Michael

More observations on the RNC races

As I mentioned the other day we had our quad-county meeting earlier this week, where the members of the four Lower Shore GOP Central Committees (Wicomico, Worcester, Somerset, and Dorchester) get together to discuss issues and find common ground. For the most part, this meeting (ably ran by John McCullough of Dorchester County) focused on the upcoming Spring Convention, including what was supposed to be a frank discussion of the two National Committee races.

In the runup to the meeting, we debated whether we should invite the candidates to speak or not. Three of the four county chairs decided to say no, while the other was neutral on the issue. Because of that consensus, none of the hopefuls was invited to speak; however Audrey Scott got her “wires crossed” in the words of McCullough and showed up anyway. It created an awkward scene where we had to have her leave the room so an open discussion could take place.

But before she left, she made sure to tell everyone not to believe what was read on this site. And while she was careful not to single me or my site out by name, I must say that I will abide a lot of things because I bend over backwards to be fair but I will not be called a liar. In fact, I have taken steps to have the information I was provided by several reliable sources disproved and if I find out it is so I will make the correction. As of this writing I’m awaiting the confirmation, after asking a person I frankly thought she threw under the bus when the subject was brought up.

Unfortunately for Audrey, some of her more fervent supporters adopted the same condescending tone Audrey adopted when she discussed what’s been said about her in the campaign. This was especially apparent when one (female) backer wondered aloud if Nicolee Ambrose could handle the position while having a family, ignoring the fact that many women who serve in politics already do so quite well. These supporters as a group believed Audrey’s experience sets her apart, and I won’t deny she’s experienced. But that’s not what the position needs at this time; instead it needs bold leadership and frankly I feel Audrey Scott will treat the post like a retirement gift from a grateful party.

And then we have several points brought up by quad-county members about Audrey’s actions: the Rule 11 controversy, attendance at the rally supporting the gas tax and her weak retort that she only attended the rally to support a bill to keep the Transportation Trust Fund from being raided, and of course the “unelectable” Roscoe Bartlett comment. I found it fascinating as well that, just hours after Roscoe announced his support of Nicolee Ambrose in the NCW race, Audrey Scott slapped up her own grainy picture with Bartlett, taken at the Montgomery County Lincoln Day Dinner last Friday. She also rehashed the “let’s get behind our nominees” mea culpa but the damage has been done.

I also found out, in speaking to some of those attending, that at least two of them who are listed as supporters of Audrey Scott have no intention of voting for her. Of course, Audrey mentioned she would be happy to remove any names from the list but who wants to ask about something like that? It’s almost embarrassing, but more importantly these admissions chip away at her facade of support she’s attempting to build.

Compared to the NCW discussion, the contest between Scott Shaffer and Louis Pope was rather mild. There were some who wanted the change and some who didn’t, but for the most part neither drew many negative remarks.

But I wanted to bring up something I was told today, as a letter from Louis Pope arrived in my mailbox. It proves one thing that Scott Shaffer brought up earlier this week and that I wasn’t sure of: Pope is indeed sending out re-election items paid for by the RNC (at least the stationery is, and presumably postage too.)

I’m not worried about the couple hundred dollars which the RNC may be giving to Pope for his re-election (although it is an important item to point out) as much as I’m interested in this line that Pope wrote:

Over the last decade I have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for MDGOP and our local and statewide candidates here in Maryland, as well as presidential candidates.

I’ll take that at face value, particularly since Pope has led fundraising seminars in the past and has several entries on his political resume regarding fundraising for Bob Ehrlich, Michael Steele, and George W. Bush. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in a decade seems like a realistic amount.

Yet Audrey Scott claimed to raise $1.5 million for the MDGOP along with $1 million from the RNC for Victory Centers, all in the one year she was Chair. I’d be glad to believe that if the numbers were there, but as I dissected them last Sunday they are not. But even if she did, I quite frankly believe that her presence at the quad county meeting may have lost her more votes than she gained, particularly when the Allen West fundraiser that Nicolee Ambrose helped to organize was described in glowing terms. I don’t think MDGOP fundraising would suffer under Nicolee, particularly if she can bring those kinds of personalities to the state.

Out of a two-hour meeting, we spent well over an hour going back and forth about the National Committeewoman race. To me that points out the distinction between the two candidates, and I’ll be quite interested to see how the votes come out from the four counties involved in the quad-county meeting. Our votes may not mean a lot but they have to be earned, and coming down to attend a meeting where her opponent obeyed a specific request not to show up gives me the impression that Audrey Scott believes she’s entitled to be National Committeewoman because she’s served in the Republican Party at a high level for a long time.

I don’t believe in entitlements. I believe we need a leader, and Audrey Scott isn’t translating the success she had as Chair into a good campaign for National Committeewoman.

Free (if politically incorrect) speech

It’s billed as a non-political event, but something tells me that they’re not going to sit around sipping on Coca-Cola.

I got the invitation from Robert Broadus, who will be a speaker at the Take Back Maryland Rally on Saturday in Federalsburg. It’s organized by a group I was heretofore unfamiliar with called the League of the South, and I’ll get to them in a little bit.

First of all, the topics seem quite interesting: during the three-hour Saturday afternoon event, Broadus will speak on “Defending Marriage in the Old Line State,” State Senator Rich Colburn talks about “A 51st State: Partitioning ‘Red’ Maryland from ‘Blue’ Maryland,” and David Whitney of the Institute of the Constitution pondering “Is the 14th Amendment Legal?” All seem like intriguing topics worth listening to, particularly since they don’t seem to come from an orthodox point of view in Maryland.

The sponsoring organization bills itself as maintaining the spirit of the Confederacy, noting “We seek to advance the cultural, social, economic, and political well-being and independence of the Southern people by all honourable means.” Obviously this brings up the familiar images of the rebel flag, white-hooded Ku Klux Klan members, and separate but equal facilities. And of course we’ve already fought one War Between the States that their side lost.

Still, if you ignore the racial portion of the equation (as Broadus is apparently doing, since he is a black man) there are some aspects of Southern life which could stand a revival. A couple in particular are the restoration of state’s rights and the Southern emphasis on family and community – the definition of which comes from achieving the greater good through local, privately-based efforts rather than a government program. Taken in that context, the selection of speakers makes a lot of sense.

Without question, this will be the kind of event that liberals fall over themselves condemning because they see almost everything through a lens of perceived racism. But the League of the South contends (and I think to a significant extent rightfully so) that southern Maryland, the Eastern Shore, and lower Delaware are bastions of the old South trapped inside northern states; on the other hand portions of Confederate states like Florida and Texas are no longer “southern” as they define it because of Yankee and Latino influences.

And while there isn’t a shooting war going on between the blue and the gray, there’s no denying we have a cultural and social war going on between the principles being stood for by the League of the South and ideologically similar, socially conservative and even libertarian groups versus those promulgated by their perception of government policy and the influence of Hollywood and the mainstream media.

Just witness the GOP Presidential primary schedule – Mitt Romney didn’t win any states in the Deep South except Florida, and Florida was won only because Romney carried the urban areas. The northern tier of the state and panhandle was Gingrich country, as was Newt’s adopted home state of Georgia and South Carolina. Rick Santorum carried Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Tennessee during his Presidential bid.

They didn’t call the South the Bible Belt for nothing, and over the last many decades it’s been Hollywood’s task to sell the idea of Southerners as white trash while government enforces policies which many evangelicals in the South disagree with. Yet Southerners are proportionally more likely to fight and die for their country.

But I guarantee that some of those who read this article are going to shake their head and think to themselves that these speakers are making a mistake appearing before such a group, one which believes the South should rise again and eventually secede from the rest of the Union. I have news for them: we already live in a polarized and divided nation, made so because it benefits certain people and groups at the expense of the rest of us. We don’t have to agree with everything the League of the South says, but we should give it the respect due any other group of citizens who have a political or social view to express. A country which allows both the hatred of Fred Phelps and the perversion of the Folsom Street Fair (just Google both, I’m not linking) definitely should make room for a group advocating a return to the better points of tradition.

Colombia scandal closer to home

The latest news sensation blown up by the need for content to serve the master of a 24/7/365 media, the Colombia Secret Service scandal has many of the ingredients of a juicy tale, with sex and celebrity among them.

But it’s also ensnared a collateral victim in all this, as recently nominated U.S. Senate candidate Dan Bongino is a former Secret Service agent who apparently knew some of those involved. Needless to say, those on the Left have been quick to tar him with the same brush and Bongino has responded:

With regard to the ongoing investigation into the activities of a group of Secret Service Agents in Colombia, I have chosen to defend the agency publicly & will continue to do so. I will not defend the abhorrent choices made by the individuals involved as they have tarnished the reputations of an elite group of men & women I am proud to call friends. I have been clear from the beginning both publicly & privately that I had close personal relationships with those involved but out of respect for their families, I adamantly refused to release their names. A left wing media outlet intentionally leaked the name of my brother without the surrounding facts. ALL of those involved, without exception, pursuant to a thorough investigation, must be held responsible for their choices. Integrity and leadership matter.

Already several of those involved have faced punishment or termination from the Secret Service, but if you look at this in a political sense this is a needless distraction in a race already made an uphill climb by Ben Cardin’s financial advantage – David Moon of Maryland Juice mocks Dan, writing that Bongino has “dustballs in (his campaign) wallet” while bragging about Ben Cardin’s millions in the bank. (Living in a high-tax Democratic state too many of the rest of us working Marylanders have dustballs in our wallets too, David.)

Now I’m not paranoid enough to see this as a conspiracy against a single Senatorial candidate in a race that’s really not on the national radar screen yet, but this sort of attention is going to be detrimental to Bongino until it clears its way off the front pages for the next scandal. This is true even though Bongino left the Secret Service nearly a year ago, when he began his campaign.

Instead, the campaign should be reset – even if some of us have to force the agenda in that direction – to speak about the real issues. Let’s look at a Facebook statement Bongino made Monday, for example:

It’s time to have a genuine conversation about what the administration refers to as “fairness”. What is “fair” about a limitless spending agenda which places untold burdens on my children? What is “fair” about a tax code written by insiders, paid for by insiders and benefiting insiders and their political acolytes? What is “fair” about telling parents just looking for a fair shot that education is the govt’s choice and not their’s? This is a conversation, we as Republicans, should embrace.

Ben Cardin supports all these things: the escalating spending, the tax code cronyism, the blind throwing of money at a dysfunctional public education system; above all, it’s all about preserving political power and he’s played that game at a variety of levels for 45 long years.

The early April primary makes the campaign a marathon – with just a small fraction of the voters casting their ballots most haven’t gotten into the political frame of mind yet and probably won’t do so until the national conventions later this summer. So the scandal comes at a good time insofar as Dan is concerned because it will be forgotten by this fall, but it also takes just that little bit away from the movement building we’ll need to oust an entrenched incumbent.

A new entry

As I alluded to the other day, I found out about this last week but waited until the person in question made it official. Two-time Salisbury City Council candidate Muir Boda is throwing his hat into the Congressional race under the Libertarian banner:

I have been asked by the Chair of the Maryland Libertarian Party to consider seeking the Libertarian nomination for Congress in the 1st District of Maryland. After much prayer, talking with Dr. Richard Davis and discussing it with my family, I have decided to seek the nomination. This is a couple years ahead of schedule on my political calendar, however the opportunity to represent my party and to be a part of the debate on the direction of our country is an honor and a duty that would be a disservice to my country if I turned it down.

(snip)

I am currently planning to have my Statement of Organization paperwork to the State Board of Elections by the end of May if the Central Committee meets before then. In preparation for that I am diligently working on my website and meeting with people who have expressed interest in serving on my campaign.

Like each of you, I am deeply concerned about the near future of our country. The National Debt, failed immigration policies, out of control government regulations, budget reform and tax reform are going to be the central focus of my campaign.

I look forward to sharing and debating ideas by offering solutions. The focus and tone of my campaign will be much like my previous two City Council campaigns, positive and solution oriented.

Once the campaign begins I will be issuing a regular campaign message that I will send to you.

Thank you for time and I look forward to saving our country together.

Of course, the Libertarian candidate hasn’t come anywhere close to winning the First District, but Davis drew 10,876 votes in the 2010 election, good for just under 3.8% of the vote. His 2008 effort was just enough to deny Frank Kratovil a majority of the vote as Davis drew over 8,000 votes in an election decided by far less. It may be a more Republican district this time around, but surely Andy Harris may have preferred the Libertarians take a pass this time around given he has a Democratic opponent who is trying to sound like a populist and a target on his back from national Democrats.

It should make for an interesting race.

Shaffer responds

This was addressed to the members of the “quad county caucus,” which presumably means that the 36 or so members of our four central committees (Wicomico, Worcester, Dorchester, Somerset) received this e-mail. It was in reply to the post I did endorsing Shaffer’s opponent, Louis Pope. I am posting this as closely as I can to the original, with slight edits as needed for formatting and shortening links. I’m also choosing not to blockquote the letter; instead I’ll divide it manually.

**********
In a recent article on Monoblogue, Michael Swartz of Wicomico County endorsed Louis Pope in the National Committeeman’s race, because as he put it it’s “a case of six of one and a half-dozen of the other.” With respect to Michael (Monoblogue is one of my favorite reads), I’d like to point out some differences between Louis and myself. At the end of the day, I’ve never been the type to hold grudges. Whether a Central Committee member endorses or votes for Louis is his/her prerogative, and I’m not going to let that stop me from working with said Committee member in trying to make our party better. But if anyone votes for Louis simply because they see no difference between the two of us, then I have utterly failed in communicating my vision for National Committeeman.

First off, Louis Pope is a two-term incumbent who believes that he is entitled to the position as long as he wishes to hold it. He has characterized the National Committeeman role as a job reserved only for the most senior member of our party, essentially nothing more than a reward for past service. On the other hand, I am an advocate of term limits (at my very first county Central Committee meeting after being elected, I proposed a bylaws amendment instituting term limits for Anne Arundel Central Committee members). I have stated that I would not seek this position beyond a second term, because it is imperative to the party that we bring in new people and new ideas on a regular basis. Allowing the party to be run by the same small group of people for decades at a time has done nothing to advance our cause. Furthermore, I believe that any election like this should be based on future expectations – what the candidate is proposing, not what they’ve done in the past. The NCM role is too important to be treated as a retirement package or social club membership.

Second, Louis was responsible for the Rule 11 waiver in 2010. But this is only one example of a demonstrated pattern of behavior. He has consistently used his position to sway the results in contested primary elections, by giving unfair advantages to one Republican candidate over another. This year he served as state campaign chair to the Romney campaign, dismissing the other candidates. Now, he is attempting to force a slate of at-large convention delegates and alternates on the State Central Committee at our upcoming convention. My view is that no party officer should be publicly favoring one candidate over another in a contested primary – whether by waiving Rule 11, joining a campaign staff before the primary election, or otherwise endorsing a candidate before the primary. Contested primaries make our party stronger, and the job of our party leaders should be to create a level playing field that allows all factions of our party to be heard, and ensures all candidates have a fair chance at winning over voters. Louis believes he should decide the primary outcomes; I believe the voters should be the ones making those decisions.

I also believe that one of the main responsibilities of this role is constituent service. For Louis, constituent service means nothing more than showing up twice a year at our conventions, and delivering a speech dictating the RNC’s decisions to us. My pledge as National Committeeman is to contact all 24 county Central Committees before each and every RNC meeting I attend; finding out what you need from the RNC so I can truly represent you. Any speech I give at the MD GOP conventions will include status updates on those items important to you. Along the same lines, the state party needs to do a better job of “sharing the wealth” within our state. For example, the annual Red, White, and Blue fundraising dinner should be rotated around the state – and not simply handed to Howard County each year.

Louis believes it’s ok to spend RNC money on his reelection efforts (despite claiming he pays his own expenses). I’m sending you an email (not a “Paid by the RNC” mailing). As the minority party in Maryland, I believe we need to do things better and cheaper, like making the MD GOP’s communication efforts with the Central Committees 100% electronic. Besides cutting out wasteful spending, this also makes us more efficient. We all know what happens when we have to have a 10 day notice required because we’re relying on the US Mail.

Louis has lost the respect of many of his RNC peers, first by mismanaging spending on the Tampa convention and approving a budget putting the RNC in unprecedented debt, then by trying to stonewall RNC efforts to investigate that misspending and related rules violations. I have already been extended an invitation to join the Republican National Conservative Caucus and the RNC Conservative Steering Committee by other RNC members should I win this election. As much as my opponent would like you to believe it, Maryland’s stature within the RNC will not be diminished if he isn’t returned to the post. In fact, our credibility will be restored.

Here are two articles you should read about Louis Pope’s tenure on the RNC, and here are two items you should read about how my vision differs from that of Louis Pope.

As I alluded to earlier, our state party has been held back by a small number of people in positions of power, who put their future ahead of the party’s future. We have “leaders” who seek to hold on to their titles indefinitely. We have fundraisers who would rather take their rolodexes to their graves than pass on their skills and contacts by mentoring and training the next generation. We cannot survive as a party as long as there are people within it who are “too important to lose.” A big focus of my campaign has been on the need to grow our party within the younger generations of voters, to begin recruiting younger candidates who can reach those voters, and to ensure that our institutional knowledge doesn’t end once our current leaders are gone. But this will not happen as long as there are people at the top who refuse to get out of the way; people who would rather horde their few table scaps of power than ensure our party’s future.

Thank you for your consideration as your next National Committeeman. I look forward to seeing you at the convention. In the meantime, please visit my Facebook page to learn more about me and my campaign.

**********

In all honesty, I wish Scott had written this position paper about two to four weeks sooner because one of my chief complaints about his campaign was that it was so low key for several weeks. Because he was unknown to so many of those who serve on the 24 various Central Committees, it was truly up to him to make the rounds and explain why we need to topple the lone incumbent running. You can’t run your campaign in the last few weeks, because first impressions mean a lot in this particular election. His effort doesn’t favorably compare to the one Nicolee Ambrose is running in terms of mileage driven and meetings attended, at least that I’m aware of.

Now I’d like to respond to a few of the points Shaffer brings to the table. First of all, I don’t believe Louis Pope should be on the RNC for the rest of his life; in fact, I would make the case that 12 years is enough should he be fortunate enough to win this time. It’s why I believe Scott should pursue another party office in 2014 and if he’s still interested make a 2016 RNC run, which I’m more likely to support should I be able to win another term myself. If I do, that would be my last one because I’ve no interest in serving beyond 12 years either.

On the question of neutrality: I think some confusion over that was part of what doomed the Rule 11 resolution Heather Olsen and I put up at the Fall 2011 state convention. It’s a double-edged sword – for example, I was a Herman Cain backer at the time but I was also careful to note that the remainder of my Central Committee may not have agreed with me.

Yet being on the Central Committee should not preclude having an opinion on who is the best candidate. Where I object is when the party places its imprimatur on one candidate over another. And while Louis was one of those who invoked Rule 11 in 2010, he was a backer of our amendment last fall – even though he didn’t think it would be necessary anymore.

While I think Scott is understating Louis’s role to some extent – I recall Pope going through the finer points of fundraising at a seminar during a convention held in my first term, before Shaffer joined the AARCC, as one example – I do agree with Shaffer that communication could be better and Pope could be more of an advocate for individual concerns. That extends to Shaffer’s next point as well, although I would have to look and see about the “RNC money on his re-election efforts” since I don’t have any of Pope’s correspondence in front of me.

As far as the next charge, I would be interested to see those invitations. I’m quite aware that Louis is not the most conservative Republican in the Maryland party.

Yet I most agree with Scott’s final assessment of the state of our party. Having said that, though, and taking into account his paean to conservatism regarding those invitations he’s received, I’m having a hard time reconciling his conservative stance with his opposition to the effort to overturn Maryland’s newly adopted same-sex marriage law – a bill that almost every Republican in the General Assembly voted against. This places Scott on the opposite side of many who attended our quad-county meeting tonight. (I have much more on that tomorrow or Wednesday, depending on when I receive a certain piece of information.) Given that particular stance, I have a hard time supporting Scott. It doesn’t mean I couldn’t work with him if successful (so far in my five years on the Central Committee I haven’t voted for a single Chair on the first ballot, having voted against Jim Pelura, Audrey Scott, and Alex Mooney in succession) but I’ve grown to support them in time because they generally seem to have the party’s best interests at heart.

So it’s still pretty much six of one, a half-dozen of the other. I’m voting for Louis Pope, but I can see the case for voting in Scott Shaffer’s favor as well. Aside from one fundamental disagreement, he and I aren’t all that far apart. Shaffer can do a lot of good and prove his worth if he can lead Anne Arundel County as a testing ground for his GOP growth theories. We have 24 counties, and if something works in one it may be worth a shot elsewhere.

Where’s the beef?

During a political campaign of any sort, the candidate and his or her handlers will spin any information they can control in order to make himself or herself look completely golden. Massaging the image is the name of the game, so getting a peek behind the curtain can be a real eye-opener if you know where to look.

The other day I had forwarded to me an interesting e-mail from a member of a particular Central Committee which National Committeewoman candidate (and former MDGOP Chair) Audrey Scott had visited – it was not ours, since as of this writing Mrs. Scott has not visited Wicomico County as part of her bid. (Rumor has it she will come to our quad-county meeting later this week.) Aside from thanking them for their consideration and asking for their support, one of the key quotes from the note was this evidence of her financial savvy:

As State Party Chair, I retired a $250,000 debt in the first 5 months of my term and raised over $1.5M, in addition to obtaining another $1M from the RNC for the Victory Campaign.

To me, that seemed quite odd. Continue reading “Where’s the beef?”

Another legislative wrap-up (or two)

Here are a couple items as we await the determination whether there will be a special session for the General Assembly.

First I have a legislative wrapup from a pair of Baltimore County Delegates, Susan Aumann and Kathy Szeliga. Take your pick; they are essentially the same. I find it interesting how the two have pooled their efforts, which I suppose makes sense since their constituencies are relatively similar.

This leads me to note that I’ll have the final chapter of the McDermott notes in the next few days. Whether he will be as breezy as the duo of ladies seemed to be remains to be seen, but I’m sure he was frustrated by the overall tone of the session and most of the outcomes.

And then there was the assertion, repeated by Annie Linskey at the Sun, that the budget is not balanced. Yet it seems to me we’ve made a number of midcourse corrections in the past when revenues weren’t as expected, so the only difference is that in this case the cuts have to be made by July 1st, when fiscal 2013 begins. Meanwhile, now that the $218 million Maryland Mega Millions jackpot has been claimed the state already has a little bit of unexpected revenue. Somehow the money is always found.

Meanwhile, from the perspective of the pro-business advocacy group Maryland Business for Responsive Government, the “doomsday” budget is misnamed:

“Ironically, the Governor and legislature could have called the doomsday budget a ‘new day’ budget, declared victory and gone home,” said (MBRG President Kimberly) Burns. “But it was never intended to be taken seriously, and there will now be a mad scramble to continue government spending at record levels as a special session looms on the horizon.”

When spending is up hundreds of millions of dollars (instead of over a billion, as Governor O’Malley would have liked) the fight over semantics is fairly meaningless, and the ‘doomsday’ is more like the day of reckoning when state taxpayers have their last dimes shaken from them. What really matters is the fact the state is spending more money than it did in fiscal 2012 and it has to come from somewhere.

But I can say that one local business is thriving, and perhaps that’s in some small part due to the patronage of my readers. I’m pleased to announce that the Robinson Family of Business has extended their sponsorship of my enterprise! So look for their advertisement atop the website for awhile longer – if you’d like to join them and my other sponsors, the details are here.

Compromise in reverse

I’d like to thank Right Coast Conservative Julie Brewington for both tipping me off to a Gazette article by Erin Cox and adding her own two cents to it. In turn, I’m going to pile on.

Stemming back to her days as a candidate for state office as an unsuccessful aspirant for the District 38A seat now held by Charles Otto, Julie hasn’t exactly been all warm and fuzzy about the Maryland Republican Party. It’s understandable because, by and large, the candidates she’s fallen in behind have rarely been the preference of the state’s party establishment – a cadre I can pretty confidently claim no part of.

But the money phrase in Julie’s critique of the Gazette story is this, which she claims as an indictment of all things Republican in Maryland:

Last week, he beat out nine other Republicans for the nomination, leading his closest competitor by more than 9,600 votes. But Bongino said his plan is to run as a Republican, not as a part of the Republican Party.

I can understand the distinction because there is a difference, and while Julie demands the MDGOP “(g)et on the Bongino campaign bus instead of trying to throw him under it, or get the hell out of the way” she’s bluntly saying what I’m going to write in a more graceful and palatable manner.

You see, for the last several years we have been told that conservatives have to compromise their principles and fall in behind whoever the party brass picks out – the “more electable” candidate, if you will. And they know that, in most cases, those of us on the right side of the political line have two choices: vote for the lesser of two evils or stay home. Of course, the problem has been that the “more electable” candidate still gets his ass handed to him by somewhere between 10 and 30 points regardless of how much work is put in and how much the establishment stands behind him.

In 2012, though, it looks like the shoe is on the other foot in this statewide race. While it was a somewhat tepid backing, it seemed like those who would know better preferred Rich Douglas to be the GOP U.S. Senate candidate. Yet it was the suburban counties which seemed to propel Bongino to the nomination – he won a core area of Anne Arundel, Frederick, Howard, and Montgomery counties by 12,000 votes – and that outweighed Dan’s weakness in rural counties. Out of the ten counties which have 20,000 or fewer registered Republicans, Rich Douglas won eight of them. Queen Anne’s and Worcester counties were the two exceptions.

Yet this could be the key to Dan’s success, because rural voters aren’t exactly going to be sold on Baltimore Ben Cardin and establishment Republicans may see the formula for success in Maryland appear before their eyes. Obviously Dan needs to spell out his platform and how it would enhance the interests of rural Marylanders as well as their suburban counterparts.

However, there are going to be some very, very necessary factors in defeating Ben Cardin. First is the easy task of equating him with the career politician well past his sell-by date that he is rather than the kindly grandfather image he’ll attempt to present to voters. I liked the way we were running the primary campaign because it focused on Ben’s lack of leadership and unresponsiveness to the needs of working Maryland families rather than bashing each other.

The second is finding volunteers and money to outmaneuver the special interest funding and union thug backing Ben is sure to have. This also goes for the other eight Congressional candidates Democrats will attempt to foist upon us – for example, as populist as Sixth District Democratic nominee John Delaney may make himself out to be the fact he’s sunk seven figures of his own money into his campaign suggests otherwise. And they call Republicans the party of the rich.

Realistically, I think we can thwart the Democrats’ best efforts at gerrymandering and pick up a Congressional seat to make Maryland a 5-3 Democrat advantage. Don’t forget that Ben Cardin hasn’t run for election in six years, and a lot changes on the political landscape in that amount of time. Just like Massachusetts reclaimed the “Kennedy” seat for the people by electing Scott Brown, re-electing Ben Cardin based on the fact he has a familiar name and got into political office because his uncle stepped aside and allowed him to run for a House of Delegates seat way back in 1966 doesn’t fly with me, and shouldn’t with other right-thinking Maryland voters. While Ben would beg to differ, he’s not entitled to the Senate seat like royalty nearly a half century later. We fought a war of independence to get away from that.

Truth be told, Republicans have a pretty good slate of candidates running this time around. I may not be a big fan of all of them, but you better mark it well that I believe they would be a far sight better representing the real interests of Free Staters than the sorry group of liberal Democrats we have, who couldn’t fight their way out of a paper bag for the producers who still attempt to make an honest living in this state.

So it’s up to the Maryland Republican establishment to do what they always told us conservatives to do when a Bob Ehrlich or some other middle-of-the-road, milquetoast candidate was nominated by party faithful – shut up, donate lots of money, and get out the vote. We can impede our progress – as we have managed to do splendidly over the last decade or so – or we can advance ourselves. It’s our choice November 6th, and Dan Bongino is leading the way at the top of the Maryland ticket. Get on the bus or get run over.

The next step

Now that the primary is behind us and the Maryland General Assembly session will come to a screeching halt by midnight Monday evening, there’s an obvious focus on the three races we will have at our local level: the Republican nominee (most likely Mitt Romney) for President vs. Barack Hussein Obama, the U.S. Senate race featuring Dan Bongino against political lifer Ben Cardin, and the Congressional race which will pit Andy Harris against the most likely Democrat winner, Wendy Rosen (who, by the way, was once a Republican.)

But we also need to keep a couple things in the back of our mind. One is that the citizens here in our fair city are less than a year away from electing a new mayor. (I say new because, quite frankly, what has Jim Ireton done to deserve re-election? Then again, what did he do to deserve election in the first place?) We will also have the City Council seats currently held by Shanie Shields in District 1 and Debbie Campbell in District 2 to vote upon. (For the sake of this post, I’m going to assume the new district boundaries will mostly reflect the old ones – Lord knows the three-person Camden crew on City Council won’t select a model which makes sense and redivide the city into five Council districts because at least one of them would be out of a job.)

It’s my understanding that Shields will not seek re-election in her majority-minority district, and while it would be a tough sell for a Republican to win there it wouldn’t be a stretch to have a conservative win the seat – the city election is non-partisan and has been for some time now.

And while Campbell has faced opposition in both her initial election bid (Mike Dunn in 2005) and subsequent re-election try (Muir Boda in 2009) it seems like prospective candidates are easier to find when the district elects three seats as they did in 2011 than the one-seat race we have in the other cycle coming up next year. But there’s no reason to leave Campbell unopposed should she decide to run again, particularly since she’s part of the Camden crew.

So far only one person has gone public with his intention to run for city office, but there’s been no fleshing out of his platform up until now and the campaign is still in its earliest stages. Unlike federal or state office, there’s really no need to begin a campaign until this fall considering it covers a city of just 30,000 people.

But those conservatives who are interested should be making the push over the summer in attracting grassroots support and financing for their run. Truth be told, the city seems to have fallen prey to a power struggle between the Camden crew and the mayor as to who’s really in charge, and in my estimation both are fighting over a sinking ship as things currently stand. I’ll grant that a lot of dead weight is being placed onboard by the state and federal governments, which will leave a new chief executive boxed in to some extent, but these aren’t times when the city can be placed on a glide path like it could a decade ago.

Nor is it too early to consider what we can achieve for a number of county offices which haven’t had turnover in decades. While the bulk of county Republicans only came into office in 2006 or 2010 (exceptions are County Council members Gail Bartkovich and Stevie Prettyman), most of the Democrats have been there for well over a decade and their offices may not be getting the fresh leadership they deserve. It’s time to make them earn their office rather than let them cruise in for another four years. A good goal for local Republicans would be to fill up the 2014 ballot – actively seeking a person to run for State’s Attorney, even after the filing deadline, paid dividends in 2010.

Focus on 2012, but don’t forget 2013 or 2014.

Weekend of local rock volume 46

All seasons must come to an end, and so it is with the Ocean City off-season. While tourism is the lifeblood of the area economy, it’s not as good for local, original music. Those who come “downy ocean” from origins like the Baltimore area, Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey seem to want the tried, true, and familiar so club owners hire DJs and cover bands for the summer and some bands have a harder time being seen.

On the other hand, a group of local multi-band shows punctuate the fall and winter months, with many of them occurring at the behest of promoter and local musician and radio program director Skip Dixxon. The 10th Annual Spring Luau is one.

It was a gloomy evening that didn’t remind me of spring when they got together.

A murky early spring night in Ocean City.

Nevertheless, I arrived a little after what I thought was the 4 p.m. start time and found out it began at 3, so I missed The Hooplas and barely caught the last two songs of Dust n’ Bones.

Dust n' Bones was second up.

Neither of them were their namesake Guns n’ Roses tune, which is disappointing. I think it would be a great closing song for them.

But the winner for best-named band, hands down, had to be Drink Drank Drunk.

Band number 3 - Drink Drank Drunk.

Their playlist was more reminiscent of an early ’70s band than most – when was the last time you heard ‘I’m Your Captain’ by Grand Funk Railroad on the radio, let alone by a cover band? Growing up in the Midwest it was more of a staple song, but I wasn’t sure GFR made inroads to the East Coast.

Another Midwest favorite, Rush, made it onto the bill of Witches Brew.

If you don’t believe me, here’s their (somewhat altered) playlist.

‘In The Mood’ is a forgotten gem from the Canadian trio, obviously done with a twist with the female vocal. And Susan was springlike in her non-black attire.

EZ Action also featured a lady, and also reached back into the early days of what’s considered classic rock (as opposed to oldies) by reviving bands like Spirit and Badfinger.

I also liked the appropriate Spring Luau attire.

Anchoring the middle of the 12-band lineup was Petting Hendrix.

They were rocking enough to cover a somewhat more modern playlist but fun enough to do their own version of The Jeffersons theme (‘Movin’ On Up.’) Definitely different.

This photo wasn’t taken during that song, but I liked it enough for inclusion.

Returning from the D.C. area to do another of Skip’s shows was Hightest.

Their set was more in the hard rock vein as they jammed out with some Van Halen and Alice in Chains, among others.

Interestingly enough, we were a little ahead of schedule at the time so the sound guy got to play a couple as part of the Bob Brown Project.

Literally they did two songs before clearing the way for Vivid Season.

If you can read upside down, here’s what they played. They managed to get all these songs into their timeslot.

And I like how this picture came out as well. If there were a picture of rock n’ roll I think it would qualify.

I’m going to add another solo picture here. This lady did not sing or perform, but she had a difficult task.

She was holding up the camera to record Bride Dressed in Black’s performance.

The very active, very intense Christian-themed band blends hard rock and hip-hop with mostly original songs. They also had a little bit of swag (which the young lady pictured above was in charge of) and they certainly made more fans at the event. In fact, they jumped around so much that the guitarist in the center with the red guitar must have landed wrong and twisted an ankle or knee – by the end of the performance he was on a stool. Hate it when that happens.

The lead singer here may look familiar.

Loud Love and Drink Drank Drunk share the same lead singer but Loud Love plays a more hard rock set featuring a batch of Van Halen.

Believe it or not, they were almost through. The last band standing was The Phantom Limbs.

I like The Phantom Limbs and I’ll tell you why. Not many bands take all the influences they seem to have and make them sound this fun. They can play a seven- or eight-minute original jam and it’s all good.

So we can all thank the guy in the middle of this for putting the Spring Luau and other shows together. By the way, I have no idea who the lady was who asked me to take the picture or who the other two guys were, but here you go. Use it for what it’s worth, whoever you are.

It’s just another weekend of local rock around Delmarva.

Odds and ends number 48

I suppose you can call this the post-election edition because a few of these items were swept aside in the runup to our primary earlier this week.

This one’s a bit controversial.

It’s only 37 seconds and while it makes a great point, I find it intriguing that the “dislikes” are running 2-1 over the “likes” on YouTube. Truth hurts? Any questions?

One thing we can’t question is the fact that as of Sunday the United States had the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. But the Republican Study Committee makes a good point:

Of course, volumes and volumes of special credits, deductions, and loopholes mean similar companies often pay very dissimilar tax bills. It’s natural for people and businesses to use every means available to hang onto the money they earn. We wouldn’t be an entrepreneurial nation if we didn’t. But the more time and money we spend navigating our ridiculously complex tax code, the less we produce of real value.

And that was part of the point in the Cain video. Not only is the tax rate high, but those who can afford lobbyists and campaign contributions tend to be the ones who pay the least in taxes – meanwhile, the mom and pop operation takes it in the shorts again. (That’s why 9-9-9 appealed to me. Any questions?)

The state of Maryland doesn’t get this either, according to Kimberly Burns of Maryland Business for Responsive Government.

As the Governor said himself, all this proposal does is delete the word ‘gas’ from ‘tax.’ A sales tax increase is an easy, unacceptable short-term fix to the longer term problem of business competitiveness. Just like the gas tax, it hits every Maryland working family and business right in the wallet.

Say hello to more factory outlet stores near Maryland’s borders in Delaware and Virginia. When you’re a small state like Maryland, sandwiched between two low-tax states, it’s foolish to think increasing the sales tax won’t effect Maryland’s competitiveness and the behavior of consumers.

If the 7% sales tax is passed – and remember, anything is possible in these desperate last days of the session – Maryland would have one of the highest sales taxes in the country and Delaware merchants will be licking their chops as their price advantage jumps to seven percent.

Maryland Republicans in the Senate point out another misconception on the offshore wind boondoggle by citing a Sun letter from Teresa Zent which makes an interesting charge: that $1.50 per month price is only “a cap on what a developer can plug into its proposal. It is not a cap on what a ratepayer might actually have to pay.” And that’s a tremendous point, because if your electric bill is figured on a price of perhaps 11 cents per kilowatt hour and wind energy will cost a quarter per, someone has to pay and the utilities (which, remember, have a monopoly on servicing a particular area) aren’t in it to lose money. By necessity, Maryland would be stricken with a further competitive disadvantage in electrical costs.

And while the election is over, I have to commend the participants in the U.S. Senate nomination battle for the campaign which was waged. They differed on issues, but when it came to attacking the opponent that was reserved for the real opponent, Ben Cardin. And even those weren’t personal but focused on how Cardin is out of touch and lacking in leadership in fighting for Maryland’s working families.

So it wasn’t unexpected that the two leading contenders released statements in this vein after the counting was done. Rich Douglas conceded thusly:

I want to congratulate my opponent on a hard-fought race in the Republican primary. Republicans and Democrats challenging Ben Cardin know that defeating elite royal family rule in Annapolis and incompetence on Capitol Hill is an enormous undertaking. I urge like-minded Democrats and Independent voters to close ranks with Mr. Bongino to replace Ben Cardin in November. It is time for a strong Maryland voice to be heard in the U.S. Senate. Today was the first step toward that goal.

Meanwhile, Bongino praised his opposition for the races they ran:

I am grateful to the voters of Maryland who have given me this amazing opportunity. I would also like to thank the other Republican challengers. We all share the same concerns about the direction of this country and agree it is time Maryland had new representation in Washington. I hope they will join my campaign to bring an outsider’s perspective to the US Senate.

Dan also set himself up for November, promising a campaign devoted to “the economy, national security, energy and government accountability.” He also added:

The people of Maryland deserve a Senator who will fight for them, and not the Washington establishment. We need leadership in the Senate that will work to increase opportunity for middle-class Americans, that will provide a path for those in poverty to advance and ensure this nation will once again be a place where jobs are created and people are willing to invest.

Part of doing that will be encouraging entrepreneurs and small business by making the tax code simpler and fairer instead of what the Cain video depicted.

Lastly, some laughed when Newt Gingrich spoke about bold initiatives in the space program, as he did last week. But the Competitive Enterprise Institute posited a step even beyond mere space travel: private ownership of other celestial bodies?

A proposed law requiring the United States to recognize land claims off planet under specified conditions offers the possibility of legal, tradable land titles, allowing the land to be used as loan collateral or an asset to be sold to raise funds needed to develop it.

Such a law would vitiate the 1979 Moon Treaty, which does outlaw private property claims in space, but to which the U.S. is not a signatory. This should be viewed as a feature, rather than a bug. The law would not impose any new costs on the federal government, and would likely generate significant tax revenue through title transaction fees and economic growth from new space ventures carried out by U.S. individuals and corporations. It would have great potential to kick the development of extraterrestrial resources—and perhaps even the human settlement of space—into high gear.

It’s quite a fascinating report, and it points out the difference between development in similar areas deemed off-limits to private property (Simberg cites Antarctica as an example of government-controlled property) where little development is occurring, as opposed to the far northern reaches of the planet where several companies are exercising mineral rights. He theorizes that billions of dollars could be made if private property rights were granted in space, and I can’t disagree.

I’m not going to be the first in line to be a space tourist or worker, but if opening up space can help the economy and promote future prosperity for succeeding generations, what are we waiting for?

Where I went wrong (and right)

Okay, the results have come in and I got some sleep and a day at my outside job to consider them, so let’s go back to my prediction post and see how I did.

I was actually correct in the order of presentation on the top four Presidential candidates statewide, but Mitt Romney exceeded even the pollsters’ expectations when he won just under half the vote. I suppose that inevitability factor may have affected the results because it appears our turnout in 2012 will end up about 20 percent less than it was in 2008, when the race was effectively over by the time we voted. Because few people like to admit they’re backing a loser, I wouldn’t be surprised if a number of voters changed from Gingrich to Romney at the end while other Newt backers stayed home. It also proves Ron Paul has support a mile deep but an inch wide since both well underperformed what I thought they might. I actually missed Santorum by less than a point, although it surprised me that Rick only won two counties (Garrett and Somerset.) I would have thought Rick would carry 4 to 6 of the more rural counties, including Wicomico. But once Romney outperformed it was over.

And you may wonder why I had Fred Karger at 2 percent. I thought he would do better because, as a gay Republican candidate in a state which was bound to be a Romney state anyway, voting for him may serve as a message about the gay marriage referendum likely to appear in November. Instead, he got only less than 1/10 of my predicted total and finished dead last. I also managed to garble up the exact order of the also-rans, but with such a small sample who knew?

That same statewide trend seemed to affect my Wicomico result too because Romney outperformed and Gingrich/Paul suffered for it.

And while I didn’t predict it, I find it quite fascinating that 12 percent of the Democratic primary voters selected “none of the above” rather than Barack Obama. However, that statewide average varies wildly from under 3% in Prince George’s County, about 5% in Baltimore City, and just over 7% in Montgomery County to fully 1/3 of Democrats in Allegany County and a staggering 34.7% in Cecil County. In the last comparable election with a Democratic incumbent (1996) President Clinton only received 84% of the vote (onetime perennial candidate Lyndon LaRouche got 4%) but no county came close to getting 1/3 or more of the ballots against the President.

I didn’t miss the “barnburner” aspect of the Senate race by much as it wasn’t called until nearly midnight. But Dan Bongino carried 34% of the vote and won by 6 points over Richard Douglas. (I called it for two points, but I underestimated the impact of the little eight.) I think Joseph Alexander gets the advantage of being first of the ballot, and that accounts for his second straight third-place finish. The rest? Well, the order wasn’t all that correct but they were mostly only off by a percent or two and I got last place right. And to prove it was a close race, both Bongino and Douglas carried 12 counties apiece.

What mystifies me the most isn’t that Rich Douglas carried Wicomico rather easily, but how much support the other eight received – they collectively picked up almost 100 more votes than Douglas did! I would love to know the mindset of the people who voted for most of these minor candidates. I can see a case for Robert Broadus based on the Protect Marriage Maryland group, but what did the others really do to promote their campaigns? At least I know Douglas had radio spots and reasonably good online coverage.

But I did peg Ben Cardin to within 4 points statewide.

On some of the Congressional races: despite the fact I screwed up the percentages, at least I correctly called the Sixth District winners as Roscoe Bartlett and John Delaney. Both did far better than I expected, and I think part of the reason was that both their key challengers’ campaigns imploded in the last week or two. A week ago we may have had something closer to the numbers I predicted. Think Rob Garagiola and David Brinkley may commiserate anytime soon?

The ‘relative ease’ I suspected for Nancy Jacobs was even easier than I thought. I guess Larry Smith didn’t have nearly the campaign as I believed because he came up short on my prediction about as much as Nancy Jacobs was over – I wasn’t all that far off on Rick Impallaria.

While there is a slim chance I may have the First District Democratic race correct, I was surprised that Eastern Shore voters didn’t get all parochial and support the one Eastern Shore candidate, John LaFerla, over two from across the Bay. He only won Worcester, Kent, and Queen Anne’s counties, and I would chalk most of that up to Wayne Gilchrest’s endorsement. Kim Letke was about 6 points better than I thought and LaFerla was six points worse because he way underperformed on the Eastern Shore. I suspect no small part of that underperformance by LaFerla was his extreme pro-choice stance, as getting the NARAL endorsement doesn’t play well among local Democrats. There is a 136 vote margin out of about 23,500 cast.

Out of the rest, the only one I got wrong was the Eighth District, and I think that was a case of better name recognition than I expected for Ken Timmerman and less of a vote split among the three candidates from Montgomery County.

As for the Democratic incumbents, I could have wrote “over 85%” and still been right, with the minor exception of Steny Hoyer getting 84.8%.

So this is how the races for November will line up. Sometime this evening I will update my sidebar to reflect this:

U.S. Senate: Dan Bongino (R) vs. Ben Cardin (D – incumbent)
District 1: Andy Harris (R – incumbent) vs. Wendy Rosen (D – pending absentees and possible recount)
District 2: Nancy Jacobs (R) vs. Dutch Ruppersberger (D – incumbent)
District 3: Eric Knowles (R) vs. John Sarbanes (D – incumbent)
District 4: Faith Loudon (R) vs. Donna Edwards (D – incumbent)
District 5: Tony O’Donnell (R) vs. Steny Hoyer (D – incumbent)
District 6: Roscoe Bartlett (R – incumbent) vs. John Delaney (D)
District 7: Frank Mirabile (R) vs. Elijah Cummings (D – incumbent)
District 8: Ken Timmerman (R) vs. Chris Van Hollen (D – incumbent)

So out of 19 contested races I predicted 15 correctly, and I stuck my neck out on percentages a few times as well. I missed Romney by 8 points statewide and 9 points here in Wicomico County. I think the “inevitable” mantle made the difference.

But with Dan Bongino I was only 2 points off statewide. Probably my worst guess, though, was being 19 points off with him in Wicomico County. It’s worth noting that the Douglas late-game media strategy seemed to pay off on the Eastern Shore since he carried six of the nine counties and would have carried the nine-county Shore if he hadn’t been blown out in Cecil County by 1,250 votes. Bongino carried five counties with over 40 percent of the vote (Cecil was one along with Anne Arundel, Frederick, Queen Anne’s, and Montgomery) while Douglas could only claim two such counties (Dorchester and Talbot.)

I saw this possibly ending up as a rerun of the 2010 race where Eric Wargotz had more money while Jim Rutledge had more grassroots (read: TEA Party) support. Obviously media reaches a LOT more people quickly than grassroots efforts do in a statewide race, and the money to buy media is a key element of a successful campaign. That’s where Eric Wargotz succeeded, because Jim Rutledge didn’t raise a lot of money and Eric had a sizable bank account to tap into.

But as it turned out the Douglas bankroll wasn’t all that large, and an abbreviated campaign with a spring primary didn’t give Rich quite enough time to build a support base of his own. Those three or four extra months Dan worked on his campaign (at a time, remember, when better-known prospective opponents like Wargotz and Delegate Pat McDonough were considering the race) turned Bongino from an also-ran into a nominee. By succeeding enough to nationalize the campaign Dan made himself into a formidable opponent to Ben Cardin. Had this been a September primary, though, the result may have been different.

Now we have just under seven months until the general election, a chance for the campaigns to take a quick breather and begin to plot the strategy for November victory. For Democrats, it will be a hope that Obama can fool people into believing he’s an effective President and having long enough coattails. On the other hand, Republicans need to point out the Obama record while spelling out their own solutions – that’s where we’ve been lacking in some respects. We need to give people a reason to vote FOR us rather than AGAINST the other SOB.

So start working on those platforms, ladies and gentlemen. If we are to win, we need to not be a pastel Democrat-lite but present bold colors to Maryland and the nation.