State of Conservatism – Page 132

Is David Plouffe Obama’s Karl Rove?

After orchestrating Barack Obama’s victorious Presidential campaign, David Plouffe took his share of the credit, paused to write a book about the 2008 campaign, and continued his work for a D.C. based media firm.

But an Obama administration stung by a series of electoral losses has put out the call for Plouffe to come back on board to a more active role, placing him in charge of stemming the red tide of GOP victories. The Democrats are pinning their hopes on a political veteran whose role isn’t clearly defined; in many respects he is the counterpart to Republican political advisor Karl Rove.

Yet Rove was constantly vilified by the left as a sort of puppetmaster. Obviously he was fairly successful for a time as President Bush garnered enough electoral votes to win in 2000 and was re-elected with a clear majority.

But the Rove magic wore off in 2006 and 2008 because the message being portrayed didn’t square with actions of the Republican Congress or the Bush White House, and John McCain opted to use a different set of advisors.

According to an article in today’s Washington Post by Chris Cillizza, Plouffe’s view on the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts was that, “everyone would agree that the definition of Brown should have happened a lot sooner and a lot more clearly.” In other words, they didn’t lie, obfuscate, and smear Scott Brown enough to assure Martha Coakley could win despite her terrible campaign.

The disadvantage Plouffe has, of course, is that millions of those who voted for Obama expecting “hope” or “change” have been smacked in the face by the terrible recession and the handling of health care reform which goes farther than a majority of Americans wish to see. It will also be more difficult to have a compliant media covering every single Congressional race rather than focusing on one overriding contest – while Plouffe can do his best to control the overall message, each election can turn on local issues.

But it’s obvious that the selection of Plouffe to help run the Democrats’ campaign is their answer to the Republicans’ nationalizing a local election, as they did with Scott Brown in Massachusetts. And since the new Obama agenda seems to be one of placing him back in campaign mode (as opposed to a leadership role) it’s apparent the Plouffe influence has already been placed into play.

A different tribute to Reagan

Had he lived to see the day, today would’ve been Ronald Reagan’s 99th birthday. Obviously most Republicans and conservatives cherish the memory of our 40th President but he also embodies a philosophy of conservative governance which inspires today’s generation of TEA Partiers. The Maryland Senate Republican Caucus recalls him this way:

Today would be President Ronald Reagan’s 99th birthday. In honor of this occasion, we…hope that Democrat leaders in state government will discover tax cuts as an avenue to spur economic growth in Maryland and lead the state out of the recession.

Unfortunately, Maryland has pursued the opposite course. As the state was entering a severe economic recession, General Assembly Democrats allowed Governor Martin O’Malley to foist the most historic, massive tax increase on our citizens.

Businesses already hammered by the recession were crushed by O’Malley’s anti-business pursuit of higher sales taxes, personal income taxes, corporate taxes and motor vehicle excise taxes. At the same time, O’Malley was adopting more stringent regulations that have added to the cost of doing business in Maryland.

In three short years, Maryland’s ranking as a state favorable for economic development has plummeted from 24th to 45th.

This was the biggest one-year drop ever in the history of the rankings and was based upon the tax hikes initiated by O’Malley: “Maryland’s drop from 24th to 45th out of 50 states on the Index is attributable to an increase in most of the state’s major taxes for FY 2009. They raised the corporate income tax rate to 8.25% from 7%, the sales tax rate to 6% from 5%, and the cigarette excise tax to $2.00 from $1.00 per pack. Maryland also created four new income tax brackets, raising taxes on filers earning more than $150,000 per year. The state’s top personal income tax rate is now 6.25% (up from 4.75%); that’s on top of a weighted average local option rate of 2.98%. Maryland now has by far the worst personal income tax in the country, with a significantly lower score than second-place California.”

With these kinds of rankings, it is obvious that Maryland needs a turn-around artist with the talents of President Reagan.

(snip)

An economic program for Maryland’s future must include a rollback of taxes and government regulations combined with true restraint on government spending in the FY11 budget.

For more on President Ronald Reagan and his successful economic policies, check out the links on our website at www.mdsenategop.com.

Having said that, I’m not sure Bob Ehrlich is a Ronald Reagan but should he be restored as governor I’m certainly hoping that the Republicans in the General Assembly keep him on the straight and narrow with more or less conservative principles.

But rolling back the tax increases would be a fine start. The governor would have control of spending given his power to create Maryland’s budget, but eliminating the taxation would force whoever creates the budget to do it prudently. Of course a prudent budget and taxation would help draw businesses back to Maryland, although eliminating some overregulation would also be a great help, and it’s there I’m not sure Bob Ehrlich would be forceful enough. Then again, having a Governor who rolls over for every last whim of the envirolobby isn’t doing much for us either.

Ronald Reagan carried Maryland as part of his 49-state landslide in 1984, so it’s obvious that a conservative message, well crafted, can carry the day in our state. The best way for Maryland Republicans to honor the memory of Ronald Reagan would be to fight for conservative governance he would be approving of.

Friday night videos episode 22

Since most of my readership is presumably snowed in, as long as they have power I have what can be called a captive audience. Welcome to the “Snowblind” edition of FNV.

One snowblind person seems to be President Obama, who met with the GOP last weekend in Baltimore. Here’s the Republicans’ perspective on the event.

Something tells me there’s not a lot of common ground because I think Obama wasn’t sincere when he came to see them. Does “we won, you lost” ring a bell?

Here he changes up on health care. Maybe you can’t keep your plan as he said you could?

We know his budget is an upcoming train wreck, too. Washington News-Observer caught up to Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan discussing the FY 2011 budget blueprint submitted by President Obama.

And Rep. John Fleming of Louisiana hasn’t figured out where the tax cuts Obama promised are.

Turning to more local politics, one member of the General Assembly told a gathering I was at that they didn’t do their job in reining in Governor O’Malley. State Senator Allan Kittleman addressed this group just before the March on Annapolis.

Later, he gave the GOP response to the State of the State address.

Last but not least this video is in honor of my anniversary with Kim (our first date was one year ago today!) One of her favorite songs just happened to be done by Agent 99 back in December at the 12 Bands of Christmas show, so as a little gift to her and the rest of you I’m featuring it. No, it’s not exactly romantic but she does like the song!

Hopefully the snow will be gone for the next edition of FNV!

Not everyone’s cup of tea

I was in an interesting discussion this evening about the role TEA Partiers may be playing within the Republican Party. While there are those like Michael Steele who purportedly embrace those in the pro-freedom, pro-limited government movement on the national level (while funneling money to candidates like Dede Scozzafava) this discussion was more about the GOP at the local and state level.

Those who would like to see the Republican Party become the big tent tend to want to stretch the tent toward the middle of the political spectrum and assume that those farther right will follow because they have no other natural political home – in other words conservatives are taken for granted.

But the TEA Party movement has shown that, if those involved wanted to, they could become a movement in and of itself. Needless to say, the problem with splitting the conservative movement is best summarized in the old axiom, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” As Republicans, we cannot assume that just because a movement is grounded in many of the same principles which are supposed to guide the party that they will automatically go along to get along.

Twice in the last thirty years the conservative movement finally felt they had found their way out of the wilderness, but in the end twice they were disappointed. In 1980 Reagan gained the presidency but didn’t quite have the coattails to secure the House. And while he did get a large part of his agenda passed, the real cutting of government he envisioned had to be compromised away and shelved.

Once Reagan passed from the political scene, it was just two years into a pale pastel imitation of his bold palette that a key promise of conservatism was broken and it took two years of overreaching by his Democrat successor to bring about the 1994 Contract With America. But the potential of that revolution quickly ran into the reality of a Democratic president shrewd enough to tack just enough to the center to win reelection over a forgettable moderate candidate who was selected because it was his turn to run. By the time the GOP majority wheezed to a stop in 2006, the brand had been truly sullied into having the perception that it was barely a step right of the leftist Democrats. To this day, that’s the handicap the Republican Party labors with.

Those Republican members of Congress who dared go against a president from their own party when principle demanded it have gravitated toward the endorsement of the TEA Party movement. However, it is a little bit disheartening to stop and realize that these conservative heroes like Pence, DeMint, Bachmann, and Coburn weren’t household names prior to last year when the TEA Partiers began in earnest, yet they’ve been slogging in the trenches for a long time under a party banner which was shot to shreds through no fault of their own.

It is these people who should become the leaders of a newly reborn national Republican Party, one based on sound conservative principles put into practice. They can create an obvious contrast to the current party in power whenever they are placed into positions of governance.

On a local and state level, the change can come later this year as party leadership will be determined by September’s primary election.

It’s no secret that the Maryland Republican Party is broke and broken. Some would say that it’s broken beyond repair, but I disagree. The problem is that some of those supported by the state party have betrayed the principles of conservatism too much, taking their few crumbs by working with the majority at the expense of giving the Maryland GOP a public perception of being sellouts when the going gets tough. It’s not easy being vastly outnumbered in the General Assembly but tougher still when you can’t be assured the cavalry’s not coming in behind you.

As I say in my little disclaimer in the left column, I don’t speak for the Republican Party – but maybe I should. As I said during the discussion we had earlier, my leanings are fairly libertarian but I’m a Republican because we win occasionally and they don’t. When I stood out in the rain in front of the Salisbury TEA Party in April I saw a lot of faces I’d never seen as part of the local political crowd, but I saw a group who was willing to work and be heard. More importantly, I saw a group who agreed with pretty much the same things I did politically.

Not everyone is destined to have a political career, but now is the time for good men and women to step up and try to make a difference. At the last Americans for Prosperity meeting I noted that, even if some of those in the room filed as Democrats or Libertarians, I’d rather have a couple good choices on the ballot than have to vote for the lesser of two evils. Too often lately we’ve been faced with that LOTE choice and frankly I could tell those TEA Partiers are sick of it.

Sometimes I see people who want to start at the top and run for federal or statewide office right off the bat. Folks, I appreciate the passion but that’s a lot more than 99% of political neophytes can handle. Besides, the Republican party needs a “farm team” to develop into good statewide candidates who have a legitimate shot at winning. If you don’t like the state government the way it is, well, there are 141 Delegate seats and 47 Senate seats calling your name. Yes, we own a few of them but no one has a right to a seat just because they’re holding it. (It’s that other party which thinks so.)

There’s also a multitude of positions available locally which are crying for someone to run them efficiently. Maybe you think some various aspect of the court system is being run improperly – well, become Clerk of the Courts or Registrar of Wills and you can change that. All three local seats on the Orphan’s Court are up for grabs, too – and you don’t have to be a lawyer (but you do to be State’s Attorney.) And needless to say, there are legislative opportunities on a county level too.

We have the opportunity to seize the mantle if we choose to do so and work hard at it. Even if you think you can run the local Republican Party better than the nine of us can, you have your chance this year.

I’m not a big fan of having elections in Maryland only once every four years, but at the moment those are the cards dealt to us. TEA Partiers have to seize the opportunities presented to them now because four years is a really long time to maintain a passion for change. When the primary election comes on September 14, I want to be able to choose the best of candidates instead of the least of evils.

Friday night videos episode 21

It’s time for another edition of Friday Night Videos. This one will be mostly political, since these were the items which piqued my interest.

We’ll start out with Washington News-Observer’s chat with Rep. Darrell Issa of California on a number of subjects.

WNO also asked an assortment of Congressmen about the fate of the health care bill after Scott Brown’s election. My guess is this was taped during the pro-life rally last week since they were outdoors.

Just a little name dropping about the cast of characters: Bob Latta was my State Representative when I last lived in Ohio. I’ve done a couple conference calls with Cathy McMorris Rodgers and she’s quite well-spoken. (You’ll see more of her.) And last night one of the other guests on the radio show I did with Melody Scalley was Rep. Louie Gohmert. Small world.

Here’s the second video with Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers. Obama talked about transparency, the Republicans put it into action.

We go from current members of Congress to a past member talking about how future members should run for election. This would be one Newt Gingrich.

It’s all about the ’80-20′ issues, huh? Let’s ask Dede Scozzafava or Wayne Gilchrest about that. If those two were 50-50 I’d be shocked.

In other news, the Center for Individual Freedom was among many who were pleased with the Citizens United ruling. The group’s Renee Giachino explains in their “Freedom Minute” (which is actually about 4 minutes.)

President Obama was among those who dissed the Supremes’ decision, and Americans for Prosperity put together a video of their members’ reaction to the State of the Union at gatherings across the country.

It’s probably a good thing they didn’t do the local gathering. *ahem*

Finally, it’s time for local music to wrap this up. This is the cover band Gravy, doing their version of the CSNY protest song “Ohio.”

I have two or three more videos from the event, but as the old Hollywood saying goes, “always leave them wanting more.” So I will, until next week!

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.

Leading conservative to stay in House

From Erick Erickson at RedState this afternoon comes word that Rep. Mike Pence (R – IN 6) will continue to serve in the House of Representatives.

Pence, the third-ranking Republican in House leadership, decided against running against vulnerable Democratic Senator Evan Bayh, leaving “several (other) capable and qualified candidates” to vie for the GOP nod.

In a letter to supporters, Pence noted that:

As many of you are aware, I have been approached about running for the United States Senate in 2010. Karen and I have been humbled by the outpouring of support and encouragement which we received from across Indiana, especially since there are several capable and qualified candidates already seeking the Republican nomination.

After much prayer and deliberation, I have decided to remain in the House and to seek reelection to the 6th Congressional District in 2010.

I am staying for two reasons. First because I have been given the responsibility to shape the Republican comeback as a member of the House Republican Leadership and, second, because I believe Republicans will win back the majority in the House of Representatives in 2010.

(snip)

As a Republican leader, I have the opportunity to shape the policy and strategy that will return a Republican majority to the Congress in 2010. So my duty is here, in the House, serving my constituents and my colleagues as we fight to restore a conservative majority to the Congress of the United States. I am not going to leave my post when the fate of the House hangs in the balance. My place is here, in that fight, with the brave men and women who will be winning that victory for the American people.

I also am staying because I believe we will win back the majority in the House of Representatives in 2010, and I am excited to be a part of it. While the opportunity to serve in the United States Senate is significant, I believe the best chance this nation has to restore fiscal discipline, common sense and common values to Washington, D.C., is for conservatives to retake the House in 2010. When we win back the House, we will make history and we will have the power to stop the big government plans of this administration and to steer our nation to a more secure, free and prosperous future.

As most of my readers know, Pence is one of my favorite conservatives and has lent much-needed support and credibility to the TEA Party movement – he was one of the few members of Congress to speak at the 9-12 event in Washington and similar subsequent gatherings.

While optimism in politics is somewhat of a parlor game, the chances of a GOP takeover of the House are increasing as retirements from the Democratic ranks mount. Add in the anti-incumbent sentiment among voters enraged with “business as usual” in Washington, D.C. and Pence, who should have little trouble being re-elected in a rural district which runs along the Ohio line between Fort Wayne and Cincinnati, obviously likes his chances of keeping his leadership post as a member of the majority party once again.

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.

Friday night videos episode 20

This won’t be the longest version; let’s see if I can make it the best. I’ll begin with a nice wrapup of the March on Annapolis last week. I was hoping this video would come out sooner, but better late than never.

I hope that Twisted Sister gets its few royalty pennies from this one as well.

It was a little chilly at the event, so the next video is necessary to warm things up. I talked about this earlier this month and Freedom Action came up with the video to poke fun at Al Gore.

We just saw a successful campaign by Republican Scott Brown to wrest control of one Massachusetts seat in the U.S. Senate from the Democrats. Some people don’t like the new media and their efforts to shine a little sunlight on their campaign. These are two looks at an amusing but illustrative incident in the Bay State.

Filmmaker, writer, and political figure Daniel Vovak sent along this interview he did on “The District Dish.” He’s the writer of a movie called “The Blue Dress”, which he bills as a comedy about the Monica Lewinsky affair.

In a way, Daniel’s struggle to get this movie out without the backing of a major studio is akin to the trials and tribulations local musicians go through to get their music out. This week I feature another band I saw at the 12 Bands of Christmas last month, Woodstok Nation.

Today marks the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Last year, Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona stood before Congress and made an impassioned plea for the unborn.

With that I close out another edition of FNV. Wait until next week and I’ll have more good stuff.

Spinning a Bay State loss

As many of you know, I’m one of the reportedly 13 million on the mailing list of Organizing For Against America. So once in awhile I have to have some fun with what they say and the occasion of Scott Brown’s win in heretofore reliably liberal Massachusetts is one of those times. Mitch Stewart of the group had this to say:

Yesterday’s disappointing election results show deep discontent with the pace of change. I know the OFA community and the President share that frustration.

We also saw what we knew to be true all along: Any change worth making is hard and will be fought at every turn. While it doesn’t take away the sting of this loss, there is no road to real change without setbacks along the way.

We could have simply sought to do things that were easy, that wouldn’t stir up controversy. But changes that aren’t controversial rarely solve the problem.

Our country continues to face the same fundamental challenges it faced yesterday. Our health care system still needs reform. Wall Street still needs to be held accountable. We still need to create good jobs. And we still need to continue building a clean energy economy.

The President isn’t walking away from these challenges. In fact, his determination and resolve are only stronger. We must match that commitment with our own.

But it won’t be easy. Real change never is. For that reason, I am grateful you’re part of this fight with us.

First off, I wasn’t disappointed with the results at all, and the only discontent with the pace of change was that it was going too fast in the wrong direction!

Reread paragraph number four. First of all, I disagree completely with the premise that our “health care system still needs reform.” What needs reform is the manner it’s paid for – the delivery of the system is quite good. Opening up the system within each state to competition so there’s more than a handful of providers and cutting out some of the frivolous mandates to promote more accessible basic coverage would be a start and not run into the thousands of pages. Eliminating the linkage between work and health insurance makes obvious sense, too. And there’s no need for a coverage mandate – I know Scott Brown voted for the Massachusetts system and that’s one place where he and I disagree.

And then we have Wall Street. The populists in Washington have come out against what they term “excessive” bonuses and pay for Wall Street firms. Yet Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives receive similar compensation packages without nearly the outcry.

I look at the situation this way. If you don’t like what an executive is making, don’t do business with the firm – use a local bank or investment company whose compensation structure is more in line with what you believe is fair. I hold no grudge on executive pay because there are few executives who have exhibited the talent and drive necessary to rise to the top of the corporate ladder, and they are being compensated for doing so. There might be 10,000 employees at a Wall Street firm, but only one guy is in charge and obviously the board of directors made a deal in good faith with him or her to be their leader. By that same token, I happen to think the UAW contracts with the Big Three are excessive but it’s the fault of the companies for letting them become so and not telling the union to stuff it. So the problem can cut both ways.

Now let’s talk about how to “create good jobs.” How about keeping private sector money where it belongs – in the private sector? Thus far, much of the job creation from the stimulus is either busy work on roads and other infrastructure (some of which is duplicative, like milling and repaving a perfectly fine stretch of highway) or “saved” jobs in the public sector (which has a higher proportion of union jobs than the private sector), positions kept when states were bailed out of their budgetary misfortunes.

A far better route to creating good jobs would be to eliminate the uncertainty of whether onerous health care and environmental legislation will come to pass and lowering the tax burden on businesses. And while you’re at it, keep the Bush tax cuts in place. Let the areas of the economy which work best get back to work and slowly the remainder (particularly the building industry) will spring back into shape as well.

Finally, if we are to “build a clean energy economy,” we should do it without unfair subsidy or rentseeking multinational corporations trying to ace smaller competitors out of the “green” market. The market long ago decided that carbon-based energy was the way to go because it was inexpensive and reliable – that and we still have enough to meet our demand for decades to come, particularly when it comes to coal and natural gas. Renewable sources are nice, but expensive and frankly too unreliable to count on for large-scale use. If the wind doesn’t blow (or blows too hard, such as when a hurricane or tropical storm passes by) a wind turbine creates no power. But as long as we can dig or drill for coal or natural gas and transport it to where we need it – which we’ve accomplished for decades – those supplies are stable and reliable.

I have no idea if Scott Brown or any of his GOP cohorts will read this critique, but if they want to maintain the momentum that the 2009 elections in Virginia and New Jersey began and the Massachusetts win continued, they should take these words to heart. The problem with the statist agenda pushed by the author of this e-mail and endorsed by the current administration is that there’s no real mandate for it.

At its heart, America is a right-of-center country. When independents get a taste of a radically leftist agenda pushed on a national scale, they revolt – first at the local TEA Party, then in those political races which have garnered national attention. Scott Brown was a shoo-in once the Bay State’s race became the United States’ race because the “hope” and “change” promised a year ago wasn’t the variety of hope and change America truly wanted or needed.

Over the last year we’ve learned a painful lesson and all the spin in the world can’t change the fact that we want something better. November isn’t that far off, and graduates of the most recent economic School of Hard Knocks will be doing their own grading at the ballot box.

Something tells me the statist agenda will get a big, fat, red “F.”

Freezin’ for a reason

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.