Candidate Wednesday: August 11, 2010
The first edition of Candidate Wednesday begins with Democratic Wicomico County Council at-large hopeful Mike Brewington, features second Republican U.S. Senate candidate Jim Rutledge (in the famous school bus interview), and wraps up with House of Delegates District 38A officeseeker Mike McCready.
Just in watching the interview I was struck by the ease at which Mike delivered his message, which is sometimes rare in a first-time candidate. I can understand his ideas about being a Democrat, although I disagree about them being “for the people” anymore. He obviously would fall under the category described as a “Reagan Democrat” given his conservative fiscal views.
However, he fell a little flat in some of the answers. While you can’t get too wonkish in a ten-minute interview, he needs to realize that, yes, it will be tough on these workers that are furloughed but job creation doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game: losing a public sector job may be the stimulus for creating private sector work on a large scale. And Mike never answered the question on the parking lot, although he brought up a good point regarding the gas tax.
The interview with Jim Rutledge was done on his Crisfield-bound bus for the Tawes Crab and Clam Bake – sometimes you have to take your chances when you get them. But the problem with doing the interview in such a location is that the background noise is too distracting to effectively allow Jim to convey his message. And that’s too bad because Jim makes a lot of good critical points about legislation passed (financial reform, Obamacare, etc.) with the help of his Democratic opponent, Senator Barbara Mikulski.
This interview with Mike McCready was one of the earlier efforts and it seemed that they were still working out the bugs – for example, the whole interview is slightly out of focus. But I liked the line of questioning for the most part and if McCready was trying to establish himself as a conservative he did more or less a decent job – perhaps aside from the aspect of toll roads and raising bridge fees.
I just wish Matt had thought to ask an obvious question I would have asked – how do you think you’ll get along with the liberal majority of Democrats in Annapolis? Certainly he’ll be one of the few who supports gun rights and cares about the fate of farmers and watermen in that caucus.
That brings the first edition of Candidate Wednesday to a close – hopefully if you’re a voter you’re now a more informed one.
Filling the federal checkbook
Continuing a double-barreled GOP questioning of Senator Barbara Mikulski and her record, U.S. Senate hopeful Jim Rutledge pointed out the continuing references by Maryland’s senior Senator of “filling the federal checkbook” and questioned if she truly realized where the money was coming from.
On the other hand, Rutledge “doesn’t believe filling the federal government checkbook is the solution to restoring fiscal accountability in Washington. Barbara Mikulski keeps spending while Marylanders are forced to pay back all the debt she is creating.” Said Rutledge, “Mikulski would have us believe that all this money is free when in fact we’re going to have to pay it back with interest.”
(continued on my Examiner.com page…)
Impressions on the Mid-Shore AFP Senate forum
I’ve already done a down-and-dirty factual story (with pictures) on my Examiner page, so if you want to read there for some of the particulars feel free to do so…I’ll wait.
Here I wanted to review the statements and performance of each of the participants and make a few other general observations. I don’t have to be fair and unbiased at this site. In alphabetical order, Stephens Dempsey comes first.
Stephens Dempsey came across as a man who truly wants to restore the government to its Constitutional case, and for that some may call him harsh. In a question about illegal immigration, Dempsey noted, “First, they’re not ‘illegal immigrants,’ they’re illegal aliens…that is the definition we should use.” Indeed, that’s how the federal government actually defines them.
Regarding the jobs issue, Stephens points out that, “it’s not my job (as a Senator)…that’s the job of the state and local level (governments.) Obviously he has a clear definition of what the federal role must be.
But the problem I see with his approach is, while the message is clear, his explanations may be too clever by half. For example, his campaign literature features a three-triangle logo that baffles the average person as to its meaning. Being an “American Constitutionalist” is one thing, but making that have meaning to the average voter who will ask what that does for him is quite another.
It was nice to see his family and friends support him, but I fear that’s all the support he’ll get if he doesn’t simplify his message a little bit.
Democrat Chris Garner was perhaps the most pessimistic of the batch, gloomily noting, “what’s happening right now, we’re in a deep depression. It’s gonna get deeper.” Garner also bemoaned the lack of industrial might – “No industry, no economy.” He added, “we’re turning our country into a Third World country.”
His solutions may not be the best for free marketeers, though – among others he proposed a maximum 15% trade imbalance to keep the value of imports and exports in balance. “Right now we’re sending a half-trillion dollars overseas.” But would that work in a real world where we import a vast amount of oil, for example? Certainly we could use some fairer trade, but that cap doesn’t seem anything but arbitrary.
I also couldn’t believe he didn’t know what EFCA was. The way I look at it, passage of EFCA would do more harm to our trade imbalance because unionization would drive up the cost of business.
Samuel Graham was a curious sort of Republican. One of his platform planks was a “radical idea…let’s just give (the unemployed) a job.” And that extended to illegal immigrants as well – Graham supports a policy to stop immigrants at the border and ask them why they are seeking entry. “Give them an opportunity to register themselves,” he said. Needless to say, he was the lone Republican not to favor the Arizona SB1070 law.
But then he joined the chorus of those candidates who said, “let’s cut the taxes.” Samuel ticked off a list of possible tax cuts for groceries, department stores, and gasoline. Yes, those are good ideas but I think a better solution would be to eliminate taxes on the income side and maintain a low, one-time rate on the consumption side.
On the whole, something didn’t jibe with Graham’s presentation. I’m not sure he’s thought through the impact of simply creating make-work jobs – wasn’t that the point of the stimulus? And how would that work with the straight 25% cut in government he advocated?
Being in the middle of three consecutive Republicans, Daniel McAndrew was at something of a disdvantage. He just doesn’t seem to stick out well in a crowd as it is and always being the fourth to respond made the problem worse. In answering one question, he sighed, “well, it’s repeating time.”
And asked why he wanted to be Senator, he expressed that, “I’ve had enough, and I think you have too…quite frankly, they’re not listening to us.”
But he did make some good points in an otherwise mainstream conservative presentation, talking about the aspect of “birth tourism” when the question of anchor babies was brought up. His ideas for creating incentives for manufacturing and privatizing portions of government have plenty of merit.
Also placing him at a disadvantage was being the only hopeful to not have any literature there (at least that I noticed.) He does have a website, though.
Of all the candidates present, Jim Rutledge is probably the best known and leader of this pack. In terms of presentation, he had the smoothest and most eloquent answers which likely stems from his avocation as a ”conservative” attorney. That would also come in handy if he were elected, as he could “translate those bills for you and give you the straight story on them.”
He was also unafraid to bring up the incumbent, labeling Barb Mikulski as the “chief culprit” of the largest expansion of government and attack on individual liberties this Republic had ever seen.
Yet he had a couple key issues which may have seemed a bit out there if you don’t understand the logic behind them. For example, one method of helping to sell Eastern Shore products would be to dredge the waterways in order for easier ship passage, since shipping by barge is very cost-effective. His (perhaps draconian) solution for illegal immigration involved jailing employer scofflaws and having visa holders post a bond when they entered the country – if they skipped bond, a bounty hunter could track them down. And why not a tax cut for homeschoolers? Yet these do make sense and at least represent a different manner of looking at problems not found inside the Beltway.
One observer afterward thought Rutledge had sort of an “angry” tone about him, and perhaps his passion can be taken that way. He had the largest group of supporters in the room, though.
And Jim’s ideas had some merit with Sanquetta Taylor as well. “I kinda don’t like sitting next to (Jim),” she said, “because we think alike and he’s a Republican and I’m a Democrat.” But some things are subject to bipartisan agreement and Sanquetta came across as a relatively moderate Democrat who thought “it’s time for the torch to be handed” to a new generation. She even explained that, “we have to go into government with good intentions.”
So what are those intentions? Well, Sanquetta does like lower taxes but she is protectionist, advocating “heavy fines” for companies which outsource jobs. She’s against the Arizona SB1070 law, believing “the President should step in and mandate something that should help them.” Yet she’s against anyone being here illegally. She wouldn’t come out and support Elena Kagan to be on the Supreme Court, but wouldn’t say no either.
Perhaps her and Rutledge do think alike on a number of fiscal issues, but the issues I pointed out suggest they’d have some strong differences as well. Certainly she brought an attractive presence to the forum as the most telegenic and youngest candidate.
For Lih Young, being on (and sometimes off) the ballot is a way of life.
In 2008 she ran as a Democrat in the 8th District Congressional primary and received 2.9% of the vote. Undaunted, she filed after the primary as a write-in and got 28 votes.
In 2006 Young ran for U.S. Senate as a Democrat and picked up 0.3% of the vote in a statewide race. Filing as a write-in for the general election ballot she got 120 votes.
In 2004, 8th District Congress, 2.4% of the vote in the primary, 79 votes as a write-in for the general election.
In 2002, it was Comptroller. She actually got 4% of the Democratic vote in the primary, so she figured a write-in candidacy was a lock – and got 1,375 votes.
This record, her reluctance to give a ‘yes or no’ answer on simple issues, and saying during the forum that, “law enforcement is a robbery machine” basically tells you what you need to know. If not, there is this gem from my archives.
As I mentioned, there were a number of “yes or no” questions during the forum which are helpful in assessing a candidate as well. Here’s how they went.
A ban on offshore oil drilling? Taylor and Young said yes, the others no.
Passing cap and trade? All said no, but Young wanted to study the issue.
Supporting Arizona’s SB1070? Dempsey, Garner, McAndrew and Rutledge all said yes; Graham, Taylor, and Young no.
Eliminating the death tax? All favored it, and all support the Second Amendment.
Would you sign a ‘no climate tax’ pledge? All but Young said yes and all did.
All seven favored term limits to varying degrees – all but Garner endorsed two terms for Senators (Garner just one.) Garner, Graham, Taylor, and Young said two House terms; Dempsey and Rutledge three, and McAndrew six.
All would favor not repealing the Bush tax cuts, although Garner, “didn’t like the phrasing” of the question.
Repealing or replacing Obamacare was favored by Dempsey, Graham, McAndrew, Rutledge, and Taylor. Young wanted a single-payer system while Garner would not answer.
While most cited a lack of information, only Young was certain she’d vote to appoint Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Taylor was unsure, the others gave her a thumbs-down.
Only Young was in favor of taxpayer-funded abortions.
Tax cuts for homeschoolers? Graham and Rutledge said no, the others yes.
Employee Free Choice Act (card check)? Taylor and Young favored it, Dempsey, Graham, McAndrew, and Rutledge were opposed, and Garner was unsure.
All thought NAFTA had a negative impact.
Finally, all were asked when they last read the Constitution.
- For Stephens Dempsey, it was the day before.
- Chris Garner said 4 or 5 years ago.
- Samuel Graham said in high school.
- Daniel McAndrew replied last week.
- Jim Rutledge said a month ago.
- Sanquetta Taylor told us two weeks.
- Finally, Lih Young said two years ago.
It was a pretty long forum, taking nearly two hours to wrap up. But those in attendance are certainly more well-informed about the candidates who could be bothered to show up and face the public they aim to serve.
Top Senate candidates criticize different targets
It’s no secret that being the incumbent means you receive slings and arrows from your opposition, and Maryland’s U.S. Senate race is no different. But the two leading contenders recently leveled their artillery on different targets.
Of the two leading Republicans, it seems Jim Rutledge has been a little more savage against incumbent Barbara Mikulski. Here he berates the 74-year old incumbent, who’s no stranger to medical devices after recent ankle surgery, for opposing an amendment to exempt veterans from a tax on certain medical devices.
(continued on my Examiner.com page…)
Odds and ends number 22
With the sheer frenzy of candidates filing earlier this week, my e-mail box was filled with other news. But instead of making a long series of posts, a good editor can pick out the relevant points in a paragraph or two and that’s what I’ll do here.
Needless to say, I receive frequent dispatches from a number of candidates. In the race for U.S. Senate, Eric Wargotz was proud he won a ballot to be the featured candidate for “Ten-Buck Fridays” as he explains:
Ten congressional candidates are nominated each week. Whoever receives the most votes is announced Friday. All of the web site and blog sponsors spread the word on the winner across the web to conservative sites and encourage all visitors to the sites to donate. In essence, they promote a $10 per donation money bomb for the winning candidate of that particular week.
I checked it out last evening and Eric won with 673 votes. I’m not sure how that will translate into actual donations, so I suppose this goes in the category of “every little bit helps.”
Oddly enough, Eric’s opponent Jim Rutledge used something Senator Scott Brown (who had assistance in getting elected from Wargotz) said in blasting incumbent Democrat Barb Mikulski:
Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts summed up the philosophical differences in Washington regarding how Congress should provide solutions. Sen. Brown said, “It’s the checking account versus the credit card.” Democrats like Barbara Mikulski want to spend and tax their way out of a recession while conservatives like Jim Rutledge believe we need to lower taxes, cut spending, and reduce the deficit. Rutledge said, “President Reagan showed us that America can grow and prosper by reducing the size of government and lowering taxes.”
One thing Rutledge forgot to add was that Reagan did it with a Congress controlled by Democrats, at least in the House. But Jim didn’t forget to let me know he was endorsed by Delegate Pat McDonough.
Endorsements are a funny thing – sometimes they are useful and sometimes they bite you in the behind. Given President Obama’s track record on campaigning for other candidates, perhaps Martin O’Malley may regret this statement from the One:
Since being elected Governor in 2006, Martin O’Malley has been a true champion for the people of Maryland.
He has restored a sense of fiscal responsibility and helped the state grow sustainably, expanding access to health care coverage and continuing to improve Maryland’s schools, while also restoring the Chesapeake Bay. His four-year freeze on college tuition brought the cost of higher education within reach of middle-class families.
Governor O’Malley has a lot more to contribute to your state — and I hope you will do your part to ensure he has four more years to continue his work.
Actually, if he’s re-elected Governor O’Malley will likely make sure We the People of the Free State are forced to contribute a lot more. It’s funny that President Obama left out the increased tax burden and job losses Maryland has endured under O’Malley’s watch. It seems the only sustainable growth we have is in the unemployment rate.
And as Dave Schwartz of Americans for Prosperity reminds us:
Earlier this week, Gov. Martin O’Malley announced a plan to spend $1 billion for school construction. Even though we still have a $389 million hole left in this year’s budget and a projected $8.3 billion long term structural deficit, O’Malley believes that more spending is the answer. This unhinged appetite for spending our dollars is exactly why Maryland is in trouble.
Yes, President Obama, Martin O’Malley has a lot to contribute – a lot of deficit spending and budgets balanced on the backs of the counties and working people of Maryland.
Tomorrow I pick on O’Malley’s television ad. It should be fun.
Wargotz campaign drops ‘attempt to mislead’
Heeding the admonition of The Tarrance Group, a national polling firm, Eric Wargotz’s campaign has removed a “misleading” poll citation from its website.
Wargotz’s Senatorial campaign trumpeted the data in a Wednesday press release claiming “Wargotz leads Mikulski by 3% in recent poll.” While the data was indeed correct, Tarrance warned that as a basis for a realistic snapshot of the county’s electorate the poll couldn’t be trusted because of its small sample size of 41 people and the fact it only encompassed the portion of Baltimore County lying within the First Congressional District.
(continued on my Examiner.com page…)
Wargotz responds to ‘soft on illegals’ charge
A controversy over a statement Republican U.S. Senate candidate Eric Wargotz made to the Baltimore Jewish Times last October has grabbed some notice in a summer where voters are focused on the race for governor.
The Jewish Times remarks got the attention of fellow Examiner Scott Strzelczyk, who hammered Wargotz’s announced stance on immigration as “misleading” Republican voters. In his post Strzelczyk quoted Wargotz as telling the BJT reporter, “I was very disappointed that President Obama stated that he wouldn’t pay health care for illegal immigrants.”
(continued on my Examiner.com page…)
Media, part 3: old media and new media
While some GOP aspirants in the First District Congressional and U.S. Senate races continue to trust old media with some of their advertising, most key contenders are still focusing on free media.
Eric Wargotz is back on the radio with the fourth in his series of 60-second spots, this entitled, “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs.” In the commercial, he notes, “I know first hand the detrimental affect (sic) that over regulation and an oppressive tax bourdon (sic) have on job creation,” based on his experience in private medical practice.
(continued on my Examiner.com page…)
Wicomico Rutledge fundraiser a success
On Saturday I went to a secluded farm hard by the Worcester County line in order to attend a fundraiser for U.S. Senate candidate Jim Rutledge. Looked pretty well packed from here.
I think the Daily Times did a decent piece on the event but underestimated the crowd a little bit. Perhaps one can count the number of people in the picture.
Rutledge gave about thirty minutes’ worth of remarks.
Jim pounded on a number of his campaign points, including:
- Lowering taxes – “at heart, I’m still a Ronald Reagan conservative.” Jim vowed to repeal the tax code in its entirety if elected and replace it with a flat tax with few deductions. To spur investment Jim would also dump the capital gains tax.
- Limited government – “the (federal government) beast is out of its cage.” On the other hand, “the Constitution is a forgotten document” and “the family is the fundamental unit of government.” One thing he could do to limit government would be to defund Obamacare – “we still have the purse strings in Congress” - since the political reality is that Obama is President until at least 2013.
- National security – this includes border security. Jim excoriated Barbara Mikulski for applauding Mexican President Felipe Calderon for trashing our laws before Congress but otherwise being “missing in inaction” on the full scope of national security.
After he gave his remarks, Rutledge invited those attending to ask their own questions. Among them were some which touched on other issues he didn’t bring up during his remarks.
- On how to attract conservative Democrats: he’s launched campaign operations in Democratic strongholds already. Among issues, illegal immigration is a “huge issue” in the black community and school vouchers are also a winning issue. “Bold talk will bring across independents.”
- I asked about the impact of the Deepwater Horizon tragedy. Why not convene the best and brightest to attack the problem, asked Jim back. He attacked the federal government, saying their bungling made them co-responsible. Turning to energy in general, Jim criticized the “unreasonable fear” of nuclear energy but still supports additional oil and natural gas exploration, calling it “a matter of national security…life and death.”
- Regarding immigration, Jim opined the Arizona SB1070 bill is “constitutional” and noted that blanket amnesty would be a reward for breaking the law. One idea he floated seemed acceptable to those attending – “when folks want to come (to America) they need to post bond.” If they overstayed their visas, there could be a process of finding scofflaws for a reward just like those who skip bond in criminal cases.
- Why not the FairTax (a consumption-based tax)? The flat tax needs to come first because it can be adopted faster, said Rutledge. We only need “a revenue source for necessary services” but if the Sixteenth Amendment isn’t repealed as a consumption tax is adopted we’ll be stuck with both.
- Government cuts Jim would make: stopping overseas commitments like what we’re pledging to help out Greece, abolishing Congressional pensions, and “we have to get out of the grant business.”
- Regarding the Middle East and Afghanistan, Jim struck a bit of an isolationist tone. Because the mission isn’t well-defined, “we’re in a world of hurt” in Afghanistan. It is our job to defend our own sovereign state.
- Jim predicted parts of the Obamacare bill will be struck down in court. It’s not among those items authorized for Congress to do in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
- Someone asked how illegal immigrants have court standing. They have due process, stated Jim, but the immigration courts are “broken” and the message from our government is “a green light” to illegal immigration.
- How do we fight teachers’ unions? Jim believes in “strong” schools but the unions “serve themselves.” He pointed out that he’s been endorsed by the National Right-To-Work organization.
Yet we didn’t just stand around and listen to Rutledge speak. There was good food, too.
We also had the chance to arrange for ourselves a mini-vacation as well as other silent auction items.
Participants also had the chance to take a hayride, ride around the farm on all-terrain vehicles, pitch horseshoes, or just gab among themselves regarding the events of the day. This wasn’t one of those stuffy fundraisers where the candidate zips in and zips out, or you had to buy access by being a VIP – Jim was accessible to all comers and many took the opportunity. Plus they got to meet a number of other local candidates who attended.
Now I like Jim, but perhaps the best thing he’s done in this campaign is make my heretofore apolitical significant other believe in a candidate. If he can inspire more like her Jim has a great chance of making it through the primary and knocking off a Senator who’s been there too long to stay in touch with her state.
Rutledge slates local fundraiser
Local voters will get the opportunity to help out the U.S. Senate campaign of a conservative seeking to unseat one of Harry Reid’s Maryland toadies.
It was a year ago this coming weekend some of us were introduced to Jim Rutledge as the Lower Shore Young Republicans held a fundraiser, while others met him shortly afterward at a Wicomico County Republican Club meeting last June.
For a small price ($25 per person is the “suggested” donation, kids under 16 free) you can meet and greet the Senate candidate this Saturday. It’s a pig roast and barbecue being held at 32625 Spearin Road, southeast of Salisbury. (Take Snow Hill Road south from Salisbury and turn left on Spearin Road to the last farm on the right – if you hit the Worcester County line you went too far.)
Granted, even getting 100 people to pay $25 apiece isn’t going to make much of a dent in the incumbent’s $2.7 million cash on hand (primarily garnered from special interest groups, trial lawyers, unions, and other PACs) but making her spend that money to defend the seat creates a situation where she can’t help anyone else. As opposed to other GOP candidates, there’s local people campaigning for Jim on the street and yard signs large and small being put up by local supporters.
You may also run into a number of other local GOP candidates at this event, so it can be a “one-stop shop” for getting to know local officeseekers. If you’d like to support one of the conservatives trying to turn Maryland and the U.S. Senate in the right direction, it’s easy to do: please R.S.V.P. (include the names of each person attending) and contact Don Coffin at 410-860-2111 or e-mail dcoffin@ezy.net.
Rutledge: I’m not leaving Senate race
Dogged by a rumor that he’s dropping his U.S. Senate bid to run for Attorney General, Jim Rutledge took the occasion to fire back at his opponents. Calling the allegation, “probably the first of many desperate acts that voters will see from liberal opponents,” Rutledge claimed it as a sign he’s winning over Republican voters.
(continued on my Examiner.com page…)
2010 MDGOP Spring Convention in pictures and text
You know, it’s really hard to be stuck indoors at a convention in a place with a view like this.
Yep, it was a little windy Friday afternoon when I shot that brief video. This was prior to the first of four seminars I attended as the event was billed as a training convention. Now, because of a scheduling conflict I had to miss the Executive Committee meeting but Kim and I did arrive in time to enjoy the hospitality of various candidate suites – in truth, the partying spilled onto the Princess Royale’s pool deck.
One Senate candidate made the most of his presence there, festooning the venue with signage. It began with this creative use of bumper stickers.
Several balconies had Wargotz’s signage, so it was a good thing Eric had a special one by his suite.
Governor Gary Johnson led the state of New Mexico from 1995-2003, winning an election as an outsider who was told he had little chance of winning (it was his first electoral contest.) Here’s Eric and Gary together – it’s one of two pictures I took (the other will likely be on his campaign site sometime soon.)
I’ll come back to Johnson later. In the meantime, it’s worth noting that fellow U.S. Senate hopeful Jim Rutledge also had a presence there, with a table near the registration desk.
Rutledge did come down on Saturday to meet and greet conventiongoers.
But if the MDGOP was anticipating a lot of revenue from table rental, they had to be sorely disappointed. Aside from Rutledge and the debut of Americans for Limited Government as a presence, not much was to be found on the tables.
This table on Friday night showed the undercurrent of competition.
As I mentioned earlier, part of the idea behind this convention was to conduct training for Central Committee members. I sat in on four seminars: voter vault training, new media, treasurer’s training, and a panel discussion led by Audrey Scott and featuring General Assembly members Delegate Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio and Senators David Brinkley, Nancy Jacobs, and Allan Kittleman. Of the four that was the most interesting, but I learned something new at each and I suppose that was the intent.
I think I’m going to treat the panel discussion as a separate post because a lot of interesting statements were uttered. So let’s skip to lunch and its two guest speakers.
Being introduced by GOP Chair Audrey Scott, who said “we need Bob back to make this a business-friendly state,” Ehrlich pretty much stuck to his stock speech. Most of us knew that “Maryland has been good to us” and “the last grudge match I had was in middle school.”
To Bob, “progress” in Martin O’Malley’s terms was a higher unemployment rate, 3,000 fewer businesses, increases in sales and business taxes, a so-called “living wage,” and gifts to Big Labor – all in all, a poor business climate is O’Malley’s legacy. “You don’t raise taxes on the producers,” said the former governor.
Annapolis is “never out of excuses,” continued Ehrlich, who also said that for us, jobs are “real” and not a “talking point” as they are for O’Malley. The “worst-kept secret” of a second O’Malley term would be the “monumental tax increase awaiting us.” It’s the “politics of getting over” – getting over the next year or the next election. His biggest disappointment was dealing with the schools in Baltimore (and then-Mayor O’Malley) – he accused the Democrats of not stepping up “because it was inconvenient” for them to. Never mind the kids sentenced to a below-grade education.
Addressing the TEA Party movement – a movement which “is serious” – there’s “no doubt” this “pro-opportunity” group wil help us.
While there’s little doubt that everyone in the room supports Ehrlich against O’Malley, I would’ve liked to hear from another man present – Brian Murphy.
We’re not supposed to endorse candidates pre-primary, but by all appearances the Maryland GOP has placed its lot for better or worse behind Bob Ehrlich. Yes, it can be argued that Murphy has little chance but at least he put his name on the line while someone was dithering about which race to run in – if he would run at all. I think we owed him the opportunity to speak, or else be neutral in the race and find a different keynote speaker.
The other speaker isn’t officially running for anything – at least not yet. While the list of current and former governors perhaps seeking the 2012 GOP presidential nomination is long, should Gary Johnson decide to do so we’ll have a pretty good idea of where he stands thanks to his Our America website alluded to above on Eric Wargotz’s sign.
Johnson related his experience as an entrepreneur and being told he “can’t come from outside politics to be elected” to statewide office. But he succeeded by putting “issues first and politics last.”
Perhaps his most noteworthy achievement in two terms as governor was vetoing 750 bills. He used the example of a bill to mandate pets in a store be exercised 2 hours a day, 3 days a week – who would police such a law?
That streak of libertarian thought extended to issues which were received well, like our lack of fiscal conservatism naturally leading to inflation, the “next shoe to drop” being state pension funds, and noting “I was hoping for free-market reform” on health care.
Other issues, though, may have fallen somewhat flat with those gathered, such as taking a “hard look” at the War on Drugs and “squandering our military might” on Iraq and Afghanistan. Regarding drug laws, Johnson noted that 1.8 million are arrested for drug crimes each year and 90% of that is prohibition-related rather than use-related. Instead, we should look at nations like Holland and Portugal and adopt “harm-reduction strategies.”
Gary was definitely thought-provoking, though, and may fit in as a second-tier participant should he begin the process of seeking the GOP’s highest nomination.
After lunch we got down to brass tacks and began the convention proper with Chair Audrey Scott presiding.
I must say, though, this may have been the absolute worst hall I’ve ever sat in for this sort of gathering.
I truly felt sorry for the guests who had to sit in the back, far away from the stage. You can’t tell by the picture but our group was fairly far back; we sat at the outside corner where the room narrowed.
With those surroundings, even Andy Harris didn’t fire up the troops as he could have in nicer circumstances.
Harris did wax eloquent about “taking America back” and stopping the “systematic dismantling of the American Dream” by the “gang in Washington.” To them, electing Scott Brown was “not (a) loud enough message” because they passed Obamacare anyway.
One big flaw with Obamacare Harris elaborated on was that hospitals were unwilling to make new investments because of the uncertainty. “It’s about time Congress admits its mistake (and) repeals health care,” Andy said. Another red meat comment: “when it comes to taxes, we should be the party of ‘hell no’!”
Checking in with the usual reports were our National Committeewoman, Joyce Lyons Terhes, who opined, “Michael Steele is doing an excellent job,” and that, “America is being dismantled before our very eyes.” National Committeeman Louis Pope added that our national fundraising was “right on target” and “the TEA Party is us.” The Republican National Committee is predicting a 30-60 seat House gain and 29 or 30 governorships after this election.
In her Chairman’s Report, Audrey Scott claimed that the “party was in disarray” when she took over but she’d improved both communication and finances during her brief tenure. The recent town hall meetings had gone well “beyond her wildest expectations” and she revealed that a paid Maryland Democratic Party staffer was following her during the latter stages of the tour, recording her every remark. (There was no Democratic staffer at her Wicomico stop. I’m bummed.)
An exciting upcoming event was the annual Red, White, and Blue Dinner, which will feature Mitt Romney as guest speaker.
Yet I have an editorial comment. What was the problem these big donors had with Jim Pelura? They could have opened up their wallets just as easily then and saved the party a lot of headache. Jim must not have been the fair-haired boy they wanted I guess.
Other than that, the business at hand went more or less routinely. Three of us from Wicomico County and another from Montgomery County objected to the adoption of the rules – in my case I suggested to Audrey beforehand that the “compromise” voting system be voted on separately (as they were last fall) and when they did not I objected. So there’s four people who “get it.”
But since the only resolution was to allow the Teenage Republicans a seat at the Executive Committee table the rules were no big deal. Most disappointing was the Voting Committee – who was charged with studying the issue and suggesting a solution – punting the voting system issue down the road. Their excuse this time was that an outgoing convention shouldn’t dictate rules for the next year. Well then, I guess we should rewrite the bylaws every four years then, shouldn’t we? (Actually we did a major revision this term – we just didn’t resolve the voting issue or properly adopt the worthwhile idea of regional chairs. That’s another issue the powers-that-be will find excuses to ignore for another term.)
Okay, my rant is over. For the first time that I recall, the Young Republicans didn’t have a hospitality suite on Friday night. Instead, they capitalized on current events for this idea to bridge the gap between the convention and dinner.
Speaking of dinner, I wasn’t sure about the speaker but political consultant David Winston turned out to be interesting to a numbers freak like myself.
Some of his findings:
- President Bush couldn’t capitalize on the structural advantage the GOP has – we are a center-right country.
- Obama’s big misstep was tackling health care and not jobs. Almost 3 times as many respondents to polling cited jobs as the key issue over health care.
- Having a high disapproval rating hurts the introduction of issues – if “there’s that guy I don’t like” talking about an issue it turns voters off.
- 9.7% (the unemployment rate) is “the only number that matters” this cycle.
- “The political center does not mean moderates.” On a sliding scale of liberal to conservative, independent voters are far closer to the GOP than they are President Obama.
Finally, our annual awards for 2009 were given out and we were pleasantly surprised!
- Charles Carroll Award (Outstanding Republican Man) – Bob Ostrom
- Belva Lockwood Award (Outstanding Republican Woman) – Patt Parker
- Samuel Chase Award (Outstanding County) – Talbot County
- William Paca Award (Outstanding Republican Youth) – Matt Teffeau
- Grassroots Activist of the Year – Katie James
- Aris Allen Award (Outstanding Voter Registration Effort) – Wicomico County
Obviously we won one award and as I recall we nominated Matt for his award for his work as head of the Salisbury University College Republicans. Here are the award winners with Chair Audrey Scott.
So I don’t have a completely bitter taste in my mouth for the event. It just looks like the work won’t stop on November 2nd - when I’m reelected to the Central Committee and after we beat the Democrats like a rented mule it will be time to push for much-needed reform for the MDGOP.
Eastern Shore Political Buzz Examiner
Syndicate
Subscribe to this site's RSS feed.
-
-
-
Advertise with monoblogue and you’ll reach a lot of people!
Click on the photo for details.
Link to Maryland Democratic Party
In the interest of being fair and balanced, I provide this service to readers. But before you click on the picture below, just remember their message:
Locals flock to monoblogue
Click on the photo for details on advertising opportunities.
Please note that the opinions expressed on monoblogue are not necessarily those of the Wicomico County Republican Party Central Committee, of which I'm a member. (But they probably should be.)
