Campaign 2008 – Congress – Page 4

‘Bought by Big Oil’, paid for by Big Labor

One of the many e-mail sources I get from the Democrats alerted me to a website that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee created. The website, dubbed “Bought by Big Oil“, makes the claim that thirteen incumbent Republican Senators or candidates for U.S. Senate seats are beholden to oil company interests through thousands in campaign contributions and in return many voted for tax breaks for these oil interests.

While the DSCC used figures from the reputable and nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics and their website, opensecrets.org, they naturally left out much of the story. Before I get to that, though, I want to bring up what the Democrats considered to be the payoff for Big Oil by those who were in Congress at the time – a series of votes on a bill called the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (in the 109th Congress, this was H.R. 4297.) For most, the DSCC is in a snit over a vote to accept a conference committee report that had these so-called tax breaks for Big Oil – but also had $34 billion in tax relief for those who would have been bumped up into paying the Alternative Minimum Tax. These are the “increases in middle-class taxes” the BBBO site refers to. (It’s worth noting that one portion of these Big Oil “tax breaks” only lasted months before it was rolled back, as noted in this report by the Congressional Research Service. Nothing in Washington is ever permanent, at least when it comes to the tax code.) As always, the issue was offsetting money which was returned to the taxpayer, with the Democrats taking the stand that they should be able to determine how much money you deserve to get back instead of it simply being yours in the first place.

Seeing an opportunity to bring more harm to an industry that’s already heavily regulated, DSCC Chair Senator Charles Schumer of New York passionately argued against these supposed tax breaks (which were in reality accounting practices allowed by Congress in previous legislation) and finally got into the position to exact revenge on these Republicans whom he thought voted incorrectly – thus you have this attack website.

So what was left out? Let’s take a look at the Big Oil payola figures that BBBO attributes to each Senator/candidate:

Jim Inhofe (OK), $1,076,573
Mitch McConnell (KY), $649,011
Steve Pearce (NM), $596,324
Lamar Alexander (TN), $364,675
Pat Roberts (KS), $324,900
Gordon Smith (OR), $293,325
Elizabeth Dole (NC), $266,456
Roger Wicker (MS), $263,435
Bob Schaffer (CO), approximately $250,000
Norm Coleman (MN), $244,900
John Sununu (NH), $232,030
Saxby Chambliss (GA), $199,242
Susan Collins (ME), $124,943

That total of $4,885,814 seems awfully impressive, doesn’t it? Too bad that the BBBO hit squad fails to mention that the totals have accrued over several election cycles.

One great thing about the CRP website is that they break down contributions by election cycle and by industry, listing the top 20 donors by industry to those candidates who have enough donations to merit twenty different industries. For the most recent cycle, we can see just who has truly received big money from oil and gas interests. As you’ll notice, not all of these GOP Senators and candidates have gotten enough contributions in this cycle from the oil and gas industry to even place that business group in the top 20. Those who have enough include:

Jim Inhofe, $315,500 (Oil and gas ranks 1st among contributor industries)
Mitch McConnell, $255,750 (16th)
Steve Pearce, $223,784 (1st)
Pat Roberts, $159,100 (6th)
Lamar Alexander, $155,350 (10th)
Elizabeth Dole, $110,527 (12th)
Bob Schaffer, $104,900 (7th)
Saxby Chambliss, $98,000 (19th)
Roger Wicker, $84,800 (7th)
John Sununu, $69,900 (18th)

Collins, Coleman, and Smith did not receive enough from oil and gas interests to place that industry in their top 20 rankings. Still, that total between the ten of $1,577,611 is pretty impressive, is it not? And in the case of Inhofe and Pierce, does Schumer have a point?

Sorry Chuck, better luck next time. Let me throw one more set of numbers at you with this group of ten. It’s the percentage of oil and gas industry contributions vs. the total contributions each candidate has received in this cycle.

Steve Pearce, 8.15%
Jim Inhofe, 6.19%
Pat Roberts, 4.01%
Bob Schaffer, 2.26%
Roger Wicker, 2.2%
Lamar Alexander, 2.15%
Mitch McConnell, 1.7%
John Sununu, 1.03%
Elizabeth Dole, 0.98%
Saxby Chambliss, 0.92%

Yes, folks, it’s pretty much a proverbial drop in a barrel. If Big Oil is trying to buy these Senators with this contribution cash, it’s pretty certain that they’re someplace back in line. As a matter of fact, the oil and gas industry currently ranks 18th among all industries in political contributions. Over the last 18 years, the oil and gas industry has contributed over $221 million to candidates – but that pales in comparison to Big Labor, who’s shaken down their workers and otherwise managed to pony up over $40 million in PAC contributions in just this cycle alone.

And why would Big Labor want to be down on a business which employs over 1.8 million workers directly and creates 4.6 million ancilliary jobs? (One of these 1.8 million jobs is the position of one Todd Palin, who’s a member of the United Steelworkers union – the former Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers Union has become a part of that union after a series of mergers. You may have heard of Todd’s wife Sarah?) Perhaps the unions aren’t down on that aspect of Big Oil; however, they are a prime mover and shaker in Democrat circles. I’m going to turn Schumer’s game around and take a look at how much cash labor PACs have contributed to each of the 12 Democrat Senators who are up for re-election in 2008. Take a gander at these figures and tell me who’s bought who? The percentages of total contributions will be included this time:

Tim Johnson (SD), $297,250 (5.79%)
Frank Lautenberg (NJ), $253,000 (3.09%)
Dick Durbin (IL), $244,500 (2.36%)
Tom Harkin (IA), $241,275 (2.96%)
Max Baucus (MT), $210,725 (1.94%)
Jay Rockefeller (WV), $204,500 (3.91%)
Mark Pryor (AR), $199,000 (3.53%)
Jack Reed (RI), $195,450 (4.47%)
Mary Landrieu (LA), $193,150 (2.13%)
John Kerry (MA), $191,111 (1.85%)
Carl Levin (MI), $149,300 (1.94%)
Joe Biden (DE), $78,500 (1.13%)

All that union money adds up to $2,457,761 – far outstripping the oil and gas contributions to the GOP thirteen. Perhaps the total would be even higher but Big Labor is pretty cagey and certainly is aware that most of these thirteen have only token opposition in their re-election races. It’s also worthy of noting that Landrieu and Pryor also have a large contribution base from oil and gas interests. Senator Landrieu has accepted $251,700 in oil and gas money (placing it fourth among her industries) while Pryor has taken $103,250 (14th). Not only that, Pryor also voted with the GOP on the Senate vote which so incensed Schumer; however, he’s not been bought by big oil like the Republicans have.

Pryor is also one member of the newly-expanded “Gang of 16” who introduced a proposal that the American Petroleum Institute called “light on new production but heavy on new taxes.” Other members of this 16 Senator group who happen to be seeking re-election in this cycle are Republicans Saxby Chambliss, Norm Coleman, and John Sununu, along with Democrats Tim Johnson and Mary Landrieu. Looks like that oil company largesse is really bearing fruit, huh?

As is often the case, taking more than a superficial look at what is said by liberals generally shows the Potemkin village aspect of their arguments. Moreover, many’s the time that they don’t have their facts straight. One of my favorite regular commentors on the left made the claim to me recently that much of our Alaskan oil is being exported to Japan, so opening up ANWR wouldn’t do anything to help ease our dependence on foreign oil. I’m going to conclude with this document which uses Energy Information Administration data to show that the claim is bogus, and what we export in oil products are essentially the portions we no longer use because of environmental restrictions.

It’s apparent Senator Schumer and the DSCC aren’t interested in getting out all the facts and context with their website, which makes me think that most of their other rants should be taken at much less than face value as well. If Big Oil were truly buying these Senators it would be one thing, but these so-called tax breaks are money that’s being returned to shareholders and put to work finding new products and creating jobs. What is all the money Big Labor donates to the Democrats doing for us?

Maybe the better question is what is that union money doing to us?

I’d also like to thank Jane Van Ryan and Mark Kibbe at the American Petroleum Institute for their assistance with my research for this post.

Firing up headquarters

I’m not first with the pictures, I’ll simply settle for having the best article with them.

Despite a lack of other press coverage (something about this little rainstorm blowing through) the Wicomico County Republican Party opened its headquarters yesterday. I counted about 80 people crammed into the front lobby of the building at the peak of festivities, so there were about 100 people in attendance insofar as I could tell. And we were all fired up.

Let’s begin with how the place looked when I arrived, just before the rain hit.

The space is quite nice – let me tell you, having worked in the last location we used this will be about a 100% improvement. Hopefully we can find a similar space for 2010.

Undoubtedly, we had a guest of honor – our next Congressman, State Senator Andy Harris. But most of our local Republican elected officials participated in the actual ribbon-cutting ceremony. My camera timed that just right for once, and I was just a smidge left of ideal. I think I got everyone though.

The young lady who served as a master of ceremonies but more importantly spearheaded the effort to secure the space is our county McCain campaign chair, Bonnie Luna.

In turn, each of the state representatives there got to say a few words, with Andy Harris leading off. If you hold your mouse over the photo, the caption will have the notable quote or thought each expressed.

We also heard from Wicomico County Republican Party chair Dr. John Bartkovich, who said this was an “opportunity to show people that Wicomico County is Republican and conservative” by supporting both Harris and McCain.

Our final speaker was Luis Luna, who had a firsthand report of how the GOP convention went. He even dressed the part.

It’s hard to believe that even with the nasty weather, the turnout was this good. This brought together almost every GOP elected official in the county and the gathering was abuzz with talk about the McCain-Palin ticket. Okay, moreso on the Palin side, but either way we soundly beat the alternative when it comes to experience and ideas for real change, not the dimestore phony variety that other side pays lip service to.

I added the last picture just because I liked it.

How about that Palin?

This post is a reminder to those who are interested locally that the Wicomico County Republican Party is opening its 2008 Election headquarters at 10 a.m. tomorrow morning. The headquarters is located at 800 South Salisbury Boulevard in Salisbury, across from Giant and next to FedEx/Kinko’s.

There are two additional items of interest since we put the word out earlier this week regarding the opening. First of all, the time was changed from its original noon start to 10 a.m. in order to enable State Senator Andy Harris to attend – after all, his election is our primary objective locally. So voters will have yet another chance to meet and greet our next Congressman and the local media will have the chance to give him some face time. (Bet the Daily Times skips the occasion.)

Then yesterday I received the following in my e-mail:

McCain – Palin Rally

Immediately Following

Firsthand report from the Convention
Update on Campaign
Get your new McCain-Palin Bumper Sticker
Information on getting involved
Volunteer Opportunities
Drawing for two complimentary tickets to Senator Stoltzfus’ October 4th – Picnic & Rally

Everyone invited!

Refreshments will be served

You know, I think local Republicans are so fired up about the selection of Palin that they might just show up even if Hanna was a Category 5 hurricane. (Well, all right, that is hyperbole because we do have some common sense, but this little tropical storm doesn’t appear to be stopping us. On the other hand, hurricanes don’t come near Alaska because they know Sarah Palin is there, so if we invoke her name we should be in good shape.)

However, I have one other request from the McCain/Palin campaign. Perhaps you aren’t going to pay much attention to the Eastern Shore here in Maryland but if you sent Sarah Palin to Delaware with an offer to mend fences because of the jabs she took at the First State with her speech Wednesday night, it would be a shot in the arm to all of us around here. Anywhere south of Dover would be fine.

This also gives me an opportunity to address another purported allegation about the Palins, with wild rumors going about that Todd Palin was a member of a political party which advocated secession from the United States. While this AP story by Jim Kuhnhenn clears up the mud slightly, it brought up two things I hadn’t known but am pleased to find out.

First of all, while there were members of the party who favored secession, the Alaska Independence Party was officially in favor of having the federal government turn over land it controls to the state of Alaska. While this isn’t an issue in Maryland, for many states in the western part of the country federal control of land is a huge issue because Fedzilla has so much of it. Only Nevada has more land under federal control than Alaska’s 69.1% share; by comparison only 2.8% of Maryland’s land is federally controlled. While we on Delmarva joke about seceding from Maryland, these guys had a more serious aim.

The other really cool thing about Sarah Palin is her taste in Presidential candidates – no, not Pat Buchanan. Instead it was pointed out that Governor (then-Mayor) Palin was a Steve Forbes backer in 2000, just as I was. Perhaps she can clean up the taxation system in Washington as a side job since that was a prime Forbes issue. It’s just another thing to like about the woman from Wasilla.

Kratovil comment spam?

For the most part, I welcome comments of all stripes but a few days ago I had some interesting comments come my way. And after a little bit of investigation, I found out this same person had commented on at least a couple other local blogs in what appears to be a concerted effort to put out the word about where Frank Kratovil stands.

What got me interested in these comments were that they came in response to posts which were months old, from earlier in the spring. Normally the comments I get come in response to much more recent posts, generally ones on the front page of my site. In this case, my guess is that this person did a search here for Kratovil-related items and found the two posts in question much to his disliking.

Here’s the comment in question, from Joe. This same comment appeared on two different posts:

Frank Kratovil is better on the war –> He wants to end it.

Frank Kratovil is better on Social Security –> He wants to save it and not privatize unlike his opponent Harris.

Frank Kratovil is better on Immigration –> He has a long record as a State’s Attorney fighting illegal immigration on the front lines, which is why Harris never talks about it.

Frank Kratovil is better on the environment –> He believes in renewable energy and a modern solution to the energy crisis, while Harris has the 6th worse lifetime voting record on the environment out of 188 legislators in the Maryland Legislature.

Frank Kratovil is better on Health Care –> He wants to ensure it for everyone, Harris thinks the free market will take care of that which is what free market thinkers have said for 20 years, guess it doesn’t work.

Frank Kratovil is a better man. Andy Harris showed during the Primary that he would say or do anything to get elected and that included demeaning a sitting United States Congressman, the Honorable Wayne Gilchrest, and in doing so showed his true colors of extremism and irrational thinking.

That was one thing, and I shrugged my shoulders, approved the comments and life went on. But then in doing my reading I found a post on Delmarva Dealings and a post on ShoreIndie with essentially that same comment! Also, another commentor named Austin made his rounds about the same time, but with different comments.

So I guess Joe has been blogged. But I may as well have some fun addressing Joe’s comment while I’m at it.

Frank Kratovil wants to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? Has he not figured out that the radical Islamists will just follow the troops back? I don’t know about you but I’ve no interest in dealing with another day like 9/11 was.

And what exactly would be wrong with privatizing Social Security? After all, it is MY money, not the government’s. I’d be damn happy to have my 40 large back and certainly my employers could use their share too.

I’m sure Frank is doing a great job fighting illegal immigration from his current post, which is why I’d like him to remain right there until his term is up in 2010. Andy Harris would be more useful fighting in Congress.

While I can’t speak for Harris on the energy issue, I’m in full support of his voting record which supports common sense over additional restrictions on what we can drive, how we do our dishes, and particularly what we can do with our own private property. Renewable energy will come in time, but let’s allow the entrepreneurs of the private sector their crack at making themselves a fortune finding it, not taxpayers paying a fortune to have favored friends of those in Congress lurch down blind alleys on our dime.

Joe, let me say this again: health care is NOT a right! If a person doesn’t want to buy insurance, they assume a risk. It should not be up to government at any level to force us to have health insurance. Please tell me where we have a free market in health care when the federal and state governments spend billions in that field and constantly place new restrictions on what has to be covered.

If demeaning Wayne Gilchrest means taking a look at his record and showing that he votes with Nancy Pelosi as much or more than he does with this party – when he’s sent to Washington to represent the interests of a district that would maybe give the said Mrs. Pelosi 5% of the vote if she’s lucky – then I’d consider him guilty of that charge.

Joe, don’t be scared about having less government. I’m looking forward to having Andy Harris fight for my interests in Washington D.C. Perhaps he could set an example like Senator Tom Coburn does in his legislative body, and not just be another Beltway politician who treats the taxpayers like a piggy bank for his favored special interests.

“Drill baby drill, and drill now!” – Michael Steele at this evening’s Republican National Convention.

Organization man once again

It came to my attention that yet another organization is looking for help spreading the word in the blogosphere. Naturally, NoTaxHikers.org is a product of the National Taxpayers Union, a group that also rates Congressmen on how “taxpayer-friendly” they are. (Out of Maryland’s delegation, only Roscoe Bartlett has a grade above C with a B+ while Wayne Gilchrest has a D and the eight Democrats all graded an F. Delaware’s Mike Castle picked up a C- while both Senators also garnered F’s.)

As they say, “NTU is making notaxhikers.org a signature effort for this fall, and we’re committing significant resources toward getting the word out about the site. We hope you’ll join us in this effort.” Well, folks, I’m going to give it a shot here in my little corner of the country – something tells me most people about these parts will agree with you.

As you’ve probably read here if you’re not a first-time visitor, I’m all for lowering the tax burden on all of us, with a corresponding reduction in the size and scope of government. The NTU also points out as I do that the tax code as it stands also keeps thousands of lobbyists busy angling to adjust the tax code to serve their own special interests. They’re even doing a questionnaire for 2008 Congressional candidates, hopefully every candidate within my reach will fill one out and inform the voters about their taxation stance.

Government Bytes blogger Kristina Rasmussen chimes in:

The election this November will be extremely important. In it, we’ll choose the officials who will control the public purse strings. Many candidates would try to stuff that purse with more of your hard-earned dollars. If you’re sick of the same old tax-and-spend mentality, then you need to let your politicians know it!

If that name sounds familiar, Rasmussen also sent me an announcement about the 2007 NTU ratings I cited above. So I’m happy to spread the word about this organization when I see the opportunity to do so. As they say, I don’t vote for tax hikers.

The transformation appears complete

While the rumors had been swirling for some time, over the last 48 hours the official transformation of Wayne Gilchrest to Republican In Name Only became complete as he endorsed Democrat Frank Kratovil for his current Congressional seat. Naturally, the Kratovil people wasted no time getting the word out and the Baltimore Sun cooperated with this story in today’s edition by Chris Guy. More importantly, they rolled out a new TV commercial dubbed “Reach”:

Naturally Andy Harris’s campaign fired back by bringing up the opposition of both Glichrest and Kratovil to common-sense energy policies and mentioning some other endorsements which have been made on Kratovil’s behalf:

“Voters want a change from the failed policies of Congress of raising taxes, increasing wasteful spending, and failing to solve our energy crisis. Andy Harris represents a change, Frank Kratovil obviously represents more of the same. If you are tired of the way business is done in Washington, then Andy Harris is your candidate.

“Voters are tired of politicians who put the radical environmental special interest groups ahead of the needs of Maryland families. Sadly both Gilchrest and Kratovil oppose expanding domestic exploration of oil and natural gas. Both oppose expanding capacity at domestic refineries. Both support raising energy taxes. In contrast, Andy Harris supports a comprehensive energy solution that includes expanding domestic exploration of oil and natural gas, developing the next generation of alternative energy technology, and more conservation.”

Kratovil has also received endorsements from liberals like Martin O’Malley, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and Chris Van Hollen. This support shows he is clearly out of touch with the values of the district.”

Obviously Frank Kratovil is playing up the similarities that Gilchrest and he have on several areas of common interest, particularly the environment. (You’ll notice that Wayne did his portion of the spot out by some wetland someplace.) Also, while Gilchrest mentioned his party affiliation the spot never does call Frank Kratovil by his affiliation but as “independent.” Without question this is a bid to peel moderate Republicans away from Andy Harris by aligning the two together.

Personally, my main differences with Wayne Gilchrest have come on two fronts: his opposition to the Long War – which included votes to defund the troops – and his fervent opposition to securing our own domestic energy supplies. These two issues show that Gilchrest and Kratovil indeed can both be called “peas in a liberal pod.”

But this strategy of using Gilchrest comes with some risk. Prior to this, both Kratovil and Harris had been running as Washington outsiders, but gaining the support of a man who originally promised not to be a career politician but instead stayed 18 years may backfire on Frank. No longer can he truly portray himself as an outsider, even though Gilchrest has had the reputation for bucking the party line (which now has been shown to be true in spades.) By touring the district with Kratovil, Wayne may be campaigning harder in this election which he’s not a part of than he did for most of his nine terms.

One other question that needs to asked is what Newt Gingrich and Michael Steele think about a man who they supported in the Republican primary election turning around after his defeat and, in the ultimate case of sour grapes, crossing party lines to endorse the Democrat? It’s one thing for disgrunted workers or minor county officials to endorse across the aisle, but having these two heavyweights be associated with a Congressman who does that means that Lucy has some ‘splainin’ to do.

While it’s Wayne’s right to reach across the aisle and endorse the Democrat in the race, it’s worth pointing out that, for Republicans reaching across the aisle in Congress, reaching across means more often than not you end up with a bloody hand full of teeth marks and a larger, more intrusive federal government. Bear that in mind when you vote November 4th.

Also, reaction from the Maryland GOP:

“While Congressman Gilchrest’s action is certainly not a surprise to us, it is disappointing. The Maryland Republican Party and Republicans in the 1st Congressional District have supported Wayne for years and many Republicans will view his decision as a betrayal of that support,” said Chairman Pelura.

“Voters clearly want a change in how Washington D.C. does business. John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Andy Harris are going to go to Washington and fight to reform the way our government does business,” Pelura concluded. “The Obama/Biden/Kratovil team represent business as usual in Washington D.C. Frank Kratovil will vote with Nancy Pelosi a majority of the time. McCain as President and Andy Harris as Congressman will ensure tax relief, energy independence, and a strong national defense for citizens of the 1st Congressional District and our country.”

Crossposted on Red Maryland.

Campaign trail winds through Salisbury

Over the weekend I happened to catch two appearances by the major-party hopefuls in the 1st Congressional District. On Saturday Andy Harris stopped by on his way about the Lower Shore for about 45 minutes and waved to the hundreds of passers-by going eastbound on Route 50.

Andy Harris stood on the back of a truck Saturday and greeted those driving by.

He had a little bit of help from local GOP volunteers too. We were out for about 1 1/2 hours on Saturday morning after the same time devotion Friday evening, watching and waving our signs to hundreds and hundreds of passing cars. Reaction seemed to be in our favor, we were guessing three thumbs-up for every thumbs-down or middle finger raised. It wasn’t all Harris, we were also doing McCain as well. (No McCain/Palin signs yet – those may get an even better reaction. Personally, given the choice if one of the two were to make an Eastern Shore appearance I think the majority may prefer Governor Palin.)

A number of GOP stalwarts also took time Saturday morning for a little sign waving.

On Sunday, less than a mile away, Democrat opponent Frank Kratovil took himself out to the ballgame.

Frank Kratovil winds up to start Sunday's game against Lakewood.

Judging by the crowd reaction and this expression I don't think Frank threw a strike.

He also brought a few dozen friends with him, their yellow shirts sort of clashing with the hundreds of orange Orioles shirts given out as part of a promotion.

The group of Kratovil supporters enjoying a spirited seesaw battle with the Lakewood BlueClaws Sunday evening.

As a comparison, here’s some of the photography from Andy Harris’s Shorebird game appearance back in July. And if you’re looking for some sort of symbolism in the team’s performance, here’s the two games in question:

July 25th: Lexington 5, Delmarva 0; attendance was 6,706.
August 31st: Lakewood 5, Delmarva 4; attendance was 4,214.

Unlike after the Harris game, the Kratovil campaign didn’t put together a commercial specifically for the occasion or sponsor fireworks. Definitely a missed opportunity for their side with a somewhat captive audience. But count on both to be around more and more as most folks begin to pay attention to the race and the days leading to November 4th dwindle down.

The First State races: U.S. Congress

Today I shift focus to the Congressional race. There’s only a handful of states where the number of Congressmen is fewer than the number of Senators, but Delaware is one of them. This means all federal races are statewide.

Currently on the ballot are incumbent Republican Congressman Michael Castle and three Democrats who are seeking to oust him: Karen Hartley-Nagle, Mike Miller, and Jerry Northington. The issues I’ll discuss will be in the same order and point scale as yesterday’s post, beginning with eminent domain and property rights. Unlike yesterday I’m predominantly going to go by the campaign websites since all four are available to me (I’ll add the link to Miller’s after I complete this post.) And with the exception of Miller, fortunately I’m able to simply link to the issue positions instead of the long quotes I needed to use in the Biden/O’Donnell race. So let’s get cracking, shall we?

Eminent domain/property rights (5 points):

Castle: Mike doesn’t mention the issue on his site; however, there were two Congressional votes where the question of eminent domain came up and Rep. Castle voted against the interests of private property holders in both. I’m deducting three points.

Hartley-Nagle: Karen doesn’t bring the subject up on her site. No points.

Miller: Again, the issue doesn’t come into play there. No points.

Northington: Apparently none of the candidates find this as important as I do, but bear in mind Delaware received a failing grade on the eminent domain issue from the Castle Coalition (no connection to the Congressman, it’s a subgroup of the Institute for Justice.) No points for Jerry.

Second Amendment (7 points):

Castle: As part of the “Keeping Communities Safe” portion of his site, Mike talks about his work on a couple gun-related issues. Unfortunately, that work is on the wrong side and the two key pro-Second Amendment groups (National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America) have regularly given him failing grades. Deduct all 7 points.

Hartley-Nagle: Karen doesn’t discuss the Second Amendment on her site, so no points.

Miller: The same goes for his site. In fact, his site is very limited as far as issue stances go with the exception of some broad-brush philosophies.

Northington: Conversely to his two Democrat opponents, Jerry has a section devoted to firearms issues. Northington skirts the line between being a gun-grabber and a pragmatist, noting that individuals should be allowed to have firearms for personal use but not be able to have so-called “assault weapons”. (The trick is what is defined as an assault weapon?) Of the four candidates, his position is the best of a bad – or nonexistent – lot so I’ll grant him two points.

Election reform/campaign finance (9 points):

Castle: The Congressman addresses this issue here; needless to say I’m not in favor of that stance. As a check, I also went to the VoteSmart site and saw he did vote for the Shays/Meehan reform (which was the House version of the more well-known McCain/Feingold), but saving him to some extent is his voting for voter ID at the polls. So I’ll deduct only six points. (Do you notice he’s going in the wrong direction here?)

Hartley-Nagle: Karen discusses the subject briefly here as part of a screed about the Republican “culture of corruption”. (And your top-ticket candidate is pure as the wind-driven snow?) I suspect “meaningful campaign finance reform” in her vision is even more restrictions on free speech so I’m deducting three points.

Miller: With Mike I struck out. No points.

Northington: Even between his site and his blog, I wasn’t able to come up with anything. So no points.

Trade and job creation (11 points):

Castle: He doesn’t go into this on his campaign site, but on balance Mike has shown himself in his voting to be a free trader and usually that’s a good thing – however, he lost a good number of those jobs by supporting the federal minimum wage increase. So I’ll give him two points on the issue.

Hartley-Nagle: Karen talks about economic prosperity and jobs but contradicts herself in that same few paragraphs by wishing to create more jobs but “fighting for better wages and job security.” If you make it harder on business owners to hire someone without the skills to justify the higher wage and make it more difficult to replace a worker who doesn’t pan out, is that really business-friendly? I’m deducting six points.

Miller: Mike advocates a “livable minimum wage” of $9 per hour for any American willing to work. I guess he won’t mind paying $5 for a Whopper if that happens. That’s worth a full 11 point deduction right there.

Northington: Aside from taking the obligitory pot shots at President Bush about statistics cherrypicked by the DNC in a blog post, Jerry doesn’t go into the issue much. The blog post is worth taking off three points by itself.

Education (13 points):

Castle: Unfortunately, Mike’s ideas and record for “improving” education generally fall into the category of increasing federal involvement – completely opposite my goal of ending it. A full deduct of 13 points.

Hartley-Nagle: Similarly to Castle, her philosophy that education is underfunded at the federal level rubs me the wrong way. On a short-term basis, making tuition tax-deductible isn’t a bad thought but eventually that would have to go away under my view of taxation. I’ll deduct 11 points.

Miller: He notes that he’ll “work to ensure every child has access to a Quality Education.” But how? Will you get the federal government out of education? I don’t see that happening, and again his lack of specifics bugs me to no end. Full deduct, 13 points.

Northington: Actually, some of his solutions aren’t bad for attempting on a local level. If you changed one bullet point somewhat to read:

Local communities are for the most part best able to control the education of their children. The parents and lawmakers within the community need the freedom to determine just how and where their children will be educated.

Then you would have a real winner. Aside from wanting more federal dollars to pay for education and wanting formal schooling to start earlier in life, Jerry seems to have a better understanding of the concept of locality than his two Democrat counterparts. I’ll give him two points, which is huge when you figure all of the others lost ground.

Military/veterans affairs (13 points):

Castle: Voting-wise, he’s been pretty friendly to veterans but he’s also gotten worked up about the allegations of detainee abuse at Abu Gharib and Guantanamo Bay. When the other side treats their prisoners as well as we do ours (particularly in the area of beheadings), maybe I’ll listen. I’ll call this a wash, no points either way.

Hartley-Nagle: It might be a hollow promise, but Karen does vow to “ensure our military facilities are fully funded and maintained. Taking care of our military families strengthens our community, making for a better Delaware and a better America.” Of course, what the extent of “taking care” of military families means is left unanswered. But I’ll give her three points.

Miller: Mike has nothing to say on the subject. No points.

Northington: As the only veteran among the group, Jerry certainly is attuned to the issue. He makes some very good points; however, my caution is that the solution isn’t just in throwing more money at the issue. There are efficiencies which need to be considered as well, and some of the problems Northington cites with the VA have existed far longer than the last two Presidential terms. He’ll pick up eight points on this one.

Energy independence (17 points):

Castle: About the only nod to the environmentalists and “alternative” energy crowd that Mike doesn’t make is not wanting to place a windfall profits tax on oil companies. He also has a soft spot for nuclear power, which is good – otherwise, he’s all in favor of regulation and subsidies. I’ll deduct 10 more points. Come on Mike, I thought you were a Republican.

Hartley-Nagle: Karen sounds a lot like Mike Castle on this issue. She does speak to the high-tech jobs she thinks going green will create, but how many jobs will that wind farm create? Now compare it to an oil refinery. The same 10 point deduction applies.

Miller: Once again, Mike has little to say about this.

Northington: Jerry is way, way, way out there on the anti-oil, global warming believer fringe. He stops short of advocating the execution of oil company executives but has otherwise really fallen for the environmentalists on this issue. This blog post is another example of what I mean. The full 17 point deduction applies.

Social Security/Medicare (19 points):

Castle: The Congressman continually votes for making each of these entitlement programs larger, and not for the reform needed to begin an eventual sunset for both programs. I’m going to deduct yet another five points.

Hartley-Nagle: It’s sort of related, but Karen believes that we don’t do enough for health care in this country. She also promises there to “fix” the Medicare prescription drug plan that I didn’t figure was broken in the first place. Again, a five-point deduction.

Miller: Mike promises to ensure that a quality health care system, Medicare prescription drug benefits, and Social Security are protected for all our seniors. He forgets to add the phrase “no matter the cost” because doing so will someday bankrupt our nation. A full 19 point deduction applies here.

Northington: Yep, the left wing is extended fully here. I have one question, though – if patients are expected to pay within their means for their health care needs, isn’t that Marxism? (From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”) This is a 19 point deduction to be sure. By the way, just so you all know, health care is NOT a right.

Taxation (21 points):

Castle: One area Castle seems to do well in is taxation based on his voting record and backing of Alternative Minimum Tax relief. It’s nowhere near as much as I’d like, but solid nonetheless so I’ll give him 12 of the 21 points.

Hartley-Nagle: I don’t believe that talking about “tax giveaways to the rich” is going to lead to anything more than higher taxes on all of us. Get over your class envy, Karen. Deduct 15 points while you’re at it.

Miller: Not surprisingly, Miller doesn’t discuss this on his site. No points.

Northington: Jerry doesn’t have taxation as an issue but disdains the old notion that “a rising tide lifts all boats” in a recent blog post. Just like Hartley-Nagle, I see a big dose of class envy here so I’ll deduct that same 15 points.

Role of government (23 points):

In truth, I’m not seeing a whole lot to distinguish between or give me hope that any of these four candidates are in any way insisting on cutting the size and scope of the federal government which they seek election to. Mike Castle brings up budget reform, Karen Hartley-Nagle speaks about fiscal irresponsibility, and Jerry Northington questions the government’s direction. But none question whether it is the proper role of government to be in a number of areas.

This may be the most frustrating exercise of this type that I’ve ever undertaken. However, I started this show so I’m going to finish it. By the way, I’m not going to give or take away points for this category.

Border security/immigration (25 points):

Castle: He doesn’t discuss the issue much, but this (at the bottom) was a pretty good idea. With a couple exceptions, his voting record is solid, including being for the Secure Fence Act of 2006. I’ll give him 18 points here.

Hartley-Nagle: For a Democrat she talks pretty tough, but she brings up the “a” word in wanting to “provide all immigrants a path to full, legal citizenship”. To me, illegals have to leave and get in the back of the line – otherwise it’s unfair to those who did things the right way. I’ll give her 7 points because she’s not dovish.

Miller: Never mind.

Northington: Jerry doesn’t address the issue on his site, but did blog about answering this questionnaire from a group interested in the issue back in April. Those answers cost him all 25 points on my card, too.

The Long War (27 points):

Castle: Mike falls someplace between a hawk and dove on this issue. Unlike my current Congressman he does continue to vote to support the troops but like Wayne Gilchrest he thinks diplomacy can be a solution. Beware that hand behind their back, it may hold the knife you’ll be stabbed with. I’ll give him 12 points on this part.

Hartley-Nagle: Similarly to Castle, Karen is a firm believer in diplomacy but doesn’t say she’ll not defund the troops already in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nor does she talk about victory as an end to the war. I’ll give her half of what I gave the Congressman, six points.

Miller: This is an important issue that Mike doesn’t bother to address. Why do you have a website again?

Northington: I wasn’t surprised to find that he thought full withdrawal as quickly as possible was the ideal. He also attempts to place the cost of the war in terms of various other government services, but fails to take into account the cost of lives and treasure that another 9/11 or suitcase nuke would have on our country had we done nothing. (Yes, I know you can’t prove a negative but his argument is just as specious.) He’ll lose the full 27 points because I believe in victory there – victory defined as the point when the threat to our interests both at home and abroad by al-Qaeda and similar radical Islamic fundementalist groups is minimized or eliminated through military means. Diplomacy is not possible with these sorts of groups.

I have finally reached the conclusion of this frustrating but hopefully enlightening to readers exercise. Here’s how the point totals worked out.

Michael Castle: a net zero points. He was positive on four issues and negative on six but they weighed equally.

Karen Hartley-Nagle: a score of -34. She had positive scores on three but negative numbers on six. That’s actually pretty good for a Democrat.

Mike Miller: He only scored in three of 12 categories and all were negative, for a total of -43.

Jerry Northington: I respect his writing and his service, but he’s by far the most leftist among the four candidates with a score of -94. Three positive categories were far outdone by the six negatives he had, including my two biggest issues.

To be brutally frank, I sort of feel sorry for Delaware voters that these are the only choices they have. I’d have a very hard time getting behind Mike Castle but unfortunately no one chooses to run against him on the GOP side. We had a similar Congressman here but finally found someone with the drive and issue positions to oust him from the right, and even the Democrat in our race could probably be to the right of Mike Castle on some issues.

Tomorrow I’m going to look at your race for Governor in a more brief fashion. Not all of my pet issues apply to a state race so I’m instead going to compare and contrast in areas where the candidates themselves have common ground.

Crossposted at That’s Elbert With An E, to reach more Delaware voters.

The First State races: U.S. Senate

In honor of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s selection as the nominee for Vice President, I’m going to lead off this three-post look at Delaware’s three major election races with the ladies first: the U.S. Senate tilt between incumbent Senator (and Democrat Vice-Presidntial pick) Joe Biden and Republican hopeful Christine O’Donnell. In truth, this is sort of a courtesy to those interested in the race because neither Biden or O’Donnell have any opposition in the upcoming September 9th primary, nor are any minor party candidates currently on the ballot for November.

Additionally, with his elevation to a national stage the JoeBiden.com website has been absorbed into the website for Barack Obama, which to me means Joe’s treating the Delaware race as the red-headed stepchild in comparison to the run for VP. Fortunately, having ran for President Biden has already established positions on a number of issues I care about and Delaware voters should too. It’ll be a little bit of a recycling job on his side because I’ve already written about Biden’s positions.

Because this is a race of national scope, most of the pet issues that I used for the Presidential race are applicable to this one. Longtime readers also may recall that I did a point system to compare candidates, but for those who are newer or who forgot, here is a refresher course:

Eminent domain and property rights (5 points)
Second Amendment (7 points)
Election reform and campaign finance (9 points)
Trade and job creation (11 points)
Education (13 points)
Military/veterans affairs (15 points)
Energy independence (17 points)
Social Security/Medicare (19 points)
Taxation (21 points)
Role of Government (23 points)
Border security and immigration (25 points)
The Long War (27 points)

I believe I can get all twelve parts into one fairly long post. These will be arranged by topic as listed above. Where I don’t have a statement already for Senator Biden, I attempt to look into his voting record through the VoteSmart.org website.

Property rights:

Biden: There was no relevant votes I could find regarding the issues of eminent domain and private property rights. No points given or taken away.

O’Donnell: Christine O’Donnell doesn’t address this issue on her website, so no points.

Second Amendment:

Biden: In seven votes cited by VoteSmart.org Senator Biden voted against gun owners on six. Gun Owners of America gave Biden an “F” in 2007. Because of that, I’ll deduct all 7 points in this category.

Unfortunately, Christine O’Donnell doesn’t address this issue on her site. No points.

Election reform and campaign finance:

Biden: I wrote this on July 20, 2007 based on a news report of a New Hampshire debate:

Biden argued that political campaigns should be financed publicly to remove special interests from the political process.

Regarding Biden’s position, I argued then that:

No, Joe Biden, we do not need public financing of campaigns. He loses half of the possible points only because he said very little on the subject otherwise. A big minus 4.5 to you.

O’Donnell: While she doesn’t address campaign finance or election reform directly, she’s pledged to only stand for election one more time should she be successful. With that in mind, I’ll grant her 2 points – one for each term she pledges to serve.

Trade and job creation:

Biden: As part of his original Presidential website, I reprinted this on July 24, 2007:

To protect jobs, compete in a global economy and strengthen families Joe Biden believes the next President must first address two things: energy security and health care. This is not our father’s economy – America now competes in a global economy.

The price of energy is set by the global marketplace. Developing our own sources of energy aren’t enough to protect us from high prices that cost businesses and families — we must invest in using energy more efficiently and become the leader in energy innovation.

By 2008, the average Fortune 500 company will spend as much on health care as it will make in profit. In other countries their competitors will not have to bear these costs.

Joe Biden believes America will continue to dominate the global economy by putting energy security and health care reform at the top of the agenda.

My take on his position was:

Joe Biden talks nicely, but what he says is code for additional regulations on energy that will discourage market forces from controlling its price and the easing of corporate health care costs by placing the government in charge of it rather than private industry. I have two future posts that will deal with those specific subjects, but as far as attitude goes and because Joe’s so vague on the subject he loses three points.

O’Donnell: While not directly on point, she does bring up the value of the dollar:

By strengthening the dollar, we lower the price of oil. This directly impacts the price at the pump. We don’t need gimmicks to stimulate the economy. We need solutions that address the root cause. Christine will advocate for monetary policy that strengthens the dollar and attacks the root cause of many of our economic concerns. (Emphasis in original.)

A smaller, less spendthrift government would help monetary policy immensely and, although a firmer dollar does hurt exports to a degree the difference can be overcome with better trade policy. Out of 11 points, I’ll give her four.

Education:

Biden: I quoted the Biden for President site on July 27, 2007:

Joe Biden believes that every American should have access to higher education. In order to compete in a global economy the American workforce has to protect its edge in education. A college degree is more valuable than ever – and more expensive.

As a parent, Joe Biden knows how tuition costs drain family savings. He would expand help for families by increasing the tax deduction for tuition payments. He would expand Pell grants to cover the average tuition at public colleges for low income families.

Joe Biden believes that high school students should be engaged in planning and saving for college earlier in their careers so that students in their senior year are not overwhelmed by the process of applying to college and figuring out how to pay for it. He would expand national service programs to high school students so that they can earn money for college by participating in public service while they are in high school.

Over the past two decades we have made incredible strides in updating our education system. Fifteen years ago it would have been hard to imagine students linked through a high-tech video and high-speed internet network to other students and teachers across the country or teachers interacting with parents via email. New technology holds promise for our education system that we’re only beginning to discover. But nothing is more essential than quality educators and engaged parents. Joe Biden believes that to fulfill the promise to leave no child behind we have to direct adequate resources to update schools, reduce class size and school size, reward quality educators, and improve teacher pay.

And this is what I said about his position that day:

Joe Biden doesn’t disappoint in the pandering department. Throw more federal money at schools and give everyone a college education. That and the national service (is that like compulsory volunteering?) means I’ll dock him on points. He does consider merit pay in his prescription so I’ll only take off 12 of the 13 possible.

O’Donnell: Quoting her site:

Christine will work to ensure that our children do not suffer from funding crises and swings, by exploring Federal solutions to provide continuity.

Here I have to disagree for the solution to bettering education is not a Federal one, but placing as much control as possible at the local level. I’m actually going to take away all 13 points from her.

Military and veterans affairs:

Biden: Per VoteSmart.org, Joe Biden has a fairly mixed record that appears to be a little bit toward veteran-friendly as far as benefits go. I’ll work with him here and add two points back on to his score.

O’Donnell: No mention of this issue on her site.

Energy independence:

Biden: Again, quoting from his Presidential website on August 3, 2007:

Joe Biden believes that domestic energy policy is at the center of our foreign policy and economic policy. Most of the world’s oil is concentrated in nations that are either hostile to American interests or vulnerable to political upheaval and terrorism. Our oil dependence undercuts the advance of freedom and limits our options and influence around the world because oil rich countries pursuing policies we oppose can stand up to us and undermine the resolve of our allies. Profits from the sale of oil help fuel the fundamentalism we are fighting. High energy prices hurt business’ bottom line.

Joe Biden’s first priority is energy security. He believes we can strengthen security by reducing our oil consumption by increasing fuel efficiency, transitioning to farm-grown fuels like ethanol and biodiesel, and expanding the use of renewable energy. But we cannot stop there. Joe Biden would make a substantial national commitment by dramatically increasing investment in energy and climate change research and technology so that that United States becomes the world leader in developing and exporting alternative energy.

My take:

Joe Biden also likes the job-killing (not to mention possibly driver-killing) raising of CAFE standards, along with adding to the ethanol craze and raising our taxes to “dramatically” increase our “investment” in climate change and energy technology. So he’ll pretty much cut the market out and not seek to use resources we can easily attain. I’m taking off all 17 points.

O’Donnell: Christine has several items pertaining to energy independence on her site:

High gasoline prices created by policies of the Democrats must be cured. America has not built another oil refinery to produce gasoline in the last 30 years. The lack of refinery capacity is a major factor in high gas prices. While protecting the environment God gave us is indeed a sacred trust, we have the skill to do both. We refuse to accept that America lacks the knowledge to produce energy while also keeping our environment clean. We can do it.
Christine has long supported using Delaware’s agricultural resources to supplement America’s gasoline supplies. This can raise the income of farmers as well as help all Delaware drivers.
Let’s also keep in mind that the biggest reason for rising food prices is the high cost of fuel for transporting food and grains. This must be addressed.
Democrats have blocked America from achieving energy independence, including vast oil supplies in the Gulf of Mexico. China is preparing to drill for oil 45 miles from Key West, Florida, as a team with Cuba. Environmentally, this drilling will happen either way. But U.S. firms will surely use higher technical quality and greater care for our own environment than China will. How careful will China’s oil drilling be about America’s shorelines? (All emphasis in original.)

There are 17 points available for the category of energy independence. On the whole I like the idea of building more refineries and she correctly points out in two of these points that energy and environmentalism CAN co-exist. However, I’m not sold on ethanol as a solution so it mars what would have been an outstanding response. She picks up 9 of 17 points because she’s not as specific as I’d like her to be either.

Social Security/Medicare:

Biden: On August 9, 2007 I quoted from Biden’s then-Presidential website:

Joe Biden believes that to protect jobs, compete in a global economy and strengthen families we have to have to address out-dated health care system. The next president will have to deal with two challenges: containing the growing costs of health care and providing access to the 47 million Americans who don’t have health insurance.

Joe Biden believes we need to take three steps to contain the cost of health care: modernize the system, simplify the system and reduce errors. He supports the transition to secure electronic records so that people can provide their doctors and nurses with vital medical information in real time. He believes there should be a uniform, efficient system to submit claims.

Joe Biden believes the path toward a 21st century health care system starts with the most vulnerable in our society. He would expand health insurance for children and relieve families and businesses of the burden of expensive catastrophic cases. He supports states that are pursuing innovative alternatives to make sure that everyone has access to health care and believes we should use data from these states to evaluate what works best in providing affordable access to health care for all.

My reaction:

For the Democrats, I’ll give Joe Biden credit for…discussing the role of technology in the health care field. He sounds a lot like (Gov. Tommy) Thompson, but also wants to expand the federal role where insuring children is concerned. And since he doesn’t discuss Social Security, it’s practically a wash. I guess I’ll give Biden one point…partly because he doesn’t go as far as some of his more leftwing cohorts do.

O’Donnell: Aside from vowing to end the Clinton tax on Social Security income, which properly falls under the taxation category, she addresses neither issue; thus, no points.

Taxation:

Biden: In looking at his taxation voting record, Biden is reliably a vote for increasing taxes – he voted against the Bush tax cuts, which lowered each of the tax brackets from highs established during the Clinton years. It’s a deduction of 21 points for this category.

O’Donnell: She notes on her site that:

Christine pledges to oppose tax increases and new taxes, without exception.
Christine O’Donnell will fight to repeal the tax on social security retirement income imposed under Bill Clinton. She will fight to make all student loan interest tax deductible.
Christine opposes the Global Tax that will require America to pay taxes to the United Nations – something Biden adamantly supports. This undermines America’s national sovereignty and punishes economic prosperity.

In her “Deal With Delaware” she adds:

Raising taxes is not the solution to our economic problems caused by wasteful spending. This would be like raising your teenager’s allowance after he frivolously wasted his money.

I wish she’d embrace the FairTax; as it is this is a strong category for her so she’ll pick up 14 points.

Role of government:

Since I need some sort of convenient measuring stick for this area, I’m using the American Conservative Union rankings, which generally favor those who prefer a smaller, less intrusive government. On the ACU scale Joe Biden has a lifetime ranking of 13 and scored a big fat zero in 2007. Out of 23 points, it seems fair to deduct about 87% of that, thus he’ll lose 20 points.

Meanwhile, Christine O’Donnell seems to appreciate that government should be Constitutional and limited; unfortunately we have no record to guide ourselves on but on the other hand she does fit the Founders’ vision of a true citizen legislator. She’ll pick up 15 of a possible 23 points.

Border security/immigration:

Biden: While there are a number of votes on the subject that seemed favorable, Biden’s voting record seems to be more inclined toward amnesty than a get-tough approach. It almost seems like it depends on whether he wants to be bipartisan or not. I’ll call this category a wash.

O’Donnell: Christine has this to say on her website:

Christine O’Donnell will fight to secure our nation’s seaports and borders to defend our families from terrorism and from drugs.
Christine will demand that employers obey the law, just as the rest of us must obey the law, with meaningful penalties for hiring illegal aliens.
Christine will fight to make English America’s official language for all governmental purposes. We cannot be one people without speaking one language in common. (Emphasis in original.)

It would be better if she expanded her first point to indicate how she’d prefer to secure the borders, but her heart and position on these issues does seem to be in the right place. Out of 25 points, I’ll grant her 12.

The Long War:

Biden: On August 13, 2007 I wrote that except for a residual force, Joe Biden wanted the troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007. Needless to say he was wrong and lost all 27 points.

O’Donnell: Christine sums things up quite succinctly:

Most importantly, Christine has a strategy for bringing our troops home from Iraq: It’s called victory. Past mistakes should not deter our need to stabilize Iraq so we can get our troops home. We can succeed in the future, but we must accompany our efforts with the honor and respect we’ve earned as a people. We cannot leave on the enemy’s terms. We must leave on our terms. (Emphasis in original.)

You’re damn right. Yes, she gets all 27 points.

If you’ve taken any time to read my website at all before, you know I lie toward the conservative edge of the spectrum so preferring O’Donnell to Biden is not surprisingly a fait accompli. I was curious to see how she stacks up against the conservative candidate for federal office in these parts, Maryland State Senator Andy Harris. For the record, here are the totals.

Joe Biden ends up with a negative total of 108.5 points by losing ground in 8 of 12 categories.

Christine O’Donnell finishes with a total of 70 points. While it’s not the best score I’ve run across in doing this evaluation, she appears to have fairly good conservative credentials. Bear in mind that she’s also pro-life, which is not a category I score but that’s in line with my philosophy on the subject. Aside from the missteps in educational policy she did well, gaining points in 7 of 12 parts.

Since I have no vote in the matter, I can only encourage my friends across the border to end Joe Biden’s political career on November 4, by saying “no Joe and Nobama!”

Elbert was nice enough to crosspost this on his site. He’ll have two more opportunities.

Let the claims and counterclaims begin

It’s round two of the commercial war. In the blue corner, it’s Democrat Frank Kratovil who’s promising to “Stand Up” for the First District:

Of course, already standing in the red corner is State Senator Andy Harris, who’s “Working for Families”:

The Harris ad is relatively simple and hammers succinctly on three main themes:

Families need help with health care, and as a physician Andy has unique insights on a solution.
He’ll work for solutions to our energy crisis, which include drilling for oil.
As it is, Congress is not accountable nor are they spending our tax dollars wisely.

I know that certain buzzwords help to win elections and it’s a 30 second commercial, but I’m leery of any federal government solution to the healthcare issue except for them getting out of it. Obviously Andy has a little different perspective on the issue than his opponent, the question is who would benefit the most? Otherwise, he maintains the positions which have broad support without getting overly specific (of course in 30 seconds you really can’t anyhow.)

Frank Kratovil is also running against Congress in his commercial, while vowing to “stand up for those who work hard and play by the rules.” Other claims he makes are:

To end dependence on foreign oil, where he cuts to a video of an Arab sheikh.
To “cut taxes and wasteful spending”.
He’ll crack down on illegal immigration.
To protect the Bay.

Knowing that Frank has sold out to the environmental lobby (which is why he takes potshots at Andy Harris’s pro-common sense voting record on the subject) it’s doubtful that he’ll advocate the proper, market-based solution to the energy issue – but I’ve discussed this before. We also know that the one issue where either candidate would likely be a good fit is illegal immigration, with a lot depending on how much either wants to buck their current party standardbearer.

But the intriguing part is Frank Kratovil actually saying he’ll “cut taxes.” Of course, the billion-dollar question is if he would retain the Bush tax cuts or make the taxation system even more “progressive” and attempt to soak the rich or other achievers like oil companies. The Democrats seem to have a way of wishing to cut taxes for those who already don’t pay them, in essence giving them a government handout.

And speaking of Democrats, Kratovil goes out of his way to claim independence. He is running so far away from the Democrat label that those inside the Beltway are known for that they’re going to have to fish him out of the Pacific before this is all said and done. This is totally unlike the 2006 election, where the Democrat was fairly liberal and made no bones about it. In 2008 we have a Democrat who is attempting to be just a little less conservative than the Republican, and using some of the more conservative buzzwords in his commercials.

So let’s look at what the two had in common.

Both Harris and Kratovil are trying to establish an anti-Beltway, anti-Congress, fiscally conservative campaign, essentially vowing to go in and not be a typical DC politician.
Both Andy and Frank want to address high gas prices, but they have differing solutions.

Contrasting themselves, Harris uses his background in the medical field to talk about health care, while Kratovil uses his legal practice as expertise on illegal immigration and implies he’s the only environmental candidate.

It all comes down to who is more believable; in this case you probably have a wash. I do commend both candidates for not going negative but I suspect that tune will change after Labor Day.

In checking out the Harris website, I also noticed that he’s taken off the links to various area bloggers. While it’s a little disappointing to me because I was one of those linked, I can understand that the fickle nature of the blogosphere and having our local lightning rod for criticism and controversy featured among the local bloggers makes it difficult to keep a good bloglist going. So I think it’s for the best; besides, I didn’t really get a lot of traffic from there anyway.

In any case, so ends round 2 of the commercial wars. All I have to say is that I can’t wait for the candidate forums, especially if the other two candidates (yes, there are two others on the ballot) get involved.

Crossposted (without video) on Red Maryland and Pro-Maryland Gazette.

WCRC meeting – August 2008

After a month’s hiatus in July, the club returned to regular meetings this month. But since we didn’t have a guest speaker and much of the discussion involved where the club will devote its resources for the 2008 election, I’m going to withhold a good percentage of the information that we discussed.

What I can tell you is that the Wicomico County GOP will have a very visible headquarters and once the arrangements are finalized there will be a press release to announce the grand opening.

I can also tell you that we’ll be out in force over the next several weekends waving signs and attempting to persuade voters, not only about our two major candidates but also the state issues. In fact, our next two meetings are scheduled to feature a pro-slots speaker and an anti-slots speaker in separate meetings. We’re just working to confirm who will actually represent each faction.

Other events which will be on the docket for the upcoming weeks include our WCRC Crab Feast at Schumaker Park on Saturday, September 20 from 1-4 p.m. $25 gets you all the crabs you can eat, plus other goodies and a silent auction. I’ll have at least one Shorebirds-related item to donate. Then on October 4th there will be a rally to support both John McCain and Andy Harris, which will take the place of State Senator Lowell Stoltzfus’s “Picnic in the Park.” It’ll return to the great outdoors after a two-year hiatus inside the Wicomico County Civic Center. I’ll have more details on that as well as the event draws closer. Plus we’re back at the Autumn Wine Festival for at least the third year in a row, that’s October 18th and 19th. I’m sure I’ll be working the event and you never know who will show up, generally it’s a fun event even without the politics involved.

We did thank those who worked the Wicomico County Republican booth at the Farm and Home Show, and I’ll add my thanks to Tom, Blan, both Bobs, both Daves, George, Ryan, Woody, John, and Gail for their assistance. Wouldn’t mind seeing a few new names on the list but that will come. I also have to personally thank Bobbieanne and Charles for bringing the really good food this month…it’ll be almost an impossible task to follow that.

So you have a relatively brief rundown of what went on this month, although the results will become more apparent as time goes on in this campaign. Our next meeting is September 22 at 7 p.m. I may defer the rundown of that meeting until the next night, for personal reasons.

Not just a wall, but a weapon

As one of the recent newsletters I received from my affiliation with the American Institute of Architects has shown, we in the field have our deep, dark satrical fantasies too. The one in question here is a new idea for a border fence that puts the hawks to shame.

Oddly enough, the man who came up with it is, to put it charitably, pro-amnesty. “Toxicwall” was intended, as Boston architect Henry Louis Miller notes, to “respon(d) to the bullying, isolationist tone creeping into the national debate on immigration.” But good humor has an element of truth in it and there are a lot of people who would say about such a wall, bring it on! (I don’t think we need to go to quite that extreme. Just finishing the border fence we’re planning now would be a big help, but the problem also lies partly in the employers who hire illegals and a wall doesn’t stop much on that count.)

This also serves as fodder to introduce another group I’ve become aware of which I’ll be tracking as things go forward. Because I was a contributor to onetime Presidential candidate Duncan Hunter’s campaign, I also get e-mail from his son’s. USMC Capt. Duncan D. Hunter is running to succeed his father and has the backing of the pro-border security Minuteman PAC (as do several Congressional incumbents, including Eastern Shore of Virginia Rep. Thelma Drake.) In their view:

These United States are at war, and under siege by forces and interests that have the capacity, over time, to destroy our great experiment of responsible self-government.

So perhaps a wall like Miller describes would suit the Minuteman group just fine. And having the two items come almost simultaneously from such varied sources seems to indicate that border security and immigration aren’t going away as issues, despite the best efforts of both Presidential candidates to sidestep about their pro-amnesty positions.