Rutledge holds local fundraiser

On Wednesday those who are interested can meet U.S. Senate candidate Jim Rutledge as he holds a coffee fundraiser in Berlin.

Billing his candidacy as a chance to “Restore, Cherish, and Defend our Constitutional Rights,” Jim will hold court at the Ocean City Golf Club at 11401 Country Club Drive in Berlin beginning this Wednesday (the 24th) at 6:30 p.m. The RSVP can be directed to Kimberly Fernley at (443) 513-6542.

Perhaps most interesting is the fact that there’s no suggested amount. Obviously the campaign is looking for funds but there’s nothing which prohibits you from paying a dollar (or any amount up to $4,800 per Federal campaign guidelines – $2,400 for the primary election and $2,400 for the general.) Maybe that’s an omission on the part of whoever put together the flyer but it is curious.

They didn’t forget to say that checks should be made payable to “Rutledge for U.S. Senate” though.

Unfortunately, I can’t make it since I have another commitment (next week is really busy for me!) But those who would like to hear what one of the leading GOP contenders has to say about his views and goals for Congress should attend.

Taking the rumor seriously

On Monday, a slow news day in the nation’s capital because of the President’s Day holiday, a fellow Maryland blogger made a sensation by posting a rumor from an “impeccable source” that longtime Senator Barbara Mikulski was soon going to announce her retirement and not seek another term. (No, surprisingly the blogger was not Joe Albero.)*ahem* While I remain in the camp of “I’ll believe it when I see it,” I’d still like to see her days in the Senate come to an end soon, and preferably not feet-first.

It appears that one of those seeking to oust her is going to have some fun with the concept and provide another imaginative campaign tactic which shows he’s not going to stick with politics as usual.

On March 4th, the “Barbara Mikulski Retirement Party” will occur online. Borrowing a concept employed to great advantage by supporters of GOP Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts – nice to be able to write that phrase – the campaign of Dr. Eric Wargotz will be setting off their own “money bomb” where they hope huge contributions will roll in from across the country.

Occurring as this rumor did on the heels of the surprise retirement of Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, the Maryland situation is different than Indiana’s. Bayh’s last-minute decision not only shocked Democrats, but left them with no one on the ballot – state Democratic Party officials will decide the nominee as the one candidate who attempted to secure signatures against Bayh was short of the number needed in at least one of the nine Indiana Congressional districts. (One name floated as a possible candidate is musician John Cougar Mellencamp.)

However, Maryland’s late primary would give Democrats an easy opportunity to gear up a campaign should Mikulski call it a career before our filing deadline July 6th. 

And while Indiana Democrats might enjoy the lack of a contested primary while several GOP contenders compete for their nod, the Maryland rules make it much easier for candidates to get on a primary ballot – over the last several Senate cycles 2 or 3 minor candidates have popped up as opposition to an entrenched incumbent. Moreover, in 2006 Democrats had 18 primary contenders for an open U.S. Senate seat vacated by former Senator Paul Sarbanes, with just two (eventual winner Ben Cardin and former Congressman and NAACP head Kweisi Mfume) getting more than single-digit percentages in that year’s primary. It promises to be another free-for-all should Mikulski step aside.

In the meantime, Wargotz and his campaign attempt again to conjure up some of that Scott Brown magic – a shrewd step from perhaps the leading GOP contender.

In the department of “I’ll believe it when I see it” – Mikulski out?

Update 3 8:45 a.m. – Sean O’Donnell of the Baltimore Examiner cites Cillizza and two other sources to quash the rumor – for now. Certainly this is a case study on the power of the internet – now the question becomes who the original source was.

It’s also worthy of noting that The Vail Spot, which had just over 200 readers in the previous week, has had over 20,000 readers since 2 p.m. yesterday when the rumor was picked up. (He has an open Site Meter – for now.)

Update 2 7:30 p.m. –  Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post tweeted earlier this afternoon: “Rumors that Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) is retiring are NOT TRUE, according to informed D source.”

We’ll see. This means it’s the word of an “impeccable” source vs. an “informed” source. More below.

Update 1 5:45 p.m. – I spoke briefly via phone with fellow candidate Dr. Eric Wargotz who agreed with me – he’ll believe it when he sees it too.

Senate candidate Daniel McAndrew notes that this rumor isn’t really new, but “if true, then the next question will be who, in the Democrat party, will have the better chance trying to keep the seat from flipping. This is likely to be very interesting given the rash of others retiring.”

Another source who preferred to be unnamed cautioned me that Mikulski looked healthy and was getting around fine at the recent MACO conference, so the foot injury has apparently healed.

I’ve also been told that there’s a high possibility Rep. Chris Van Hollen may jump in if Mikulski quits – he’s been “gearing up” for a Senate run. Obviously if the Democrats lose dozens of seats in the House Van Hollen could be a fall guy as DCCC head.

Main story:

A blogger heretofore unknown to me by the name of Rich Vail may have dropped a bombshell on Maryland politics and created a gamechanger movement by citing an “impeccable source” who says Senator Mikulski will not seek another term.

His post on The Vail Spot, if true, sets a lot of machinery into motion.

Obviously having another open Senate seat (a second in four years) could convince a number of prominent Maryland Democrats to leave the safety of their offices for a run – one name mentioned in the comments was Attorney General Doug Gansler, with another being Governor O’Malley. This could also convince any of Maryland’s seven Congressional Democrats to move up as well.

If you go back and look at the 2006 race for the seat eventually won by Ben Cardin (to replace the retiring Sen. Paul Sarbanes), Cardin’s main competition came from onetime NAACP head Kweisi Mfume – no other Democrat secured double-digit support. But Mfume has laid low politically since his 2006 defeat, making it questionable whether he would try again.

Most of the Democrats’ Senate seat bench, then, comes from the ranks of already-elected Congressman and state officials, with only Gansler, O’Malley, Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown, and Comptroller Peter Franchot haviing run statewide. Of that group, Brown might be most likely to make an attempt, perhaps couching it as a bid to place a black person back into the ranks of the Senate (Roland Burris of Illinois, who was appointed to succeed President Obama, did not stand for election this year.)

While the Democrats’ bench isn’t the largest one around, the side with an even more shallow bench is the GOP. Their group of elected officials who have run statewide is exceedingly small: former Governor Bob Ehrlich and the man who ran against Mikulski last time, State Senator E.J. Pipkin. Pipkin could well decide to go again if Mikulski retires and not worry about the First Congressional District race which he’s been rumored to consider entering.

The more intriguing possibility is Ehrlich, who’s not officially entered the GOP race for governor but has had the field essentially cleared for him by the withdrawal of three people previously interested, most recently onetime Congressional candidate Larry Hogan. Since the latest polls have Ehrlich trailing a governor in Martin O’Malley who’s only marginally popular statewide and Ehrlich doesn’t want to be placed in a position where he’s likely to lose, the open Senate seat could pique his interest.

Obviously that prospect would dim the hopes of the five people who have already entered the Senate race and would get a boost from not having to run against an entrenched incumbent. I’m going to ask them for comment and update the post if I get any.

However, before we get too far along and despite the fact Vail has laid out a good case for Mikulski’s retirement, it remains to be seen whether this is rumor or scoop. Yet given the other political news of Senate retirements (with the most recent shoe to drop being Mikulski’s fellow Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana) it’s not out of the question that Mikulski may feel it’s her time to go. On the other hand, though, Bayh faced a much tougher potential re-election fight than conventional wisdom pegged for Mikulski – so the health issues she’s faced lately may indeed be taking their toll.

Obviously this is a developing story I’ll stay on top of.

The Senate survey says…

Over the last couple weeks I’ve ran a survey of who readers prefer to face Barbara Mikulski this fall. Here are the results of my very non-scientific poll.

Out of over 100 responses, Dr. Eric Wargotz had 49% of the vote (with 58 votes), with Jim Rutledge being his closest competitor. Jim garnered 37% of the vote with 44 supporting him. Corrogan Vaughn trailed with 15 votes (13%) while Daniel McAndrew had 1 vote for him.

It was interesting how the count transpired as Wargotz, Rutledge, and Vaughn started out fairly even through the first 40 to 50 tallies. But once each competitor had about 12 to 15 votes apiece (aside from McAndrew), the Wargotz total started surging to a point where he had a significant lead (over 60% of the total) before Rutledge came on at the end to even things out somewhat.

In truth, though, this survey may have been a little premature as word has leaked out of a fifth competitor, former Delegate Carmen Amedori of Carroll County. Since Wargotz seems to be the frontrunner, it would appear that he has the most to lose from her candidacy, but he noted that it’s “not for me to judge ones qualifications. Others will do that. May the ‘best’ candidate prevail.”

I’m thinking this will be a three-way race if Amedori gets in, but it’s anyone’s race among the three with Wargotz as the frontrunner. Since I’m not aware of any scientific poll on the race yet, mine could be the closest idea of just how the candidates are faring with campaign organization and name recognition.

Time to seat Scott Brown

Scott Brown was elected by the voters of Massachusetts back on January 19th. Yet, 2 weeks and a day later he hasn’t been seated in the United States Senate. That’s all well and good, since the commonwealth of Massachusetts had to wait on military ballots and verify the count.

But once the election happened, many contend that interim Senator Paul Kirk should have lost his right to vote in the Senate, and Harry Reid told a worried public the Senate “wouldn’t rush into anything.” Yet they did and Bill Wilson of Americans for Limited Government called them on it:

“Anything means everything, not just health care,” said Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson.  “Since Scott Brown’s overwhelming election, Senate Majority Leader Reid has scheduled and won votes that may have been contested or even blocked had Brown been seated.”

Scott Brown was elected to the open Massachusetts Senate seat on January 19th. But Reid has refused to seat the Senator-elect until February 11th. 

“The people of Massachusetts elected Scott Brown to be the 41st vote against any and all controversial items as necessary, not just health care, and they’re already being deprived of their due representation,” Wilson said.

“Reid lied, there’s no simpler way of putting it,” Wilson added, pointing to Reid’s pledge after the Brown election: “We’re not going to rush into anything,” as reported by Politico.

Since then, the Senate has voted to raise the debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion, confirmed Ben Bernanke to a second term as Fed Chair, invoked cloture on Patricia Smith for Solicitor of Labor, “and now is moving to get Craig Becker onto the National Labor Relations Board,” Wilson noted.

Wilson said that “merely having Brown seated would have defeated the debt ceiling increase and Patricia Smith because no Republicans supported those two, and Senate Democrats would not have had 60 votes needed for passage.  If Brown had been seated, it is highly likely Reid would not have even brought those items to the floor.”

Wilson added that “clearly indicates that the Majority Leader is attempting to rush through as much as he possibly can get away with prior to Brown’s seating, despite his vow not to.  He is thumbing his nose at the American people.  It’s disgusting.”

Wilson said Reid knows everything will change when Brown is seated, “and in the meantime is attempting to paint a misleading portrait of obstructionism, when quite the opposite is true.”

“Washington may be dumbfounded that Reid would lie about ramming important pieces of legislation and nominees through without seating Brown, but there is so little accountability in the nation’s capital it’s not at all surprising.

“These items would not have passed had Brown been seated, and there will be even more next week,” Wilson said, concluding, “which robs the people of Massachusetts their due representation on these critical issues facing the nation.”

Most of the time it doesn’t make a significant difference when a Senator is selected in a special election following the death of his or her predecessor, and had Martha Coakley been the winner I doubt the Senate leadership would’ve waited around to seat her.

But Scott Brown is “Mr. 41” and obviously he makes a difference to the balance of power. Ironically, it took a change in the law to place Paul Kirk in the Senate – before Ted Kennedy passed away he asked that Massachusetts repeal a 2004 law that wouldn’t have allowed then-Governor Mitt Romney to appoint a replacement for Sen. John Kerry. Had that law not been hastily passed, we would’ve seen a 59-40 Democrat majority in the Senate since Kennedy’s death and the dynamics of the body would’ve been significantly different.

So Harry Reid is trying to ram through everything he can at lightning speed before Scott Brown is rightfully seated. Partisan politics rears its ugly head as has often been the case over the last few years, and America isn’t being well served by it.

Two new entrants

With the holidays behind us and the 2010 election now in sight, it appears that this will be the season for people to jump into various races.

I noted yesterday that Larry Hogan had closed his exploratory committee and endorsed Bob Ehrlich for the GOP nod for governor. Little did I know that a couple weeks back someone else had dipped his toe into the race for the Republican nomination, but today I received word that Chevy Chase resident Brian Murphy is also seeking the GOP nomination. Murphy is an Easton native but went to the other side of the Bay to pursue his career – sound familiar?

Obviously Brian becomes the longest of long shots when you consider the Ehrlich machine already put into place, but assuming he gets on the ballot Murphy could serve as a barometer of GOP discontent with the dithering of Ehrlich and how he’s played the Maryland Republican Party like a Stradivarius over the last year or so.

Meanwhile, sources up Carroll County way tell me that onetime Delegate and Ehrlich administration official Carmen Amedori is considering jumping into an already crowded field contending for the U.S. Senate seat held by Barbara Mikulski. She would be the first candidate with state legislative experience to enter the field if this is borne out.

Since her time in the General Assembly predated the monoblogue Accountability Project I went back to its predecessor and found out that over the lifetime of the former Maryland Accountability Project Amedori had a rating of 66, which put her among the top 10 conservatives in the House during the time. While the former project may not be completely congruent with my current scorecard, it’s highly likely that Amedori won’t be running in an appeal to moderates (but I could be wrong.) With no one truly distancing himself from the field, Amedori could get some initial backing and place herself squarely in the mix.

Now we just need to get some other local entrants and the September ballot will begin to take shape as the July 6 filing deadline begins to loom.

Could Maryland be another Massachusetts?

Well, Senate candidate Dr. Eric Wargotz thinks so. He wrote to the Gazette and said this:

With all deference to former Gov. Bob Ehrlich, I find his comments, through his spokesman and published in The Gazette to be inaccurate.

Having door-knocked for Scott Brown and then witnessing his victory in Massachusetts firsthand, I know that an independent candidate, free from machine politics, can and will win against any Democrat or Republican in any state, including Maryland.

In fact, President Obama admitted as much during a post-election interview when he stated, “the same voters that voted for me, voted for Scott Brown.”

Ehrlich saying that Barbara Mikulski is no Martha Coakley is also not accurate. Both officials are lifelong politicians, both are beholden to machine politics and both stand for higher taxes, greater governmental spending, amnesty for illegal immigrants and a federal takeover of the health care industry. And both are/were well-liked.

Scott Brown’s reputation for listening to voters, his record of fighting for open, transparent and accountable government and his campaign theme of “we can do better” resonated with independent, Democratic and Republican voters alike.

In my campaign for United States Senate, as I go door to door and event to event, I am finding a similar response — Maryland voters want elected officials that will listen to them and that will then act in their best interest, not the machine’s best interest.

Maryland voters believe that “their” United States Senate seat, afforded to “them” by the Constitution, does not belong to Barbara Mikulski or to any one political machine or party … it belongs to “them,” the people.

My candidacy for U.S. Senate, like Scott Brown’s, gives Marylanders a chance to once again have their voices heard in Congress.

I am hopeful that Bob Ehrlich might reconsider his comments given this firsthand accounting from both Massachusetts and Maryland, and perhaps have the evidence he needs to run for governor — a decision that I would support.

First of all, it’s worth noting that Wargotz was responding to this article. The piece by C. Benjamin Ford correctly points out that Maryland’s voter registration numbers are indeed quite different from those in Massachusetts.

But, if voter registration was the only indicator of success you would have an entire slate of Democrats in all of our local countywide offices, since Democrats hold somewhat of an advantage in those numbers locally. Yet Republicans hold 3 of the 10 countywide offices available in Wicomico County (Sheriff, one seat on the Orphan’s Court, and one of two at-large County Council seats), and three Democrats are in their posts simply because they were unopposed (Registrar of Wills, State’s Attorney, and one of the three Orphan’s Court judge seats.) In contested races, the two parties pretty much split equally.

With the right campaign and right backing, certainly any Republican can make a run at and beat Mikulski. The difference between her previous campaigns and this one is that people are beginning to pay more attention to her record. As Eric notes, Mikulski “stand(s) for higher taxes, greater governmental spending, amnesty for illegal immigrants and a federal takeover of the health care industry” based on her voting record. Outside of the immediate D.C. area, does Maryland really want that?

The only sour note Eric hit was his support of Bob Ehrlich running for governor, because Bob’s now dithering until March to make his decision.

This statement may not make me a lot of friends among the Maryland GOP faithful, but I’ve pretty much lost my respect for the guy politically – as I see it, Bob Ehrlich is handing Martin O’Malley a second term on a silver platter by crippling Larry Hogan, who could be truly ramping up his campaign now in the wake of Scott Brown’s victory. If Ehrlich wanted to push his way to the lead in polling (particularly the important one on November 2nd) he should’ve jumped in two or three months ago. Even with Ehrlich’s name recognition, it’s tough to beat an incumbent with a short campaign – that’s why the major contenders in the race for the Senate seat began their campaigns last year as did Hogan and former candidate Mike Pappas.

I can already see a scenario where Bob Ehrlich gets into the race late, loses, then points the finger of blame at the Maryland Republican Party for not being supportive enough early on while he was making his decision. Sorry, it’s not my fault you waited around.

I wonder if Bob Ehrlich will be taking questions at our Lincoln Day Dinner next week. I know I have one or two.

Senate puts grandkids farther into debt

Breaking: in another Senate vote, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke was confirmed for another term by a 70-30 vote. Both Maryland Senators supported Bernanke, but Delaware’s Senators split as Ted Kaufman voted against reconfirmation while Tom Carper voted in favor. No nominee for Federal Reserve Chairman has ever received that many negative votes.

It’s not surprising or even shocking anymore, but on a strict party-line 60-39 vote the Senate today increased the nation’s debt limit for the second time in two months. The new debt limit is $14.29 trillion.

Bill Wilson and Americans for Limited Government were understandably angry over this. I, on the other hand was resigned to it.

Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson today condemned the U.S. Senate for voting to increase the national debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion which would bring the national debt limit to $14.294 trillion if passed by the House. 

“Not even 24 hours after Barack Obama called for a ‘freeze’ to bring spending under control, the Senate has voted to increase the national debt by almost $2 trillion,” Wilson said.  “Is this some kind of sick joke on the American people?”

“By increasing the national debt to $14.29 trillion, the Senate has voted to set the debt ceiling to be greater than the nation’s entire Gross Domestic Product,” Wilson added.  The current GDP is $14.242 trillion, based on third-quarter data released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

The vote in the Senate was 60-39.  Not a single Senate Republican voted for it.  In December, Congress voted to increase the debt ceiling by $290 billion to $12.394 trillion.

“The national debt is increasing so fast that it is going to bury the U.S. dollar and wreck the economy, leaving nothing but a trail of inflation, unemployment, and a pile of worthless paper,” Wilson said, adding, “We’re going to default.”

There’s more to the release, but the part I quoted is pretty much depressing enough. Wilson and ALG did point out that the current $202 billion required simply to service the debt would balloon up to $700 billion by 2019. By way of comparison, the final number for the Department of Defense in the FY2010 budget was $680 billion – which includes “overseas contingency operations.” (Those operations could easily be paid for with the interest we’re paying on the debt now, as that total for the War on Terror is presumably about $130 billion over the original appropriation.)

I would guess that statements on this will be upcoming from the men running to unseat Senator Barbara Mikulski, who was one of the Democrat puppets who reflexively voted to place our nation even farther into debt.

And President Obama is already working on spending his newly authorized debt. The National Taxpayers Union estimated that the promises made in Obama’s State of the Union address will cost taxpayers an additional $70 billion. But that’s chump change anymore in this day and age.

AFP welcomes Holloway and Rutledge to January meeting

As I like to do when I have the opportunity, tonight I checked out the latest meeting of Wicomico County’s Americans for Prosperity chapter. So did a lot of other folks, as this was but half the crowd.

I didn't do a panning shot of the remainder of the room, but Adam's Ribs was packed with well over 50 onlookers.

The topic of this month’s meeting was the first of several “Meet the Candidates” nights, with two featured this evening. One brought signs and literature, the other didn’t. Maybe it’s because Jim Rutledge is running statewide and Joe Holloway isn’t.

The red and yellow Rutledge signs weren't plastered everywhere, but one was by my seat.

Yet the opening portion of the meeting dealt with AFP-specific topics, including a rehash of the recent March on Annapolis and, for the handful of new attendees, an introduction to the group by local co-chairs Joe Collins and Julie Brewington. They wanted to “tell the truth and do what’s right.”

But the focus of much of their time was the 189-page Maryland state budget, just released by Governor O’Malley’s office. According to the PowerPoint presentation put together by Collins, since 1918 the state’s budget had to be balanced but only since 1974 have the numbers been publically available. (Heck, that was even before the internet!)

Most readers here know that Governor Ehrlich inherited a $4 billion hole but left Governor O’Malley a $1 billion immediate surplus and $3 billion structural deficit that was “trending to zero.” But O’Malley is leaving his successor (or himself if re-elected) an $8.3 billion hole. The only reason this year’s budget was balanced was having a “rich uncle – Uncle Sam” help us out, along with floating more bonds to create more long-term debt. Even Warren Deschenaux, who is the Chief Budget Analyst for the General Assembly, warned that, “Maryland lawmakers should consider a Plan B” if the $389 million in stimulus money counted upon to fill the gap doesn’t show.

Collins also pointed out a couple examples of “pay to play” such as a key DNC donor securing $625,000 in the budget for an adventure camp and the Ocean City Convention Center picking up $2.8 million thanks to two Democrat delegates. (Wow, Norm Conway actually brought home bacon so you know it must be an election year!)

The message was quite clear:

Julie Brewington was making a completely different point but the message on the wall was clear - we must defeat this budget!

Julie Brewington took over and reviewed the March on Annapolis. Now the next step was to make our voices heard through testimony on the budget and other important bills facing the General Assembly. She also noted that this was the first of several planned “Meet the Candidates” gatherings and representatives from all parties were welcome as AFP was a non-partisan group.

She also pointed out the need for “ambassadors” to take the time and be point people for both Salisbury City Council and Wicomico County Council meetings. (It’s also a good idea for other local municipalities as well.) Along with that, another goal was to establish a regular, predictable meeting night each month.

After that soliloquy, District 5 County Councilman Joe Holloway was introduced to the group.

County Councilman Joe Holloway speaks before the Americans for Prosperity meeting on January 26, 2010.

He noted that county bureaucrats didn’t always like him, and sometimes “I get angry.” But Joe’s developed a reputation as the county’s fiscal watchdog, and he went through his perspective on a number of different issues he’s faced over three years as a County Councilman.

It started by getting a crash course on tax increment financing just two weeks into his term (“I didn’t know a TIF agreement from a cucumber” when he was elected) in deciding the fate of the former Salisbury Mall property. Right after that came the controversy over binding arbitration for the Sheriff’s Department where the County Council had to go against an overwhelming vote in favor of the concept because of questions on the law. Joe still hoped that the County Executive would come up with a plan so that could be adopted.

Other contentious votes came on taxation of the Crown Sports Center, animal control (“we put more teeth into our dog law”), a land purchase for a new park on the county’s western side, the landfill scandal (where those convicted of theft from the county can no longer receive the county’s contribution to their pension plan), and the liquor dispensary – Holloway and two other County Council members spent hours poring over the liquor dispensary’s checkbook and found a number of questionable purchases. Currently, Holloway is spearheading a similar effort at the Board of Education.

After all, Joe pointed out, the county’s budget has increased 39% even with a revenue cap. He noted that current County Executive Rick Pollitt seemed to be following the “3 and 1” theory – complain about a revenue cap for three years then play budget hawk for one year at election time.

One question Joe took made for an interesting response. When asked about the accounting error which led to the county “finding” $3.5 million in an audit, Holloway replied that the “financial office is in chaos” and the practice of splitting invoices hadn’t stopped, even in the wake of the landfill theft scandal. Obviously it’s a situation Joe will continue to dig into.

Ironically, the next big item County Council looks into brings them full circle back to the old mall property, where the developer is attempting to sell five acres to the county for $1.5 million so they can use it for parking for the Wicomico Youth and Civic Center. That public hearing is next Tuesday at 10 a.m. in the Government Office Building, and Holloway is leading the charge of those questioning the wisdom of the deal.

After hearing a lot on the local scene from Holloway, many were finally introduced to U.S. Senate candidate Jim Rutledge.

Jim Rutledge, Republican candidate for United States Senate, speaks before the Wicomico chapter of Americans for Prosperity on January 26, 2010.

The now clean-shaven Rutledge began by announcing to the appreciative crowd: “I am a Ronald Reagan conservative.” He continued by stating the “foundational principles (of the country) are hanging by a thread” and the current administration and Congress are, “dead set on a course to bankrupt America.” He chided his presumptive opponent, Senator Barbara Mikulski, for voting to increase the debt limit.

Jim was running “because ‘We the People’ cannot sit on the sidelines” and that New Jersey and Massachusetts results pointed to “something historic” possibly happening in Maryland. He actually only spoke a short stump speech before opening the floor to questions.

When asked if he thought there were “any cold, naked truths you don’t know” but would know upon election to the Senate, Rutledge joked that, “with Scott Brown winning I thought the adjective was interesting.” But obviously he would be privy to a large amount of information when he became a Senator. However, he also told those gathered that, “I will count on you to keep me accountable,” but, “I won’t be a miracle worker,” either. He may not know everything yet, but he promised to stand on his guiding principles. The Constitution says “We the People” and not “We the Congress,” Rutledge said.

On the subject of term limits, Jim said he supported a Constitutional amendment to allow them.

Turning to a question about health care reform, Jim said that we had the best system in the world – so we shouldn’t do anything to destroy it. “My solutions are free-market solutions,” and were similar to those proposed by AFP during their summerlong series of health care townhall meetings. In particular, Jim favored insurance portability by allowing more purchasing at the individual level and getting state governments on board by their loosening of restrictions.

A oft-cited solution to health care woes is tort reform, and Jim departed from many of his colleagues in the legal profession by openly favoring the concept. But he warned tort reform is “a term you can drive a tractor-trailer through.” Currently, he stated, the “litigation system benefits the attorneys involved” and added that tort reform should be limited to medical malpractice but other aspects of liability as well.

Finally, Jim believed we could save American jobs by providing a better transport system for our resources and repealing much of the regulation preventing us from taking advantage of them. The role of Congress is to repeal laws – and while they’re at it, defunding the “czars” put in place by President Obama.

I also wanted to note that I had a few minutes at the end of the meeting, speaking on the need for those in attendance to take the next step and run for office. Julie was kind enough to remind me to talk about my upcoming radio appearance Thursday evening (“Politics on the Edge” with Melody Scalley) and the Lincoln Day dinner on February 6th with Bob and Kendal Ehrlich.

Overall, it was an informative meeting. Let it be known, though, that Joe and Julie are trying to secure Frank Kratovil and Barbara Mikulski to tell their side of the story (recently the Worcester County chapter had Democratic Delegates Jim Mathias and the aforementioned Norm Conway as speakers.) Unlike the Republican club I also belong to, the AFP is playing no favorites on an “official” basis and stresses its nonpartisanship.

I have no idea who will speak next month, but this month may be hard to top.

Odds and ends number 21

Once in awhile I do a post to highlight topics which are important but not quite enough to merit a full post. Since I’ve discussed the Scott Brown victory several times this week, I don’t want to keep hammering the subject but I did get additional dispatches worth mentioning. So here goes.

Earlier this week, I spoke with U.S. Senate candidate Dr. Eric Wargotz about helping out with the Brown campaign. This is his “official” release on the subject:

Queen Anne’s County Commissioner Eric Wargotz took time off from his own campaign for U.S. Senate in Maryland to travel to Massachusetts over the weekend to work for Scott Brown’s Senate campaign. Commissioner Wargotz stated, “We felt the single most important thing we could do for our Country was to be in Massachusetts helping Scott Brown be the 41st vote against socialized medicine.”  Wargotz volunteered with the Brown Campaign’s “Freezin’ for a Reason” get-out-the-vote effort by going door-to-door in six inches of fresh snow.

“It was amazing to watch the voters take back their Senate seat. The common theme at the polls was that people were tired of being told what do and how to vote. They were tired of machine politics that produced nothing but bigger government, less choices and less freedoms,” said Wargotz. “After meeting voters on their doorsteps, many asked how they could help. These were – Republicans, Independents and Democrats – who had simply had enough. I was witnessing history unfold before my eyes.  

The same game-changing history is now unfolding here in Maryland. For decades, Maryland’s U.S. Senate seats have been controlled by special interest groups and have been entirely unresponsive to the needs of the average Marylander. But Marylanders, much like the citizens of Massachusetts, are tired of politicians who think they “own” their seat.  The two U.S. Senate seats afforded Maryland by our Constitution are owned by the citizens of Maryland. This fall, look for the citizens of Maryland to take one back!

Whether the citizens of Maryland actually wise up and change their U.S. Senator remains to be seen, but as a campaign tactic this was brilliant. In one fell swoop Eric created a little bit of campaign buzz for himself, learned a little bit about running in a large-scale statewide race, and perhaps created an IOU which can pay off handsomely later on – do you think a fundraiser with a popular sitting Senator wouldn’t be lucrative? Obviously there’s a downside if Brown turns out to be a RINO like his New England counterparts Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins generally are, but in the moment this has to be considered an early advantage in the race for the GOP nod.

Tim Phillips of Americans for Prosperity was also beaming; here’s part of it:

In crystal clear fashion, (Massachusetts voters) told President Obama and Congressional Democrats to end this health care takeover now. 

The meaning and magnitude of Scott Brown’s historic victory is truly stunning. 

Consider Massachusetts.  Before Mr. Brown’s victory last night no Republican Senate candidate in Massachusetts had won since 1972.  The seat he was seeking had been held by Ted Kennedy for almost 50 years and the Kennedy family was on the campaign trail against him.  All 10 congressional districts in Massachusetts are held by Democrats.  In 2008, the congressional Democrat in Massachusetts with the lowest winning percentage was Barney Frank – and he won with 68%!  Just 12% of voters in Massachusetts are registered Republicans. 

But, Scott Brown did not win because voters suddenly love the Republican Party.  He won not with a message of “Send more Republicans to Congress.”  Instead, his most salient message was “send me to Washington to be the 41st vote against the health care takeover.” 

The Democrats know this as well.  On Sunday when President Obama campaigned with Ms. Coakley, neither of them said one word about health care — the issue on which the President has staked everything.  They know that even in Massachusetts — the liberal bastion of the nation — their health care takeover has been rejected by a majority of the people. 

Before Tuesday, Massachusetts was the largest state with one-party representation in Congress, yet they have elected the occasional Republican to lead the state.

Phillips has a point, though, when he opines that the message Brown sent was not nearly as much pro-Republican as it was pro-conservative. And perhaps it’s only because Democrats had worked their way up to utter control of Congress by getting the 60-vote majority, but nonetheless Scott Brown was victorious thanks to a nationwide effort. Given a 58-42 Senate majority for Democrats instead of 60-40, maybe Martha Coakley would’ve won and Dr. Wargotz would’ve stayed home. You never know, but being the prospective 41st vote certainly helped Scott Brown win.

And what effect did TEA Party activists have? Amy Kremer of the TEA Party Express had some thoughts:

These (Rasmussen Poll) numbers are amazing.  In Massachusetts, one of the bluest of blue states, 40% of voters view the anti-tax, anti-government spending, greater personal liberty tea party movement favorably.

This is an effort that began less than one year ago, and yet the awareness and support for the tea party movement has reached a sizable chunk of voters in Massachusetts.

We saw the first hints of the power of this grassroots uprising in the NY-23 Special Election, where conservatives rose up and forced the GOP to drop their support for the liberal DeDe Scozzafava.  On that same day voters in New Jersey and Virginia also delivered a shockwave to the political system.

And now, a great victory has been won in Massachusetts.

Many different groups involved in the tea party movement contributed to Scott Brown’s victory in a number of ways, and each brought their own strengths to the table.  The totality of this effort was a massive surge in fundraising for Brown, volunteers for Brown, and hundreds of thousands of phone calls made in support of Brown and the Get-Out-The-Vote effort.

Some of the tea party movement’s critics have repeatedly sought to undermine this movement by sensationalizing the occassional personality clash or difference in tactics by one group or another.  But in the end principles drive this movement and the passions of tea party activists brought them together in common cause once again.

To those who oppose this movement and who think that we in the tea party movement are going away, or that we won’t work together, you are wrong.  Too much is at stake, and tonight’s victory in Massachusetts is just the start of things to come.

To be fair, the original release also stated that the unfavorable number for the TEA Party movement is 41 percent, and if you use the Rasmussen rating of strong approve/strong disapprove they’re at a minus-6. (The similar factor for President Obama, though, has reached minus-20 at times.)

If you think about it, though, given the constant bombarding of the mainstream media portraying TEA Party participants as lily-white racist gun-toting radicals and liberals’ constant use of the derogatory term “teabaggers” (since the term has a homosexual connotation) to describe them it’s pretty surprising their support is so high in Massachusetts. In a state like Texas or Oklahoma, my guess is that TEA Party approval ratings would be in the 60’s or even 70’s.

Don’t forget, though, that group is the one who nationalized the election. Until the eleventh hour, national Republicans were providing little assistance to Scott Brown, so it was a truly grassroots effort. TEA Partiers and others of like mind realized that, with the proper amount of assistance to get out his message, Brown could actually win the special election.

Of course, on a national scale TEA Partiers would have to multiply their efforts manifold to get similar results because November’s races won’t be as easy to nationalize. But they can stay sharp in the interim with the number of primaries we as a nation go through before the main event (such as Rubio vs. Crist in Florida.)

Obviously it will be difficult to nationalize races like we have in Maryland and Delaware, but it’s possible.

If one good candidate can emerge to face Barbara Mikulski, hard work (and a little corporate help thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision) could convince Maryland voters it’s time to turn away from having a partisan Democrat hack as our Senator.

Delaware may be a harder case because odds-on favorite Mike Castle is comparatively liberal by TEA Party standards, and Christine O’Donnell has ran and lost statewide before. But Democrats may do us a favor and try to keep one Senate seat the “Biden seat” instead of the “people’s seat.” Biden is biding his time about running, though, so he may decide to stay as AG and try again later once his father retires from the political scene.

The impact of Massachusetts will be felt for awhile, but political events have a way of shifting constantly and this euphoria could be just a footnote in a few months. We can enjoy it now, but there’s more work to do.

Freezin’ for a reason

Dr. Eric Wargotz's Scott Brown volunteer badge.I had an interesting conversation with Maryland U.S. Senate hopeful Dr. Eric Wargotz today.

If you don’t follow the campaign on his Facebook page, you may not have known that the Queen Anne’s County Commissioner and one of his campaign staffers, Don Murphy, took a couple days earlier this week to help out Scott Brown’s campaign for the U.S. Senate seat formerly known as “the Kennedy seat.” Hereafter I think we’re going to refer to that as “the People’s Seat.” Fortunately, Scott Brown will be the temporary occupant, at least until he faces the voters of Massachusetts in 2012 in a bid for a full six-year term.

Obviously this was a situation where Dr. Wargotz could learn firsthand the perils and pitfalls of campaigning statewide in a state that’s somewhat smaller than Maryland geographically but features a lot of the same sorts of voters – a mix of urban Democrats, suburban independents, and Yankee conservatism where the plurality of voters refuse to affiliate with either major party. (Of the rest, Democrats hold about a 3:1 advantage – that’s even more daunting than Maryland’s roughly 2:1 ratio of Democrats to GOP stalwarts.)

One thing that struck Dr. Wargotz was that Brown’s staff was at first “totally unprepared for the attention they got.” Since the buzz began over the last three weeks of the campaign, they were left short on many of the items one would associate with a political campaign – the supply of T-shirts and bumper stickers was nowhere near filling the demand. But Dr, Wargotz excitedly related the feeling among the capacity crowds he experienced at those Brown rallies he attended and how in going door-to-door there was enthusiasm among those who answered. (They weren’t quite as thrilled about the constant robocalls from both sides, though.)

In describing Brown, Eric noted that he was “a regular guy…what you see is what you get.” Thus, the public perception made by his unassuming style and pickup truck rang true. Contrast that with the “ice queen” personna of his opponent (not to mention the number of times she stepped in it verbally) and a following was created not unlike that which Sarah Palin garnered during the 2008 campaign. Of course, how Brown treats his Senate seat will determine just how much of the initial buzz wears off. While it’s putting the cart WAY before the horse, Rush Limbaugh used a short segment of his radio show today to compare how many days Scott Brown would be in the Senate before the 2012 election to the number of days Barack Obama spent in his seat before throwing his hat in the Presidential ring.

It was that kind of seminal event. But time moves on and our conversation also turned to Eric’s Senate race.

There is a rumor going around that Bob Ehrlich may not necessarily be interested in a rematch with Governor Martin O’Malley(a recent poll had O’Malley leading that matchup 48-39 with 13% undecided) and may instead challenge Senator Barbara Mikulski. (The same poll gives Mikulski a 64% approval rating, proving once again that Maryland voters are sadly uninformed and that they didn’t call me.) I don’t think Ehrlich would go that way, but the possibility exists. The former governor spent time in Congress so considering a return wouldn’t be a stretch.

If that happens and Ehrlich jumps into the Senate fray, Eric said he’d “be in no rush to leave” the race. Honestly, I think the former Governor wants his old job back but now, since Ehrlich has taken so long to consider his options, there are good candidates occupying both races. Obviously Dr. Wargotz would have time to step back to his current seat (since filing deadlines aren’t until July) but I admire his fighting spirit.

Just like Massachusetts voters decisively reclaimed the People’s Seat, I personally think the former Governor has to regain the respect of the voters and dithering doesn’t help the cause.

In the meantime, I appreciate Dr. Wargotz to spend a few minutes updating me on his trip. Quite honestly, I think it was a very shrewd move as far as his campaign goes because a little bit of self-promoting buzz never hurts. Nor would a fundraiser with Scott Brown, and it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if something like that wasn’t in the works for later this year. (Perhaps I stumbled into a scoop, Eric? I know you read here.)

And by the way – apology accepted.

Scoring the locals

As most of you are aware, one of my late-spring tasks over the last couple years has been the monoblogue Accountability Project, where I go through the vast amount of items our General Assembly somehow manages to dream up in just 90 days and sift it down to about 30 or so of what I consider “key” votes on items which make it to the floor. At that point I work out a numerical grading system based on 100 and rate all 188 members accordingly.

After the 2008 election, I thought it would be a good idea to track local Senators and Congressmen in a similar manner. I admit that part of it was partisan because I thought Andy Harris would’ve been a fine Congressman whereas voters picked a liberal in sheep’s clothing.

But people really should know what their elected officials are voting on and how they address issues. It’s just quite time-consuming for one person to do so, even if you limit the universe to a total of 13 members of Congress (counting both Maryland and Delaware delegations – after all, what’s three more when you’re doing 10?) I know how long it takes me to do 188 people times 30 votes for Maryland, but once the middle of April passes they vote on nothing else the rest of the year unless a Special Session is called. Congress doesn’t work that way.

So I’ve decided on a compromise measure of sorts. Obviously I can track individual federal votes through THOMAS (among other sources) but making a compilation could be a full-time job. And, unlike Maryland, where only a few groups bother to compile votes in a similar manner as mine, dozens of groups create Congressional scorecards based on their pet issues. Thus it makes sense for me to put together a spreadsheet similar to that I use for Maryland but with only 13 representatives on it, then group particular issues of interest together. For example, an NRA scorecard would be lumped into a section devoted to the Second Amendment along with any pro-gun control groups. Instead of doing the work to record each vote and reinvent the wheel, others can do the work and I can act as a clearinghouse.

This way I get the coverage I desire to inform voters without sacrificing the other aspects which make monoblogue such good reading.

So as 2010 dawns and these scorecards for 2009 come out, I’ll begin compiling the federal side of the monoblogue Accountability Project. It should be a good exercise in informing the voters where our local representatives stand just in time for the 2010 elections.