade Commission to investigate and crack down on price gouging by the big oil companies. Exxon made a record $36 billion in profit last year and recently paid out some $400 million to its retiring CEO, exploding the excuse that soaring pump prices are solely the product of rising costs.

2. Impose an excess profits tax on the big energy companies with an exception for profits devoted to research into and production of clean, renewable sources of energy.

3. Eliminate state anti-competitive laws, including the Maryland law, which prevents retailers from reducing prices below a specified minimum.

4. Enforce the anti-trust laws to increase competition in the heavily concentrated energy industry.

5. Adopt a plan now for converting a substantial component of the fossil fuel economy to clean, renewable sources of energy. Components of the plan would include:

o Adopt Fuel Economy Standards: We need to adopt real, loophole-free, fuel economy standards for motor vehicles, not the shell game that President Bush has proposed. Even a modest average 5 miles per gallon increase in real fuel economy could save more than 20 billion gallons per year by 2020, according to the Alliance to Save Energy.

o Flip the Subsidies: The government must flip subsidies, tax breaks, and research and development programs from fossil fuels to clean, renewable sources of energy. This would include repealing the $12 billion in subsidies to big oil and gas companies in Bush’s energy bill and devoting the proceeds to developing and producing alternative energy sources.

o Convert Government Fleets: We can begin to convert all government vehicular fleets to low emission, fuel efficient vehicles, including the latest in plug-in hybrid technology and bio-mass fuels.

o Upgrade Efficiency Standards: We need to upgrade energy efficiency standards for appliances and buildings and create incentives for conservation and the cogeneration of energy.

o Make a Commitment to Conservation: The U. S. spend less than $1billion a year on conservation measures, a substantial reduction since the Clinton years. We need a real federal commitment to conservation as well as leaders who will work with the American people to promote a new conservation ethic.

o Advance Research: The government must establish a first-class federal research program devoted to the development of alternative fuels and conservation initiatives.

We can reduce prices at the gas pump, put consumers ahead of excess profits for energy companies, and convert to clean, renewable sources of energy. It is a matter of will, not technology. As President Kennedy said, “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone…”

Dickerson: As U.S. Senator, I would immediately recommend that our country has a meeting with the OPEC members to forge an agreement that prevents another Energy Crisis that we experienced in this country. I remember the day sitting in the car with my father at 3:00a.m. because we had to stand in line at the pump to get gas. China and India’s development has placed more demands for fuel, thus we are seeing a rise in the prices. When the Premier of China visited the United States, he had stopped off in Nigeria to forge relationships and agreed to invest in their infrastructure development. We should reconsider our policy of nation-building in Iraq, and look to secure our relationships with oil producing countries around the world. Does oil drilling in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico solve the long term strategic problem? No! We also need to immediately be concerned with our National Security and begin developing an Alternative Energy source. Exxon did purchase Reliance Electric years ago, and then they put them out of business when they had invented an Electric Car. I would recommend that we work with Germany and Japan to develop our Alternative Fuel research and development in Maryland. My experience in working in Germany and Japan could support that idea.

Question #3:

Recently the news has featured ethics scandals involving GOP donor Jack Abramoff and former House member Duke Cunningham of California as well as Democrat House members William Jefferson of Louisiana and Allan Mollohan of West Virginia. If elected, what steps would you take to help eliminate ethical improprieties among our elected representatives?

Young: Rigorous review, analysis: budget, based on merit, principle, priorities, cost-effectiveness, social cost-benefits. Promote quality, peace, justice, fair election processes; televise, disseminate, maintain meaningful information; issue, candidate, debate. Oppose: unjust practices, manipulation, influence; bad legislative proposals, hidden agenda with false excuses (economic development, housing, transportation…whatever) for private gain (officials, developers, lawyers, etc.); nonsense grants, programs, projects: facilitate “official misconduct- government gang- fraud- crime- injustice networks”=cruel tyranny= robbery machine; continuing, on-going, expanding, penetrating, threat, coercion, victimization, deprivation, discrimination; endless immoral-unlawful acts, rob/destruct resources (public, private; business, civic, political), frivolous litigation, levies, foreclosures; improper processing of complaints, proceedings, docketing; cause vicious cycles: socio- political- election-media; civil-human rights, people-slave.

Vovak: The American system seems to be working, as unethical officials are being caught. In time, more will be caught.

Rasmussen: This one is really simple. No ability for lobbyist organizations, including trade associations to give, raise or steer campaign contributions to anyone in office or running for office. Take that ability away, and you have instant reform. The role of the lobbyist is to educate and inform, not control the power to vote.

Dickerson: Term limits, campaign finance and lobbying reform. If all men are created equal, then it should not be that the major press only favors the candidates with the money. Our founding fathers never established term limits, but did they expect Edward Kennedy to be in the U.S. Senate since I was born in 1962? I propose no more than two terms of office for the U.S. Senate. However, I still think that it serves our democracy for the better by allowing candidates at the last minute to file in this state without requiring them to have petitions signed. The winds of change need to allow for someone to step forward without any barriers.

Shawver: To eliminate ethical improprieties Article 1, Section 5.

Lichtman: Maryland needs a Senator who understands how corruption eroded our government and is ready to stand as a watchdog against practices that sell out the people’s interests to the wealthy corporations. As a Senator I pledge to fulfill that role and to accept no perks or benefits from special interest groups – no junkets to foreign lands, no weekends at lush resorts, no fact-finding trips that become golf holidays. As an educator I understand the importance of setting a role model for students. As a Senator I would do no less for the people of Maryland.

I would also propose much stricter regulation of lobbying than in the sham Republican proposal. Real reforms would ban privately-funded travel and all forms of gifts to lawmakers, restrict former members of Congress from lobbying for two years, and establish an independent ethics-oversight committee. The people’s interests should never be sold out for the wealthy corporate interests.

Taylor: The Senate and House should expel all such members who are crooks, and press the judiciary for the full serving of all sentences, with NO parole.

Zeese: Money in politics is at the root cause of most of the problems we face. I don’t agree with Sen. John McCain on everything but he is right when he says that our “electoral system is nothing less than a massive influence peddling scheme where both parties conspire to sell the country to the highest bidder.” If you doubt the accuracy of the statement visit opensecrets.org and see who is funding the two old parties. If you know it is true, as most Americans know, then you have to decide whether you are going to be part of this corrupt system or challenge it. I’ve decided to challenge it and that is why I am running outside of the two old parties. I’ve created a UNITY CAMPAIGN. For the first time in history three parties have nominated the same candidate — the Libertarian, Green and Populist Parties – also I have members of the Democratic and Republican Parties as well as Independents on my campaign committee. We are joining together because government no longer works for most Americans. We need a paradigm shift in the way we approach issues and need to make this a country that is truly of, by and for the people. That cannot be done by either of the old parties because they are in too deep with the wealth special interests that fund their campaigns.

I oppose earmarks, oppose travel paid for by lobbyists, oppose sweetheart book deals and want to see money having less influence on politics. I favor televsion and radio stations — who are licensed to use the public airwaves — to be required to provide enough time for candidates to let voters know what they stand for. I also support inclusion of all ballot approved candidates in all debates and candidate forums. And, we need to end partisan administration of elections — elections should be administered in a non-partisan way by civil servants rather than political appointees. Our democracy is in serious trouble and major changes are needed.

Schaefer: I have known Cummingham for over ten years. He has serious mental blocks and deserves what he got, guess being treated like a hero for all those years before running for Congress made him think he was invincable. Am happy to see this issue be on the front burner. I would double the budget for the Department of Justice’s public integrity unit and have monitoring of all local, county, state and federal officials by random surprise checks and US Attorneys ordered to bring all published or unpublished criticism of official ethnics to the attention of the DOJ public integrity unit for evaluation.

I applaud Nancy Pelosi for pushing the removal of Jefferson from his Committee.

I think pension benefits ought be reduced 50% or eliminated upon conviction, or the actual funds paid in refunded, without intereset, so that the Congress can terminate its relationship with those who dishonor it.

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

That’s all for tonight. I’ll do Questions 4 through 6 next Wednesday and Questions 7 through 10 next Friday. Meanwhile, look for the Maryland General Assembly post tomorrow, I wasn’t on the computer much this evening as the lights flickered menacingly on several occasions with the gusty winds.

Ten questions for…Michael James

I’m going to borrow the normal U.S. Senate day (Friday) to pretty much wrap up the Ten Questions series for awhile. There might be a couple more floating around out there but those will be posted as time and space become available, and later today (assuming I have electricity with what’s left of Ernesto hitting us) I’ll begin posting my “debates” with the candidates I have.

But yesterday I got Michael James’s answers to the Ten Questions, so I’ve ended up with 3 of the 5 District 38B Republicans answering these prior to the “debates”. I also saw him and the family last night at the Shorebirds finale although I didn’t speak to him, I was upstairs watching from a different perch than I normally do.

So here are Michael James’s answers to the Ten Questions.

Question #1:

Some of you participated in the recent special session to modify the large rate hikes that were to be enacted by Baltimore Gas & Electric. However, our electrical rates from the local Eastern Shore suppliers went unchanged. With that in mind, would you be more in favor of a total repeal of the 1999 deregulation laws, or do you believe the concept is sound and only needs a few guardrails and rate safeguards?

I am in favor of deregulation as long as there is an adequate climate for competition. Obviously the utilities are essential to our society, so if there was a catastrophe or an accumulation of issues that forced costs to rise to the levels that harm the economy or create an unusual burden on our citizens, the Government would need to intervene until the market stabilized. The 1999 deregulation was odd in that it was accompanied by 1993 level price caps. The General Assembly should have known there would be unusually high increases once the caps expired. Instead, they ignored the issue until it could be called a “crisis”. They then used the PSE and its chairman Eastern Shoreman Ken Schisler as a scapegoat to divert attention away from their own mistakes.

Question #2:

In the last two sessions of the General Assembly, the issue of health insurance and who pays for it has taken center stage. (Examples: the Fair Share Health Care Act and its proposed expansion with last year’s HB1510, which was sponsored by Delegate Hubbard and defeated in committee.) Recently the state of Massachusetts adopted legislation effective in 2007 mandating all residents secure coverage under some public or private health insurance plan or face a financial penalty. Do you see this concept as an idea Maryland should adopt?

NO. That would be too close to a nanny state.

Question #3:

Within our area, Somerset County traditionally has among the highest unemployment rates in the state of Maryland. In every election, well-paying jobs and how to secure them is an issue. If you are elected to the General Assembly, what policies would you favor commencing or retaining in an attempt to create or lure good-paying jobs for the Eastern Shore?

We need to work independently on the shore as well as work with The Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development to attract businesses to our area. I support tax incentives, tax credits for training and state grants for the county economic development efforts. I believe all three counties in District 38 have a lot to offer potential employers. I believe by working jointly the three counties have a story to tell and resources to market to future employers. The reason so many people want to relocate here are the same reasons this region would be attractive to growing companies.

Question #4:

This year a state takeover of several failing Baltimore City Schools was thwarted by the General Assembly overriding an earlier veto of a bill Governor Ehrlich rejected. A few states, though, are attempting to remove themselves from the federal “No Child Left Behind” regulations for various reasons, even at the risk of losing federal dollars. Do you support the federal NCLB mandates or do you feel the state could and should go without the additional restrictions (and funding)?

I support NCLB

Question #5:

In the 2006 General Assembly, the Blackwater development in Cambridge became a contentious issue which led to legislation that was eventually defeated. However, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation has continued to apply pressure to legislators and encouraged voters to speak out on what they perceive as a threat to bay water quality. On the other hand, the city of Cambridge sees Blackwater as a needed shot in the arm for its economy and tax base. Where do you see yourself on this issue and related development matters?

From my view, the Blackwater Developers played by the rules, followed the permit process, and communicated with state and local officials from the beginning. It may have helped their cause to do more in the beginning to reach out early to their future opponents, but that is just speculation.

I feel the state government plays a needed role in protecting our environment and should monitor development to ensure that the benefits are not outweighed by problems, current or future. The state should stay active in development matters, however I feel it is unfair to legislate retroactively.

Question #6:

The last two sessions of the General Assembly have seen an inordinate amount of time spent dealing with personnel matters and political appointments. Some have claimed this as a usurpation of power properly belonging to the executive branch (governor’s office) but others see this as a proper extension of the duties of the General Assembly. In your opinion, has the General Assembly gone too far or does the Governor still wield too much power when it comes to personnel decisions?

The General Assembly has gone too far. They have now spent over $1,000,000.00 on their politically motivated hearings.

Question #7:

For the Eastern Shore, transportation can sometimes be tricky because of Bay Bridge traffic and traveling to and from the beach on a summer weekend can be a real headache. Solutions advocated range from another Bay Bridge to a ferry service to a light rail system, and as always people want the existing highways improved. What transportation improvements do you feel are a priority for the Eastern Shore, and how would you pay for them?

With the growth we have seen in recent years, there are several needed road projects. Dualization of 113 and 589 are very important, as are many other projects. As a state delegate from 38B, I will fight for our fair share of transportation funding. This will be important due to the large sums of money the metropolitan counties will be looking for to fund the ICC and mass transit.

Question #8:

Drugs and gangs are a growing problem on the Eastern Shore. The local authorities do their best but we’re a long way from fighting the problem successfully. In what ways do you think the General Assembly can best address this crime issue, and what tools do you see working best?

Working to stop the flow of drugs is the most important part of reducing gang related crime. The drugs are the financial lifeline that keeps the most violent criminals in business. I am in favor of increasing funding for undercover agents and officers as well as increasing money for training to ensure our law enforcement agencies stay current and have the most capable personnel as possible, and technology that is superior to that of the criminals.

Question #9:

This year, you will be the first in the history of the General Assembly to be nominated and elected through the use of early voting. Proponents have stated that early voting is beneficial for turnout, but others claim the new regulations will encourage fraud and have petitioned to place the issue on the ballot as a referendum. In addition, these same laws have made absentee ballots available upon request with no reason needed. With that in mind, are you in favor of repealing the early voting laws, and why?

As of this writing, the early voting has been struck down by the courts. I was always opposed due to the potential for widespread fraud.

Question #10:

It is almost a certainty at this early date that either Governor Ehrlich will be reelected or Baltimore mayor Martin O’Malley will take over the governor’s chair early next year. If you are elected to the General Assembly and the representative of the opposite party (i.e. a Democrat would be working with Governor Ehrlich, a Republican would be working with Mayor O’Malley) wins election, with what issues do you see being able to find common ground with the governor?

I believe regardless of who is Governor, I will find common ground on issues related to economic development. This would include making sure farming is profitable, job creation is important and tourism is promoted. I have said from the beginning, to have a strong community for our families, we need to have a healthy business community. That is just common sense. For the record, I believe Governor Ehrlich will be re-elected by a margin of at least 4 points.

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

Michael got the advantage of answering my questions later, so Question #9 has sort of become irrelevant. But I wrote them in July, well before the court case began. At that time, we were still arguing about the petition drive that supposedly fell short by 138 signatures on one issue so I assumed the vote would go on. But I’m going to leave the question in the debate because the answers are telling.

And yes, I’m beating Duvafiles this morning. For whatever reason, I had a hard time sleeping last night so I decided at 4:30 that I may as well get up and do something useful since there’s the possibility I may not be able to do so later. Now I’m going to finish compiling my “debates”.

Election Calendar update

Thanks to Bill Reddish…here’s his upcoming WICO-AM interview schedule.

August 31: Kirk Daugherty (Sheriff)
September 1: Chris South (Sheriff)

County executive candidates:

September 5: Ron Alessi
September 6: B. J. Corbin
September 7: Tom Taylor
September 8: Rick Pollitt

September 11: Bob Culver will get the last word.

Each day’s interview runs in the 7:40 to 8:00 a.m. slot.

I also got an e-mail from the O’Malley camp that they will be doing a sign wave along Route 50 on Friday from 4:00 p.m. until dark with wavers needed at the Bay Bridge, Easton, Cambridge, and Salisbury. Contacts for our area are:

Cambridge: Cheryl Everman at ceverman@comcast.net
Salisbury: John Coggin at jcoggin@martinomalley.com

I suppose if you really want to get wet and blown about you can do this – it’s one way to see just who the most die-hard Democrats are, isn’t it?

Having done my duty to inform the voters, let me say that if I see O’Malley out there I’ll make sure to wave something at him too.

WCRC meeting – August 2006

Once again, I had the pleasure of enjoying the company of about 65 or so other Republicans and some really good food (I believe the provider was a company called “Catering by Melissa” and Melissa herself tended the wonderful stuff) as we had another month’s meeting of the Wicomico County Republican Club. I tell you, it’s going to be hard to top our food this summer. But the club DOES have a Crab Feast next month….ok, in my view they won’t top this summer’s meeting fare but I’m not a big crab eater. Must be because my idea of seafood is good Lake Erie walleye.

Anyway, we did the usual inhouse business of the Pledge of Allegiance, recital of minutes, and treasurer’s report. We are still over twice as prosperous as we were this time last year.

Woody Willing of the Board of Elections had a few comments regarding the demise of early voting and the removal of Tom Perez from the ballot as unqualified. Having the sample ballots reprinted to delete the statement about early voting would cost Wicomico County over $11,000 so the ballots will go out with a sticker over the incorrect portion. However, it’s uncertain what the disposition of Perez will be since I’m certain some Democratic primary voters have already made their choice with him on the ballot. And I learned something tonight, in Maryland the absentee ballot form is available online. I’m not planning on using it but that may be valuable information for others to ponder.

Generally John Bartkovich, chair of the Central Committee, speaks toward the end of the program but he was close to the beginning tonight. We found out that Michael Steele will be appearing at two upcoming local events. One will be the Crab Derby down in Crisfield this weekend and the other will the the annual J. Lowell Stoltzfus (my State Senator from District 38) picnic on September 23rd. But can one call it a picnic when it’s held indoors? Regardless, Steele is slated to be at both events. John also talked about making sure signs were located appropriately but not to take matters into your own hands if they’re not. Of course, we also got a call for volunteers (from him and others) and most importantly a call to run clean and positive campaigns. He cited a letter in yesterday’s Daily Times as an example not to follow (it’s the first letter posted.)

We then had a few brief remarks from Governor Ehrlich’s Wicomico County chair, Ellen Andrews. Her main point was that we can’t get Ehrlich to appear at the Crab Feast because of a scheduling conflict (methinks it’s Rep. Gilchrest’s Bull Roast, held the same day up the Shore) but we are slated to get running mate Kristen Cox. Certainly we get the better looking of the duo.

With that, we turned the meeting over to Wicomico County Sheriff candidate Chris South, who noted that George Washington never gave a speech over ten minutes long and he was going to follow a good example. I didn’t time the speech but South was relatively brief.

He touched on his five platform elements: community relationships, reaching our youth, comunication between law enforcement agencies, enhancing professionalism in the WCSD, and looking into the future. As part of the community relationships, he advocated that the deputies stick to the county areas and leave the highway patrolling to the Maryland State Police, and also plugged a proactive approach to crime prevention rather than a reactive one.

Continuing, Chris stated that “deputies are looked upon as leaders by our youth” and as role models. He would encourage his deputies to interact with kids as young as preschool and would be certain to retain the deputies in our schools. Communication between agencies under his watch would be fostered by daily conference calls between himself and the local police departments.

Whether this was a problem wasn’t clear, but South said he’d work for higher morale and better training among the WCSD deputies and work to diversify the department to “mirror the community”. As the first new Sheriff in 20 years he wanted to work closely with whoever was chosen as County Executive. I thought of it as South stating he’d be happy these offices could start afresh and usher in a new era on both sides.

In his current position with US Air at the Wicomico County Airport, South asserted that he was responsible for passenger safety and is the liason for the TSA there. He also noted that he’s been selected as an “Officer of the Year” twice in two different police departments, so he’s had lengthy law enforcement experience.

To sum up South’s remarks, he wanted to implement his skills for a safer community by working together.

We then heard from House of Delegates District 38B hopeful Bonnie Luna. Luna came across as a quite humorous speaker to start, quipping that she’s spent more time with the four men opposing her than her husband. And while stating her admiration for President Bush, she did allude in a gentle jibe at the President that because he’s spent his day in the areas ravaged by Hurricane Katrina a year ago “if I don’t do well (here tonight), it’s his fault.”

With that good beginning, Bonnie launched into a little bit of biographical information and stuff I didn’t know about her. Like me, Bonnie is a “come-here” but of much older vintage (early 1970’s) who was (and remains) a licensed Realtor. She also claimed that she was likely the first woman on the Shore to own a construction company while she lived in Ocean Pines. But Bonnie came to politics much later, beginning with the campaign of George H.W. Bush for President. She also worked early on campaigning for an obscure Congressional candidate named Luis Luna – obviously that made the biggest change in her life. As she joked, Luis lost the election but got the prize.

While Luna’s also worked on several other campaigns (Ellen Sauerbray for Governor, Senator Stoltzfus as campaign manager, and local coordinator for President Bush twice) what convinced her to run for this seat was a stint as an intern in the office of Delegate Dick Sossi back in 2005. Describing the atmosphere in Annapolis as “disheartening” and “partisan”, she related the three themes she’s built her campaign on: common sense, putting people before politics, and doing the right thing for the people – not solely for reelection.

Bonnie contended that, rather than the General Assembly taking all of its effort to pass an early voting bill that was a “waste of time” because it was ruled as nonconforming to the Maryland Constitution, the energy should have been exerted on passing items like, as one example, tort reform. Health care was in a “near crisis” state according to Luna, warning that the lack of sensible tort reform was forcing doctors to retire early or cut services. She called this a “quality of life” issue. In a related matter, she saw getting more help to small businesses attempting to buy employees health insurance as a priority, seeking for them a way to more easily attain “umbrella” coverage and allowing small businesses to combine their efforts and dollars.

Another thing Bonnie chided the recent editions of the General Assembly for was not passing any safeguards against the misuse of eminent domain. (Wonder if she knows about the Castle Coalition?) And of course, she did have some unkind words about her Democrat opponent’s support of the Wal-Mart bill.

One item that blew my mind was her contention that Governor Ehrlich stopped in one way or another taxes proposed by Democrats in Annapolis that would have amounted to $1,500 for each and every resident of the (not so) Free State. Describing her district as a “battleground” because of the effort by Democrats to maintain their stranglehold on the General Assembly and also due to the fact this essentially is an open seat due to the April death of longtime Delegate Bennett Bozman, Luna concluded by asking us for our vote and our help in gaining a seat for the Republicans in Annapolis.

Finally, M.J. Caldwell was called upon to introduce all of the candidates in attendance. If my count was correct there were 30 candidates there, including myself. He said something that I didn’t know as part of his overall remarks – apparently the Democrats have already selected a replacement should the late Tony Bruce “win” the Democrat primary in District 38A. I guess they don’t see the young man (Patrick Armstrong) who paid his fee and got his name on the ballot as a credible candidate they can get behind. Who has the “good old boy” network?

Our next meeting will have far fewer candidates in attendance, as it will be after the primary. That date to remember is September 25th, same bat-time, same bat-channel.

For County Council – at-large

As promised yesterday here are my endorsements for the two at-large ballot spots for each party in their September 12 primary. Because all four Democrats who are on the current County Council decided not to run for re-election for whatever reasons, both of these seats are open. In fact, a “perfect storm” scenario for the County Council could have District 2 representative Stevie Prettyman being the sole holdover from the current council’s makeup, and the split in that situation could vary anywhere from a 6-1 Democrat majority to a 5-2 Republican one. All three Republicans who are on Council now (Prettyman, District 3’s Gail Bartkovich, and Larry Dodd from District 5) are seeking another term.

I’ll start with the Democrat side. Here are their four contenders for the two spots:

Carl Crumbacker, Sr.
Brenda Hughey-Jones
Bill McCain
Gary Tucker Jr.

Unfortunately, I really don’t have a lot of basis to judge Brenda Hughey-Jones from as she missed the NAACP candidate forum due to an emergency. While it’s likely I heard her on WICO because I tried to catch all of the candidate interviews Bill Reddish did, nothing from it sticks out at me. I did get a flyer with some of the items she’s committing to doing as a County Councilperson but they were general concepts rather than specific ideas and issues. In Gary Tucker’s case, I did hear him at the NAACP forum and on the radio, but he didn’t seem as prepared as one would like to see in either instance. I’m certain he has a passion for something but he couldn’t bring it across to me.

So in this case I almost by default have to endorse the other two for the Democratic nominations to the at-large County Council seats. Luckily it doesn’t work that way because both men have ideas and principles that are worth further exploration as the campaign unfolds.

Most intriguing to me in McCain’s case was a call for tax incentives for first-time homebuyers and targeting affordable housing districts. I know his background is in real estate appraisal but these are things that Wicomico County needs. Believe me, I know because I’m in the housing market right now! Fortunately I do have some means to get a decent house in a good area but not all working families do. I had one opportunity to turn a house that was being rented into an owner-occupied dwelling but alas, it fell through. It would be great to see others manage to achieve this feat and I’d like McCain to further elaborate on this platform plank as the weeks elapse toward the November election.

Meanwhile, Crumbacker impresses me as a fiscal conservative who’s running because Wicomico County needs a vision and a plan to be run properly. Noting that “citizens are sick of bad service” got my attention as well. Of course, bad service now should fall under the eye of the County Executive but having someone on the Council who’s keeping that in mind is no bad thing. Both of these men seem, at least at first glance, to shade their views toward those of so-called “Reagan Democrats.”

Because of this, I believe Carl Crumbacker and Bill McCain are the wisest choices to advance to the general election on the Democrat side.

Switching back to my GOP home, vying for their two slots are:

M.J. Caldwell
John Cannon
Lucy Graf
John Herweh
Sheryl Peters

Much like the case of Hughey-Jones on the Democrat side, I know next to nothing about John Herweh and thus have no basis to have an informed opinion. Now I do know a little more about Graf and Peters because the two women are related to each other and publicly announced they’re running as a tandem. In particular, the feisty Graf was a hit at the NAACP forum. But my impression of both was that they are quite firmly in the moderate camp of the GOP. I know that Peters is a solid Republican (president of the Lower Shore Republican Women’s Club) and I admire both of them for seeking the seats; however, advocating a “revisit” to the revenue cap is worrisome when I feel the citizens have spoken on the means they feel government should live within.

Aside from what I thought was a misstep by M.J. Caldwell in talking about “holding the budget hostage” to promote hiring diversity (my idea of diversity is hiring every one of the best people for the job regardless of pigmentation, presence of Y chromosomes, and choices of bed partner and faith), I think both Cannon and Caldwell represent solid conservative choices for County Council. They both have the added benefit of advocating growth while wishing to keep it in the core areas most suited for expansion.

Thus I’m urging local Republicans to advance John Cannon and M.J. Caldwell to the November election.

Election Calendar – August 28 thru September 12

This will be the final Election Calendar until after the primary. Unfortunately, many campaigns are going to be in the mode where they schedule by the seat of their pants so I don’t get the benefit of seeing it on their website calendars. So the pickings are pretty slim.

Here’s items that carry over from last week:

…the regular meeting of the Wicomico County Republican Club occurs on Monday, August 28 at the Chamber of Commerce building (144 E. Main in Salisbury.) We’ll begin the schmoozing at 7:00 p.m. and get to hear from District 38B hopeful Bonnie Luna and Wicomico County Sheriff candidate Chris South about 7:30 or so. I’m sure almost every Republican that’s on the Wicomico County ballot will be there.

Also upcoming is a fundraiser for County Executive candidate BJ Corbin on August 31st, 6-9 p.m. This $50 event will be held at the Old Mill Crab House along Route 54 at Waller Road just west of Delmar.

I saw in my perusal of websites today that District 38B contender Jack Lord is planning on being at a Block Party in Pocomoke on September 9th and fellow 38B candidate Michael James has a “meet and greet” here in Salisbury on August 30th. (I know his campaign manager Dustin Mills reads monoblogue, perhaps he’ll share further details.) Yet another District 38B candidate, Bonnie Luna, has many events on her excellent calendar, I’ll just go ahead and link here to it to save myself a bunch of typing.

Finally, I found that District 37B incumbent Addie Eckardt (she of the hot pink signage) has a fundraiser on September 11th in Cambridge at American Legion Post 91 (it’s right on Route 50). The festivities run from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. and admission is $35. To RSVP you may call (410) 228-8048.

That’s pretty much it. I do get e-mail from many campaigns but most of them are looking for money or spreading news about previous events. Whether the Election Calendar is a viable service of monoblogue is going to depend on how much cooperation I get after the primary – of course with the field of candidates narrowed (sometimes drastically like in the U.S. Senate race) that may make things a little easier, I can just verify which e-mail addresses I do have and make sure I can contact the remainder.

Also, I believe Bill Reddish has managed to wade through the entire field of primary candidates for his usual 7:40 a.m. to 8 a.m. interview slot so I’m guessing that he’s also going to take a political hiatus as well. I heard on Friday that Salisbury city councilperson Debbie Campbell is Monday’s guest so that tells me we’re back to normalcy for awhile.

Is this Alessigate?

Last week there was coverage in both Justice for All? and Duvafiles about a possible error, omission, or (as conspiratorially whispered) coverup with campaign contributors to Ron Alessi’s County Executive bid, particularly a large amount of donations from County Council candidate MJ Caldwell.

It so happens that I’m placed in an interesting position because I tread on both sides of this issue. On the one hand, obviously I’m a local blogger and I read the other local blogs like Duvafiles, Justice For All?, National Joe-A-Graphic, etc. on a regular (if not daily) basis. For example, last night they were the ones who alerted me to the Maryland Court of Appeals decision on early voting so I expanded my line of inquiry on the topic and posted my thoughts on it. Knowing that they have a history in Salisbury and Wicomico County whereas I don’t I see these three gentlemen as a good background resource and hopefully they appreciate my reporting and perspective on events as well.

Now in regards to the e-mail that I also got from Dave Parker, I regularly receive e-mail from him that regards WCRC business since I’m on that mailing list. What makes things interesting on the other end is that I’m running for the Wicomico County Republican Central Committee with six other men, three of whom will be newcomers like myself. One of them is the aforementioned Dave Parker, and another is the original author of the note, Ed Heath. Further still, MJ Caldwell is on the ballot twice as he’s also seeking to retain his Central Committee seat. And all of us will be elected as there’s only seven people running for the seven spots.

So I’m going to give the Alessi campaign and its treasurer Robert Walton Sr. the benefit of the doubt that someone has made an honest mistake. I’m not sure why MJ Caldwell would not want to admit he gave $2500 to the Alessi campaign, I seem to think he’s allowed to do so (unless he’s reached his limit in this election cycle which is a possible oversight, hard to keep track of all these things for four years) but if he didn’t it’s also possible the state records are messed up. (“Chesapeake Dogs” brought the possibility up and it’s a good point.)

However, I agree with Hadley that the donation snafu is a matter that still should be investigated by the State Board of Elections because $2500 is a lot of money in a campaign like this and if there’s a coverup I want that out regardless of the fallout. Republicans are much better at policing their own than Democrats are, one can use Tom DeLay and William Jefferson as examples of how each party treats those accused of wrongdoing. While DeLay was drummed out of Congress based on a partisan and questionable indictment, Jefferson remains in the good graces of Congressional Democrats despite being caught with $90,000 of possibly tainted cash.

And it would be much better to have this ironed out before the primary so, if by chance something doesn’t clear the legal smell test, the Republican voters can judge accordingly and elect another candidate rather than have a nasty “October surprise” hand the County Executive job to a Democrat almost by default and possibly jeopardize the chances of other GOP members in close races.

If this puts me at odds with Parker, Heath, Caldwell, et. al. as we become the next edition of the Republican Central Committee so be it – I can live with that. I’ve spent a lot of time this election cycle trying to inform the voters so they can make a good choice and one reason why is I’m betting that, with all the facts in hand, the people in our neck of the woods will decide to vote for conservative, common sense candidates who do things on the up-and-up. The Republican Party on a national scale is having a hard time getting through the shenanigans associated with Jack Abramoff, so we don’t need problems on a local scale to taint us even more.

For County Council – Districts

Today it’s time to make my primary endorsements in some of the County Council races. Probably the best place to begin is to identify the players. Here’s the roster for both “teams”, the Democrats and Republicans. (At this time, I know of no other minor party or independent candidates for these seats.)

Democrats:

District 1: Mac Hayward, Sheree Sample-Hughes
District 2: none
District 3: Mike Pretl
District 4: Neil Bayne, David MacLeod
District 5: Ed Werkheiser

Republicans:

District 1: none
District 2: Stevie Prettyman
District 3: Gail Bartkovich
District 4: Bryan Brushmiller
District 5: Larry Dodd, Joe Holloway, Dorothy White

As you can read, I have just 3 contested races to deal with here, and two districts will be decided in September as just one party has candidates. As far as my personal vote, it’s still up in the air where I’ll be living let alone which candidate I’ll support. Currently I live on the fringes of District 3 (so obviously my primary vote goes to Gail Bartkovich) but I’m looking at houses in both District 4 and District 5, and there could be a scenario where I live in a house on a district border so I might just get TWO signs.

In District 1, the winner of the September 12 primary will be assured of a County Council seat because there is no candidate on the Republican side. I believe there’s some personal reasons involved with Mac Hayward getting a later start on his campaign, but really I haven’t seen or heard much from him – granted I’m not often in District 1 in my travels but you’d think I’d see him at some of the other events I attend. Hayward stressed his interest in education in the times I’ve seen or heard him.

On the other hand, I’ve seen Sheree Sample-Hughes almost everywhere – not to the Jim Gillespie level but she is a Democrat after all and I don’t make too many of their events. While she has some positions on issues that trouble me (reintegrating felons into the community and the county’s revenue cap are two examples), I think there’s a place at the table for some of her ideas and she certainly has made the extra effort to get herself seen whenever the opportunity arises. With the energy and passion she’s shown, I think youth should be served and the voters in District 1 should elect Sheree Sample-Hughes on September 12. I’ll take the chance that she uses the seat as a springboard to becoming a formidable state candidate because she’s worked harder to gain election in this race.

Turning to another Democrat race, District 4’s race features two men with interesting backgrounds – Neil Bayne, who has worked in the television and journalistic fields; and David MacLeod, onetime CIA employee who served in Africa and southeast Asia for nearly a decade. Both men share concerns about growth in Wicomico County as a campaign issue.

The impression I’ve had from what I heard and read about MacLeod is that he’s more focused on the impact of growth on the environment and may push a bit too far into the realm of restricting growth to a point where we regress instead of progress. He’s also interested in “(d)eveloping a neighborly relationship with Salisbury University administration and students.” That’s all well and good; however, one must remember (particularly SU students) that they are guests in our community, not the other way around. SU should be reaching out to us and students act more like those of manners and taste would if they were invited into our home.

But what sold me on Neil Bayne was one remark he made at the NAACP candidate forum. It wasn’t the one that drew the most applause regarding the county council’s meeting times, it was where he related to the assembled that one man and one vote were not going to solve the county’s problems. He also correctly noted that Wicomico County is always going to have to compete with the allure of the “big city” and its higher wages. (It’s possible Bayne could be on the County Council when Wicomico County becomes a “big city”, I believe we’re close to the borderline where the feds can declare Salisbury to be an urban area.) Because of his no-nonsense tone and realistic understanding of what the County Council can and can’t do to solve issues, I’m endorsing Neil Bayne for the District 4 Democratic nomination.

This brings us to the lone contested Republican race, where incumbent County Councilman Larry Dodd faces two challengers in Joe Holloway and Dorothy White. I’m very glad Holloway and White got into the race, not that I harbor any dislike for Larry Dodd, but because there’s two people who said that “yes, we have a Republican in the seat, but I think I can do the job better for (x) reason.” As is (hopefully) apparent, I like contested primaries and do not believe in automatic “incumbent protection.”

Of the two challengers, I know a little bit more about Dorothy White because I’ve had occasion to sit with her working the GOP booth at the Farm and Home Show. She was very much driven by the idea of “unity” on the County Council. But to me, I’m not sure unity is possible when you could have people who are dead set against the revenue cap (for example) at loggerheads with those who say the taxpayers voted to give themselves a break and we should respect their wishes. Some politicians misuse the concept of leadership against the will of the people as a bid to place more power in the hands of the governors rather than the governed. Joe Holloway has also made some good points in his campaign, but not enough to convince me that he would be worth a change on the County Council.

Thus, Larry Dodd is getting my endorsement for re-election, but it’s sort of a probationary one. Perhaps it’s the intimidation of being a rookie on County Council (and in the minority) or just in his personality and manner as he seems to be an easygoing sort, but I’m looking for him to take more of a leadership role this time around, while also remembering Republican principles he’s posted on his website.

And while I’m endorsing Dodd that’s not to say either alternative would be bad. We actually have three pretty good candidates in that district, certainly Dorothy White has been dogged and tenacious in her campaigning (she filed in July 2005) and Holloway apparently has some business background that would be helpful with assisting in county affairs. So I hope Larry Dodd isn’t counting just on his website and number of yard signs scattered about District 5 to assure him re-election, he has two spirited folks who want his job now and a third biding his time from the Democrat side. Tell us that you’re going to lead and give us specfics on what you want to accomplish.

At the risk of being accused of a quid pro quo, I should also thank Larry because in looking up something for this post I found out he links to my website from his. However, he needs to fix the link! There’s one too many “http” ‘s there, and I think it’s true on some of the other links as well.

Tomorrow I’m planning on tackling the County Council at-large races.