Ten questions for…Jim Corwin

As I stated back when the Ten Questions were introduced, it’s not just the Maryland U.S. Senate candidates who I was asking them to, but hopefuls for the various local U.S. House seats. Today’s slated person was Jim Corwin, the man providing opposition to Wayne Gilchrest’s bid for another term.

He’s got a great calendar, but no answers yet. Jim, you’ve had the questions for 6 weeks, I think you had time to get to answering them.

By the way, I did get a comment from another Senate hopeful who wanted to submit his answers. It just might be the power snafus that have plagued the Eastern Shore today (mine was out about 3 hours) with the heavy storms slowed the e-mail down. So the offer I made to him still stands.

Now, it will be interesting to see if I get an answer from this person or another who expressed interest in answering when they came out but I’ve yet to hear from since. It seems like the “established” politicians are still afraid to answer them, we’ll see how the upstarts do.

I should also say that if you are a candidate for the U.S. Senate or House who happens to be reading this, or one of their loyal cadre of volunteers, I’m happy to resend the questions so they can be answered. With the backlog of folks who didn’t answer, I can likely slot them in upcoming open spots. (I did it for Allan Lichtman and Mike Schaefer.)

Let’s make this election about the issues, shall we? With Doug Duncan leaving the race for governor, the Maryland U.S. Senate race becomes the main draw for primary voters. I want all of their input.

Ten questions for…Mike Schaefer

As I alluded to last week, there were two “new” entrants into the U.S. Senate race who had filed late, and I didn’t become aware of their websites until the other day. So now David Dickerson and Mike Schaefer are linked from monoblogue. In addition, both were sent a copy of the Ten Questions and I informed them that, because they didn’t have a “turn” originally I’d place them in at the first opportunity.

Well, tonight was the first opportunity, and Mike Schaefer grabbed the brass ring away from Thomas Hampton by answering the Ten Questions with lightning speed – I got them back the next day. The total of respondents is now five, with three upcoming when their turn comes up (one is a week from Friday.)

Without further ado, here is Mike Schaefer’s answers to the Ten Questions. I think he misunderstood Question #10 but the answer will stand. The only editing I’ll do is for format.

Question #1:

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

My campaign demands we think outside the box.

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

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

Question #2:

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

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

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

Question #3:

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

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

Please see my website. www.mike4senate.net, this is my leading issue. I applaud Nancy Pelosi for pushing the removal of Jefferson from his Committee.

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

Question #4:

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

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

Question #5:

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

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

Question #6:

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

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

Question #7:

Back to domestic issues. One pillar or goal of the Bush administration was to enact Social Security reform in the second term, but it has stalled because of claims there’s no problems with the program and privatization reforms are simply a way to enable Wall Street to profit. Do you think the Social Security program is fine as it is, or what changes would you advocate happening with the program?

This is the 3rd rail of politics and we can expect little from leadership of either party on this issue. I favor more liberal IRA programs, but so many people do not understans self-saving programs or have the money to fund them annually, and we must help those least able to help themselves. I think the program is working well but would increase the investigation of abuse, there are many dead-recipients whose families continue to cash benefits without any criminal consequences, possibly a payback and that’s it; and I now personally of recipients who cash their check, report it stolen promptly, get a new check issued, and months-later the US cancels the first check and charges it back the innocent business entity having taken it—this is long after the crook has disappeared, thus there is no recourse for the trusting businessperson. The government knows who the crooks are but public policy makes them untouchables. That is wrong, they belong in jail.

Question #8:

Some in Congress have raised the question of “pork” or excessive earmarks because our federal budget always runs in deficit and eliminating these earmarks would be a simple way to help balance the budget. But no Congressman or Senator wants to cut their district’s or state’s project. To balance the budget, would you consider sacrificing some of your district or state’s federally-funded projects or would you prefer measures to enhance federal revenues to meet the gap?

That’s an easy one. We can find county, city, state, or joint-powers agreements, funded with very very low-cost tax free obligations, to finance anything that is a boondoggle; the President needs line-item veto so he can “kill” a number of pork items in any budget. These items are not lost, the community and political leadership then decides (a)level of necessity, and (b)alternative ways to fund it. Do not let West Virginia’s Robert Byrd have anything to do with the budget. He is the king of pork. Always has been, always will be. We need to enhance federal revenues, but do so in order to reduce our staggaring federal debt. This is called fiscal responsibliity, which is in short supply with too many Congresspersons and Senators.

Question #9:

Now to the question of trade. When I go to a store, many’s the time that I see a product is made in China – hence we run a large trade deficit with that nation. President Bush has advocated a hemisphere-wide free trade zone that would add Central and South American countries to the umbrella originally created by the NAFTA agreement a decade ago. Given these items, and knowing also that the number of manufacturing jobs in this country remains flat to slightly lower even in this era of steadily expanding employment, where do you stand – do you see free trading eventually shifting our economy to one mostly comprised of service and technology jobs, or do you feel we should take more steps to preserve our core manufacturing
positions?

We must preserve our core manufacturing so long as it is efficient. Any country importing to the US should have equivalent exporting from the US to their country. It is disheartening to call a US firm’s help-line and be speaking to someone on the other side of the world with limited ability to speak English and not a clue as to the community or state where the caller resides. The government can do it. If I wanted to mail 100,000 political mailers from Canada or Mexico, at cheaper postage, the USPS requires payment of both the US and foreign postage for any mailings exceeding 200 items. I wish this protective attitude existed in other commerical areas of government operations.

Question #10:

This question should present you with the shortest answer. Given that in 2008 either you will be seeking re-election to the House and hoping for some coattails at the top of the ticket, or preparing to work with a new President (for the Senators), if you had a short list of 3 to 5 names you’d like to see seek the job, who would they be? Please note that they do not have to be candidates who are considered to be running for the post at this time.

You overlook that I am not running for the House, my term will be six years and I am up for re-election in 2012, to my 2nd and last term as a US Senator.

Have no idea who will be in Maryland’s political world in 2012. If I had to name three, they would be:

(a)John Sarbanes, assuming he wins a Congressional bid now or before 2012; Democrat.

(b)Marin Alsop, new Conductor of the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra; if she finds a “home” in Maryland, and in 2012 having six years leading our state in a cultural manner—she would be a respected candidate who would perhaps bring harmony to a cacophony of political sounds in the 100 member US Senate;

(c)Marcus Allen, a doctor of chiopractic medicine, who will at that time be a leader in city, county state or federal office, an African-American success story, who would bring credit on Maryland as a Democratic Nominee and who has a great interest in political issues affecting Maryland, health care, and is not the football legend but Maryland is used to great names.

Ten questions for…Michael Steele

This got pushed back a day because of the announcement of my candidacy for Wicomico County Republican Central Committee. But it still didn’t help.

You know, it’s very disappointing when the front-runner for your party’s nomination doesn’t answer simple questions. Unfortunately, he seems content to cruise to the nomination THEN kick his campaign into high gear. Well, I have news for him: I don’t think the voters are in the mood for a campaign solely of 30-second commercials and staged appearances, and with a primary battle shaping up on the Democrat side someone is going to be more battle-tested.

Answer the Ten Questions, Michael.

By the way, when I got the newest updated list of candidates yesterday for the 2006 ballot (with me on it) I found two more people running for the U.S. Senate seat on it. So I will send them a copy of the Ten Questions posthaste, luckily I have e-mail addresses for both.

Ten questions for…Ray Bly

And everyone says “who?”

Well, according to my records of those who have filed their candidacy papers for the U.S. Senate seat, he’s there. And I sent him the Ten Questions like everyone else. But no word. In fact, the political portion of his website has been “under construction” for at least a couple months.

So, once again, it’s up to me to fill a little space. Right now, I’m batting .250 on Ten Questions, 1 for 4. I have Allan Lichtman’s answers up and three others’ sitting in a folder awaiting their turn. Looks like only 4 people truly want your votes and will answer questions to get them. The big guns just play those 30 second commercials.

I was going to use this space for the Virginia election results, but I think I’ll do that separately above.

Ten questions for…James Hutchinson

Looks like two strikeouts in a row. Another guy with a blog, but he’s not answering the questions either. And I think Tuesday’s guest will be another whiff. Their loss. I sure hope next Friday’s scheduled person will take some time to answer the Ten Questions (hint: he’s a front-runner.)

I’ll be at the Lincoln Day dinner tonight, so maybe I’ll take some notes and pictures, maybe not. Depends who my company is I suppose. Same goes for tomorrow when I’m down in Crisfield at Page Elmore’s fundraiser. I’m not going to know what to do when I go to Crisfield for something that’s not work-related!

I’ve also got to start compiling the political calendar for Sunday. So a busy weekend all around.

Ten questions for…Kweisi Mfume

Well….I guess this will be a short post. It’s sort of like walking into an empty room. Hello? Hello?

As you may have guessed, I had no reply from Mr. Mfume or his handlers. So I’m not going to know for at least the time being where he stands on these specific questions I asked all the candidates.

And I guess I can vamp a little bit. For whatever reason, I’m just not into a lot of the issues that are circulating through the other local blogs. I’ve spent some effort on getting the Ten Questions going and the hopefully upcoming Political Calendar started, and I’ve just not been paying as much attention as perhaps I should be.

So in a sense I’ve been taking a Delmarva Dealings-style break. Aside from the letter to the editor in Friday’s paper, I guess the cat’s had my tongue lately on political topics. I have a few irons in the fire, but nothing has really compelled me to write a lot lately on these subjects. It’s certainly not the lack of opinions, just a sort of writer’s block – how can I make these interesting to myself and to the readers?

But I hate to take time away from the blog, because I know I do have some loyal hardcore readers who enjoy it. So I’ll persevere onward – besides, the one nice thing about having various regular features in different topics is that I get to write on at least two subjects – politics and baseball. Throw in a dash of photography, which I enjoy (by the way, the Memorial Day pix I promised are now on my Flickr site) and it’s not like I write about the same things each day.

So I suppose I should apologize to Kweisi Mfume for taking “his” spot. But he didn’t use it and why let good server space go to waste?

Lichtman replies

Today I noticed in my moderation queue that Allan Lichtman did reply to my questions over the last couple days. Instead of leaving it in a comment that people may not notice, I’m going to reprint the comments in this article. The only change I’ll make is placing my questions in italics and I’ve respaced some of the answers’ subparagraphs for clarity. Aside from that, it’s the original answers untouched.

Question #1:
There are several schools of thought regarding the problem of illegal immigrants, or as some would call them, “undocumented workers.” Some solutions offered range from complete amnesty to sealing the border with a wall to penalizing employers who hire these workers. Currently there are competing House and Senate measures – in particular the House bill has spawned massive protests around the country. While I have listed some of the possible solutions, it’s no exhaustive list. What solutions do you favor for the issue?

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

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

Question #2:
Another top-burner concern is the current spike in the price of gasoline. Again, this is a broad issue with many scenarios that can be played out. Possible solutions that have been bandied about in recent days are a temporary suspension of the federal 18.4 cent a gallon tax on gasoline and easing environmental restrictions on gasoline blends (as happened after Hurricane Katrina). Further down the road but possibly affecting prices on the futures market would be the approval of additional oil drilling in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico. If you were elected, what solutions to this issue would you pursue and why?

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

1. Provide new powers for the Federal Trade Commission to investigate and crack down on price gouging by the big oil companies. Exxon made a record $36 billion in profit last year and recently paid out some $400 million to its retiring CEO, exploding the excuse that soaring pump prices are solely the product of rising costs.
2. Impose an excess profits tax on the big energy companies with an exception for profits devoted to research into and production of clean, renewable sources of energy.
3. Eliminate state anti-competitive laws, including the Maryland law, which prevents retailers from reducing prices below a specified minimum.
4. Enforce the anti-trust laws to increase competition in the heavily concentrated energy industry.
5. Adopt a plan now for converting a substantial component of the fossil fuel economy to clean, renewable sources of energy. Components of the plan would include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question #3:
Recently the news has featured ethics scandals involving GOP donor Jack Abramoff and former House member Duke Cunningham of California as well as Democrat House members William Jefferson of Louisiana and Allan Mollohan of West Virginia. If elected, what steps would you take to help eliminate ethical improprieties among our elected representatives?

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

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

Question #4:
Along that same line, many people have seen the vast sums of money that seemingly are required to run for public office and were under the impression that campaign finance reforms such as those enacted with the McCain-Feingold bill were supposed to relieve this inequity. On the whole, however, the money trail has not ceased even with these laws. How do you favor strengthening these laws to make them more effective, or do you agree with some First Amendment advocates who think these laws should be eliminated?

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

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

For his 2006 Senate campaign Cardin has accepted $40,000 from Constellation Energy, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. This is the company that is pushing to raise electric bills for their customers in Maryland by 72 percent. Overall he has raked in more than $63,000 from electric utilities.
You cannot serve both the common interests of the people of Maryland and the private interests of lobbyists and wealthy corporations. You cannot claim to be standing up to the pharmaceutical industry and the big energy companies when you’re raking in their cash.

I would ask: Which matters more: affordable prescription drugs, a decrease in living costs, reasonable gas and electricity prices, or swelling the already deep pockets of wealthy corporations?
As a candidate I pledge to take no PAC money from private corporations. As a Senator I pledge to take no perks, as indicated above.

Question #5:
While the above issues have captured the headlines, our War on Terror (particularly in Iraq) is never far from our minds. It goes without saying that the vast majority of us support our troops; but the question is whether you favor our current approach or something different in terms of sending additional troops, seeking more multinational support, or a complete pullout. Maybe your thoughts are someplace in between these listed or would be considered “out of the box” thinking. What approach would you favor?

Since announcing my candidacy for the United States Senate last September, I was the first Democratic U.S. Senate candidate to specifically propose and advocate a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, with specific goals and timetables. My original timetable, announced at my campaign kickoff on September 28, 2005, I specified that troops be withdrawn from Iraq no later than the end of 2006.

Unlike some of my opponents, I have consistently and emphatically challenged President Bush’s pretenses for the war in Iraq, and his lack of strategy for victory in the region for the last three years. I have also shown my disapproval for the war by attending anti-Iraq War rallies, meetings, forums, and protests throughout Maryland and the D.C. area.

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

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

Ending the War

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

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

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

Reprioritizing our Military Objectives

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

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

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

Finding and Eliminating the Threats from al-Qaeda

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

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

Regaining American Credibility Throughout the World

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

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

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

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

Leading Iraq into the 21st Century

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

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

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

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

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

Question #6:
Related to the above question is the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program. The oil-rich nation claims that this program is for the peaceful use of generating electrical power for its citizens, yet on the other hand its leadership has threatened the nation of Israel with annihilation hinted as being from a nuclear bomb. While the President has the final decision, what course would you advocate he take (a pre-emptive military strike, diplomacy either through the UN or some other way, or leaving them alone as a sovereign nation) and why?

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

Question #7:
Back to domestic issues. One pillar or goal of the Bush administration was to enact Social Security reform in the second term, but it has stalled because of claims there’s no problems with the program and privatization reforms are simply a way to enable Wall Street to profit. Do you think the Social Security program is fine as it is, or what changes would you advocate happening with the program?

Social Security is a social insurance system – a basic income safety net for all working Americans. I will work tirelessly to strengthen Social Security and fight any attempts to privatize Social Security, which would cut guaranteed benefits and explode our national debt.

I also oppose “privatization-lite” as advocated by my opponent Ben Cardin. This misguided scheme would have the managers of Social Security, rather than individuals, invest a hefty share of your payments in the stock markets, rather than relying on bonds that bear the “full faith and credit” of our national government.

Privatization-lite would imperil the economic security of seniors and homeowners in Maryland. By, in effect, dumping government bonds to free funds for stock market investments this privatization plan would by simple supply and demand drive down the price of bonds and drive up interest rates, putting a drag on Maryland’s economy and eroding the property values of every homeowner in our state. The plan would reduce guaranteed Social Security benefits with private account benefits at the mercy of the ups and downs of the market. It would raise the administrative costs of Social Security by requiring a permanent new bureaucracy to handle private accounts and potentially subject its managers to political pressures on their investment decisions. Even worse would be “passive” investments by Social Security managers with no control over how corporations spend our money. If the market declined it would mean either a reduction in benefits or a government bailout, with money that we don’t have in times of deficit spending.

As the first steps to strengthening Social Security, I support committing Congress to stop the raid on the Trust Fund to finance other unrelated budget items, such as the mismanaged and seemingly endless Iraq War. Congress should pay back to the Social Security trust funds those money borrowed and spent for purposes other than Social Security programs.

I support rolling back the fiscally irresponsible Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that are draining the Trust Fund.

I support a careful study of a variety of potential reforms that will address Social Security’s funding problems while ensuring that Social Security continues to meet its purpose of providing income protection and economic security to America’s working families. Possible solutions include lifting the cap on social security taxes, while exempting from taxation the first $10,000 of income to make the payroll tax both more progressive and more responsive to changes in the economy. The payroll tax falls most heavily on low and middle income workers, and today some 70 percent of workers pay more in payroll than in income taxes. That is unacceptable.

Question #8:
Some in Congress have raised the question of “pork” or excessive earmarks because our federal budget always runs in deficit and eliminating these earmarks would be a simple way to help balance the budget. But no Congressman or Senator wants to cut their district’s or state’s project. To balance the budget, would you consider sacrificing some of your district or state’s federally-funded projects or would you prefer measures to enhance federal revenues to meet the gap?

Although I oppose excessive earmarks or “pork,”which should be debated in the Senate, I would not sacrifice needed infrastructure projects in the state of Maryland. There are better ways to help balance the budget.

1. Develop a plan for bringing the troops home from Iraq and recouping for domestic priorities the enormous costs of the war.

2. End subsidy payments to corporations and farm price support payments to large agri-businesses. ($25 -50 billion)

3. Stop the administration from permanently abolishing the estate tax. Even keeping in place the an eased estate tax that affects only estates of $3.5 million of or more (5 out of 1,000 estates) with a 45 percent tax would save nearly $40 billion.

4. Improve tax collections and stop the administration from cementing in place tax cuts that affect only high-income filers and one-time bonus tax breaks for business, ($100-$125 billion)

5. Replace Bush’s confusing, wasteful prescription drug plan with a more efficient, user-friendly plan like the one developed by Boston University School of Public Health. ($40 billion)

6. Reform antiquated business practices at the Pentagon and eliminate needless and redundant weapons systems. ($60 billion)

7. Eliminate tax breaks to extractive industries and other unnecessary corporate tax breaks. ($20 billion)

Question #9:
Now to the question of trade. When I go to a store, many’s the time that I see a product is made in China – hence we run a large trade deficit with that nation. President Bush has advocated a hemisphere-wide free trade zone that would add Central and South American countries to the umbrella originally created by the NAFTA agreement a decade ago. Given these items, and knowing also that the number of manufacturing jobs in this country remains flat to slightly lower even in this era of steadily expanding employment, where do you stand – do you see free trading eventually shifting our economy to one mostly comprised of service and technology jobs, or do you feel we should take more steps to preserve our core manufacturing positions?

We must take steps to preserve and strengthen our manufacturing positions. Such steps would include eliminating the current tax incentives for shipping jobs and investments abroad. We should also strengthen federal support for small businesses that are the driving engine of our economy. We should drastically reduce dependence on the fossil fuel economy and move towards the development of a robust alternative fuels industries with the promise to improve the economy and create more jobs. We should reduce the deficit to keep interest rates under control and limit the financing of our debt by foreign nations. We should support workers’ rights to organize unions which increase the number of good, stable jobs and negotiate trade agreements only with adequate safeguards for labor and the environment.

Question #10:
This question should present you with the shortest answer. Given that in 2008 either you will be seeking re-election to the House and hoping for some coattails at the top of the ticket, or preparing to work with a new President (for the Senators), if you had a short list of 3 to 5 names you’d like to see seek the job, who would they be? Please note that they do not have to be candidates who are considered to be running for the post at this time.

Russ Feingold
Wesley Clark
Hillary Clinton
John Edwards
Mark Warner

I appreciate Mr. Lichtman taking the time and answering the questions, he did have the difficult position of being first and may not have thought I was being serious in my timetable. Now hopefully the remainder of these candidates will see the treatment Allan got and be forthcoming with replies.

Ten questions for…Allan Lichtman

Today is the debut of what I call the Ten Questions. A few weeks ago, I sent out a mass e-mail (or snail mail) to all those who had filed or intended to file (had websites) for the U.S. Senate (and local Eastern Shore U.S. House) seats that are being voted on in Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia. This e-mail contained a brief introduction and the Ten Questions.

To date, I have had two candidates answer these questions. A few days ago, I took all of the Maryland candidates and randomly selected an order for their answers to be published on monoblogue. Through the luck of the draw, Democrat Allan Lichtman got the opening slot.

But he didn’t answer the questions. So I had the dilemma of whether to simply write that he didn’t answer the questions and nothing more, or actually post the questions despite the fact he didn’t answer.

However, after rereading my post announcing the Ten Questions, I see that I promised to reveal them on June 2nd, and that’s today. So Allan Lichtman, you have a nice blog, but you failed to answer my questions. I may decide to be nice and post a late submission, but you’re at my mercy now.

I do want to say that I think the concept is sound, and I’m almost certainly going to come up with a different set of questions on the Maryland House of Delegates and Senate races in Districts 37 and 38 for those candidates. Perhaps a more localized setting will encourage participation – besides, I think the state government should be more important than the federal one anyway. That mailing will likely be in July once the fields are set, since I’m hoping that having the Bozman seat open up will encourage competition in both parties.

But here are the Ten Questions I asked the candidates for federal office. Feel free to ask them of your officeseekers if you read this blog from afar, all I ask is credit me (Michael Swartz) or link to my blog (www.monoblogue.us).

Question #1:

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

Question #2:

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

Question #3:

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

Question #4:

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

Question #5:

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

Question #6:

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

Question #7:

Back to domestic issues. One pillar or goal of the Bush administration was to enact Social Security reform in the second term, but it has stalled because of claims there’s no problems with the program and privatization reforms are simply a way to enable Wall Street to profit. Do you think the Social Security program is fine as it is, or what changes would you advocate happening with the program?

Question #8:

Some in Congress have raised the question of “pork” or excessive earmarks because our federal budget always runs in deficit and eliminating these earmarks would be a simple way to help balance the budget. But no Congressman or Senator wants to cut their district’s or state’s project. To balance the budget, would you consider sacrificing some of your district or state’s federally-funded projects or would you prefer measures to enhance federal revenues to meet the gap?

Question #9:

Now to the question of trade. When I go to a store, many’s the time that I see a product is made in China – hence we run a large trade deficit with that nation. President Bush has advocated a hemisphere-wide free trade zone that would add Central and South American countries to the umbrella originally created by the NAFTA agreement a decade ago. Given these items, and knowing also that the number of manufacturing jobs in this country remains flat to slightly lower even in this era of steadily expanding employment, where do you stand – do you see free trading eventually shifting our economy to one mostly comprised of service and technology jobs, or do you feel we should take more steps to preserve our core manufacturing positions?

Question #10:

This question should present you with the shortest answer. Given that in 2008 either you will be seeking re-election to the House and hoping for some coattails at the top of the ticket, or preparing to work with a new President (for the Senators), if you had a short list of 3 to 5 names you’d like to see seek the job, who would they be? Please note that they do not have to be candidates who are considered to be running for the post at this time.

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

These are the Ten Questions. So far only 2 of the 30+ officeseekers I sent them to have answered. In order to have honest debate in this country on real issues, I’m encouraging all who read this blog to ask them yourselves of those federal politicians who ask for your support.

Maybe if we all act together we can shift the debate from the 30 second commercial to the actual stances these politicians stake out. Even better, after they’re elected, we have them on record with their positions and can hold their feet to the fire once they deviate. If they’re doing it for good reasons, they owe it to the voters to explain the change of heart.

One thing that I’m really happy about in this 2006 election is the number of candidates who are trying to win these elected offices (in most cases.) So it’s time for the debate to begin – who will be our best and brightest public servants?

I demand answers!

A little while back, I detailed that I was sending ten questions to each person running for federal office in our Delmarva region. With a U.S. Senate seat up for grabs in all three states and three House districts touching Delmarva, this worked out to about 33 different recipients, the majority of whom were running for the open U.S. Senate seat in Maryland.

Well, so far I have a total of TWO responses. Now I suppose I’ll be a little bit more forgiving of those folks in Delaware and Virginia, since they may not realize that folks from there do read monoblogue but the bulk of my readership is here in Maryland. Besides, with those seats not being “open” there’s only a small number of candidates involved (6 between the two states.) And I can’t vote for any of them, nor can most of my readers.

However, with those two states I am oh-for-6. If you count U.S. House candidates, it’s 0 for 12. And it’s not like I asked hard questions…maybe a bit detailed but that’s because I want thoughtful responses.

But I can call out those in my state who have refused to answer the Ten Questions. Let’s start with the U.S. Senate race (in alphabetical order, those who have either filed or have a website showing intent to run.) There are 19 people who fall in this category, let’s start with…

Ray Bly. According to what I read, you’ve ran before (unsuccessfully, of course.) So one would think that you’d know if you’re going to have a website, how about constructing the damn thing? I know you’re not spending the time answering my questions, that’s for sure.

Ben Cardin. What a surprise, a Democrat who’s afraid to answer anything but softball questions. Come on, I didn’t ask you about your lifetime ACU rating of 6 or anything like that. If you’re going to have such left-wing views, at least defend them to me and the readers on the Eastern Shore who you’ll likely ask to vote for you in November. I’m giving you the forum…

Earl Gordon. He’s one of two who did respond. The only problem I have is that the man sent me all 47 pages of his platform and I’ll have to actually work to find where he answered my questions!

Thomas Hampton. Who are you? What are you doing here? Actually, I do like your website in one respect: you have an area that says “if you have ten minutes, check out Key Issues first.” How about if you take an hour (if that) and answer my questions? I can bet that you’ll get more traffic with my website and those who will almost certainly link to it than you’re getting now.

James Hutchinson. As far as I know, you have no website. And since you haven’t answered my Ten Questions, why should anyone waste their time determining what sort of candidate you are?

Anthony Jaworski. I swear, some people just like to see their name on the ballot. My friend, you have zero name recognition. Maybe if you put out your views, you might get to more than an asterisk in the polls?

A. Robert Kaufman. Call me a compassionate conservative, but getting the snot beat out of you by an ex-tenant will get you a pass. Continue to recover on the campaign trail.

John Kimble. First of all, I would think that “kimbleforsenate” would be a much more accurate web name than “kimbleforcongress”. Or are you hedging your bets since you haven’t actually filed yet? Either way, you haven’t answered ten simple questions to my or anyone else’s satisfaction.

Allan Lichtman. To be honest, I really wish this guy would answer the Ten Questions, it would likely be interesting reading because he does have a great blog. Maybe there was a staff disagreement on how many paid people it would take to answer them?

Thomas McCaskill. According to your campaign site, you were the “Principal Co-Designer of the Global Positioning System (GPS)”. So you can’t use the excuse that you lost my Ten Questions, can you?

Kweisi Mfume. My questions do not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, religion, gender preference, which side of the bed you got out of this morning, or anything at all. Just honest questions on likely issues you’d face in the Senate that I’ve not received answers to from you to date.

Daniel Muffoletto. There’s something I would love to have you explain to me, and the Ten Questions would go a long way toward doing so: what the hell is a Green Republican? You claim to be one, let the voters know what the difference is in the format I present to all comers.

Josh Rales. From your own website: I also hope you will not hesitate to contact me with your ideas and questions … I want and need your ideas on how we together can achieve the results that Marylanders deserve.

I did. You haven’t answered them yet. As for my ideas, I have this nice little website that I write in once in awhile, it’s www.monoblogue.us.

Dennis Rasmussen. I actually cannot call him out quite yet – due to a snafu, I didn’t get his contact info until about a week after everyone else’s, so he got an extra week. He (or I should say his campaign coordinator) also promised a timely response, so I’m holding you to that Barbara.

Charles Smith. I mailed the Ten Questions to the post office box he shows as an address. Wonder if they are still there? Hope he’s better at answering his mail should he somehow pull off the victory.

Michael Steele. A black conservative Republican. Well, I don’t care if you’re black, white, or purple, what I care about is not ducking the questions I’ve asked of you and all the others who would be running for this office. Why should I support you and not someone else?

Let me tell you, I’m probably asking a lot fairer questions (and the same ones go to all involved) than anyone with the Baltimore Sun is going to ask. Quit being a gutless frontrunner.

Corrogan Vaughn. On your website you claim, “It is about People and Principles and not about Party or Politics! It is all about our citizens!!” No, it’s about answering my questions.

Daniel “Wig Man” Vovak. Responded the next day, way to go.

Kevin Zeese. I did get an e-mail from him saying that these were good questions and lots of work to answer them all. So I’m assuming I’ll have his answers in the next week.

And I’m not quite finished with my venom, I still have an incumbent Congressman and his challenger to contend with. Some would argue that there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the Republicans and Democrats, and in the First District race, given Wayne Gilchrest’s voting record, they just could be right.

But neither of them has bothered to answer my questions. Right now the race stands between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Granted, neither has a primary opponent – but still, the campaign’s already begun and I’m sure the Maryland Democrats would like to push Gilchrest off the Hill.

Now here’s the lessons I’ve learned so far. Number one, coming up with good questions is hard work. I really tried to be as nonpartisan, “just the facts ma’am” as I can muster. I suppose I’ve succeeded when I have two Republicans who have responded and a Democrat and Green who have promised to.

Number two, the internet and blogs still have a long way to go to get respect. If I worked for the MSM I may have gotten more response so far…but does that mean my questions as an average Free State citizen (who happens to pay for server space and maybe has just a bit of writing talent) are less valid then ones from some reporter paid by the MSM? You never know just how far the answers could go, I’ve certainly done my share of linking when I see something appropriate.

Lesson number three is not really a lesson, just something I’ve thought all along but was hoping to be proved wrong. It appears that almost all politicians are gutless. They have a great time with hand-selected crowds and scripted 30 second commercials that show their warm and fuzzy side, but give them honest questions from a constituent (or an interested observer) and they’ll ignore them as best they can.

Of this group, the only one I have met was Michael Steele, and it was a brief handshake and nice to meet you moment. This was back when he announced his campaign in October – no tough questions, a fairly friendly crowd of mostly supporters, and pretty much a scripted event. I’ve been peripherally involved in politics long enough to see a lot of those – the crowd whoops it up in front of the TV cameras, holds up the signs, and you hope to get some face time on the local TV news and/or a glowing article in the local paper. Both major parties and their candidates are involved in these sort of events, so don’t construe this as picking on Michael Steele. (I certainly wouldn’t throw Oreos at him, at any rate.)

So I hope that this is inspiring to people who want to make a difference and decide to toss their hat into the ring. Yes, I’m likely coming across as insulting to some, but I’m quite frustrated with this lack of response – particularly from a lot of people who aren’t raking in the campaign contributions and don’t have the means for a 30 second commercial. Here’s an opportunity to have some free publicity.

As for the so-called frontrunners, aside from the party apparatus thinking they have the best chance to win, what qualifications do they have? If we send you to Washington, what are you going to do for (or to) the citizens of Maryland? I’m not one swayed by 30 second commercials, I want to know their stance on issues.

Despite the mess our electoral process may be this fall, still the majority of votes will be fairly cast by people who I hope vote for their guy (guess I can say that since the one woman dropped out of the race) based on their thinking through “who best represents my interests?” Please, people of Maryland, regardless of who you pull the lever for, let it be out of substance rather than flash.

I’m just a guy trying to help you out. So a little cooperation from those asking for our votes would be greatly appreciated.

Ten questions…the trailer (a coming attraction)

A goal I set for year number two of my blogging was an effort to become a “one-stop shop” for political news and issues. At that time, I’d already began compiling a list of candidate websites (with their blogs if they have any) and I’m still adding to the list as they become available and I become aware of them. This is from both major parties, along with some from other parties (I have a couple Green Party candidates linked, for example.)

If there’s one thing I like to see, it’s campaigns and elections based on the issues, not on whatever mud they can sling in 30 seconds or less. Yes, negative campaigning works on a lot of people but I’m making an attempt to go deeper than that.

This year the U.S. Senate seat in Maryland has attracted a huge amount of interest. No fewer than 19 candidates have either already filed for the primary (or general in one case) election; in fact, we’ve already had one dropout. So there is no way that a debate to air their views on important issues facing our state and nation could happen between all these competing candidates. Or could it?

A beautiful thing about the internet is that it occurs on my schedule. If I want to post something, on goes the computer, bam! I connect to my server and some time later, what I think goes out over the World Wide Web. (Well, maybe not to Communist China and other such restrictive places.) Knowing that, I had an idea that I thought deserved a try.

That’s how I came up with what I call the Ten Questions. Once I came up with them, I decided to send a copy via either e-mail or snail mail to each declared candidate for the Senate seat in Maryland. But wait, there’s more! While writing them, I observed that these questions all touch on areas of national concern – so why not also involve our close-by neighbors in Delaware and Virginia? And why not House candidates too? Thus, the list was completed. The Ten Questions have gone to a total of 33 hopefuls who are running for the following:

U.S. Senate seats in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia.
U.S. House seats in Delaware (at-large), Maryland’s 1st District, and Virginia’s 2nd District.

It’s the same area I attempt to link to on my sidebar. As of tonight, I already have one respondent who has answered these questions. But I gave all responders a deadline of May 31st to return these questions.

The reason for that cutoff is beginning on June 2nd, and commencing on each Tuesday and Friday throughout the summer, I will post one or two hopefuls’ answers to the Ten Questions. The idea is to give anyone who has placed his or her name into the mix for these seats an equal opportunity to answer the same questions. For my friends who read this in Virginia, on June 9th (the Friday before the primary) I will post all the Virginia responses in a debate-style format – the question posted along with each candidate’s response (or lack thereof). The same will hold true for Maryland and Delaware on Friday, September 8th – I’ll repost the various answers I put up over the summer in a similar format so one can easily compare and contrast each of the hopefuls.

So on June 2nd people will see the actual questions I’ve sent. But to whet the appetite, the topics covered include immigration/border security, gasoline prices, ethics, campaign finance reform, the War on Terror, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Social Security, the budget with regard to “pork”, the question of free vs. fair trade, and their thoughts on who should run in 2008 to succeed President Bush.

This will be something for all my readers to look forward to I hope. By the way, once the questions are posted I welcome links so long as you credit monoblogue. And if you don’t happen to live in the area but want to quiz your federal officeseekers, all I ask is that if you use the questions you either provide a link to my site or credit www.monoblogue.us if you don’t provide a link (or in the print media.) Most bloggers are pretty cool that way.

So the campaign will begin in earnest June 2nd as we begin this forum. I think it’s going to be a good one. I don’t think I’ll replace those 30 second negative ads, but I’m going to try and score one for the clean campaign folks anyway.