Ten questions for…Kevin Zeese (part 2)

Aaaaaaaaauuuuuugggghhhhh! I HATE it when that happens and I get so disorganized that I misplace stuff! On June 23rd I got an e-mail from Kevin Zeese where he DID answer my Ten Questions – luckily I make a hard copy of every response I get and I found it tonight when I was straightening out the monoblogue headquarters. I just didn’t look back to my mailbox on the appropriate date. (You may insert a mental picture of Michael in a dunce cap here. D’oh!)

So the Green/Libertarian/Populist Party candidate gets my most profuse apologies! This is why we have a special Saturday night edition of the Ten Questions, because as soon as I found this I vowed to set things straight.

Question #1:

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

I favor legal borders, legal workers, legal immigration. But to achieve that we need to face up to the real underlying issue and that is economic. I find the House and Senate as posturing rather than facing up to the real economic problems — because they have both helped cause the economic problems that spur immigration. We have tripled to quadrupled the border patrol in recent years, arrest a million people trying to cross but still have a larger problem with undocumented immigrants. Why? Because enforcement cannot trump economics and our trade and other policies have made the economic problem worse. For example, NAFTA (supported by both Democrats and Republicans) has pushed one million Mexican farmers off their farms — they get pushed into the cities where there is already economic stress and as a result millions are desperate. So, desperate they risk coming across the border. We need to renegotiate NAFTA. These and other treaties like the WTO are not really free trade agreements, they are agreements that empower big business multi-national corporations and they do so at the cost of working families in the US and south of the border. In the US workers are growing more desperate — deeper into debt than ever before, more and more without health insurance, unable to afford the rising costs — especially of energy and homes, with median family income dropping and poverty rising for five years in a row. Thus, when working families see immigrants it is easy for the big business and big government interests to divide and conquer — the immigration issue is being used by those in power to keep power. This is a phony debate, nothing was ever going to be done on it, it is pure election year grandstanding not a real attempt to solve the problem. Solving the problem of illegal immigration would require facing up to the special interests — the big business interests — that control both old political parties.

Question #2:

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

We need to recognize that the 21st Century economy will have to no longer be based on fossil fuels. We have the technology to break our addiction to fossil fuels, including oil and gas but it is not being applied. Once again this is about big business and big government working together for their interests. Every penny increase in the price of oil is $1.5 billion annually for the oil companies. The most recent energy bill had $7 to $12 billion in corporate welfare for the richest companies in the world — big oil. The government is taking money from working Americans and giving it to the wealthiest Americans. We need to restructure our economy for the 21st Century, part of that is shifting from a fossil fuel economy — that is causing terrible environmental damage to our water (including the Chesapeake) and air, but most significantly to the climate change that will cause chaotic weather. We need to move quickly on a variety of fronts to increase efficiency and use technology that minimizes fossil fuels. This includes transportation, home, business and government buildings. For all of these areas we have solutions and applying them will actually grow the economy and create new businesses. If we do not act to manage this transition it will be forced upon us by crisis. We need urgent action in this area.

Question #3:

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

Money in politics is at the root cause of most of the problems we face. I don’t agree with Sen. John McCain on everything but he is right when he says that our “electoral system is nothing less than a massive influence peddling scheme where both parties conspire to sell the country to the highest bidder.” If you doubt the accuracy of the statement visit opensecrets.org and see who is funding the two old parties. If you know it is true, as most Americans know, then you have to decide whether you are going to be part of this corrupt system or challenge it. I’ve decided to challenge it and that is why I am running outside of the two old parties. I’ve created a UNITY CAMPAIGN. For the first time in history three parties have nominated the same candidate — the Libertarian, Green and Populist Parties – also I have members of the Democratic and Republican Parties as well as Independents on my campaign committee (see. www.ZeeseForSenate.org). We are joining together because government no longer works for most Americans. We need a paradigm shift in the way we approach issues and need to make this a country that is truly of, by and for the people. That cannot be done by either of the old parties because they are in too deep with the wealth special interests that fund their campaigns.

I oppose earmarks, oppose travel paid for by lobbyists, oppose sweetheart book deals and want to see money having less influence on politics. I favor televsion and radio stations — who are licensed to use the public airwaves — to be required to provide enough time for candidates to let voters know what they stand for. I also support inclusion of all ballot approved candidates in all debates and candidate forums. And, we need to end partisan administration of elections — elections should be administered in a non-partisan way by civil servants rather than political appointees. Our democracy is in serious trouble and major changes are needed.

Question #4:

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

The FEC is an agency that does not work (sadly like many government bureaucracies). The Federal Election Commission should be changed so that it is not a deadlocked Commission with three Democrats and three Republicans. We should add three non-Dem/Repubs so that things can get done and people are represented. According to Gallup 38% of Americans see themselves as independent of the two old parties, 31% are Dems, 29% are Republicans. The FEC should represent that breakdown rather than be an agency that protects the two parties. I favor a voluntary check off system that is well advertised so that people can contribute to a fund for political campaigns. That is how public campaigns should be financed. Re private speech, the same limits that apply to campaigns should apply to so-called 527 organizations and the reporting of who is funding these efforts should be immediately transparent so people know who is paying for the message and what their interests are.

Campaign finance is another example of many issues — where the public wants reform and where the two parties do not provide it — because reform will threaten their hold on power and weaken the special interests that fund their campaigns. According to a brand new bipartisan poll released by the watchdog group Public Campaign*, 75% of voters support a voluntary system of publicly financed election campaigns – that includes 80% of Democrats, 78% of Independents, and 65% of Republicans. The poll shows this support is being fueled by the explosive corruption scandals that have rocked Capitol Hill. And even more interestingly, the poll shows that candidates who pledge to support a public financing system get a significant political boost over candidates who do not. See: http://www.campaignmoney.org/polling

Question #5:

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

The United States cannot bring stability to Iraq as we have made too many mistakes, e.g. invading based on inaccurate or false information, Abu Gharib, Fallujah, Haditha, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, searches of homes in the middle of the night, checkpoint searches and killings at checkpoints. We need to announce that we are leaving and do so promptly. Actually getting out in an orderly and safe way will take approximately six months, at the longest. During that time we should go through a reconciliation process where we recognize the damage we have done and pay for it. That is the real pottery barn rule — you break it you pay for it. If the Iraqi government wants a peace keeping force we should help to organize one through the Arab League or other regional power, if that fails then through the UN. But we need to get our toops out. They are not able to resolve this matter and are just sitting ducks. I agree with many in retired military, foreign service, intelligence and national security experts who say the Iraq war was a mistake of historic purposes and the longer we stay the bigger the mistake gets. We are making the US less secure by staying, stoking the potential of a civil war in Iraq, helping a theocratic state come into existence. As General William Odom says — all we fear is made more likely by staying in Iraq. The sooner we exit — in an orderly and responsible way — the better. I hace a lot more information about this on my web site www.ZeeseForSenate.org and on my non-profit organization web site www.DemocracyRising.US.

The real issue in Iraq is the desire of the leadership of both parties to control their economy and the economy of the Middle East — for as long as it has oil. See http://democracyrising.us/content/view/483/151/. It is evident that the United States is not planning on leaving. We are building the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad — ten times larger than the typical embassy, the size of 80 football fields. We are building 14 long-term military bases. We are putting down long and deep roots and plan on staying. The challenge is to change our economy so we are no longer dependent on foreign oil – indeed on fossil fuels at all. That is where we should put our resources and focus — not on militarily and economically dominating the Middle East. See http://democracyrising.us/content/view/469/151/.

Question #6:

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

The President does not have the final decision to go to war (and a military attack on Iran would be an act of war). Under the U.S. Constitution the President cannot declare war only the Congress can. James Madison said this was the most important clause of the Constitution because they had seen Kings and Queens send countries into unnecessary and costly wars. Yet since World War II it has been the most ignored clause of the Constitution because the Congress lacks the spine to take responsibility and do its duty. If the United States bombed Iran without the Congress declaring war it would be illegal under U.S. law. Further, under international law it would be a war of aggression — the most serious offense any country can make against another. Iran is not threatening the U.S. — they are also not threatening Israel — and their religious leaders have issued an edict against nuclear weapons, indeed against weapons of mass destruction. Iran has been offering, for over a year, to negotiate with us over all issues, including Israel. We should take them up on that negotiation. Right now everything that Iran is doing is legal under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Agreement. Israel, which has 250 nuclear bombs, has not even signed the agreement. The United States is developing new nuclear weapons as well – tactical nuclear weapons — and has threatened to use nuclear weapons against Iran. This is hypocritical and undermines our moral standing to challenge Iran. Further, we are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy — President Bush lists Iran as a member of the axis of evil, then we surround them militarily with bases in Afghanistan on their eastern border, in Iraq on their western border and in the Persian Gulf to their south with our Navy. Then the Bush administration engages in the same exaggeration and manipulation that it did in the build up to Iraq. Hopefully, people will not fall for it again as Iran is a bigger challenge than Iraq. Iran is four times as large as Iraq. It we were to attack it will create further unrest in Iraq and further destabilize the region. The US will be further isolated in the world and our military force, which is already stretched to the breaking point, will be unable to handle another military quagmire. We need to change our approach. Out goal with Iran should be to make Iran our ally in the region — not our enemy. We have a lot more in common that is being discussed. If we turn them into allies we can bring stability to the region, keep our access to oil and actually resolve conflicts (including Israel-Palestine) instead of expand conflicts. For more on Iran see: http://democracyrising.us/content/view/461/151/ and http://kevinzeese.com/content/view/130/45/.

Question #7:

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

The problem is bigger than Social Security, it is retirement security. As part of re-making the U.S. economy for the 21st Century we need to develop a retirement system that works. Social Security was designed as a supplement to savings and pensions — neither exist anymore. Thus, we get starvation retirement if all people have is Social Security. I have a lot of plans for remaking the economy, democratizing our economy, so that wealth is shared more equitably. Attached is my tax plan, for more see: Share the Wealth: Protect Retirement at http://kevinzeese.com/content/view/64/51/

Question #8:

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

No question — wasteful earmarks are one of the root causes of corruption of politics and waste of taxpayer dollars. But, we need to do much more than that to balance the budget and reduce our debt. My tax plan, attached, would help a great deal. But we also have to end corporate welfare — over $300 billion annually — as it takes money from workers and gives to the wealthy and creates an unfair playing field for small and medium sized businesses as they do not receive the welfare that big business receives. We also cannot afford to be the world’s policeman — with military bases in 120 nations, half of our discretionary spending being on the military and spending as much as the whole world combined on military. I would look to the former military leaders at the Center for Defense Information for cuts in military programs that are wasteful, duplicative and no longer needed. Tens of billions, maybe hundreds of billions could be cut with no adverse effect on our security.

Question #9:

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

These so-called “free” trade agreements are not “free” at all — what they really do is empower multi-national and national corporations. We need trade agreements that pull up labor, consumer, environmental and human rights standards, not agreements that pull them down (as these do). Under current law, a corporation can challenge a democratically passed law by going to the World Trade Organization in Europe and complaining that the law is a “restraint on trade” that allows them to overthrow the law. Democratically enacted laws should have greater power than corporations — who should be subject to the law. The U.S. is hemorrhaging jobs and is losing money on international trade. We have a record trade deficit, record federal deficit, rapidly rising federal debt limit (more than doubled in the last five years) and record high personal debt. If we continue on this course we will see a failed economy and the catastrophe’s that go with it. We must re-make our economy for the 21st Century. We need to invest heavily in education to stay competitive in the world. We need to rebuild out nation’s infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers warns that our infrastructure is failing and there is a “looming economic crisis” because of our failure to address it. We need to shift from a fossil fuel economy to an environmentally sustainable economy that relies on abundant clean energy. How do we pay for all of this — see my tax plan.

Question #10:

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

I’m not impressed with any of the front runners right now. And, don’t see many on the horizon. I am most hopeful by the Unity08.org process that is seeking to build outside of the two parties or find leaders from both parties who will put the people first.

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

And once again, I apologize to Kevin Zeese and his campaign. Hey, it was my screwup, I’ll take the blame. By the way, because he cited his tax plan and sent it to me with the e-mail I did link it. But the other websites he had as links I decided to leave alone; it’s simple enough to cut and paste in your own browser.

Ten questions for…David Dickerson

A few weeks ago, I noted that at the time there were two “tardy” filers for the U.S. Senate seat in Maryland. Now there’s several more, but what I offered both of these gentlemen at the time was the first open slot that I had after they returned the questions. (The very late filers will have the same opportunity, as will those who haven’t answered yet.)

So because Corrogan Vaughn didn’t respond in time for his turn today, I’ll turn the slot over to David Dickerson, who was kind enough to respond rather quickly. He missed last Friday’s edition and had to wait a whole week because I skipped TQ on July 4th. But tonight it’s the self-described moderate Democrat’s turn to answer the Ten Questions.

Question #1:

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

We are Americans first, so we all have to stand united and protect the constitution. We cannot offer Amnesty to any illegal immigrants, but we can be humane and offer processes for everyone to work towards becoming American citizens. We need to secure the border, and we can start by requesting the Mexican and Canadian governments to work with us. The Great Wall of China and the Berlin Wall did not work in the long term, but we can start ‘cracking down’ on the businesses that hire illegal immigrants. Every human being is looking to make a better life for themselves and their family, so there is no need for us to act against many of the illegal immigrants. If companies cannot find the employees, then the U.S. government needs to do a better job of issuing ‘Temporary Working Visas’ as a rapid response to small business needs, in the event an American cannot fill the job.

Question #2:

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

As U.S. Senator, I would immediately recommend that our country has a meeting with the OPEC members to forge an agreement that prevents another Energy Crisis that we experienced in this country. I remember the day sitting in the car with my father at 3:00a.m. because we had to stand in line at the pump to get gas. China and India’s development has placed more demands for fuel, thus we are seeing a rise in the prices. When the Premier of China visited the United States, he had stopped off in Nigeria to forge relationships and agreed to invest in their infrastructure development. We should reconsider our policy of nation-building in Iraq, and look to secure our relationships with oil producing countries around the world. Does oil drilling in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico solve the long term strategic problem? No! We also need to immediately be concerned with our National Security and begin developing an Alternative Energy source. Exxon did purchase Reliance Electric years ago, and then they put them out of business when they had invented an Electric Car. I would recommend that we work with Germany and Japan to develop our Alternative Fuel research and development in Maryland. My experience in working in Germany and Japan could support that idea.

Question #3:

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

Term limits, campaign finance and lobbying reform. If all men are created equal, then it should not be that the major press only favors the candidates with the money. Our founding fathers never established term limits, but did they expect Edward Kennedy to be in the U.S. Senate since I was born in 1962? I propose no more than two terms of office for the U.S. Senate. However, I still think that it serves our democracy for the better by allowing candidates at the last minute to file in this state without requiring them to have petitions signed. The winds of change need to allow for someone to step forward without any barriers.

Question #4:

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

Yes, let us strengthen these laws and establish a ceiling of the amount of money a candidate can raise for their campaign. Moreover, should it be allowed that candidates can dine in Hollywood and Las Vegas to obtain funding for their Maryland campaign? By establishing term limits, it will disallow candidates from Congress to use their influence on Federal government committees to raise money from around the country. Remember Corzonne in New Jersey using his own $60 million to win the U.S. Senate seat? Well, he did, and then he went on to become Governor of the state.

Question #5:

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

I served in the military as an Air Force Security Police Combat Arms Instructor, and my Chief Master Sergeant lives on the Shore, so I better be careful with this answer. We are all Americans, so arguments in the U.S. Senate do not solve problems. Our Congress decided to go to War in Iraq, and we cannot change that decision. We cannot completely pullout our troops, but we can craft an “Exit Strategy” that is endorsed by the U.N. Security Council. We need Europe, Russia and China’s financial and political support after we redeploy. A post-Iraq has to be supported by the world community. If we pullout of Iraq now, then we would be providing Iran the opportunity to invade Iraq and seek revenge for the Iraq-Iran War. We need to create a timetable for our exit, and have the Iraqi government get serious about it. When is the world going to wake up the Arab League. Do the Arabs care about the peace and stability in the region, or do they just watch us do the dirty work?

Question #6:

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

The President decided to go it alone the first time with Iraq, so let us not make the same mistake again. We have a U.N. Atomic Energy Commission, based in Vienna, Austria that should be in charge of the inspections and negotiations. Israel is equipped with a nuclear arsenal, so the other countries feel threatened as well. I have worked with people from Israel, at Motorola, in the Mossad, and I can assure you, that Israel is monitoring the situation quite carefully. The U.N. Security Council needs to be the global authority on this issue. The President of Iran is a mad man for directing his comments against Israel, but leave this one to Europe, Russia and China to work out. The world is tired of us acting as if we are the World Police with all of the answers. If the world is not united in boycotting Iran, then the boycott will not work. If they have an alternative supply chain from Russia or China, then there is no power in the boycott. A pre-emptive strike could ignite the Jihad even further, so let us use all of our diplomatic power backed by a strong military.

Question #7:

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

As U.S. Senator, I would propose that everyone has the right to maximize their contributions to an IRA. The present retirees or the citizens approaching retirement have no problem, but they do have the responsibility to sustain the system for their children and grandchildren.  Current projections show that Social Security faces a long-term financial imbalance.  The Trust Fund is projected to be exhausted in 2041 (according to the Social Security Trustees) or in 2052 (according to the Congressional Budget Office), after which Social Security will be able to pay only about 75 percent of promised benefits.  Hence, reforms to restore long-term Social Security solvency are essential.  If no changes are made, revenue transfers totaling $4 trillion, in today’s present-value dollars, would be needed to pay currently scheduled benefits over the next 75 years. The amount needed to assure permanent solvency over the infinite horizon is $11 trillion.  Many of our government employees have better health and retirement plans than the normal Marylander worker, and I believe that there should be the same rights of Social Security Planning afforded to everyone!

Question #8:

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

I would prefer measures to enhance federal revenues to meet the gap!

Question #9:

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

Great question! Part of the reason that I decided to run for U.S. Senate is that I do not see many candidates that understand the military and global business. I’ve lived in Europe and Asia, and I can tell you, our Federal government has too many lawyers and lobbyists. We need to “make things” or we will all be working for lower wages. We need people in our U.S. Senate and Congress that understand the importance of engineering. Our wages have already been dropping over the last five years. We cannot stop outsourcing and offshoring, so we need to create new ways to gain the competitive advantage. As U.S. Senator, I will work with Maryland companies to export. I can use my international sales experience to develop business for Purdue in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Far East. Look at all of the business that Tyson Chicken got from Russia. Could that have something to do with the Clinton Administration? I would look to expand on attracting foreign direct investment in the shore to increase wages. Our US $ is at an all time low, so we are very attractive. The shore needs to think about how they can ship goods directly to Europe rather than sending them to Baltimore or Norfolk. Our country cannot sustain itself economically if we are a service society.

Question #10:

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

Well, instead of names, I think that it is more important that all of us, as Americans, work together to define the personal profile of a U.S. Senator in 2008. I counted 18 filed candidates for U.S. Senate from the Democratic ticket, so that tells us something. That tells us that many people are not satisfied with many of the candidates that were running or that they believe our country needs a change. It could also mean that they feel that the Democratic Party needs to embrace a respect for life and family values. Everyone is winning by running because they are engaging in dialogue and provoking thought amongst the Maryland voters. I, for one, think that our next U.S. Senator from Maryland needs to embody the core competencies of Jefferson and Franklin, and many of our founding fathers. He or she must understand our militia or military, and that comes from service to your country. How would the Congress vote to send our men and women in harms way if they had their children in the military? I write this to you on July 4th, and do you think that our founding fathers were even thinking of passing a law that would permit the burning of our flag? Our independence was won with the help of the French, and it was the cross-cultural leadership of our founding fathers that spearheaded our victory. We need a U.S. Senator with a global thinking, understanding of our local needs, and most importantly, a diplomat with the trans-cultural competency to secure strategic alliances that win peace and prosperity for Maryland. Tom Friedman’s book, The World is Flat, illustrates that we do live in a global world! I ran for U.S. Senate because I care about the future of my state and nation, and I hope that we all begin to think of what type of person we need in the U.S. Senate. It is not about Republican or Democrat, but more about if the person understands the world, business and our military.

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

Very compelling arguments. I’ve also exchanged e-mails with David in setting this up and it sounds like he has some Eastern Shore connections, so perhaps we’ll get a chance to meet him on the campaign trail. And he supports my run for the Central Committee, so he gets points for that. Seems like a very nice guy.

But will nice guys finish last? We’ll have to see on September 12.

Editor’s note: Tonight I’ve added a “Ten Questions” category so it will be easier to read each candidate’s response that I get. This weekend I’m going to send out the Maryland General Assembly version to hopefuls in Districts 37 and 38, plus, as a special bonus, invite my cohorts in the Maryland Bloggers Alliance to do the same for their areas.

FOP Sheriff’s Forum

Tonight as promised I was one of about 150 attendees (plus both local TV stations and other local media) to attend the FOP Sheriff’s Forum at the Elks Club. All seven hopefuls for the position attended and the audience was attentive for the 90 minute program, with a short intermission in the middle.

The format went like this: all seven candidates were allowed a three minute opening statement, then there were five questions where each was alloted two minutes for an answer, and finally a three minute closing statement from each. I took down my notes and at the end I had five pages.

As a blogger, I have a choice in how I wish to present this. If I wanted to take all night I could do a he said/she said laundry list of details on all the questions and opening/closing statements. There are two problems with this approach. One is that I don’t have all night, and the other is that in this format a lot of the candidates end up saying pretty much the same things. Let’s face it – the main job of the sheriff is law enforcement. The reason it’s become such an important election as far as the sheriff’s office goes is because we have a LOT of people who choose not to obey the laws. The candidate who will win this fall is going to be the one who convinces the most voters that he or she is going to bring down the crime threat. I can be a lot more short and sweet by just writing about my impressions on how each candidate will face up to the crime issue. Obviously all seven are in favor of cutting crime. However, they all have a little bit different approach.

I found the choice of questions interesting. In order, the questions dealt with collective bargaining, emergency preparedness in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, ideas on fighting violent crime, a wish list of technology they’d like to see and how to pay for it, and finally a question on officer morale and cooperation between the various law enforcement agencies.

So here are the impressions I had of each of the candidates. Since I HATE listings in alphabetical order (like the Maryland primary ballot because I’m last on it) I am going in reverse alphabetical order. By the way, since I don’t want to write it out seven hundred times, WCSD (or “department”) is shorthand for Wicomico County Sheriff’s Department.

To me, Chris South has the most intriguing background. The Viet Nam vet has been away from actual police work since a long stint with the Salisbury Police Department ended in 1987. Currently he works for US Air as a customer service and security coordinator at the Salisbury-OC Airport. And it seemed that he would use the background to make the WCSD maybe a little more user-friendly. Some of the ideas he espoused were more neighborhood patrols, positive interaction with youth, and strengthened communication with other law enforcement organizations. All of these seem to aim at being more service-oriented.

Further, in his answer to the violent crime question, South conceded that one person could not solve the problem; in his words some “brainstorming” was needed. The collaboration aspect also showed in his other answers as well, stating in his collective bargaining answer that “he wanted what the men wanted” and in the Katrina question about pairing up with other law enforcement agencies to shelter his deputies’ families where conditions were most safe. He stated later that morale was his “number one priority.”

I thought the best answer he gave was to the question of technology. He cautioned that the department should prioritize their equipment needs because “grants are not a given.” That was a good, prudent response.

Of all the sheriff officeseekers at the forum table, I think Doris Schonbrunner spoke the least. She succinctly answered her questions and based most of her arguments for earning your vote on her experience and administrative abilities. Stating that she “has prepared for this position my whole career”, she was the only candidate who addressed the issue of the WCSD’s $6 million budget, and also was the only one who cited her educational background. She holds associate and bachelor’s degrees and is working on a master’s degree in public administration. In addition, she’s graduated from the FBI Academy.

She stated that she would publicly endorse the collective bargaining effort underway at the department, while noting that the department now is at parity with the Maryland State Police as far as salaries are concerned, they finally caught up this year.

The main concerns for Schonbrunner were reopening the sheriff substations, community policing, and forming a gang intelligence unit. She wanted to “lead the sheriff’s office to the future.” One intriguing aspect of doing that (which drew a couple snickers from the assembled) was to use Segways as vehicles for community policing. But I suppose it’s no worse than the bicycle cops I see out now, with less effort on their part. It shows a bit of out-of-the-box thinking from the candidate probably most associated with “staying the course” in the WCSD, as did her answer on improving morale through identifying deputies’ areas of interest careerwise and pairing them with more senior officers in a mentorship program.

Another current deputy sheriff, Robin Roberts, had some different thoughts on the state of the department. He cited his experience with the WCSD as a deputy administrator and the person in charge of the child sex offender registry and as the internal affairs investigator.

Again, he wanted to find the funds to reopen the substations and enhance communication with allied agencies, frequently stressing collaboration. One idea he espoused in response to the violent crime question was a quarterly meeting of a “Sheriff’s Advisory Board” comprised of interested citizens.

The other large issue with him was what he termed “specialized interdiction units.” These would be groups of deputies assigned to specialize in various areas of crime. He noted that some of these units exist but they are jointly staffed by the WCSD, Salisbury Police Department, and Maryland State Police. Roberts saw this as a problem, and asserted that these should be placed under WCSD control as they were the highest law enforcement agency in the county.

One statement Roberts made gave me a bit of pause. In his opening statement, he spoke of “diversifying” the agency. Now while certain people may be underrepresented, personally I want the best officers in the WCSD, not a certain quota of each group that has to be met.

Stating that the WCSD needs to be “proactive rather than reactive”, Ken Pusey is a 25 year veteran of that department. To that end, Pusey seemed to be the one who wanted to clean up the department the most, alluding to flaws in how manpower is handled. First off, as part of a restructuring he promised he would as quickly as possible place five more deputies on the road. He then stated that there would be a special operations unit for high-crime areas, and pledged to run a “cost-effective” office.

Pusey also faulted the current administration for a promotional system that was not fair and unbiased, and in what I saw as a swipe to his fellow WCSD aspirants running for the sheriff’s badge, vowed to reevaluate the personnel at the WCSD.

However, the statement that troubled me the most was his answer to the question about technology and paying for it. He wanted what most of the others wanted: in-car cameras, mobile computers, and the like, but said that grants to pay for these items “don’t cost the taxpayers a thing.” I have a news flash for Mr. Pusey: unless you are getting a grant from a private corporation, state and federal grants DO cost us taxpayers. It’s just not money directly spent from the county. In fact, it’s probably more costly because of the extra bureaucratic hands that the funds go through.

Another candidate with a sort of unusual path to the sheriff’s election is Wayne Lowe. He certainly has the law enforcement chops for the job with 23 years in the Maryland State Police, but he’s coming from the other side of the coin with his current position working for the state attorney’s office. So a lot of his focus is on the end result of police involvement.

Moreso than any other candidate, he stressed working on the documentation and paperwork end of the average deputy’s tasks. With his experience under the state’s attorney, Lowe also favored a greater role for crime prevention, especially when it came to young children and alerting them to the dangers of gang involvement. Also for that task he sought an increased street presence, with more frequent patrolling.

As to the financial end of the enhanced duties of the WCSD, Lowe spoke of securing “hundreds of thousands” of dollars worth of grants as part of his job. Some of this money would go to the purchase of in-car computers, which he cited as a valuable tool for getting convictions. Of course, that’s the ultimate goal of law enforcement, to properly enforce the laws and punish miscreants who break them. Lowe sees good documentation as a key to the solution.

If votes were cast simply for passion for the task at hand, Mike Lewis would win the race hands down. He brought more reaction from the attendees than anyone else, particularly with lines like this:

Referring to crime, “Wicomico County now is not the Wicomico County I knew in the ’80’s and ’90’s.”

Paraphrasing his feelings on school officers, he didn’t like the thought of deputies in school because he felt things started at home.

On the question of preparedness: we have “no need to reinvent the wheel”, we could learn from the experience of New Orleans and adopt plans they put in place after the Katrina disaster.

His term on the task of the WCSD: “Stop babysitting criminals.” Confront the criminals on the streets and “take the streets of Wicomico County back.”

On getting new technology, he related to the crowd that one person who awards grants told him that if Lewis wins the Sheriff’s race, the grant giver “will make sure” that Wicomico County deputies have an in-car camera in each car. Lewis added that in-car cameras benefit officers and prosecutors, and reduce liability.

Maybe his most brash line, on improving morale: “The first thing I can do to improve morale would be to get elected Sheriff…because deputies want to be police officers.”

Obviously Lewis would bring a passion to the job. The question is whether the gung-ho style that excites the public is going to fit within the administrative side of the job, and whether an outsider will be able to remold the WCSD into a mindset maybe more appropriate for the MSP’s drug unit.

The final candidate at the forum was Kirk Daugherty. After seeing him walking the Allen parade, I’m certain of his health, but what will he bring to the job? After a long stint in both the WCSD and the Maryland State Police, he’s now the president of the Maryland Troopers Association.

In his opening statement, Daugherty vowed to “honor the past (and) protect the future of Wicomico County.” He also promised to serve the special needs of seniors so they wouldn’t be “prisoners in their own home.”

Citing that 5% of the population are the ones who cause the problems, Daugherty vowed to get them off the street. He said also that he found it frustrating when parents came to him and asked him what to do about with a borderline troubled child, so we needed some sort of mandated program for at-risk kids.

To Daugherty, improved technology would help deputies who were “overwhelmed with paper” because it would aid in gathering evidence. He was in favor of securing what he called “CSI” technology and combining it with mobile data terminals to make the deputies’ recordkeeping tasks less time-consuming.

One thing I saw as a bit of an odd answer as far as the morale question went was Daugherty citing the things he’d accomplished in the past, such as putting together a sick leave bank. But he also asserted that he’d have an “open door policy” if he were elected.

Of course, it wasn’t just Sheriff candidates there, as a lot of fellow voteseekers came to see and be seen. So I did get in a little postforum schmoozing and the results of that will be seen in the next few days as I add a few new links to monoblogue. Since the fields are now basically set, I can start to get to know better the issues at play in each race and work to inform the readers of monoblogue so they can make the best voting decisions possible.

I hope this summary beats the snot out of the maybe 30 second feature I’m sure the local nightly newscasts had.

Allen parade in pictures

I told you that I love a parade. Now I don’t care how hot it was, I was going to show up and I did. The only thing that could have made it better was a marching band, although since I was standing by the Asbury Methodist Church, their carolier was thoughtful enough to program some patriotic tunes into the 2:00 chimes.

So here’s where I was standing in relation to the parade route:

Looking southwest from Asbury Church.

And you know it’s not a parade this summer without at least some politics. He wasn’t marching, but Sheriff candidate Kenneth Pusey had someone in his corner.

Maybe not there physically, but he has a supporter at the Allen 4th of July parade.

Finally the parade arrives as a police car is leading the way.

Leading off the parade is a police car and Boy Scout color guard.

Once the police car came closer, I realized it was a Wicomico County Sheriff’s cruiser, and who’s behind the wheel? Sheriff candidate (and current second in command) Major Doris Schonbrunner. Perhaps she’s getting in some practice?

Sheriff candidate and current second-in-command Doris Schonbrunner paces the parade.

But she was certainly not without some competition. Almost immediately behind the cruiser walked Kirk Daugherty, another candidate for the post. I suppose this is a good health indicator, since it was a pretty long stroll in 90 plus degree heat. The man must not sweat.

Sheriff candidate Kirk Daugherty walks the parade route.

Soon Wicomico County Council’s Gail Bartkovich came by in a very nice Mustang convertible. This is another thing I love about parades, I love classic cars in (slow) motion. But I think I caught her a half-beat off a classic politician’s smile. Oh well.

Inside this sweet Mustang convertible sits District 3 Councilwoman Gail Bartkovich.

Here’s another nice classic car, this time sans politician. Instead there was a gentleman driving who should be proud of this stately automobile.

An old classic Buick from the era when Detroit ruled the auto world.

And once again, a Mustang with a politician in it. This time it’s District 37 Senator Rich Colburn.

Senator Rich Colburn waves to the crowd at the July 4th parade in Allen.

But not everyone rode through the parade. It’s sort of an oddity, but most of the Democrats who were in the parade walked the route, while the bulk of the Republicans rode in a car. I’m not sure if this has any political significance. Anyway, Mark Bowen, Wicomico County Clerk of Courts, was among the walkers. It’s a good thing he carried the sign because personally I wouldn’t know him from Adam otherwise.

Clerk of Courts Mark Bowen with his large sign.

It wasn’t all politicians who were represented. You had the obligitory Scout troops, a few floats, lots of bikes, and cute kids. The next photo is of a group called the Buffalo Soldiers, which represented ancestors of the onetime Negro-only regiments in the U.S. military. They weren’t integrated with the rest of the armed forces until World War II. It’s sort of a forgotten chapter in military history that this group serves as a reminder of.

The local Buffalo Soldiers proudly participated.

And here’s just a sample of the cute kid quotient:

A young lady rides a decorated ATV in the Allen July 4th parade.

Now I find it interesting that District 38A Delegate Page Elmore has his own campaign van. Even more interesting was the fact he was walking the route, and the van stopped for a time because he was gladhanding Allen residents and the van pulled over so he could catch up. The van was originally behind Gail Bartkovich’s Mustang but didn’t pass until almost the end of the parade!

And he was not unopposed at the parade. I spied Tony Bruce, a Democrat hopeful, walking (again a Democrat walking!) along the parade route, but I got a bad picture of him. The same happened to Bob Culver, candidate for County Executive. That’s too bad because he was alongside a neat little yellow Volkswagen Beetle.

But here’s Page, finally caught up to his van.

District 38A Delegate Page Elmore walks alongside his campaign van.

Now, there’s always a finish to the parade. If it’s a Christmas parade, they put Santa at the end. I’m not sure she qualifies at Saint Nick, but Orphans Court Judge Melissa Pollitt Bright struggled to keep up on her bike and thus was the parade’s tail end. But she made it through.

Melissa Pollitt Bright is the cow's tail for this parade.

Now there was a celebration at the Allen Community Hall afterward with food and music, along with the acknowlegement of candidates and elected officials there. Most of those I pictured stayed around for that as well, plus I was greeted by Wicomico County Councilwoman Stevie Prettyman and Sheriff Hunter Nelms. Since they’re both Republicans, they know me from the WCRC meetings. It’s nice that they can recognize me now, and from the indications that the Board of Elections has given me, I’ll be their elected peer for at least a short time.

I’m going to post all my Allen photos on my Flickr page, I didn’t take all of them for cropping to blog size and as I noted some of them didn’t turn out as I liked. (And it was bipartisan.) This will likely happen over the weekend since I have several personal and blog-related items on my agenda the next few days.

But I’ll tell you what, I enjoyed the parade and gathering. Had I known what kind of fiasco the Lynard Skynard concert would be, I would have stayed in Allen a little longer!

Election Calendar – July 3 thru July 16

Another edition of the Election Calendar. People are starting to get it slowly but surely – putting word of events on the internet is a good thing!

This week several events in Sussex County have crossed my computer screen, so they now lead the pack.

Sussex County:

July 4: U.S. Congress candidate Dennis Spivack is slated to appear at the Bethany parade. The parade steps off at noon.

July 6: U.S. Senate candidate Jan Ting is scheduled to be at the Sussex County GOP Passport Party. This is at the Baywood Greens CC in Long Neck. Cost is $45 per person or $80 a couple, starting at 6:00 with social hour. Speaker is former Ambassador to China James R. Lilley and info can be had at (302) 856-6323.

July 7: The next night, Ting is back in Seaford for his listening tour. The info number given is (302) 651-0271.

July 11: Delaware Attorney General candidate Ferris Wharton holds the first stop on his Announcement Tour at 9 a.m. at the Old Courthouse in Georgetown, 10 S. Bedford Street.

July 15: Sussex County Sheriff Robert Reed is having a barbecue fundraiser at 32046 River Road in Millsboro from 4-8 p.m. Cost is $15 and kids 4-12 for $6. Info: (302) 945-2586.

Wicomico County:

July 4: District 38B candidate Bonnie Luna will be circulating about the Wicomico Fireworks display at Wicomico High School in Salisbury. Also, I’m told several candidates will be at the earlier parade in the village of Allen. (That parade starts at 2:00, I found that out today.)

July 6: As far as I know, the Sheriff Candidates Forum at the Elks Club is still on. I’m assuming that this is the one at 401 Church Hill Avenue (by the golf course and zoo) since that’s the only Elks Club I’m aware of here. Not certain of the time yet, but I’m still sure someone will tell me – I would guess 6:30 or 7:00.

July 8: Bonnie Luna is the guest of honor at a neighborhood “Meet the Candidate” party. For info call (410) 749-1736.

July 10: On Larry Dodd‘s calendar (District 5 County Council incumbent) is an interview for Bill Reddish’s WICO-AM morning show. Generally these occur in the half hour between 7:30 and 8:00 a.m.

Worcester County:

July 8: Both District 38B hopeful Jack Lord and U.S. Congress candidate (MD-1) Jim Corwin are slated to be at the Ocean Pines Boat Parade.

July 9: Fellow 38B candidate Bonnie Luna is scheduled to be at the “Concert on the Lawn” at the Calvin B. House Museum in Berlin (208 N. Main Street).

July 15: Jack Lord is having a “Surfin’ Safari” fundraiser at the Showell Fire Department hall, 1-5 p.m. Cost is $35 per person.

Dorchester County:

July 7: District 37 State Senator Richard Colburn is having the 10th Choptank River Cruise. This cruise will embark from the Suicide Bridge Restaurant (6304 Suicide Bridge Road in Hurlock) at 6:30 p.m. sharp, and the cost is $75.

July 8: U.S. Congress candidate Jim Corwin’s calendar has him stopping by the Dorchester Democrat Central Committee fundraiser at the Canvasback Restaurant in Cambridge. This begins at 3:30 p.m. and the cost is $35. Also having this on his calendar is Maryland AG hopeful Doug Gansler.

Wow, this took a lot more time. But I’m happy to do it! I counted 14 events so things are beginning to pop here for sure.

Ten questions for…Dennis Rasmussen

Finally, a candidate who responded in time! Bonus points for that, he sent them to me back on June 7th. Originally I had trouble getting in contact with his campaign, so once I finally did a week had passed so he had that extra week to answer the Ten Questions. (If you recall, the original date was May 31st.)

Without further ado, here are the questions and the answers Dennis provided to me.

Question #1:

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

First and foremost – the flow of illegal aliens must be stopped. If that means more patrols, enhanced technology, bringing in the National Guard and building barriers, then let’s do it!

Second – we need to implement formidable disincentives so that businesses do not hire illegals. That means sizable fines and other legal sanctions. We need to be able to have employers verify an immigrant’s status.

Third – we need to register all aliens. If you do not have a valid “citizen” or “visitor” I.D., then you discontinue all public assistance.

Fourth – We need to recognize that we can’t deport 12 million people. Currently, we cannot track down all the individuals for whom there are open arrest warrants, and we know their names, where they live and where they work. Identifying, much less deporting, 12 million illegal aliens with no incentive to identify themselves is unrealistic. For those who meet the requirements on a selective system, we must assimilate them into our society.

Basically, I like the concept of “Closed Borders and Open Doors” with a selective, but fair, immigration policy. Diversity has been a strength of America. However, we are a nation of laws, which must be enforced.

Question #2:

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

The energy issue is solvable, but it may require the American people and American businesses to compromise to achieve a strategy of conservation and energy independence.

First – The mileage standard for auto and truck performance must be increased at least an additional 4-5 miles/gallon, including SUV’s.

Second – We must provide incentives and approve exploration of the liquefied natural gas resources located on the northern slope of Alaska.

Third – We have limited refining capacity. We must build more. In addition, we need the ability to produce and blend bio-fuels, particularly ethanol.

Fourth – Mobilize the scientific community and provide researchers the funds, facilities and mandate to develop alternative, commercially viable fuels and sources of energy.

Fifth – We need to re-allocate subsidies to the large oil companies and utilize those funds to encourage the development of new power plants and install environmental technology to existing fossil burning power plants to eliminate dangerous mercury emissions.

Question #3:

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

This one is really simple. No ability for lobbyist organizations, including trade associations to give, raise or steer campaign contributions to anyone in office or running for office. Take that ability away, and you have instant reform. The role of the lobbyist is to educate and inform, not control the power to vote.

Question #4:

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

Campaign financing is a more difficult issue. Money – and the ability to raise it – is a measure of viability of a candidate or cause. I do believe that citizens’ ability to express their desires and concerns via political involvement is a First Amendment Right.

Public financing has some merit, but how do you decide the criteria for who gets the money? If you leave that policy to elected office-holders, I can assure you they will create a system that will limit funds to challengers.

McCain-Feingold had good intentions, but produced the unintended consequences of creating independent 527 organizations. There are legitimate pros and cons to that occurrence. Reform is needed, but it needs study and honest input.

Question #5:

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

It is too late to argue the merits of being in Iraq. The question is how do we objectively measure and achieve a winning outcome? The consequences of losing Iraq will affect the next several generations. I do not support an arbitrary time-frame for withdrawal. An exit strategy needs to be fully developed with definitive objectives that can be measured before any meaningful withdrawal of American resources. We must win with honor, secure Iraq for the Iraqi people by providing means of law and order and basic infrastructure, and return our troops as quickly as possible!

Question #6:

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

I favor full international sanctions and isolating Iran if they fail to be part of the Community of Nations. If they truly want only nuclear power, we should assist and control the output of fusionable material. Iran will threaten to bargain with oil and access to oil. In the long run, it will destroy their economy, so I don’t believe they would withhold oil or access to oil as a long-term weapon. Military strikes are a last resort, and only after an attack or the threat of an eminent attack on Israel or others in the Middle East.

Question #7:

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

Social Security is a disaster, and unless common sense returns to the Congress, instead of protecting and defining ideologies, we will have a new generation of poor and no system surviving past 2050. Social Security needs to be maintained at current levels to assure a reliable safety net for Americans approaching retirement. We must also assure all working Americans that their private sector pensions will be remain secure and available at their time of retirement. Borrowing from Social Security trust funds has weakened the financial stability of the system. Measures must be taken to assure that adequate funds will be in place to provide full benefits to retirees as originally promised by Congress.

Question #8:

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

The system of “earmarks” has been an integral component of the U.S. budgetary process. In past years, this system, if used in a prudent and limited basis, allows the funding of priority projects when that response is appropriate. Unfortunately, in the past several years, out-of-control spending by Congress has resulted in absolute abuse of this budgetary mechanism. Earmarks have exploded from approximately 1,700 to 16,000 in the past five years. This is irresponsible and unacceptable. Earmarks should be continued as long as there is timely and full disclosure as to the sponsor of the earmark, the reasons for its request and its appropriate justification.

Question #9:

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

We can no longer think in terms of the U.S. economy alone. We are truly a global economy. Free trade or limited restricted trade benefits both buyer and seller in the long run. The promotion of trade between nations also promotes peace. Nations that trade have an economic stake in each other do not make war on each other – military or economic.

Another economic truth is that production follows cheap labor and nothing will ever change that. But America can and does compete. Who does the world look to America for brain power, technology, medical breakthroughs, particularly when it comes to quality, dependable high skill-level workers? They look to the U.S.A. Where do the world’s automobile manufacturers, computer manufacturers, medical manufacturers come? They come to the U.S.A. for those skills and quality. What universities and educations are the most sought after? It is the U.S.A., again. We should welcome and embrace global trade, because in the end, the world wants and needs what we produce and consume.

The trade deficit is primarily an illusion – we are the largest market in the world today. If we buy the goods of the world in sheer volume, we buy more than the rest of the world. To believe that the rest of the world or individual nations buy an equal amount of our product is unrealistic. China may, in the future, alter that balance. We need to monitor China’s expansion plans very carefully and develop a strategy of containment.

Question #10:

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

As a Moderate, Common-Sense candidate for the U.S. Senate, I would favor candidates that show an ability to govern from the middle.

I am drawn to Sen. Biden’s approach to international issues. I admire John Kerry’s plan to make sure that all children have healthcare. I appreciate John Edward’s concern for the poor. I am a fan of General Wesley Clark and his strong military leadership. However, the 2008 election is, politically, a lifetime away. After evaluating all declared candidates, my support will go to the candidate whom I believe can best lead America through consensus, integrity, and an ability to develop common-sense policies.

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

I appreciate these thoughtful responses, they were among the best I’ve received thus far.

Because Tuesday is a holiday, I’m going to skip doing the Ten Questions for that day and resume with them on Friday. There are 12 more U.S. Senate and local U.S. House candidates to go, so next week will be the halfway point for the hopefuls’ responses. Also next week I’ll finish compiling a similar set of questions for local House of Delegates and State Senate candidates. I just checked the Maryland Board of Elections website and there are 19 people who would get these because they’ve filed (20 if you count one I’m aware of who has yet to file.) So those will be scheduled starting in mid-July.

Keep your eyes peeled on monoblogue, because I have the feeling the local folks will be much more accomodating in answering these questions. I have one question to rewrite, otherwise they’re set to go.

Ten questions for…Kevin Zeese

Editor’s note: oh did I screw up! I actually DID have his reply in time and misplaced it! So look on a post July 8th for his answers!

Today is a double bummer. First of all, the Shorebirds game I had tickets for tonight was “rained out.” I’ve been in and out the last couple hours as I got my evening walk in and I live fairly close by the stadium…it’s rained maybe 5-10 minutes. I’m pissed because they could’ve gotten this game in easily. I wanted to get to a game this week but obviously I attended the WCRC meeting last night so I hoped all day the rain would hold off…it did and I got the shaft anyway. So I’ll have to wait until Saturday I guess. Bummer number one.

The other downer was not getting my response back from Kevin Zeese. I think they would have been interesting responses since he’s been nominated to the Senate seat by a coalition of parties – the Green Party, Libertarians, and Populist Party all cross-endorsed him. Because of that, he automatically skips the primary process and proceeds straight to the November ballot. (Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.)

Furthermore, when this whole process started he was among the first to respond with interest in answering the questions – but not a peep since. Of course, maybe he’ll see this and do as Allan Lichtman did, sending me the answers in response to this post. Time will only tell.

I suppose the one thing good that does come out of this is I didn’t realize the Maryland Populist Party had a website so now I’ll link to it too. If the Constitution Party would come around we could make the Maryland ballot very interesting. Sometimes the career politicians need to be taken down a peg.

Oh, by the way…for the first time, I actually have the Ten Questions answered in advance so I’ll post this responder’s answers on Friday. This way you won’t have to read my ramblings, but important information for primary voters to decide on.

WCRC meeting – June 2006

As the primary election gets closer, the number of folks attending our little gettogethers increases as well. Tonight we had over 40 people packed into our room to have some very good food and hear our main guest speaker, County Executive candidate Bob Culver.

First things first, we took care of business. I’m not sure if it was a highlight or not, probably not, but they asked me to read the minutes of last month’s meeting. Didn’t think I wrote that much! But I wrote the minutes and my blog post at the same time, and normally I don’t have to read my writing aloud. Oh well, they were accepted as written.

We did get the treasurer’s report, and again it was a profitable month for the club, the balance is deep into five figures.

There wasn’t much else in the way of club matters to discuss, so we went right to our featured speaker. Bob Culver is a native of Wicomico County and has spend nearly his entire life living here, with the exception of a brief stint of college in North Carolina. However, he returned here to finish at SU and went into a long string of different businesses – most notably being onetime owner of the Market Street Inn and operating the paddleboat concession at the local park, in addition to being a farmer and an owner of storage facilities. At this point in his life he’s beginning to turn over some of these enterprises to his sons, so he’s decided to seek the county executive post because, in his words, Wicomico County “needs to be run like a business.”

A point he stressed early on was that the county’s citizens had shown frustration with their government, citing the passage of the 2% revenue cap a few years ago and the creation of the county executive post in the 2004 election as examples of voter displeasure. In regard to the revenue cap, Culver vowed that he “would not touch” the cap, and put his trust in the voters rescinding it when they feel the county’s government is moving in a satisfactory direction. More importantly to him, Bob felt that the county needed “a leader who can say no.”

His other pet topic on the evening was the state of the county schools. With the board of education taking over half the county budget, he questioned the ability of possible Democrat opponent Rick Pollitt to stand up to the Board of Education when necessary since Pollitt is currently on the board. Culver also wondered what good a new $80 million Bennett High School would be if the listed capacity of the school was just 150 students more than the capacity of the school it replaces. To him, working on the issues inside the school such as discipline made much more sense. In what was probably his most humorous quote, he deadpanned that we need to “add onto the alternative schools so that no child’s left behind.”

When questioned later about Pollitt’s “two budget” plan (with and without the revenue cap) Culver stated that he wasn’t going to make a great fuss about that, he’d let the residents of Fruitland (where Pollitt is the city manager) talk about Pollitt themselves. Bob did claim that Fruitland, while doubling in size over the last few years, also has among the highest tax and utility rates in the county. Culver also touched on another growth issue as he spoke, saying that he had no problem with the package water treatment plants, and in some respects they were helpful to reduce growth – “sprawl for sprawl itself is wrong”, he concluded. A figure of 1/2 to 2% growth per year was acceptable to him.

While upbeat about the long-term future of Wicomico County, Bob also conceded that things in the county will “get tighter before they get better,” so a final goal of his was to make government simple, explaining it in the terms of a savings account and a checking account. He wanted to have a savings account of about 10% in case Wicomico County was hit with a unexpected large expense like this weekend’s flooding just to our north. It also tied in with a statement that, in touring the county, he’d seen more and more that different communities have different concerns and the interaction with each town and hamlet was educational.

At that point, Culver finished his speech and we heard from John Bartkovich, who was “excited” to see a lot of Republicans running this time around. He did warn about the 45 day rule regarding signs along state highways – even on private property some signs were being removed. Another rule he spoke about was one I didn’t know. The Central Committee has about 15 days after the July 3rd filing deadline to fill posts that are still open on the ballot. That puts some interesting power in their hands, talk about your “stealth” candidates!

Dr. John also expressed his disappointment in the turnout for the Lincoln Day dinner. I can’t say I blame him a lot for that though I recall some pretty light attendance at LD dinners I attended in Ohio. Personally, I think the date is too late in the year – there’s too much going on in June anyway and the nice weather hurts attendance.

After he exhorted us to work hard for our candidates who survived the primary (and sought lots of turnout for it) we heard briefly from Wicomico County’s Ehrlich camapign coordinator, Ellen Andrews. She does still have a few tickets left for the Shorebirds game on Saturday, with over 200 sold. And the petition drive is still ongoing, despite reports that the drive was short on signatures. Somehow a few hundred signatures were “un-counted” by Linda Lamone’s office. Finally, Andrews told us about Governor Ehrlich’s formal candidacy announcement on Wednesday and Sonny Bloxom chimed in that the LG announcement would come Friday. (One speculation I saw tonight was that the head of the Governor’s Office on Disabilities, Kristen Cox, would get the nod.)

We also heard briefly from most of the candidates in attendance. The list included District 38B hopefuls Bloxom, Bonnie Luna, and Jack Lord along with Michael James’s surrogate Dustin Mills. Sonny Bloxom had some passionate comments on those who would support Democrat incumbent Norm Conway because of his Appropriations chairmanship, asking about the real cost of the “table scraps” we receive after the “Western Shore liberals” get theirs. In particular, he railed about the 800 jobs (and spinoffs) possibly lost because of the Wal-Mart vote and the veto override of the latest BG&E rate “relief” that carried by just two votes, both Conway and recent Democrat appointee Jim Mathias voting to override. Since Conway was claiming he would retire after the upcoming term anyway, Bloxom wanted the voters to retire Norm a little earlier. I know I certainly don’t want Norm Conway retiring feet first like his late cohort Bennett Bozman.

Then it was the county hopefuls, including at-large County Council candidate John Cannon, a new entry for the post. Cannon spoke for a few moments about his pet issue, which was growth needing to be managed and having consistency in zoning. We also heard briefly from the two Sheriff candidates in attendance, Mike Lewis (who’s in his final days with the MSP as he retires June 30) and Doris Schonbrunner.

The last person to have the floor was elections official Woody Willing. What he and his board needs most (from both parties) are election workers, they are 20 Republicans short and I’m sure a fair number of Democrats as well. He also noted that, while the two main parties are treading water or slowly sinking in terms of registered voters, the number of nonaffiliated voters is swelling. There are about 41,500 voters registered by party, but almost 7,000 who are not. With the closeness of the two parties’ numbers, a swing one way or the other by the independents will decide the election.

I’m going to work out of order here as my closing, but John Bartkovich had one interesting piece of advice. He said that there’s going to be a certain number of people who may be leaning GOP, but may have a hard time supporting them because they don’t understand (my words) the War on Terror. In that case, it’s best not to get caught in national items – there’s really much more on our plate locally in terms of issues.

And this is true. I happen to support our troops and the idea that we need to fight terrorists in their back yard as we can. But here in Wicomico County we have so much more to discuss – schools, crime, the environment, and what seems to be my new adopted pet issue of development (thanks to Duvafiles.) I think the Republicans on a local level have good common sense ideas to address these, and given the fact that state and national GOP candidates have carried Wicomico County regularly for the last 20 years, maybe it’s time to place us in charge of local affairs and see how we do. I know I was impressed tonight with what seemed like a sensible set of ideas from Bob Culver.

Ehrlich’s hires and fires

I’m going to start out from the title and sort of work around to my point, so be patient tonight. The germ of this post has come from a variety of different items I came across today.

In Duvafiles there’s a post about Governor Ehrlich appointing an openly gay judge to a District Court seat. This after firing one of his appointees to a Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority seat last week because of percieved anti-gay remarks (which were really pro-Catholic.)

Well, to me that’s not the whole story. If you read the comments to the post, one stands out. I’m going to go ahead and paste it here so you can keep it in context. The author is BJ Corbin, who I know as a fellow WCRC member. (I can say this because he signed his comment, which is why I cite him and use this comment.)

As a social/moral conservative that is active in the Republican Party… I have already contacted the Governor, Senator Stoltzfus and the Wicomico County Ehrlich campaign coordinator withdrawing my support for the Governor because of his positions on gambling, embryonic stem cell research and his most recent action firing Mr. Smith for his Christian view of homosexuality. (So much for free speech and tolerance) I think there are many others that are just as disappointed as I am… even in the VERY LIBERAL BLUE State of Maryland!

Actually, I have no problem with Corbin’s views at all, but the question has to be asked: who would he support then? He has four choices in the governor’s race at the moment: voting to keep Governor Ehrlich in office despite the differences of opinion that he has with the governor; crossing party lines and voting for Martin O’Malley, who would’ve likely appointed the gay judge anyhow to promote “diversity”; or voting for Green Party candidate Ed Boyd, who would probably select a rainbow of openly gay judges. The other choice is skipping the governor’s race on the ballot entirely, which I’d bet he will do.

And this is why I like lots of choices when it comes to voting. Readers familiar with monoblogue can likely recall a time or two when I’ve cited my frustrations with the Ohio GOP for “annointing” candidates to avoid primary fights. The problem was they always selected the more “electable” (read: moderate) person to run.

In reading some of the party websites today for preparing my election calendar for the week, I came across a tidbit on the Green Party’s site (besides now knowing that Ed Boyd and James Joseph Madigan are their governor/LG candidates respectively) where they need to collect a certain number of signatures to keep a place on the ballot for the 2007-2010 election cycle. I know the Libertarian Party here in Maryland has the same dilemma, and I assume the Constitution Party does as well. (Unfortunately, their website is “under construction” so I bet they’ve already thrown in the towel.)

This may sound very strange from a guy who’s running for the Republican Central Committee and has a goal of making it the majority party in Wicomico County, but I’d love to see more parties get on the ballot and start fielding serious, credible candidates throughout the state. BJ’s comment shines a light on a problem that exists with our system that has two dominant parties who set the rules to suit them.

Yes, Governor Ehrlich is a Republican and theoretically all GOP members should support him. But in a lot of ways, he’s out of step with the conservatives in the party (recent hirings and firings a case in point.) In 2002, he had broad support from everyone in the GOP (who, conservatives among them, were thrilled just to have a shot at the governor’s chair after 30+ years away) and then Ehrlich siphoned enough votes from the more moderate Democrats who weren’t enamored with Kathleen Kennedy Townsend to win the race.

One thing the powers-that-be in the Democrat party sighed in relief about last week was having Doug Duncan drop out of the race unexpectedly. To me, though, it was a sad day because we voters lost our only chance at choice in the matter, now the primary is meaningless in that regard. On the other hand, the plethora of candidates for the U.S. Senate seat is great for voters, although most of the wannabes have no hope because they aren’t being backed by the party apparatus who thinks they aren’t “electable.” Technically, the Maryland GOP is supposed to stay neutral but come on, I don’t see John Kane, Ken Mehlman et. al. doing a lot to help out Corrogan Vaughn, who’s also a black Republican in the U.S. Senate race.

Republicans like to claim they have a “big tent”, where they have a broad enough list of principles to appeal to a large swath of voters, everyone from “middle-of-the-road” to neo- and paleo-conservatives, to the Main Street Partnership moderates (a group that includes Gov. Ehrlich and Rep. Gilchrest.) In theory, that does work as most GOP’ers will pull that lever whether they agree with all of the candidate’s views or not, as they put party above principle. (Democrats do the same thing, especially union members.)

But people like Corbin want to run things the other way and put principle above party, and I’m the same way. And this is where I have a problem with the two major “one-size-fits-all” parties. Because they seem to try and take as much choice from the primary voters as they can (at least in the major races) I think the best solution is to allow as many parties in as possible. Obviously the two parties in charge don’t like that so they set onerous goalposts for other parties to conform to, and I think we voters deserve more choices.

So I was really tempted to print out a Green Party petition form and bring it to the meeting tomorrow. Their website noted that they were only at about 2500 signatures and they needed someplace north of 10,000 by November to secure a ballot place for 2007-2010. But then since I can witness my own signature, I can just sign my own petition and send it in. I’m sure the Libertarian Party would send me a copy of theirs. (All it does is put them on the ballot, you don’t change your registration with it.)

As far as local Wicomico elections go, I’d enjoy seeing other parties’ candidates for the county offices, although this year we have a pretty good selection in just the Republican party because of the number of open seats. But assuming we win the ’06 elections, I’d still like to see at least some opposition for the incumbents in 2010 to put pressure on them. If you only could buy Fords, what incentive would they have to evolve and improve their product? The minute Chevy comes out with something, it puts Ford on notice that they have to do something to hold its share of the market. Throw Chrysler in there, and both have to redouble their efforts.

However, change has to start from the very bottom because it’s in the vested interest of the big money folks and the powerful special interests to maintain the system the way it is. Now, I’m all for unlimited monetary contributions (and full, instant disclosure of them) but I’m also for much easier ballot access to all who wish to put forth their platforms and slates. So I support these parties as they try to get on the ballot. I may not agree with them, but they should be heard, not just the same old Democrats and Republicans.

Election Calendar – June 26 thru July 9

Apologies are in order if you tried to access monoblogue earlier this afternoon. It was my server being down, obviously it’s corrected now since I was just finishing this entry when I lost contact. Luckily I saved it when I was 90% done!

Another week, another election calendar. Slowly I’m picking up more events although I’m still lacking in Somerset County for at least another couple weeks. The big Tawes event in Crisfield would be listed on that calendar.

Thanks to some help from my friends, I’ve found out about a couple Wicomico County events so now they have the largest number.

Wicomico County:

June 26: Wicomico County Republican Club meeting, Chamber of Commerce building, 144 E. Main Street, meeting starts at 7:30 p.m. Speaker is Wicomico County Executive candidate Bob Culver. I would anticipate a full slate of GOP candidates at the meeting – hopefully it will be relatively quick so I can post that night and still make it to bed at a decent hour!

July 1: I’m not sure if he’ll actually show up, but it’s Governor Bob Ehrlich Night with the Shorebirds. The game starts at 7:05 p.m. as the Shorebirds face the Lake County Captains, with fireworks to follow. Contact Ellen Andrews for more info, (410) 742-0927. Got my ticket last week, so you may want to verify there’s still space available (particularly with this game being a fireworks game.)

July 6: Wicomico County Sheriff candidate Doris Schonbrunner will be among the participants at a Sheriff Candidates Forum at the Elks Club. I’m assuming that this is the one at 401 Church Hill Avenue (by the golf course and zoo) since that’s the only Elks Club I’m aware of here. Not certain of the time yet, but I’m sure someone will tell me. I’m betting I’m not the only local blogger there!

By the way, since Doris gave me the tip, she gets the billing. See how that works?

Worcester County:

Note: in finding out about the exact date for the Boat Parade on the Ocean Pines website, it appears the candidate dinner I had down as June 27th was last week. Either I misread Jim Corwin’s calendar, or he messed up. Regardless, I took it off this week.

July 4: Probably not the only aspiring or current elected official there, but District 38B hopeful Jack Lord has the Ocean Pines Independence Party on his calendar.

July 8: I also had to look this up from the Ocean Pines website, but both Jack Lord and U.S. Congress candidate (MD-1) Jim Corwin are slated to be at the Ocean Pines Boat Parade. The reason I had to look it up was that on Jack Lord’s calendar the date’s listed as the 9th, it’s actually on Saturday the 8th.

Dorchester County:

July 7: District 37 State Senator Richard Colburn is having the 10th Choptank River Cruise. This cruise will embark from the Suicide Bridge Restaurant (6304 Suicide Bridge Road in Hurlock) at 6:30 p.m. sharp, and the cost is $75. I don’t know about you, but my Young Republican club did similar fundraisers and they were always fun. I’m sure the Choptank River’s more scenic than the Maumee River in Toledo.

July 8: Jim Corwin‘s calendar also has him stopping by the Dorchester Democrat Central Committee fundraiser at the Canvasback Restaurant in Cambridge. So he’ll be a busy guy that day. Hey, if he has a few minutes to spare as he buzzes up and down Route 50 I’d love to talk to him, maybe he’ll answer my Ten Questions.

Sussex County:

July 2: U.S. Senate candidate Jan Ting has the Rehoboth fireworks show on his calendar as a place he’ll be. Per the Rehoboth Beach CC website, events begin at 8 p.m. but I’m sure the crowds (and candidates) assimilate before that time.

I lost a couple events numberwise from last week, but the good sign is that I’m seeing more events with local candidates.

Next Sunday, I’ll do it again for July 3 through July 16. July 3rd is the big day here in Maryland, that’s the final day to file for the primary. If I recall correctly, the Board of Elections office will stay open until 9 p.m. That ought to be interesting in and of itself. It’s too bad I don’t own a laptop with a wi-fi connection, THAT would be an interesting live blogging site in those last 2-3 hours.

Off to the Chicken Festival

In an effort to a) improve my website by meeting some of the local politicians, b) meet and greet potential voters – I’m sure a few from Wicomico County will be there, and c) get out of my apartment and have some fun! I’m heading down to Snow Hill today for awhile just to check it out, particularly the car show!

So I’ll have a camera in my hand. If you’re curious about meeting the guy who does monoblogue, look for the guy in a “Toledo Mud Hens – 2005 IL Champions” shirt. I don’t think there’s too many of those on Delmarva!

Hopefully the rain that plagued yesterday’s events will stay away today, we got our share for sure.

Post-visit edit…I enjoyed my time there except for the mud! The other major bummer was not getting to see the car show that was scheduled, it was scrubbed because of the weather. Guess they really don’t want to drive the cars through the mud too much. But the rain held off by and large, I had a great BBQ’d chicken sandwich and some nice crispy fries for lunch, witnessed with my very own eyes and camera the World’s Largest Frying Pan, and I saw a slew of politicians there.

As promised in my calendar, Jack Lord was at the Chicken Festival with his little tent enjoying the fact it was actually dry. I also saw the remainder of the 38B candidates strolling about (Luna, Lewis, Mathias, Conway) with the exception of Sonny Bloxom and newcomer Bill McDermott, and jawed with Norm Conway for a few minutes about health care (very amicably I may add, I think we just agree to disagree on solutions.) Both Worcester County parties had a small tent there – GOP collecting petition signatures and passing out literature, the Democrats playing host to the two local state reps. In addition, U.S. Senate candidate Josh Rales had a tent there although he wasn’t present. I did tell his volunteers there about the Ten Questions, and have a new address to resend them to. His turn will come up in early August.

It’s early summer and the campaign’s starting to heat up with the weather. While I’m going to be busy with my own campaign, I’ll be out and about taking in the sights of a Delmarva election summer. It should be more interesting than last year’s version.

Oh, and I think I had the “allow comments” feature turned off on the last couple posts because of heavy spam volume – that problem has been taken care of. Akismet seems to be doing a great job.

Ten questions for…Jim Corwin

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

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

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

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

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

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