Bongino outraises remainder of Senate field in third quarter

I stand with Dan. Do you?An interesting piece of news from a hard-working campaigner.

I have not been able to confirm one piece of the puzzle, but according to FEC records Ben Cardin raised $636,375.27 in the third quarter while Dan Bongino amassed $735,157.75 in the same time period. I’m told by the Bongino campaign that independent challenger Rob Sobhani only raised $30,000 from outside sources during the same period but have not been able to confirm this as the Sobhani campaign hasn’t released third quarter figures yet. Most of the millions spent by Rob have come from his personal fortune. If this is indeed true – or relatively close – this means the leading fundraiser was the challenger – who raised more than the rest of his opponents combined – and that’s somewhat of a rarity in this political day and age. That’s especially true when the seat is considered by most conventional wisdom to be a safe one for the incumbent.

Of course, cash on hand is also important and the incumbent Ben Cardin has a wide lead there of about $2 million to $300,000 for Bongino. If not for the nearly $2 million in PAC contributions Cardin has accepted this cycle, though, the money race would be nearly even. Special interests have made over 1,000 individual contributions to Ben Cardin to keep him in office; on the other hand just 25 contributions of that sort have found their way to the Bongino coffers and they are mainly from other Republican clubs and candidates. Meanwhile, according to a Maryland Reporter story from earlier this month Sobhani had spent $4.4 million, so the claim of $5 million by the Bongino camp is probably accurate.

And after months of carping about debate exclusion, the state will have its chance to hear Rob Sobhani in that forum on October 30 here in Salisbury, according to Salisbury University’s Institute for Public Affairs and Civic Engagement, the debate sponsor. Yes, it’s a 3 p.m. debate and I’m not sure if it will be televised; moreover, the trio will have to share the stage with Libertarian Dean Ahmad and write-in Democrat Ed Tinus. But this will be Sobhani’s chance and our opportunity to ask him questions as well.

I suspect there will be plenty of press there from both regular and pajamas media.

Update: I meant to add a comparison to the 2010 cycle, which did not feature a third-party candidate but did have a later primary. But at this same point in that 2010 campaign, incumbent Senator Barbara Mikulski had $1.8 million cash on hand to Eric Wargotz’s $466,000. Unfortunately, the contributions for the reporting period (which was shorter in this case) for Mikulski were about $290,000 while Eric’s campaign-to-date outside contributions were just short of $225,000. (He ended up with an overall total of about $266,000.)

Long story short: Dan Bongino has outraised (in one quarter) the entirety of Eric’s campaign by a 3:1 margin. Getting that national exposure has certainly helped make him more competitive.

Odds and ends number 61

I actually meant to do this post over the weekend, but real life intervened. I’m hoping the expanded version of items which are really too short to merit a full post but worth a couple paragraphs is more chock full of interesting because of it.

I stand with Dan. Do you?There is one item on my agenda that’s time-sensitive, so I’m going to fold it into an overall brief update on Dan Bongino’s U.S. Senate campaign.

Tomorrow (October 18) the Bongino campaign is doing a unique moneybomb event:

During our “Now or Never” event, you will be able to make donations designated specifically to get Dan’s campaign advertisements on radio, television and the Internet. These ads are a crucial part of our get-out-the-vote efforts and you will have the unique opportunity to choose the media outlet on which you wish to see the ads run. (Emphasis in original.)

So if you donate you get to choose. (I vote for advertising on this website. Is that an option?)

Unlike some others in the race, Dan’s campaign has been the closest to the grassroots and certainly has worn through the shoe leather. Regardless of the perception about where Dan stands in the polls, I think the voters’ brief flirtation with Rob Sobhani is coming to a close as they find out there’s not a lot of substance behind the sizzle.

I didn’t note this at the time, but since the Benghazi massacre is still in the news it’s noteworthy that Dan is among the chorus who thinks heads should roll:

I take no comfort in this, but Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice must resign in light of the Benghazi tragedy. It was a tragic failure in leadership.

He went on to decry the “current administration’s position that politics takes priority over security for our men and women in the foreign service.” Given the fact that Hillary Clinton now insists on taking full responsibility, it indeed behooves her to resign her post.

I’ve also found out that Dan will be in the area twice over the next couple weeks. On Thursday, October 25 he will be the beneficiary of a fundraiser here in Salisbury at the local GOP headquarters, tentatively scheduled from 6:30 – 8:30 p.m., and on Tuesday, October 30 the PACE group at Salisbury University is hosting a U.S. Senate debate in their Great Hall at 3 p.m. That’s sort of an unusual time to have an event such as that, but it is what it is.

And apparently Dan has had his fill of complaints from Sobhani about Rob’s debate exclusion. This comes from Dan’s Facebook page:

Regarding the debates schedule, there is no effort to keep the candidate out of the debates. His campaign is fabricating stories in an attempt to distract from his confusing platform… Any forum he was not included in was due to the fact that he was not invited by the host.

I’ve spoken to the campaign about this issue and any assertion that Dan doesn’t want Rob Sobhani in the debates is completely false.

Speaking of debates, this is one which just might be crazy enough to actually work.

Created by the TEA Party Express group, this is the debate where the moderators are conservative. Of course, none of the nominees or incumbents will actually participate – but in this era of YouTube and 24-hour media coverage, video is a wonderful thing. Honestly, it’s simply going to serve as a reminder of where candidates have said they stand on key issues ignored in the other debates.

The presidential debate for the rest of us.

But I don’t think these guys are going to play it as comedy, like taking single words and catchphrases carefully spliced together like a shock jock might. Given some of the names already announced as participating in the event, it may come down to being just as informative as the real thing – and in many cases, Barack Obama actually will get to have his teleprompter.

This event will occur next Tuesday night, October 23, at 9 p.m.

Following up on a post I did a few days ago on Protect Marriage Maryland endorsements, the group has added Fourth District Congressional candidate Faith Loudon to its preferred candidates. No real surprise there, and if it chips a few percentage points off an otherwise monolithic black vote for Donna Edwards, so much the better. Hopefully they’ll also vote against Question 6 as well.

Meanwhile, those who support Question 7 may have stepped into some hot water with this ad.

Now LaVar Arrington can do as he pleases, but FedEx is none too happy about their logo being prominently featured as part of the spot. Spokeswoman Maury Donahue said her company will review the ad, but they have no involvement in the issue.

But it appears the Washington Redskins do have a role, according to a Capital Gazette article questioning a $450,000 payment to the team just days before the ad was taped. It also gave Maryland Comptroller Peter Franchot, a Democrat and Question 7 opponent, an opening to remark on the team’s involvement:

As a ‘Skins fan, the Comptroller respectfully encourages them to focus on the important tasks at hand, such as protecting RG III, shoring up their kicking game and making sorely-needed improvements to one of the league’s lowest-ranked defenses.

I’d be more interested in what the NFL has to say considering their stance on gambling, and that’s likely why they had to choose a player who’s no longer active. Much as Arrington hates losing, he may well end up on the short end of the score November 6.

Unlike Questions 4, 6, and 7, which have seen a healthy amount of media coverage, Question 5 on redistricting has been the red-headed stepchild of the quartet. But State Senator E. J. Pipkin is trying to change that a little bit:

It’s just a little bit longer than a 30-second ad, which makes me wonder how many will see this video. But this makes a lot of sense considering the Maryland Democrats who put this together definitely flunked the “compact and contiguous” requirement.

But let’s not flunk the idea of protecting the vote. Election Integrity Maryland is holding one final poll watcher training session:

Election Integrity Maryland is offering its last Poll Watcher Training session before the election, on Wednesday, October 24 – Thursday, October 25.  This comprehensive, 1-1/2 hour course is taught via webinar from the comfort of your home computer from 7:30 – 8:15 each evening.

Registration is required.  The cost is $15, which includes a spiral bound Training Guide mailed to each participant.

Signup is here. Now I prefer to work outside the polling place in an attempt to change hearts and minds, but you can provide a valuable service to your fellow citizens in this way as well.

We know that the other side is ready to go (h/t Don Stifler):

Somewhere in Baltimore City, this sign and the occupants of this dwelling are lurking. We can fight back.

I’ll definitely occupy my vote this year, and you can bet your bottom dollar it won’t be for that failure named Barack Obama.

Finally, another requirement the Democrats in charge of Annapolis seem to be flunking is honesty in economic reporting. Instead of giving us the real news – which has been generally bad – they’re resorting to obfuscation. Jim Pettit at Change Maryland sent this along to me last week:

Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley recently hosted an Annapolis summit for advocates of what is called a “Genuine Progress Indicator.”  The national forum received scant media attention and the issue itself has largely been under the radar of most mainstream media outlets.

The impetus behind the Genuine Progress Indicator, or GPI movement, is to supplant traditional federal government statistics with new and arbitrary criteria that deducts what other government bureaucrats deem as environmental and social costs that accrue from prosperity.

(Read the rest here. They also have a helpful fact sheet.)

Maryland is one of two states which have enacted a form of this method of statistical legerdemain, as Vermont signed this into law earlier this year.

Obviously Larry Hogan and Change Maryland delight in being a thorn in Martin O’Malley’s side, but the real question is why this is even being considered in the first place. To me, it comes from the same line of thinking which believes rural development should be shelved in favor of promoting “greenways” and packing people into urban centers so they can “improve” our “quality of life.”

But regardless of every statistic which can be measured, there is no way government can insure happiness. To use a baseball analogy, even if a pitcher absolutely owns a hitter to the tune of the batter being 0-for-20 against him that’s no guarantee the next at-bat won’t produce a home run. The radical Left can disparage capitalism all they want, and I’ll admit it sometimes doesn’t work very well. But these mistakes can be easily rectified by the market, and there’s no need for government to intercede. GPI is just an excuse for a greater attempt to control outcomes, with the folly of believing in equality of outcome uppermost in their minds.

It all goes back to that old saw about lies, damned lies, and statistics. When it’s in someone’s vested interest to cook the books we all know what sort of trouble can ensue. But I don’t need numbers to see that people are hurting, and it’s not from capitalism but instead from the lack thereof.

Illegal alien Question 4 debated at Salisbury University

On Wednesday night, sliced in among the debate spin on the local news, you may have seen a few sound bites spliced out of the debate held by PACE at Salisbury University. The topic: in-state tuition for illegal aliens – and yes, “illegal aliens” is the correct legal term.

Moderator Fran Kane of PACE was flanked by four participants, two taking the side for Question 4 and two against. Both sides had a Delegate and an expert, with the pro-Question 4 side featuring Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez of Montgomery County and Kim Propeack of illegal alien advocates CASA de Maryland. The pair against Question 4 were Delegate Pat McDonough of Baltimore County and Bob Dane of FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

McDonough drew the opening statement for his side, making the case the debate is about another dream: the American dream. While Pat stated he was “firmly and vigorously pro-immigration,” he stated the case based on two principles: the rule of law and economic justice. Regarding the latter, “you will hear a lot of emotional and compassionate arguments” in favor of the law, but warned “you cannot govern a great nation on emotionalism.”

Bob Dane explained the purpose of FAIR, making the brash statement that “we don’t give a damn about business and their addiction to cheap immigrant labor.” The question before us, though, was one of whether to respect the rule of law or bend it to allow lawbreaking. “Being an illegal alien in Maryland is a pretty good proposition,” said Dane.

Speaking for the pro-illegal side, Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez called the ballot language (which was projected on a screen beside the participants) a “wonderful summary,” claiming “there’s a lot of misinformation out there.” The bill is similar to one vetoed by then-Governor Ehrlich in 2003, Gutierrez continued, and the law applies to those here “through no fault of their own” who graduated from a Maryland high school and enrolled in community college. Moreover, those taking advantage had to have parents who filed their taxes (she started to say “paid” but caught herself) and promised to apply for permanent residency afterward.

Propeack added that the out-of-state tuition was three times the expense, which had to be paid entirely out of pocket because illegals were ineligible for aid. “We can talk about the rule of law,” Propeack countered, “but this law is broken.” Kim went on to emphasize the “diversity of support” the law had; everyone from CASA de Maryland (a “worker justice organization,” as she described it) to the unions which supported the Maryland DREAM Act “without exception.” Even 25 high schools around the state filled with what Kim referred to as “DREAMers” were supporting the ballot issue as well as a row seated within the audience.

At this point, the questions solicited from the audience were asked. It was a little muddled because Kane chose to combine a lot of specific questions into ones which were more broad.

The first question was actually covered in an opening statement, as it asked about financial aid. Gutierrez repeated that illegals weren’t eligible for aid, while Propeack added that those in Guatemala don’t have an in-state option like a Maryland college.

On the other hand, McDonough posited that the discount, which adds up to about $40,000 per student, “doesn’t come out of thin air.” The illegals displaced American students, and if 1,000 students took advantage it would cost the state $40 million per year.

This actually segued well with the next question about economic impact, where Dane asserted if we pass the DREAM Act, it’s only a matter of time before we end up in the same boat as California. It’s an “incentive for more illegal immigration,” Dane said.

Delegate Gutierrez countered that “education is our best investment” and that these students would have an opportunity to become professionals. The illegal population pays $52 million in taxes annually, added Propeack.

When asked about the Obama amnesty, Gutierrez called it an “incredible benefit.” 1.7 million can take advantage of the executive order, with 30,000 of those in Maryland. But there was no legal obligation to become a citizen, countered Dane. Instead, the DREAM Act excuses parents from their responsibility and “one amnesty benefit fuels another round of illegal immigration,” said the FAIR representative.

McDonough also remarked on the subject, reminding the audience that there was no pathway to citizenship yet established for these students.

Propeack responded by saying the impact in California, a state where the DREAM Act is already in effect, has been “very, very small.”

“This is not an immigration bill, it is an education bill,” she added.

In that same vein, answering the next question, Kim asserted that the community colleges could accommodate the students; in fact, the Maryland Association of Community Colleges is the bill’s “strongest supporter.”

Yet Dane claimed that 10 years of illegal immigration in Maryland had seen $32 billion sent away to the various homelands claimed by these workers. And with 30,000 potential students affected by the bill, Dane called it a “falsity that (community colleges) are open enrollment schools.” If they are underfunded it affects access. Moreover, “there has to be a higher principle,” said Bob.

Someone asked why it was important to be a citizen. McDonough said “the most important thing to an American is citizenship.” His fellow Delegate Gutierrez made the more emotional appeal – an immigrant herself, she told us “I would not be here as a citizen under the current laws…now we’ve closed the door.” Propeack made the statement that the law had “nothing to do with status, but the value of education.”

Finally, they were asked whether the state law would violate federal law. Propeack said the issue has been litigated and doesn’t violate federal law. But Dane disagreed, calling the Obama executive order “illegitimate, unconstitutional, and a breach of the separation of powers…the most corrupt use of a social policy.” We allow more immigration than any other country, Dane added. McDonough restated his belief that America needs to reform our immigration policy.

There was a question I had regarding how the veterans were added to the bill. Pat McDonough said that portion was actually introduced as a standalone bill, with the measure then “filled with feelgood stuff that doesn’t really matter.” That’s what I figured.

Each participant made a closing statement.

“The law will win or lose, depending on how you vote,” said Bob Dane. “The glue that holds us together…is the law.” Bob went on to say that “Maryland is heading in the wrong direction,” and concluded “the DREAM Act is an amnesty benefit…parents should not be absolved of lawbreaking.”

“You can’t be like the President and circumvent the law,” said Delegate McDonough. “There are a lot of emotional arguments…you must look at the facts” and not the “Pinocchio language” of the bill. “This is not a Disneyland for illegal aliens,” said Pat.

Delegate Gutierrez repeated her claim that “this bill does not violate any laws.” It showed the pendulum was swinging away from a “strong anti-immigrant climate.” Fairness and tolerance was “intrinsic” in the bill, said Gutierrez.

In her final remarks, Propeack quoted the president of the University of Maryland who stated “the American dream belongs to all of us, or none of us.”

The participants posed for a picture afterward. No, we did not have President Obama.

As predicted by McDonough, the side in favor of Question 4 mainly stuck to an emotional appeal, forgetting that these students will cost taxpayers real money the state doesn’t have. It’s true that we need to reform immigration laws, but this is not the direction immigration law should do as it rewards lawbreakers while putting those who did things the correct way at a disadvantage.

I thought this table of literature for support was interesting as well.

I tried to get a photo of the red bumper stickers up close, but my attempts wouldn’t come out. The reason these were fascinating was the authority line, telling me the stickers were paid for out of Delegate Gutierrez’s campaign funds.

Of course, the next question which will be considered at Salisbury University also depends greatly on emotional appeal for passage.

That forum promises to bring a full house, one likely filled with every local LGBT activist that can show up.

Study: states drowning in debt, too

Sometimes things just fall into my lap and last night was one case. First was this study from State Budget Solutions which concluded:

Americans are sadly desensitized to the trillions of dollars in debt our states are facing. This report brings the debt closer to home by demonstrating that a newborn arrives already more than $13,000 in debt and that a family of four owes their state government $53,700,” said Bob Williams, President of State Budget Solutions. “It is the individuals and families who will ultimately bear this horrific financial burden if state governments do not get their budgets under control.”

The report is an extension of State Budget Solutions’ third annual State Debt Report, released in August showing that state governments face a crushing debt of more than $4.6 trillion. The analysis of debt per person looks at state debt per capita, per private sector employee, and the percentage of private sector gross state product (GSP). In each of the three categories, Hawaii, New Jersey, and Alaska are among states with the five largest debt figures. At the other end of the spectrum, Nebraska has the lowest total in each of the areas.

The largest per capita debt figure for all 50 states is Alaska, where each person’s share of their state’s debt stands at $31,141. New Jersey, Hawaii, Connecticut, and Illinois make up the top five states with the highest per capita share of the state debt.

Nebraska has the lowest total debt per capita at just $4,249 for each resident. Tennessee, Indiana, Florida, and Idaho round out the lowest five debt levels per capita.

Surprisingly – to me at least – Maryland was only 18th in per capita debt, coming in just a shade above the national average. But a recent vote by the state’s Capital Debt Affordability Committee might bump up Maryland’s ranking, according to fiscally conservative advocates Change Maryland. Larry Hogan, Chairman of Change Maryland, takes it from here:

“The O’Malley Administration proved to everyone that with more revenues, come more spending.  In their view, a debt-induced spending binge will somehow create thousands of jobs, the estimates of which are pulled out of thin air.  This spending will do nothing for struggling Marylanders looking for work, nor will it improve our state’s dismal record in job creation.”

Noting that Comptroller Peter Franchot was the lone dissenter in the Capital Debt Affordability Committee’s 4 to 1 vote, which raised debt spending to $1.1 billion, Hogan said the split within the Democratic Party’s governing machine shows the arrogance of the current Administration.

“When our top elected official in charge of state revenue collections sounds the alarm about out of control spending, and the snooze button is hit yet again, it shows the current regime just doesn’t get it,” Hogan added.

The most recent 2012 National Governor’s Association report on state budgets shows Maryland’s general fund spending has increased 15.5%, three times the national average, and the highest in the region between fiscal years 2011 and 2013.

Taxes and fees have been raised 24 times since 2007, removing an additional $2.4 billion annually from the state economy.

“We have a spend first, ask questions later approach to governing,” said Hogan.  “Far from moving Maryland forward, O’Malley’s record tax hikes, record spending and more debt has thrown us into reverse and put our state in a ditch.”

It’s very interesting to note as well that the lone dissenting vote was Peter Franchot, our Democratic Comptroller who seems to be staking out the most fiscally conservative position (by far) among the leading contenders on the Democratic side for Governor in 2014. He could well be Larry Hogan’s opponent if Hogan chooses to run for and wins the GOP nomination. According to the Maryland Reporter website, the vote continued Franchot’s  “long-running but losing battle against what he sees as overspending in the face of a sluggish economic growth.”

(By the way, included in that bonding is $104 million for a new library at Salisbury University. This was literally a last-minute addition to this year’s bond bill.)

But if you add the $4.6 trillion state indebtedness to the $16 trillion (and counting) our federal government finds itself short, we’re now staring at $20 trillion. For every person in the WORLD (not just America, but the whole globe) that’s about $3,000 just for us, not anyone else’s debt. In dozens of countries around the globe the annual income is less than that indebtedness.

Of course, those who argue for adding millions to our state debt couch the argument as one of job creation. But what about future generations? Money spent covering the debt of the past loses a step in the economy – it’s sort of like the old “broken window” theory in that you’re creating a task but not creating more wealth through it. Yes, some bondholder is receiving money but no other production ensues in the transaction. On the other hand, keeping that money in the private sector would have provided an opportunity for general improvement both at the time the bond was sold and when it was redeemed.

Maryland never seems to learn that lesson, though. Instead they just keep chasing their tail through extracting more of a share of our incomes and consumption in order to redistribute it to favored groups and constituencies which can provide them votes. We need to get away from that vicious cycle.

Update: Don’t miss the link from Marc Kilmer in the comments, either.

2012 campaign comes to Salisbury as Gingrich gives a ‘different’ speech

The line stretched outside Holloway Hall at Salisbury University. It’s not often you can be up close and personal with a presidential candidate.

They were lined up an hour early at Holloway Hall at Salisbury University to witness a little history – for the first time in recent memory the presidential campaign came to the lower Eastern Shore.

And true to the advice given by one university official who stressed the school wanted to promote “critical thinking” without heckling or other inappropriate disruptions, the audience of about 200 inside the hall was very well-behaved. The parents of these SU students should be quite proud of how their charges acted inside the hall. Once the question-and-answer period began it was obvious that not all in the room shared Gingrich’s worldview but the discussion was extremely civil.

Thanks to SU College Republican president Nikki Hovercamp for the invitation.

However, I’m getting a little ahead of myself. First I’d like to thank Nikki Hovercamp of the Salisbury College Republicans for getting me into the event, because even the local Central Committee was taken by surprise with the announcement. She had the distinct honor of introducing the candidate.

(I tried four times to catch her with eyes on the audience but these old fingers are too slow.)

Gingrich walked in to a thunderous ovation, and after praising the Salisbury Zoo (which he had the opportunity to visit, saying “I have a passion for dropping by zoos whenever I can”) he revealed a little-known fact: one could consider Salisbury University the birthplace of the Contract With America, as House Republicans held a retreat here in early 1994. Newt went on to claim that Republicans won “because we were positive” and the net gain of 10 million votes gave the GOP the largest off-year gain up to that point.

While the Contract was successful as a “management document” it also provided them a guideline for what to do when they assumed power. Newt reminded us there was no “institutional memory” for House Republicans, as none had ever served in the majority.

I have to say it was an unusual point from which to begin a campaign appearance, but Newt told us that this would be “a different talk.” This speech would serve as part of an overall statement in the academic setting to be expanded on tomorrow at Georgetown University, Gingrich announced.

“I have been trying to wrestle with what I have not been able to communicate,” continued Newt, bemoaning the fact that during the campaign “I got sucked into normal politics, which is frankly…a waste of time.” The two challenges he wanted to address were, first, the core nature of this country, with American civilization being “profoundly different than other models around the world,” and, second, the “role of innovation in meeting challenges in creating a successful 21st century America.”

Regarding the first point, Newt went into an explanation of “the American Experience,” reached back to the Founding Fathers to remind us their first complaint was taxation without representation, but the second was judges. He recalled Hamilton saying the judiciary branch would be the weakest part of government, but now we’re at a point where the future could depend on “where one lawyer could reinterpret the Constitution based on a whim.” Obama is the personification of the opposite school of thought, said Newt.

He spent the bulk of his time expanding on the second point. “There is no reason for this country to have any significant problems,” Newt continued. Instead, the blame lay on a “really bad governing structure and a really incompetent bureaucratic system.”

There were two sides to this coin, with the “world of innovation” going up against the federal government. Newt joked we could easily find all 11 million illegal aliens by simply sending them a package via UPS or FedEx and tracking them from there. American Express, VISA, and Mastercard can validate you’re charging something in real time while Medicare and Medicaid are being “run by paper-based bureaucrats from 9 to 5 who are trying to keep up with crooks who use iPads 24 hours a day.” The point was fraud and waste could be eliminated, but the problem was administrations of both parties being “impervious to new ideas.”

The presidential candidate makes a point.

Newt also defended his idea that we should go back into space, despite ridicule by his opponents and the media. Using the Wright Brothers and their 500 crashed test flights over five years as an example of private incentive, Gingrich said “I want to go back into space.” He believed that we use “a fairly large amount of NASA’s money” to create prizes as rewards for innovation. “Quit studying things and start doing them,” said Newt.

Energy was another key theme of Newt’s speech, as he spoke about the trucking industry’s conversion to natural gas, drilling for more of our own energy needs, and weaning our dependence off Middle Eastern oil. The bounty of natural gas “blows apart an idea some of you heard in class called ‘peak oil’,” continued the former Speaker. President Obama was being “plain factual false” when he said we had just 2 percent of the world’s oil supply, stated Gingrich. “Under my plan it might be harder to get to $2.50,” Gingrich said later when asked about the prospect of Iranian trouble, “but under Obama you’d get to $10.”

With the energy independence “revolution,” Newt went on, “(Other countries have) to worry about the Straits of Hormuz – we don’t.” We could even pay off our debt simply based on oil and natural gas royalties, which Gingrich claimed could run $16 to $18 trillion.

Other ideas Gingrich bounced off the audience were replacing the civil service system with a Lean Six Sigma approach, which would “accelerate the capability of government dramatically,” and privatizing the Social Security system, perhaps on a Chilean model. “Nobody dictates when you retire” under such a model, Gingrich added.

But another focus we need to create is one on “brain science,” combating diseases like Alzheimer’s, autism, Parkinson’s, and other mental illnesses. “Trillions” could be saved if we improve the research to “fix it rather than just take care of it.”

“If you take the most modern things available,” concluded Newt, “we would pull away from the Chinese just as decisively as 40 to 50 years ago, we pulled away from the Russians.” We have to “fundamentally overhaul” the government, but both parties are failing in this.

Like any good lecturer, Newt was kind enough to take questions from the audience, and I sensed many of those asking were across the political spectrum from the GOP hopeful. For example, the first questioner asked whether Gingrich backed a nuclear-free zone for the Middle East. “No,” he curtly said, because it would be a threat toward Israel.

Another questioner asked about cap-and-trade which he claimed Newt backed in 2007. But Gingrich cited a much smaller program limited to sulfuric acid and certain utilities that Congress approved under the Clean Air Act, and said that to jump from such a program to controlling all the carbon in the United States “is an absurdity.”

“I testified against cap and trade the same day Al Gore testified in favor it,” said Newt.

On his previous opposition to women in combat and ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ Gingrich believed we should defer to the command officers. But they would be disinclined to speak in public over their objection, added Gingrich, for fear of being “retired summarily.”

“If I become the nominee (and Obama doesn’t agree to seven three-hour debates) I will let the White House be my scheduler and wherever he speaks I would rebut his speech four hours later.” This was in reference to a question about debating President Obama. I liked that concept.

Regarding the “decaying dollar”, Newt vowed if elected to ask Congress to fire Ben Bernanke if he didn’t resign before Newt was sworn in. Gingrich also pledged to audit the Federal Reserve, which drew a smattering of applause. “We deserve to know who got the money and why,” Newt said.

Of course someone asked about student loans. Newt wasn’t going to change what students owe, but instead help to create jobs. “My goal is to get you to have the ability to have a good job,” he commented, but continued on, “I would urge all of you to rethink this whole student loan game.” By only borrowing the minimum required for schooling and not thinking of it as “free money” they could help themselves down the road. He used the College of the Ozarks as an example, where work pays for books, room, and board. “92 percent of those students graduate owing zero,” claimed Newt.

Was Obama “weak on terrorism” if he killed Osama bin Laden? he was asked. “You cannot explain (terrorism) unless you confront the problem of radical Islam,” Gingrich answered. Even when another student countered with the requisite Timothy McVeigh example, it was still “99 point something percent” of the problem.

And energy independence meant we wouldn’t tolerate Saudi threats. But Obama “lost the chance” to do something about the Iranian dictatorship and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and he blasted the President for apologizing to Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan. “If I were the Commander-in-Chief I would never apologize to people who are killing young Americans,” Gingrich railed, “but that is exactly what we did three weeks ago, and the apology wasn’t warranted.”

Once Gingrich finished his 50-minute presentation, he met with a very fortunate group of Salisbury University College Republicans; meanwhile I stepped outside to see if the media presence looked like it did on the inside.

There was quite the media presence inside Holloway Hall.

It was pretty busy outside too. Here’s one young lady being interviewed by Channel 47.

Being interviewed by a local television station.

When I took that picture there was a print reporter on the other side of me; suffice to say we were getting plenty of reaction. It’s interesting to note that reportedly Gingrich lost his print reporter following but there was a solid sampling of media present.

So what did I think of the speech?

There was a lot to like in what Gingrich said, particularly in terms of the War on Terror, but there is a fundamental difference in the way I see his approach and my impression of straight-line conservatism and limited government. Look at all the things Gingrich would like to do involving the federal government – yes, he speaks about streamlining it but in the end the government is still there, still too powerful for our own good.

I was struck by the fact Newt talked about the fact one imposes discipline on Washington because they can’t do it themselves, but I don’t think he gets it that discipline isn’t just about spending but about curtailing federal power as well. Yes, having a prize for space-related activities is nice but we see what happened when the Department of Energy decided a $50 LED light bulb was “affordable.” There’s no guarantee that a Department of Environmental Solutions won’t eventually devolve to the same behemoth we have with the EPA.

But it’s interesting that, at this late stage in a campaign reduced to cheering upon staying out of the fourth-place basement, Newt is returning to his roots in a way. And when he spoke about never seeing four wolves howling at the same time as he did during his trip to the Salisbury Zoo today, that incident seemed to me a metaphor for how the GOP race should have been run – this pack should be howling about Obama instead of snapping at each other’s heels. In this stop Gingrich went back to his original theme of being solution-oriented and positive, barely mentioning his GOP opponents save on a couple occasions.

Of course, what put his campaign on the map for the brief time he was considered the top threat to the “invincible” Mitt Romney was his performance in the South Carolina debates, where he savaged the media and seized his own narrative for a few days – only to be destroyed by a barrage of negative ads from PACs affiliated with Mitt Romney in Florida. (Those same entities have set their sights on destroying Rick Santorum now, as Newt is barely a memory in the race.) It’s unfortunate that Newt couldn’t maintain his campaign on the comfort level he seemed to have today, holding 200 students and observers in the palm of his hand while he made his points.

In this moment it seems like Newt has practically abandoned his 2012 Presidential plans and now wants to return to being a teacher. While a younger generation of voters may or may not push the X next to Newt’s name this coming Tuesday, I’m hoping they learned the lesson of critical thinking the Salisbury University official stressed prior to the event. Isn’t that what college is for?

It will be interesting to see how Gingrich expands his topics tomorrow, but today may have been the start of the post-Presidential Newt Gingrich. Just by invoking the memory of his political salad days two decades ago, we were reminded that Newt was great at getting to the top. His problem was staying there.

Update: Robert Stacy McCain calls this period the “campaign death watch” for Newt. But Gingrich said in the remarks he was going to Tampa.

Gingrich to make SU appearance

Well, the Presidential campaign comes to the Eastern Shore – but you need to be a member of the SU campus community to see him.

Taking a page from fellow competitor Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich will be appearing at Holloway Hall tomorrow afternoon from 3 to 4 p.m. However, the event is closed to the general public as it’s only open to those with campus ID.

More as the story develops…

Update: I managed to talk my way into the event through a friend, so a full report tonight.

Fight the power

It’s late notice to be sure – and that was probably intentional – but Senator Ben Cardin is holding a Medicare and Social Security Forum TONIGHT (Thursday) at 7 p.m. in the Worcester Room of Salisbury University’s Commons.

The reason I say this omission was intentional is that the TEA Party wasn’t exactly welcomed at the last event, nor is this meeting on Ben’s public schedule insofar as I can tell. But in order to get a full hearing and not just something from a relatively pre-selected crowd, it might be a good idea for the younger generation to attend as well – after all, we’re paying for seniors’ health care and Social Security.

While the protest outside may or may not occur, getting the right people inside may open a few eyes.

 

‘Kids’ who care

I don’t use the term in my title to be condescending, but the young whippersnappers over at The Other Salisbury News have taken a break from bashing the Camden contingent on Salisbury City Council (not that they don’t deserve it from time to time) and decided to attempt to begin some constructive dialogue on the city’s future. By gosh, they would like to stay and make a go of it in this fair city of ours after they graduate from Salisbury University, and I commend that thought.

Dubbing their effort ‘Operation S.S.F.I.‘ the crew at TOSN are beginning a multiphase project of kicking around ideas for the city’s improvement. (Perhaps they should see about what would attract these young entrepreneurs to the city as their own project matures and grows.)

Step one is a discussion of downtown Salisbury, and while I don’t want to make this a particularly lengthy post (after all, they deserve the dialogue and the readership for bringing the idea to the fore) I think I should note that there’s already plans which have been made and discarded about renovating the area. After all, creating the pedestrian plaza was one remedy for a downtown which saw its fortunes decline after the Salisbury Mall opened in the late 1960s – just as happened in thousands of other downtowns, big and small. (In my hometown this happened about 10 years earlier, but it’s a bigger city.)

The success of ‘Third Friday’ has been mentioned in other venues, and many have wondered why that couldn’t be replicated on a more regular basis. But what is attractive about Third Friday is its uniqueness as a date – just because once a month works, that doesn’t necessarily mean you can do it every weekend or even twice a month. If you had it 52 times a year instead of 12, the concept would cease to work after perhaps a year or so.

The key is mixing uses and making downtown a place to live, work, and shop. Unfortunately, old buildings don’t lend themselves to becoming a Walmart and people desire that sort of convenience, so tradeoffs have to be made. We don’t have nearly the urban density to be an area where a car is unnecessary, but we could do a better job of creating residential space where cars can be placed out of sight, with access to parking off alleys. It’s not to say a convenience store couldn’t work, although the crime issue needs to be addressed as well.

It goes without saying there also needs to be a toolkit for job creation – not just downtown, but throughout the city. People who live downtown need a job, and if it happens to be downtown, great. (My newest advertiser just opened up a business there – hopefully it will create a job or two.) But it’s not necessary for downtown’s prosperity because there’s already plenty of jobs down there from 9 to 5. The harder part is livening the place up the other 16 hours a day.

Things which would tend to draw young, single people downtown as residents are affordable housing and a thriving after-hours entertainment district. Salisbury’s downtown already has elements of both, but not enough to be a critical mass. The trick is figuring out how to make it cool to live downtown and not risky (as in taking your life into your hands venturing home after a night at the club.)

Wow. I went over 500 words in placing my two cents into the kettle. While you’re free to comment here, perhaps the discussion should migrate to their site.

Dinner fundraiser for the troops slated

They always say ‘freedom isn’t free’ but sometimes a good cause needs a helping hand.

That will be the case tomorrow evening as the Salisbury University Military Student and Veterans Club hosts a Spaghetti Dinner fundraiser at the Salisbury VFW, 821 East William Street in Salisbury. It will run from 5:30 t0 8:00.

A $6 donation is requested, with $5 going to defray the cost of care packages for deployed troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. (The organizers also ask that if you have a family member serving in those areas to contact them about arranging for the delivery of a care package.)

To attend or make a donation otherwise contact Jason Hillestad: jh80596 (at) gulls.salisbury.edu. Jason is a returning veteran who came to SU after multiple tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan so he’s trying to help his buddies out. He reminded me that anyone is welcome and they are only about halfway to their goal of 100 or more tickets sold.

While I can’t be there because of a family commitment, I encourage anyone else reading this to take the time and help a good cause. There’s always room on my site for pro-troop causes.

Ehrlich makes visit to SU, boosts Republicans

Taking a tone more like a speech to graduates than a campaign appearance (such as this one in April), Republican candidate for Governor Bob Ehrlich stopped by Salisbury University this afternoon to several dozen supporters, mainly from SU’s College Republican group.

Bob was credited with getting the Perdue School of Business going under his watch by CR President Matt Teffeau in his introduction, and Bob remarked how his first visit to the school came as the result of a high school football All-Star game. “I lived on the campus for two weeks…in the dorms,” he recalled. Bob considered SU “a hot school” and congratulated those attending for getting in.

(continued, with a slideshow, on my Examiner.com page…)

The off-season just got 10 days shorter!!

Great news on the Shorebirds front for baseball-starved fans like me! While the official press release is here, I can perhaps fill you in on some other things to expect.

This game will be a seven-inning exhibition game, and most likely Delmarva manager Ryan Minor will be trying to get everyone into the contest (with the possible exception of his Opening Day starting pitcher, although it depends on how pitching coach Troy Mattes handles side throwing.) It may even mean teammates facing each other as the game progresses.

The hope for this game is that it becomes an annual event, as Shorebirds General Manager Chris Bitters has worked for three seasons to get these teams together. It also provides a good dry run for the staff based on the crowd expected opening night, as concession stands will be open just as they would during a normal Shorebirds game.

Of course, the little bit of lagniappe is that the Salisbury University Seagulls are ranked among the top teams in Division III, and who knows? Maybe a select few will get a taste of what the pro ranks are like for their future reference.

Besides the game itself, though, my favorite part is getting to know the Shorebird players and having the chance to get pictures for Shorebird of the Week! (Yes, that’s coming April 8th to a website near you.) So I encourage you to come out and take advantage of the opportunity of getting a sneak peek at the 2010 Shorebirds!

Now, we just have to hope the weather cooperates.