Another political theory too good to leave in a comment box

Today Michelle Malkin liveblogged the Iowa GOP debate. As one would imagine a number of people have commented, with some asking about just how Alan Keyes got into the fray and a few others who like Duncan Hunter as I do wondering why he doesn’t get more in the way of polling. As sometimes happens, I meant to leave a short answer to these questions but got on a roll!

*****

Way up yonder, several wondered about a) when Alan Keyes got into the race and b) why a solid conservative like Duncan Hunter is not well-known.

To answer the first question, not many have noticed Keyes was in the race because he didn’t announce for it until the middle of September, a few days after Fred Thompson made it official. I know he’s on the Maryland ballot so I assume he’s managed to get on the other state ones as well. Some may recall he also ran for President in 2000 and (as I recall) was a late entry into the Senate race in Illinois in 2004 when the original GOP candidate dropped out. It was that race which put B. Hussein Obama in the Senate.

Now for my theory about Hunter. Let’s look at the nine candidates on the stage and their backgrounds.

We have one man (Rudy Giuliani) who made an abortive run for U.S. Senate but is most known for being mayor of America’s most populous city on the darkest day of my lifetime. (Being in the front row at all those Yankee playoff games didn’t hurt either.)

Then we have two men (Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney) who served as governor in their state. Obviously they play on that executive experience during their campaigns – bear in mind that four of our last five Presidents spent time in a governor’s chair.

The next group of two serve (or recently served) in a body that boasts only 2 elected officials from each state, the U.S. Senate. Both are from relatively populous states and also have at least one other claim to fame, whether it is a prior run for President (John McCain) or a TV gig (Fred Thompson).

Also falling into the onetime run for President category is the aforementioned Alan Keyes.

That leaves three candidates who have one thing in common – they are all members of the House of Representatives. As such, their political base is only about 650,000 people as opposed to the millions who vote for U.S. Senator or for President. So they don’t have a lot of name recognition outside their district. Frankly, Ron Paul has done the best job of gaining popularity despite the small political base but it’s by and large been through taking a page from John McCain’s playbook and being a “maverick” Republican, particularly on the Long War.

Because both Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are pretty solid conservatives and haven’t built up a lot of name recognition nationwide by grandstanding to the press, they aren’t going to get a lot of play in the partisan media. Both are better known among people like me who study the issues but that hasn’t worked as well with the general public who’s still focused on the “horse race” aspect of the race. Unfortunately most of those people won’t pay a lot of attention until a week before their primary, a point where the candidates with the most money will do a saturation bombing on television with 30 second spots saying “vote for me”, hopefully not pandering too much.

As for me, unless he pulls the plug and withdraws from the race beforehand (sadly, a fair possibility) I’ll be touching the computer screen on February 12 for Duncan Hunter. I studied the issues and he came out on top.

*****

Michelle put up a nice post, with plenty of linked video. I don’t know whose brilliant idea it was to do this in the middle of the afternoon, but I guess they were cognizant of the old 6 p.m. news cycle and the Des Moines Register, being dead tree media, probably is put to bed pretty early.

I believe this is the final debate before the Iowa caucuses, so now the candidates will have to use the press to get their message out, including the blogs. I’m always looking for good material to comment on, you know.

Ten questions everyone should ask their Congressional candidates

A little over two months ago, I sent the following list of questions to many of those who seek the Congressional seat here in the First Congressional District. The others should have received a copy in their e-mail a month or so ago. But even after I called them all out, I’ve still received only silence.

With that in mind, I’m going to release them now in the hopes that more people call on these candidates (and those from any other district, they’re not written to be specific to mine) to answer what I consider tough questions that provoke thought and seek specific solutions to issues we all face. All I ask is that if you use them on your site, give me credit (Michael Swartz at www.monoblogue.us) A link would be nice, too.

So here goes, questions the candidates are afraid to answer:

  1. Right after the 9/11 attacks President Bush noted that the retaliatory fighting soon to ensue would be a long-term effort. Since then the focus has been on military targets in Iraq and Afghanistan. How do you best feel we can achieve victory in this effort?
  2. Last year Congress passed a measure intended to begin construction of a security fence along the Mexican border. More recently the immigration bill that some decried as amnesty failed to attain cloture in the Senate. If you’re elected do you feel we should pursue border security first or deal with those illegal immigrants already here?
  3. While an energy bill (HR 6) passed through Congress this year it did little to impact gasoline prices. Renewable energy is a sound long-term goal, but reality is that we’re decades away from those sources being the mainstay of our energy use. For the short- to medium-term, what steps do you feel we should undertake to cut our dependence on foreign oil sources?
  4. While the current Congressional majority had as part of their 2006 campaign the promise to eliminate the “culture of corruption”, the reality has been that members of both parties have been caught in illegal or at least dubious actions since the 110th Congress got underway back in January. What reforms would you like to see enacted in the 111th Congress to make it more accountable to the voters?
  5. In 2006 then-Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney signed a bill into law mandating the state’s residents carry health insurance of some sort, whether through their employer, privately, or via the state. Would you support a similar program as a federal initiative, leave it up to the states, or come up with another system – and why?
  6. As you know the 2001/2003 tax cuts enacted by President Bush face expiration in 2010. While the debate has gone on whether these cuts have helped the economy or simply fattened the wallets of “the rich,” another alternative has been suggested, one of a national sales tax popularly known as the “FairTax.” Another idea is to simplify the tax system by going to a flat tax with few deductions allowed. Where do you stand on how the government collects its revenue?
  7. Every month the U.S. adds a little bit to its trade deficit, particularly with China. Further, a common complaint I have (and I’m sure many others echo) is that you can’t find things that are made in the U.S.A. anymore. How do you think the trade imbalance should be straightened out and what role do you see Congress having in restoring a manufacturing base to our shores?
  8. Much wailing and gnashing of teeth among those in local and state government occurs when they have to deal with the dreaded “unfunded federal mandate.” Where do you see the line being between the rights of individual states and the federal government – would you seek to fairly fund the mandate or reduce the burden on the state by eliminating it?
  9. The recent Minnesota bridge collapse has placed our nation’s infrastructure front and center as a political issue. Some say higher gasoline taxes are the answer, but critics of that argument charge that reallocating the federal share toward highways and away from mass transit and bikeways would eliminate the need for an increase. What would be your order of priority for transportation and infrastructure spending?
  10. Easiest question with the shortest answer. If you were to choose three Presidential candidates you’d prefer to work with in the 111th Congress who would they be?

It’ll be interesting to see just how far this goes, won’t it? I’m not holding my breath on getting answers, but maybe if enough people with enough pull ask the questions we may get somewhere. How about basing your political contributions on getting answers? That’s a thought – we all know money talks and you-know-what walks!

Crossposted on Red Maryland.

In print no. 8

Today the Daily Times was nice enough to print a letter I submitted reminding voters of the upcoming deadline to switch parties for the February, 2008 primary (it’s the last letter on the page, I suppose we get the last word after the poultry farm debate.)

The letter as written was originally longer; I shortened it at the behest of the committee. This is the body I actually wrote:

An Open Letter To Voters from the Wicomico County Republican Party

Dear Voter:

As the body that administers the affairs of the Republican Party in our county and represents its interests to the state party apparatus, it is our charge to promote Republican candidates for election to local, state, and national offices.

Next February Maryland voters will go to the polls to nominate candidates for our Congressional seats and for the office of President. We feel that the Republican voters are going to have many good choices for both offices and that the races for nomination, particularly in the First Congressional District, are going to go down to the wire with every last vote being important to determine the outcome.

In the last two decades Wicomico County has become a solidly Republican county based on election results for state and national offices. Since 1988, the GOP candidates for President and Governor have had little trouble winning here with no small amount of help provided by thoughtful Democrats and independents who tend to have values prevalent in the Republican Party but maintain their voter registration elsewhere.

While the election is still over three months away, if you are a Democrat or Independent who wishes to participate in the Republican primary the Maryland Board of Elections dictates that party registration must be changed by Monday, November 19, 2007 in order to participate in the Primary Election held February 12, 2008.

So it is with this in mind that we, the undersigned members of the Republican Central Committee of Wicomico County, encourage you to contact the Board of Elections and secure your opportunity to participate in what promises to be one of the most exciting elections the Eastern Shore has seen in decades.

We know what the recent election results have been, and we think it’s time for the voters of Wicomico County to come home to the Republican Party.

As for the amount of editing the Daily Times did, it was pretty minor so I can’t complain. Either way, the message is the same: if you want to help choose between Wayne Gilchrest and a host of challengers including State Senator Andy Harris, you have just six-plus working days to do so if you’re not already a registered Republican. Switch now or forever hold your peace.

I guess every man has his price

Yesterday I ran across a story on Michelle Malkin’s website concerning a corruption sting in New Jersey. Eleven state and local officials are accused of taking bribes in return for steering government business to certain clients. After reading it I felt compelled to comment (it’s comment #28 if you care to read that far.)

This story troubles me in two respects.

First of all, because one of the accused, Jonathan Soto, is a “former GOP Passaic…City Councilman”, it becomes a “bipartisan” scandal in the eyes of the media, despite many of the defendants being Democrats. It’ll be looked at as another example where the Republican Party is the so-called party of corruption.

Secondly, and much more importantly, this reveals the sad fact that each office seems to have its “price” – a few thousand for a school board member, closer to five figures for an Assemblyman or City Councilman, and $30-50k for a mayor. Being in the “real” work world, I know what it takes for me to clear that kind of cash yet these guys and the bribery they were allegedly taking are likely just the tip of the iceberg as far as corruption is concerned in that state. And I shudder to think about the size and scale of it on a federal level.

As well-meaning as New Jersey’s Governor Corzine might be, all the ethics laws that can be written are only treating the symptoms and not the disease. Instead of being public servants, these men have turned the definition on its head; wishing the public serve them by creating a trough of public funds that they can use their influence to allow their favored friends to dip into.

To truly cure the disease, the bottomless pit of public funds needs to be filled in somehow. Even the lowly office of school board has become a source of big money, and where you have easy money, you have scoundrels who want to get their hands on it rather than honestly working to attain it.

By many accounts, New Jersey is a state where corruption and graft are second nature; however, I can’t say I’m an expert on their state or their politics. I think in my blogging existence I’ve only mentioned their politics once when they had the last election for Governor in 2005. And I’ve visited there only one time, made it no farther north than Brick Township and Lakewood.

Regardless, the article made me think about how money has gotten so pervasive in politics and also how getting it in the most dubious of ways seems to have become the goal of many a politician. You may recall that one argument made for passage of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform was that all the campaign money makes politicians dishonest. In the New Jersey case though and in so many others (both Congressman William Jefferson and his former cohort Duke Cunningham are shining examples of this) the money that corrupted them was the money they were placed in charge of by being elected to Congress. Unfortunately not enough Republicans and few if any Democrats seem to want to get at that particular cause of corruption; most turn a blind eye to it as they pass larger and larger, more pork-laden budgets.

Another thing that depresses me is that the New Jersey corruption reached all the way down to a school board. That’s the real grassroots of the political world, the place where many first come into elected office. Some use that office as a springboard to a city council seat or Delegate post, while others simply serve because they care about the welfare of local children and seek no higher office. Even so, school districts now control huge sums of money – much of it coming from federal and state sources. These men likely professed their service to the local children on the one hand while using the other to direct the flow of money to their favored friends.

One irony of this is while Michelle was wrapping up this article, I was working the Wicomico County Republican Party booth at Salisbury’s RiverFest (more on that later today.) Because Wicomico County has an appointed school board, the office I occupy of Central Committeeman is the lowest of the low on the elected office totem pole, much like the school board in New Jersey. Likely it’s the only elected position I’ll ever take since I don’t have a great desire to work and play with others in a legislative body someplace, nor do I plan on making elected office a lifetime avocation.

But the article she wrote is another example of elected officials violating the public trust and making all of the rest of us – the 99% of us who are honest and want to do what’s right for those who elected us – look bad and maintains a public perception that we’re all crooks. However, if we can take some of the money out of the equation, the shysters and others who simply seek to make their fortunes through the world of politics may have to find another more dishonest profession. 

WCRC Press Release – August 25, 2007

I wrote this on the club’s behalf and forwarded it to the mainstream media. Now it’s the blogosphere’s turn. For this version I deleted certain contact info, the e-mail is fine.

Starting August 27, the Wicomico County Republican Club meetings this fall are the place to be to find out the inside scoop on state and national politics from those who are there or seeking a place for themselves at the political table. You’ll also have a chance to speak out on both the upcoming Presidential and First District Congressional primary elections.

Our August 27 meeting will feature the incumbent First District Congressman Wayne Gilchrest as speaker. Wayne is sure to cover what he feels are his accomplishments in his most recent term and explain his position on the War on Terror, a stance that has sometimes put him at odds with Republican leadership in Congress as well as President Bush.

September 24 brings the club and other interested GOP observers an opportunity to have their say on the candidates vying for both President and Congress, as the club will host its first-ever Wicomico County Republican Straw Poll. Like its counterpart in Ames, Iowa, this will also be a fundraiser for the club as voters will have the chance to put their money behind their chosen candidates and buy additional votes. Speakers will represent each of the Presidential and Congressional hopefuls, giving a short presentation on the merits of their favorite sons before the task turns to selecting our county’s pre-primary choices for the two offices.

The October 22 gathering will reflect on the upcoming General Assembly Special Session as we’ve scheduled District 37B Delegate Jeannie Haddaway to address our club. It promises to be an informative look at what the Democrat majority in Maryland plans to do to our wallets from a member of the loyal opposition.

Wrapping up the fall season will be a visit from another Congressional hopeful, Dr. Andy Harris. Harris announced his bid to replace Wayne Gilchrest earlier this summer and the November 27meeting will be his chance to sell himself to the most active Republicans in Wicomico County – a volunteer and financial base he’ll need if he’s to unseat the incumbent. Since Harris also serves as a State Senator, he may also provide insight on the FY08 budget machinations of the majority Democrats in Maryland.

All of these Monday evening meetings will take place at the Chamber of Commerce Building, 144 E. Main Street in Salisbury. Social hour in all cases begins at 7 p.m. and meeting is gaveled to order at 7:30.

If you have further questions, our club’s press contact is the Second Vice President, Michael Swartz. His e-mail is ttownjotes@yahoo.com.

The third voice in the room

Since I put up items from the incumbent and initial challenger, it’s only fair that I share something I received from Republican Congressional candidate Joe Arminio. What’s odd is this actually came to me because of my membership on the Wicomico County Republican Central Committee, not through monoblogue. But you’ll get to read it anyway – I feel that the voters should know as much about the officeseekers as possible.

Arminio bills the e-mail as “Candidates Compared” and the short piece is entitled “Send American Way Leaders To Congress.” I’ll give him points for keeping it short and making it a WordPad file I can easily clip and paste!

According to State Senator Harris, the big news is that Congressman Gilchrest has been moving away from the Republicans—away from the Right—and toward the Democrats. But this simplistic view reveals more about Harris than about the complex agenda of Gilchrest.

To make sense of the Republican primary in the First Congressional District, a vital digression is needed. There is this movement afoot to transfer all power from the American people to multinational bureaucracies and corporations. Big business is hardly all bad, but today the globalists, those who would close down the republic and subordinate us to multinational corporate elitists, and those who go along with the globalists knowingly or not, have become a strong force. The globalists and their helpers are not easy to identify; they call themselves liberals, moderates or conservatives, as always, but watch out, for they undermine the independence of America, that is, rule for, by and of the American people.

Politics is no longer one-dimensional (left-center-right); it is now two-dimensional or a matrix, that is, there is the conventional or traditional dimension—are you on the left, center or right?—and the new dimension, are you for the independence and sovereignty of the country (nationalist) or not (globalist)?

It turns out that Gilchrest advances globalist (and neoconservative) trade policy. Hence his long standing support for job-killers such as NAFTA and CAFTA. What did the 18th century economist Adam Smith and Karl Marx both say about this kind of trade? It would dissolve the nation-state. Also Gilchrest advances globalist, radical environmental policy, insofar as he champions the Delmarva Conservation Corridor. The language of the Corridor is eerily similar to the language of the UN Convention on Biodiversity, and the Convention, among other things, promotes the “global commons” at the expense of individual countries ruled by their respective peoples. The incumbent deserves praise for protecting native Chesapeake Bay oysters but his tilt toward globalist environmental notions threatening sovereignty and private property rights outweighs such good. Yet another globalist (and neoconservative) measure Gilchrest promotes is UNESCO, which, among other things, is subverting American schools and nurturing “world citizens” who are easy prey of multinational corporate interests. There is another big point about Gilchrest. Why has he been silent about the build up of a North American Union? 26 of his colleagues in the US House have found the courage to sponsor legislation opposing this foul proposed merger of the United States, Mexico and Canada. Special interests—corporations–would rule the new Union. Speaking about this North American Union, why has Harris been silent about it, too?

Harris is right that Gilchrest is breaking ranks with the GOP as a whole on such matters as Iraq, and taxes and spending. But breaking ranks on Iraq is not necessarily bad. What is certainly troubling (and not pointed out by Harris) are the votes in ’02, ’04 and ’06 that Gilchrest cast in lockstep with the GOP, which neoconservatives dominate, to raise the federal government debt by 50% from $5.8 Trillion, in 2001, to $8.9 Trillion, today. What is even more troubling is the silence of Gilchrest (and Harris) about the immediate severe threat the public and private debt is posing for the economy and how comprehensive emergency measures must be taken, lest the public suffer greatly and become more vulnerable to globalists.

On the issues of gun ownership and family values, Gilchrest has always been, in the traditional sense, left of center. But his positions on such things—and anyone else’s for that matter—ought to be related to all other positions, especially those affecting America’s independence. I may disagree with someone who is left of me on guns and the unborn. If that other fellow is not a globalist, he and I are, at the end of the day, still Americans. If I encounter someone who is a globalist, that is another matter, even if he were an avowed pro-life and 2nd Amendment man.

Harris, meanwhile, has done some good in Annapolis. But he does not bring vital clarity to this race, failing to warn us about the globalists in general and to protect us from their policies. As reflected in his campaign web site, he is silent on, among other things, the true economic plight of the country, the North American Union, present trade policy, the Delmarva Conservation Corridor and UNESCO. What is more, Harris aids the globalist (and neoconservative) agenda on immigration. Although he would bar illegals, he has said nothing about reversing changes to the law, beginning in 1965, that have allowed far more legal immigration to occur than we can assimilate and that have created explosive population growth typical of Third World countries.

One hopes Harris is not a neoconservative. Perhaps he has received bad advice. Neoconservatives tend to be right of center on guns and the family, which, I feel, is good, yet, on balance, do more harm than good where sovereignty and the relationship between the people and corporations are concerned, advancing a number of globalist policies. They narrow discourse and would have us believe politics is only one-dimensional, namely, left-center-right. Above all, it can be shown that they have deviated from American Way (nationalist) policies, which made American great, and which a long line of Republicans, including Lincoln, McKinley, Roosevelt, Coolidge, Taft and Eisenhower and the Reagan vision, and some Democrats, more or less upheld.

What we desperately need are more American Way leaders in Congress.

To be quite honest, I’m sure Tony Caliguiri, Kathy Bassett, and the rest of the Gilchrest team are ecstatic about having a third candidate jump into the race and split the anti-incumbent vote up. On the other hand, there’s a little less of a benefit to the GOP at-large if it’s perceived that Gilchrest will win easily over two challengers – there’s less potential for people who are Democrats but strongly support Wayne to cross over and register Republican solely to vote for him in the primary.

Regardless, this is an interesting introduction to the respective county central committees by the challenger. I’m sure we’ll hear more as the campaign carries on.

A “distinction without a difference”

I’ve gotten quite a bit of response about my post condemning the NRCC for “endorsing” Wayne Gilchrest this early in the campaign season. In fact, my article was linked on the national blog redstate.com, which I thought was pretty sweet.

And this afternoon I got a call from Chris Meekins of the Harris campaign, who pointed out that the endorsement was a personal one given by Rep. Cole and not a blanket NRCC one. But I also think that someone from the Gilchrest campaign is certainly earning his or her money (could it be Kathy Bassett, wife of Daily Times editor Greg Bassett?) by writing the press releases in a truthful yet thisclose to misleading fashion. Imagine these two headlines:

“Gilchrest Endorsed By Fellow Congressman And NRCC Chairman Tom Cole”

“NRCC Chairman Endorses Gilchrest Re-Election Bid”

They say the same thing, but the second one makes it sound like the weight of the NRCC is behind the endorsement. Obviously it fooled me, and I’m likely more of a student of politics than the average Joe reading his daily paper.

So the argument is that it’s only Cole and not the NRCC apparatus behind the endorsement. Well, if you’ll indulge me going across party lines for a few sentences, I got an e-mail from the Martin O’Malley campaign machine inviting me to an organizational meeting for the Hillary Clinton campaign. (Yes, I’m on e-mail lists for both parties under a separate address. That way I can keep up with both sides for election coverage.)

If the average person gets an e-mail from the Governor pressing a particular campaign, is there any doubt that the marching orders for party underlings aren’t going to be to push for that candidate too? The Maryland Democrat Party machine is going to be lock, stock, and barrel working for Hillary regardless of how particular Democrats feel. The same goes for the Democrats running for the First Congressional District seat – obviously having O’Malley’s support means the machine’s in for Frank Kratovil over Christopher Robinson and any others who decide to run on that side.

Above all, it’s quoted in the redstate.com post that “the NRCC is first and foremost an incumbent retention committee.” So regardless of the merits of a candidate or the failings of the incumbent the policy stated by this particular member of the NRCC is that they’ll throw the challengers under the bus. Hopefully Andy Harris will be able to avoid the Greyhound coming at him.

Lesson learned? Too little and about 9 months too late.

Welcome to those of you reading this through Carnival of Maryland 12. 

One thing about doing my website and being active in the Republican Party is that I get quite the number of press releases and talking points from the party apparatus. For the most part, I just save them as background information unless I see something that I think is interesting to share and comment on.

So yesterday I got a note from the Maryland Republican Party regarding an op-ed placed in The Hill by House Minority Leader John Boehner. This is credited as originating out of Rep. Boehner’s office. Some excerpts:

In January I wrote in The Hill that after our losses last November, House Republicans “must recommit to the principles of limited and accountable government.” Here we are, seven months into the 110th Congress, and I’m pleased to report we’re doing just that.

Republicans are working together to earn back the majority by first earning back the trust of the American people. And while Democrats are divided and breaking their promises on issue after issue, House Republicans have repeatedly spoken with one voice.

(snip)

When you look back at the last several months, it’s clear the Democratic majority hasn’t gotten much done. They’ve named some post offices and some roads, protected one of their own from being reprimanded and impeded an investigation of another for violating House rules, plotted to hide billions in spending from public view, spent a whole week on a single nonbinding resolution, and failed to meet their own “Energy Independence Day” deadline for dramatic energy legislation.

(snip)

Republicans have a long way to go in our effort to earn back the majority, but the last several months have shown we are united and proving our commitment to delivering a federal government that will guarantee the freedom and security Americans expect; a government that is smaller, less costly and more accountable — one that will secure our borders and protect Americans from attack by radical jihadists.

The American people sent Republicans a message last fall. We’ve listened. Seven months into the 110th Congress, Republicans are keeping their promises to the American people; it’s fair to say the majority can’t say the same.

Unfortunately, Boehner fails to mention that the GOP caved on allowing a minimum wage increase (as it was tied into one of the Long War supplemental bills) and that the front on the Long War is not quite united when it comes to the Republican Party – our own Congressman regularly breaks from the GOP line when it comes to that vital issue.

However, some of the problem that the Republican Party is going through can be traced to a lack of leadership at the top. I know President Bush likes to talk about the “new tone” but, like his father, he’s let the Democrats run too much of the policy of our nation. Truly, just about the only things that have happened under his watch that the majority of Democrats didn’t go along with in some way, shape, or form were the 2001/2003 tax cuts and, since roughly the middle of 2003, the military side of the Long War. (Obviously in 2002 it wasn’t yet politically expedient to be anti-military unless you came from a truly moonbat Congressional district.)

Some of us in the GOP came of age under President Reagan, and while he didn’t accomplish all of the goals he originally set for his presidency (particularly in the realm of reducing the size of government) he did manage to jump start a moribund economy domestically through his tax cuts and subdue the Soviet threat. We were spoiled by his sort of leadership – and as you may recall, he endured a Democrat-controlled Congress throughout the eight years of his tenure.

Well, neither President Bush has been a Ronald Reagan, and to me part of that lies in the fact that both strayed to an extent from Republican principles. The elder Bush believed the Congressional Democrat lies about cutting the size of government once new taxes were in place (the infamous “read my lips” line) and Bush 43 has presided over ever-expanding budgets while federalizing the education system through No Child Left Behind and adding another expensive entitlement in Medicare Part D.

In short, what Boehner points out is only that the GOP has managed to very slightly slow the tide of increasing federal government control over our lives. Unfortunately, once we lost the majority after the 2006 elections we forefited most of our chance to roll back the amount of power the federal government can bear. And since the Congressional GOP was by and large trying to act like a lesser version of big-government liberal Democrats during the 109th Congress, the GOP base decided to stay home in 2006.

While many pundits talk about the slow, steady drumbeat of bad news about the Long War as doing in the GOP majority last year and claim that if the troops aren’t home before the 2008 elections it will doom the Republican Party once again, I think the GOP needs to do all it can to hammer home a very simple point.

If we leave Iraq and Afghanistan before the enemy is subdued, we most assuredly lose and the terrorists win. Because the Democrats are in favor of this so-called tactical retreat, they want us to lose. President Reagan refused to negotiate with terrorists, and to me that’s still a sound policy.

America already lost one war because the Democrats and media drumbeat of bad news turned public opinion against the military and the fight. And I’m old enough to recall that once America retreated, we saw the barbarism of the communist North Vietnamese and their fellow traveler Pol Pot in Cambodia (the “killing fields”.)

Moreover, if we pull out of the Long War, it will once again prove to the Islamic fundamentalists that we cannot take casualties. Osama bin Laden himself noted that President Clinton’s 1993 Somalia pullout (“Black Hawk down”) showed him we were a “paper tiger”. It’s also been pointed out that the retreat President Reagan made from Lebanon after the Beirut barracks bombing in 1983 that killed over 200 Marines emboldened anti-American forces in the region.

We’ll never be blessed with another President quite like Ronald Reagan. But it’s time for the Republican Party to take the offensive in our own war, the war of ideas. Principled Republican leadership that believes in strong national defense, securing our borders, and placing trust in the American people to govern themselves and not have government act as a nanny state will be a winning election formula. It’s up to our leaders and candidates to embrace that policy.

Two open letters

Last night I made an effort to get this website to be more informative and focused on the upcoming Presidential campaign. I wrote two separate e-mail letters, one focused on Democrats and one focused on Republicans.

Now while I’ll likely catch hell from some quarters of the GOP for giving a forum to Democrats there’s a lot of my readership that’s Democrat and they may as well be informed too. After all, I can’t change the world if I’m preaching to the choir can I? It’s called giving them rope to hang themselves. And we all may stumble onto a good idea or two from them that’s worth discussion. As long as the people on the port side can keep it relatively clean and advance my posts with their comments, I’m quite ok with them being wrong. My theory is that they’ll get it sooner or later.

With that, here’s the note I sent to the eight major Democrat campaigns:

My name is Michael Swartz, and in the interest of full disclosure I’ll tell you that I’m a staunch Republican and plan to vote accordingly in the 2008 election. I’m planted squarely and firmly in the tenets of the Constitution as the Founders intended.

I also write a political website called monoblogue. In about 18 months of operation I’ve built up a reputation as being fair to those of all political stripes so a good portion of my readership runs in the spectrum of liberal to moderate Democrats. We can agree to disagree amicably. Moreover, one of my political heroes is Newt Gingrich, both for the fact that he’s forward-looking as far as seeking solutions to the problems our country faces and because he engages liberal Democrats in thoughtful issues-based dialogue regarding how best to approach these concerns.

And above all I have a goal for my website, which is to continue to build readership to such a point where I can profitably sell advertising and supplement my eventual retirement, since I have little hope Social Security will be around at that time! In short, I have and want to continue growing a readership that likely would appreciate your thoughts on what I consider some of the key topics facing us as Election 2008 approaches.

So despite the fact we’re on opposite sides of most issues I’d appreciate your campaign’s input. Set me straight if I’m not telling it like it is. Defend your positions. I welcome comments that advance my posts one way or another. The reward for you is advancing national dialogue and getting your position out, while the reward for me is twofold: sharpening my argumentive skills to make me a better writer and, more importantly for the goal of monoblogue, to build my readership.

I hope that, unlike Fox News, you’ll take me up on this offer and join the debate.

Of course, I did send something to my brethren on the Republican side and it went like this:

As a Republican on my county’s Central Committee it’s obvious that I’ll be supporting my party’s candidate on Election Day 2008. So you need not worry about that should you secure the nomination.

But I am undecided about who to support in the primary. So in order to help me make my decision I’m researching all of the candidate websites to see who I’ll place my support behind leading up to Maryland’s primary in February. And while it’s good practice for all GOP voters to study the candidates in this manner, my study is going to be a little different and a lot more public.

I do a political website called monoblogue and my readers will get to follow along as I come to my conclusion regarding the guy I’ll throw my support behind. From nothing 18 months ago, I’ve slowly and painstakingly tried to build a quality commentary-based website and I’m pleased to say I’ve grown to a point where I get about 1500 readers a week and rank among Maryland’s top politically-based websites (sitting at #4 as of this writing.) But it’s just a beginning and I want to continue to grow my readership to a point where selling ads is feasible and profitable. Hopefully you’re all good capitalists and can relate.

So as I make this decision, I’d appreciate your input in supplementing the issue notes you maintain on your website, which have become the core element of my decisionmaking. You may through your comments also have to engage liberal Democrats, who I’ve encouraged to comment as well. A little debate is good for all of us.

What I’m looking for is a win-win situation – you get a member of the rapidly growing “pajamas media” and a Constitutional conservative in your corner, and I get the benefit of your input as I strive to improve readership.

To that end, I encourage you to peruse my site and feel free to comment as you feel appropriate. As a bonus you may learn something about the Eastern Shore, our little corner of Maryland, which is reasonably solid GOP country. We encourage you to pay us a visit sometime!

Of course, I’ll share what the responses turn out to be. I’m betting it’s a bunch of form e-mails although some of the Democrats may freak.

I’m sure a number of you think I’m totally crazy for doing this, likely including about six other members of the Central Committee. But I was taught that you can’t get what you want unless you ask for it. I’m not losing anything besides maybe a half-hour of my time that it took me to compose and send the e-mail.

This also could help me achieve another goal in that at some point I want this to be a income-producing endeavor – but I need to gain readership. Part of attaining that is establishing a national contact base and the other part is continuing to improve with my writing skills. Improving my writing may come in handy in other parts of my life too.

As it’s been stated many a time; nothing ventured, nothing gained. This is my venture.

Yep, another shameless plug

I’ll be on Bill Reddish’s show yet again tomorrow, talking politics and whatever else comes up. Maybe I’ll discuss our Congressman voting for defeat again.

If I’m in the ornery mood I’m in right now come tomorrow morning, it may get interesting. Should be twenty minutes of good radio if that’s so, starting at 7:40.

In print no. 7

It’s obvious to me that someone at the Daily Times reads monoblogue because as soon as I noted that I’d sent a letter in, bam! it was in print the next day. Apparently I’ve gotten to the point where they don’t have to call me anymore to verify I wrote it.

They actually stayed fairly true to what I wrote in their print version, and I suppose it reads a little bit better. But here’s what I actually wrote in to them, just as a comparison.

Recently the local ‘pajamas media’ revealed a letter written by Barrie Tilghman regarding her ban on city employees participating on the “AM Salisbury” radio show hosted by Bill Reddish. This stemmed from his May 4th interview with City Council president Louise Smith, which culminated a long-standing feud between the mayor and Reddish.

As it turned out my name came up in the Smith interview as a source of comments Smith purportedly made in front of the Wicomico County Republican Central Committee on which I serve. I contacted Reddish later that day and informed him of the misstatement, for which he quickly apologized. However, the statement in question was uttered by Smith on other occasions, including a forum that I recounted for my website, monoblogue. Reddish’s sole error was placing Smith’s remark in the improper location when it was spoken.

I was satisfied with Reddish’s apology and I considered that portion of the matter closed. Further, Reddish made another apology for his lack of professionalism the next time he was on the air, May 7th. So it saddens me that Reddish has had a fatwa of sorts aimed at him by Barrie Tilghman and that Louise Smith has not distanced herself from it by accepting the apology Reddish provided.

I’m a regular listener to the “AM Salisbury” show and have been fortunate enough to be a guest on a few occasions. At no time in my dealings with Bill as a studio guest has he been less than professional. Slipping from his high standards on one occasion because his passion for the city got the better of him does not justify the calls for his job that have come from a few in and out of city government. Those who seek his dismissal are just as guilty of letting their emotions get in the way, and maybe they owe Bill Reddish an apology.

Reasonably close, except I paragraph differently. The point still remains that I consider the matter closed as far as my involvement is concerned and I think all of the affected should as well. If Louise Smith is this thin-skinned it’s going to be a struggle for four years.

On a sort of unrelated subject, I did get word about the Debbie Campbell press conference this afternoon (thanks Debbie!) but unfortunately I can’t attend midday stuff like that except on Fridays. At that time I was in the middle of designing flats for a project in OC, which is part of my paying job. But there is one part I’d like to get more info about, to wit:

Mrs. Campbell and Mrs. Cohen will unveil their cuts in spending and increases in revenue (emphasis mine) totaling approximately $3 million. These changes in the budget proposed by Mayor Barrie Tilghman will allow the salary increases for city firefighters, which the Mayor cut from her budget, to be reinstated.  Money would also be made available for the six paramedic positions, which have also been cut from the Mayor’s budget.

It’s a simple matter of priorities,” states Mrs. Campbell.  “What is more important to the health of our city – being able to retain our police officers or adding to the bureaucracy by creating an Assistant City Administrators position?  What is more important for the safety of our residents – being able to retain our firefighters or funding a bike path?”

I guess I’m a bit disappointed in my fellows, assuming one or more had an opportunity to attend the press conference…what are the cuts? The Daily Times has a sort of basic outline, but no more depth than a pie pan. And more importantly, where do the increases in revenue come from?

If Debbie and/or Terry would be so kind to provide me a list so that someone who actually doesn’t have a deadline or space constraints could take a look at it, I’d appreciate it! I’m sure some of my fellows in the local blogosphere would say the same thing.

Tomorrow I’m going to look at the newly-christened Andy Harris campaign. Cato (of Delmarva Dealings) sure seems to be in favor of it, and I did check out the website (you’ll notice it’s linked now.)

Run, Andrew, run!

I heard a blurb on the radio today, and it’s probably good that I wasn’t in a lot of traffic as I was driving since it’s tough to cheer and applaud while keeping both hands on the wheel. And I was cheering and applauding!

But State Senator Andrew Harris (R-Baltimore County) is mulling a run for the Congressional seat held by Wayne Gilchrest. He was going to use this weekend’s Maryland GOP state convention (which I’ll be attending) as a gauge to see whether he has enough support. And if the support for Gilchrest is as tepid as the rumblings I’ve heard in my rounds Harris could have a legitimate chance. It’s just my hope that the state party listens to the grassroots and doesn’t take a side in this battle, allowing the two (plus any others) to debate the issues. One thing that I’ve publicly stated my opposition to is having the party bigwigs annoint an incumbent as a perpetual candidate. In this case, I want the higher-ups in the Maryland GOP to put no pressure on Harris to discourage a run. As a Central Committee, it’s our job to support whoever the Republican voters favor, not connive to try to discourage opposition and avoid a messy primary fight. That was my frustration with the Ohio Republican Party and we see where it got them – nice going guys.

Regular readers of monoblogue might recall that I graded our local Delegates and Senators on how they voted in the last General Assembly session on key issues I felt strongly about. So here’s how Harris voted, bearing in mind that my stance was “no” on each issue.

  • HB131/SB103 (the “Maryland Clean Cars Act”) – NO
  • HB148/SB634 (the National Popular Vote Act) – NO
  • HB359/SB91 (“Clean Indoor Air Act”) – NO
  • HB430 (Living Wage) – NO
  • SB739 (relatives of legislators cannot receive legislative scholarships) – yes

Four out of five ain’t bad – in fact he was more attuned to my views than either of my local Senators. And it goes without saying that I’ve got several problems with the incumbent Congressman, particularly with his stances on the Long War and energy independence.

But something tells me that the Congressman might have suspected something was up when Harris was an attendee at our recent Lincoln Day dinner. Just a few days later I received a letter from his campaign (sent to my old address – come on guys get it right!) Right up top was a quote in bold from Newt Gingrich:

“I think we have more problems making the American government work than we have making the Iraqi government work.”

(snip)

This may not be something you want to hear, but I think it’s a message that we all need to understand: The Republican party has lost its way, and we need to return to the core fundamentals of our party if we hope to regain the trust of American voters.

(snip)

I believe our party and our nation is at a crossroads, and that as someone who has been willing to get involved with the political process, you would be willing to join a new effort to regain our momentum and restore America’s trust in us.

But first we must turn away from the negative attack politics of Washington, and we must again become the party of big ideas.

I was recently talking to my friend, former Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich, and he agreed that our best – and possibly only – hope is to clearly articulate our positive vision for America, and to return to the core principles of our party which brought us the trust and confidence of American voters.

(snip)

As you probably know, I have gained a reputation for speaking my mind – even when I think our party is going in the wrong direction. But I have dedicated a career to building this party and I am proud to be a Republican, and I believe our best days are ahead.

As you can also imagine, reform does not always sit well with leaders in Annapolis and Washington, and I imagine that some of the entrenched special interests will spend a great deal of money and resources to block a reform movement – and my own reelection.

That’s why I am writing to you today. I think that you can be an important part of our effort to change the way politics works, and we can send a message to our party’s leadership.

In reality, this letter is about three pages long and I just hit what I considered the highlights. But it’s quite intriguing that the nine-term incumbent cloaks himself in a “reformer” mantle. Wonder if that’s a poll-tested remark? Even more interesting is where he uses his friendship with Newt Gingrich to establish what conservative bonafides he does have while voting at every opportunity with the more moderate sector of the GOP, or even with the Democrats on some issues.

And this is why I highlighted Harris’s voting record. Would it not be a message to the rest of the country and the GOP stalwarts if one of their most moderate is knocked out in a party primary by a conservative? It could go a long way to reinventing the Republican Party as I’d like to see it done.

With just nine months remaining until the primary, the time to act is now should anyone wish to challenge any of Maryland’s incumbents in Congress. If there’s a primary fight on the GOP side in our district, it may bring us national attention and we can show the rest of the country how we on the Eastern Shore really feel about the direction of the Republican Party.