Communications – Page 3

Radio days volume 2

Apparently someone thinks I’m a political expert. I already know I have a face for radio (and a voice for the print media); nevertheless, I’ll be back on WICO tomorrow morning at 7:40 a.m. discussing tonight’s political forum with host Bill Reddish. It’ll be a double treat for Salisbury political junkies as my fellow blogger “Cato” from Delmarva Dealings will be joining us.

So I may or may not post on the forum tonight – most likely I will but if it’s just more of the same I’ve heard at the three others I’ve seen on TV or live I might choose to combine a forum post with my thoughts on radio day #2 either tomorrow night or Wednesday.

There’s your heads-up for tomorrow, be listening! It should be a good twenty minutes if not more.

Firing back at a white flag

At the risk of violating Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment, I received a pair of letters from Congressman Gilchrest during the last week or so. They both explained his thoughts on the situation in Iraq and addressed to some extent my reaction to his vote on H. Con. Res. 63. My reacting to this in a public way may not make my cohorts on the Central Committee happy but it’s time for me once again to put principle above party.

However, I realized upon looking at both of them that one is on Congressional letterhead (thus a public document) and the other is “Authorized by Gilchrest for Congress” so it’s more of a personal nature. So I’m only going to retype the Congressional one and post my thoughts on it, plus this will also likely serve as part of my response to the other one. The fact I had two different letters didn’t occur to me because these went to two separate addresses (one went to my old address and was forwarded) and arrived a couple days apart – I just assumed they were two copies of the same letter until I looked closer. Regardless, most of you know I’m passionate on the issue and occupy the opposite (correct) side. The letter reads as follows, the only exception being I cannot underline passages on WordPress thus those underlined parts on the original will be in bold font. Italics on the original are in standard font on this post.

February 27, 2007

Mr. Michael Swartz

(address)

Dear Mr. Swartz:

As you know, I recently cast a vote on the floor of the United States House of Representatives in favor of a resolution that both expresses my complete and unwavering commitment to our American troops, but also to signal my opposition to a surge in troop levels in Iraq.

I understand that some may disagree with this vote and the potential implication it has both domestically and internationally, which is why I wanted to give you my detailed thinking on this issue.

Before we can discuss the implication of the recently passed resoultion, it is important to understand the exact text of the resolution which simply states:

“Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops in Iraq.”

This vote had absolutely no impact on funding for our troops.

This is a message to the Administration that we need to go back to the drawing board. I have spent the last several months meeting with Middle East experts, military leaders, Administration officials, soldiers just back from the field, and my constituents. After a long period of prayer, soul searching and sitting through the funerals of many, many of our local fallen heroes, I reached the conclusion that an escalation of military force in Iraq is not in our best interest.

First, it is important to understand that the proposed “surge” is a misconception. We are not adding fresh troops into the picture. We are accomplishing the “surge” through the early and redirected deployment of troops in other areas, and by involuntarily extending the stays of troops already in Iraq. This strategy will depart from the traditional rotation and deployment procedures that are designed to prevent udue burdens on our servicemen, and to ensure adequate troop training and equipment preparedness. I have concerns that extended and altered deployment rotations will put an even worse strain on our soldiers already on the ground and on our already overextended military.

Second, I believe this “surge” is ill-advised on a military level. By comparison, when I served in Vietnam, a country half the size of Iraq, a “surge” of troops meant more than 100,000 new soldiers at a time. In Germany during World War II, Allied forces comprised nearly 3 million men in a nation roughly the size of Iraq. A proposed “surge” of only 20,000 troops will have minimal impact on our ability to operate in that theater, yet will ceratinly result in the unnecessary loss of additional American lives.

Third, this “surge” sends the wrong message at the wrong time and will embolden the insurgents who use the American occupation as their most effective recruiting tool. Under the current circumstances, we are spending most of our time fighting militant factions of an old Saddam-led Iraqi army that are angry over losing their power to brutalize the people of Iraq. To increase troops would only enflame those factions and cause more unrest in the region.

The purpose of our involvement now should be to eliminate any possibility of Al Qaeda and other radical terrorist groups from gaining a foothold inside Iraq – but instead we are being drawn into and distracted by an Iraqi civil war.

The sad fact is that more and more Iraqis see American troops as occupiers, not liberators. The proposed increase in troop levels provides an even greater rallying point for insurgents, and by sending a message such as the recent vote in Congress on that resolution, we can help dispel our image as occupiers and begin to break down the best recruitment tool of the terrorists. Therefore this vote in fact may be the best message to end the violence in Iraq.

The reality is that the U.S. made a grave miscalculation from the beginning. It was not a military miscalculation, but a cultural miscalculation. Iraqis have little historical basis or understanding of a democratic form of government. Thousands of years of history in that region have sent the unfortunate message that you are either in power and you rule with an iron fist, or you are not in power and you are slaughtered. There is no experience in shared government, and after decades of brutal leadership under Saddam Hussein, there is no motivation for the minority Sunni insurgents to lay down arms and participate in the Iraqi government.

Now the country has escalated to the point where the country is threatening to come apart at the seams. And unless we change our policy and begin to talk to Iran and Syria, we will see these neighboring countries come into this civil war to protect their own interests and security. We cannot in good conscience stand by and enable this continued sacrifice of American lives on a policy that is destined for failure.

I recognize that after all of these serious considerations, there may be some who say that while they may agree with our reasoning, it is not right to disagree with my party or our President during a time of international conflict. But we should never fear to exercise the freedoms that make our nation so great.

I have strongly believed that debate and discussion of this critical issue in our Congress is a show of seriousness and resolve to protect our troops and advance the interests of our great nation. We are a nation of liberty and freedom. Only in tyrannical dictatorships such as North Korea and Cuba is debate suppressed. We must embrace and exercise our freedoms, with the understanding that all sides of this important debate love our nation and support our fighting men and women.

I know that when I was sitting in the jungles of Vietnam as a soldier, my greatest hope was that our leaders back home were informed, responsible, and honest enough to find a way to end the horrible war in which we were engaged while protecting the people of the United States. And after many visits with American troops both in Iraq and in the United States, I am convinced that our soldiers want nothing more than the same thing today.

I disagree with the notion that debating this resolution somehow harms our troops or sends the wrong message to our enemies. Supporting our troops is about sending them into a situation where we have a viable military strategy, a clear set of goals that can be accomplished.

I will continue to support full funding for our troops at home and abroad. But without clear signs of progress, I cannot support sending more of our young men and women into the battlefield without a viable plan.

It is time to honestly and responsibly evaluate our original mission, and realize that we accomplished our task of ending the brutal reign of Saddam Hussein and provided the basis for a functioning, democratically-elected government, but that Iraq is now engaged in a civil war U.S. military force alone cannot resolve.

In the end, I understand that we may not reach the same conclusion and that some in my party may continue to disagree. But this is an issue that has and will continue to literally determine the fate of thousands of American lives, and the future security of our nation.

The U.S. is at a critical juncture in Iraq. I don’t believe that the current policy can yield the results we desire, and that an escalation in military troops to police a civil war would be a mistake. Our next step requires more than just an increase in troops, but demands new tactics and a reformation of strategic, political, and diplomatic efforts. My vote last week was the first step for a new direction.

I thank you for taking the time to read this message, and I appreciate your advice, counsel and feedback on this or any other issue.

Sincerely,

Wayne T. Gilchrest

Member of Congress

As you may guess, I still have several objections to this well-meaning and well-argued communication I received.

First, let’s look at the resolution as it was presented. While this is true that it did not affect funding for our troops, many Democrats considered this just the first step in eventually dictating terms in such a way that President Bush had no choice but to withdraw from Iraq in defeat (much like Vietnam.) By proving with his vote that they’ll cross the aisle to support this first measure, Gilchrest and his sixteen Republican cohorts that voted for the resolution create a crack in the GOP’s traditional support for the Long War. Moreover, there are many other devious ways that progress toward our goals in the greater war may be impeded which have nothing to do with funding. Gilchrest alludes to them when he writes about troop rotation and other personnel issues.

Wayne is correct in a historical sense when he opines that the sheer number of troops that would comprise this surge are rather small. What’s not apparent in his argument is that we do not have to subdue nearly the geographical area in this case. The majority of Iraq is peaceful by most accounts – the Kurdish area in the north is well-behaved, and the partial British pullout in the south around Basra is possible because conditions there have improved to a state where withdrawal is possible. When we speak of Iraqi problems, they usually occur within a reasonable radius of Baghdad proper. So 20,000 troops can go a long way there.

I also have an issue to a point with Gilchrest’s assertion that we are hated as “occupiers”. There will come a day when we can withdraw our troops and return them to America. But in this soldier’s view, we are hated less than the Iranians who provide support and a number of personnel to the opposition are feared. Memories are still fresh in Iraq of fighting the Iranians for most of the decade of the 1980’s, and not only would a U.S. pullout align with Osama bin Laden’s portrayal of America as a “paper tiger”, but leaving would likely create a similar situation to that which Lebanon suffers at the hands of neighboring Syria – Iraq as a puppet state of a much more powerful Iran, with the Iranians gleefully taking their revenge out on the Iraqi people as a ghoulish bonus for the Tehran tyranny. (I find the omission of Iran as a tyrannical dictatorship interesting as well. While Iran may be more of an oligarchy than a true dictatorship, it’s very much the same style of tyranny.)

Probably most of all, I disagree with the Congressman’s thought that we need to talk to Iran and Syria about this situation. He cannot have this both ways: portraying the situation in Iraq as a civil war, yet wishing to discuss things with two countries that have been proven to provide aid and comfort to our enemies. There’s too many fingerprints of Iranian involvement of supplying weaponry to the insurgents for me to doubt that we’re not fighting Iran by proxy, and I’m still of the mind that Syria is complicit in helping Saddam hide some of his WMD stockpiles. Neither of these two countries wish us well, and diplomacy only works well for a party when it is dealing from either a position of strength or, less effectively, as a rough equal to the other party.

Further, in advocating talks with Iran, we’re showing a willingness to discuss this with a country that has thumbed its nose to the United Nations and flat-out lied about its nuclear intentions. Do you, Congressman, really feel they would bargain in good and honest faith with us? By voting for this resolution, Gilchrest has helped to undercut any leverage we would have at the bargaining table. The enemy knows that, in dealing with a group of Americans who don’t have the stomach to stick out this situation when it becomes difficult, they only need to bide their time until they get all that they want and more by outlasting our diligence.

We fought and retreated from the Vietnam War in this manner. It “only” cost 58,000 American lives to achieve what turned out to be a mild defeat (not quite the “domino effect” some predicted) but the effects that followed in the Southeast Asia region led to the slaughter of millions of innocent people.

By voting for the original resolution, and despite the fact that it failed to achieve cloture in the Senate, Gilchrest sent a message to our enemies that our country doesn’t have the stomach to pursue this course regardless of cost. The pullout Democrats truly desire would only lead to a return to Iraq as safe haven for terrorists. And with a nuclear-capable Iran as a terrorist sponsor, I fear we may see events in the next decade that make the tragedies of 9/11 pale in comparison.

Editor’s note: Just looked at the two letters again to file them, and aside from a paragraph at the opening of the letter from the “Gilchrest for Congress” committee (citing me as an opinion leader in the community, no less), the contents ARE the same. So my original thinking was right that I did in essence get two copies of the same letter!

In print no. 5

Today my letter to the editor was posted in the Daily Times. However this is a letter I had to truncate from the original. So I’m going to do is replicate the DT letter and anything I had to edit out is in italics.

To the editor:

On November 7th, Wicomico County voters will join with their brethren all across America in a national debate about our future. Because of the way the Founding Fathers set up our political system, once every two years the entire nation unites to dictate its direction for the next biennium.

Something I’d like to stress is that, regardless of party, it’s the one opportunity all of us citizens possess to have our representatives truly be representative of our own personal views, or as least mirror them as closely as it’s possible for two different individuals to share those views. For example, the choices I have in our Congressional election come down to two gentlemen who I disagree with to at least some extent, but on balance I find that the incumbent agrees with me on more issues; thus I’ll give him my vote and attempt to enlighten him further on those things I feel strongly about during his next term.

On the more local level, something I’ve found that many on the Eastern Shore possess is a disdain of the political system, particularly the one in Annapolis. There’s those Delegates who come back to our neck of the woods touting their record of accomplishments, but when you pull back the curtain on their voting record you find that they voted just like the boys who we detest in Annapolis did. In fact, one Delegate I’m thinking of who brags about heading the House Appropriations Committee managed to vote right down the line with the Baltimore/PG/MoCo cabal on all but two of 25 key issues selected by the Maryland Accountability Project for the 2005 session, and the two exceptions were times he didn’t vote at all. In three years (2003-2005), he deviated his votes from this party line only three times and I bet when 2006 stats come out early next year we’ll see he had a similar record for the last session. If you don’t believe me, look it up yourself at www.marylandaccountabilityproject.org. I suppose in order to maintain his plum role as Chairman he has to vote with the machine and scavenge whatever crumbs the Annapolis special interests allow us on the Shore to have.

But in the days after the election, once all of the counting and recounting is done and the yard signs slowly disappear from the landscape, I know I’m going to continue with what I’ve been doing and try to ignore the dictates of onerous government as much as the law allows me to. Obviously I feel that task is easier if one party maintains its hold on Congress, keeps its seat in the Maryland governor’s chair, and gains enough seats in the General Assembly to maintain this governor’s vetoes, but I’ll deal with whoever the voters decide to put there, as we all ~~must do~~.will have to.

With this in mind I call on local citizens to make your decisions in a learned and careful fashion in order to participate in the process come November 7th (or earlier if you choose to use the absentee ballot.) Perhaps it’s appropriate that Election Day comes shortly after Halloween, since come January we’ll either have to deal with tricks or treats depending on who is placed in the seats of our government.

Then there was this comment on the delmarvanow.com website:

Delegate Conway has done an excellent job for the Shore. Our writer contends that he is quite aware of politics in Annapolis. I find this hard to believe, because if he was aware he would have seen Delegate Conway working harder then most. I’ve met with Delegate Conway on several occassions and eveytime it was between session and appropriation meetings when he was trying to eat, he gave himself about 15 mins. and then he was right back at it. I doubt Mr.Schwartz works this hard. Please remember Mr. Schwarz that it is a house of representatives, not one person, and Norm fought hard for the shore. I may not agree with Delegate Conway on all matters but I do know he has work hard, given both sides a listen, and then made his vote. What more could anyone else have done!!!

Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 10:16 am

Aside from the fact this person spelled my name wrong (twice!) I had my reply ready.

My commentary had nothing to do with how hard-working Delegate Conway was. I’ve spoken and dealt with him on a few occasions and found he’s quite pleasant – we can agree to disagree in a civil manner.

Rather, I’m looking at his voting record. If those on the Shore think that he should vote in a nearly identical manner as Mike Busch, Peter Franchot, and other liberal Democrats in Annapolis then they’re free to vote for him. Further, at one time Conway voted for the interests of small business about 80% of the time, but since becoming the chair of his committee, that number has dwindled to about 25%.

Our area doesn’t have the luxury of outsourced federal jobs from DC and state government posts to fall back on – the Eastern Shore needs to be a place that’s perceived as business-friendly and good for entrepreneurship. I think that the Shore would be better represented by Delegates who would vote for values that are more common here, a sensible conservatism. Talking one way and voting another can’t fool the electorate this time.

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

And that’s where we stand at the moment. Now, the reason I had to edit the original was to get it down to a 400 word limit. However, I will give the DT credit for not chopping up my letter into fourteen one-sentence paragraphs like I’ve seen done before. They kept the thoughts together reasonably well this time.

One other quibble I have is that the online version messes up the link by splitting marylandaccountabilityproject.org up. But I think astute readers will figure that out.

But now I’m pretty much stuck with this blog as far as communications go since they had a long backup of letters that I’m aware of. Endorsements I’ll just have to pick on later I suppose.

On campaigning

This blog post is unprecedented, as I begin it on my lunch hour at work. I’m saving it to a Word file then e-mailing it to my regular address from my work e-mail account. But, seeing as I’ll have a Central Committee meeting tonight and I wanted to get this as well as a summary of my endorsements online as early as possible, I’ve chosen to use this method and give up my lunch hour to do so. I’ve attended the Central Committee meetings monthly since just before I filed back in June, and tonight’s meeting should be a wrapup for the current crop and something for the four newcomers to get up to speed with.

It may seem a little strange that I actually put up a campaign for the position seeing that I’m essentially unopposed; it’s just a matter of whether I come in first, seventh or somewhere in between. But when I was working the Republican booth at the Farm and Home Show, I got a couple comments where the person had sent in their absentee ballot and told me, “I’d have liked to vote for you but I didn’t know you.” To me, if you’re a Republican, it’s probably best that you know the people who represent you in party matters and where they stand on issues.

So I decided to put together a small flyer that I could introduce myself with and outline my platform. For those of you Republicans who are reading this in an area that’s roughly bounded on the east and north by the U.S. 13 bypass, on the west by Beaglin Park and Civic Avenue, and on the south by Schumaker Pond, you already should have this because I would’ve dropped this by your door. (I covered this in a week on foot and by bicycle, 400 flyers worth!)

For those who didn’t see it, the body of the flyer reads as follows:

On September 12, vote in the Primary Election for…
Michael Swartz
Wicomico County Republican Central Committee

I’m running to change the Wicomico County Republican Party for the better, and make it the majority party in our county. I believe that the Party should:

● Reach out to young adults and get them involved with the political process
● Encourage contested primary elections – no “free rides” for incumbents
● Take advantage of the power of the Internet to inform and educate voters

If you want the “status quo” you can vote for all seven of us. But if you want progress please make just ONE vote – Michael Swartz for Central Committee!

I have nothing against the other six men who will be joining me on Central Committee, but the way I worded this was intentional. It’s a way of polling whether there’s a mandate for change out there. If I do well in the precincts that cover the areas I’ve delivered my fliers to, it tells me that people want some things done differently. I know that many others will read this on monoblogue but I get roughly 75 to 150 readers a day, so I’m only going to reach 100 or so voters this way and that won’t be enough to tip the scales in most areas.

But those people I actually talked to in my rounds were generally positive about my agenda, particularly about getting more young adults involved. I looked up the dates of birth of most of my fellow Central Committee members from Board of Election info and I found out that, by about six years or so, I’m going to be the youngest person on Central Committee (we’ll range from 41 to 83, with the average age about 60.) Another way of expressing my goal is, that the next time this position is up for election in 2010, I’d like people who were born in the 1970’s, 1980’s, and even 1990’s to seek the post. And make us work for re-election. I actually enjoyed getting out and doing this little bit of campaigning I did – I was dog tired at the end of a couple days but this last weekend I really liked getting out and biking through neighborhoods I’d never gone through in my travels.

Actually, I’ve done literature drops for quite a long while. I think the first campaigns I worked on were in 1995, and I was one of those who did the leg work in several areas of Toledo trying to spread the word. (As it turned out, that was a year the Republicans there scored some rare victories.) But in doing this I’ve come up with some tips for others who do that work, I’m sure many of us will be doing that between now and November.

First and foremost, be prepared. It’s best to have (or make up) a logical walking list of the areas you want to do the dropping in. I spent time before I went out writing out a list on a small sheet of paper I could stick in my pocket and look at as I went.

One rule I follow is that if I come to an address on my list where I see a “No Trespassing” sign posted, I respect the owner’s private property rights. In that case, if they have a streetside mailbox I’ll tuck the flyer in between the mailbox and post (it’s illegal to place a flyer in the mailbox itself.)

Also, I try to be as quick and unobtrusive as possible. I’m not necessarily out to speak to each voter – if they are outside I’ll certainly be happy to speak to them but, first of all, for a lit drop I’m trying to cover territory rather quickly and secondly, having a politician come knock on your door in many cases gets the same reaction as one has when a telemarketer calls. I’ve found the best scenario is having a porch with a storm door because I can roll up the flyer and slide it inside the pull handle, generally it stays there pretty well. If there’s a doorknob or the lever won’t hold the flyer in place, then I slide it under the doormat, or under some object on the porch to hold it in place. And I chose red as my color because it contrasts to 98% of doors so the literature is visible from the street – someone will pull in and wonder what’s on the door handle.

The other portion of this post (as I’ve arrived home now) will be my response to the NAACP questionnaire, called “Value Our Vote!” As it states on what would be the cover:

The questions in this document have been framed to require a candidate to indicate their support or opposition to a critical NAACP policy area. The NAACP position on each of the questions is one of “SUPPORT”. If a candidate answers “OPPOSE” to any of the questions, please ask for an explanation for that response. This is why Mary Ashanti got a five page letter, out of 20 questions I think I opposed 17 or 18.

Here’s what I wrote back:

August 11, 2006

Mary Ashanti
NAACP, Wicomico County Branch
P.O. Box 1047
Salisbury, MD 21804

Dear Mary:

Enclosed please find my responses to the 2006 NAACP Candidate Checklist. Since there are a number of these items that I oppose on principle, I decided that it would be easier to handle this in a letter format. I’ll begin as your checklist does, with Section I: Education.

Section I: Education

Promoting School Readiness – Enhancing Resources and Opportunities in Early Childhood

Do you support or oppose universal preschool?

As I read the question, I am led to assume that the intent of the NAACP is to have compulsory preschool similar to compulsory school attendance for children from kindergarten to the age of 16 to 18, depending on state law. In that case I OPPOSE universal preschool. To me, I believe it should be up to the parent whether to send their child to school before they attain the regular school age. Some children are simply not ready to socialize and mature at a later age than others, thus to place them in a situation where they are forced to interact with other children leads to a disruptive environment for both that child and the others in the class. To me, parents know best whether their child is ready for such a situation.

K-12 Academic Resources: Giving students, communities, and schools tools for success

Do you support or oppose fully funding the “No Child Left Behind Act”?

Because there is nothing in the Constitution that dictates a federal role in education, I feel that NCLB was a mistake to adopt in the first place. To answer the question at hand, I OPPOSE fully funding the Act. However, that is not to say I don’t think states shouldn’t make a priority of funding education. Moreover, “tools for success” to me means teaching basic subjects and not the politically correct curriculum that seems to be present in primary and secondary education today – meanwhile history, geography, English, basic math skills, and economic education are sorely lacking in today’s high school graduates.

Affirmative Action – Safeguarding Equality

Do you support the continuation and expansion of affirmative action in education and employment in order to ensure equal opportunity for women and people of color?

Affirmative action as a concept was a good idea when adopted. However, it has developed into a quota system in many cases, where a person who may be more qualified is denied an opportunity because of gender or pigmentation. Personally, I believe there should be a Constitutional amendment that reads as follows:

“Congress shall make no law that codifies discrimination for or against any person based on their race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. This Amendment shall also be construed to include a prohibition on Congress enacting additional criminal code or punishment solely based on these factors.” To me, that is true equality under the law and I OPPOSE artificial “safeguards” like affirmative action.

Section II: Health Care

Access to Health Care – Ensuring our Health

Do you support or oppose universal health care and the expansion of existing public health resources such as Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP?

Universal health care run by the federal government would be a colossal mistake. In countries such as Canada and Great Britain, wait times are longer for required procedures and health care is rationed because of a strain on resources from people who believe their health care is “free.” Thus, I OPPOSE universal health care – however, a Massachusetts-style act to mandate people carry health insurance may be worth a look at the state level.

HIV/AIDS – Supporting the Battle to Save Lives

Do you support or oppose increasing public finding for clinics and private health centers that provide free and/or subsidized HIV prevention and treatment for individuals living with HIV/AIDS?

On a state level, I would SUPPORT this, although I’d call out for churches and other private charities to step up their humanitarian support for these victims, particularly the innocent children.

Obesity – Campaigning for a Healthier Diet

Do you support or oppose mandating that food and beverage vendors in government facilities provide products that promote healthy nutritional choices and raise awareness about healthy eating habits needed to combat diseases such as obesity and diabetes?

I OPPOSE a mandate on this, but do encourage vendors to do this voluntarily. As a person who has lost quite a bit of weight in the last year I found that self-discipline with a little help from pharmaceuticals (which, by the way are not covered by my health insurance) has gone a long way in combating my own case of obesity and reduced my risk for diabetes, heart disease, etc. But everyone has choices in life to make, I chose to take advantage of medication that helps to curb my appetite in an effort to retrain myself to eat less and make the exercise I already did more effective in dropping my weight.

Section III: Criminal Justice

Fair Trials and Sentencing – Advocating for Equal Justice

Do you support or oppose the reconsideration of full-term sentences?

Because each case is different and it’s apparent that the NAACP wants a blanket position on the issue, I choose to remain neutral with my answer. There are extreme cases where this is warranted but on the average I would say there’s no need to reconsider sentences.

Rehabilitative Services – Reviving Rehabilitative Education

Do you support or oppose restoring voting rights for ex-offenders?

Once again, this is a case where a lot depends on the nature of the felony, and the willingness of the ex-felon to be a contributing member of society. Maryland has a law that already allows ex-felons to regain voting rights if they meet certain conditions and it seems like a fair enough law as is. To the question as worded I remain neutral except I would oppose a federal law mandating this.

Death Penalty – Divorcing Death and Penalty

Do you support or oppose imposing a moratorium on the death penalty?

In this case, I OPPOSE such a moratorium. People on death row have been convicted by a jury of their peers and have gone through a number of appeals and judicial reviews. I’m convinced that one who is sentenced to death has done the crime and it’s been mandated by the state that they should be put to death for it. Some states choose not to institute the death penalty and that is their right and prerogative to do so.

Section IV: Economic Empowerment

Employment – Supporting a Fair Wages (sic)

Do you support or oppose increasing the minimum wage by $2.10 for all employees over the next two years?

I OPPOSE a raise in the minimum wage, as it’s a proven job killer for those on the low end of the scale. Fewer than ½ % of employees now actually earn the $5.15 wage and most of them are teenagers. Furthermore, an increase in the minimum wage will exacerbate the illegal immigrant problem as more employers may decide to pay substandard wages “under the table.”

Minority-Owned Business – Building Entrepreneurial Success

Do you support or oppose the creation and maintenance of local and state programs to foster the growth of minority businesses?

I SUPPORT programs that foster the growth of all businesses, not just minority-owned ones. But an important part of fostering growth is also pruning programs that have run their course or outlived their usefulness.

Economic Reciprocity – A Fair Return on Investment

Do you support or oppose the creation of laws promoting economic reciprocity?

I’m not sure I understand the concept well enough to form an informed opinion on the matter, so I will remain neutral on the subject.

Section V: International Affairs

Immigration Reform – Continuing to Build on America’s Promise

Do you support or oppose immigration reform that creates a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?

You mean illegal immigrants. To me, the law is the law and unless there’s a threat to themselves or their families because of their opposition to a tyrannical government, illegals should be sent back to their country of origin. Political asylum is one thing, economic asylum is another. I would (and do) strongly OPPOSE such reform.

Darfur – A Campaign to End Genocide

Do you support or oppose the deployment of U.N. troops to protect civilians in the Darfur region of Sudan?

I would SUPPORT such a measure if the multinational forces were all from the African continent and the rules of engagement were such that they could take offensive as well as defensive actions. Operating solely as peacekeepers is not enough. Unfortunately, the U.N. has a poor track record in such cases.

Section VI: Civic Engagement

Voter Registration – Engaging Voters

Do you support or oppose challenging the implementation of laws that restrict voter registration and education efforts?

I SUPPORT these efforts with certain caveats. In my view, this support does not extend to opposition to requiring voters to show identification at polling places and other laws intended to reduce the incidence of voting fraud. I have a blog that has as part of its intent to educate voters in ways other than 30 second commercials, so this is a subject close to my heart.

Voter Education – Learning How Voting Can Make a Difference

Do you support or oppose funding non-partisan efforts to educate minority communities about local or state elections?

I SUPPORT any and all efforts to educate the public in general (not just minorities) about the importance of voting, and more importantly, knowing the issues and candidates that their votes are cast for. As I stated in the answer above, I’m making just such an effort and it’s not costing the taxpayers a dime. Further, I commend the NAACP for its efforts to educate voters with its three candidate forums.

Election Protection – Protecting the Vote

Do you support or oppose protecting voters from being required to show voter identification in order to vote in elections?

I feel your question as stated is 180 degrees out of phase with protecting voters. Not showing voter identification when ID’s are required for many other mundane tasks is simply an invitation to fraudulent voting by unscrupulous parties. Since I’m in favor of photo voter ID’s that are as tamperproof as possible and linked in with the computer voting machines we have in Maryland, I OPPOSE a measure like the NAACP proposes.

Veteran & Family Support – Supporting America’s Heroes

Do you support or oppose the immediate removal of troops currently in Iraq?

I find it interesting that on one hand the NAACP wishes to send U.N. troops to Darfur because of genocide but opposes our troops in Iraq who are fighting the very enemy responsible for that genocide (Islamofascists.) To truly support America’s Heroes, we must let them do the job they volunteered to do! Thus, I OPPOSE with the strongest of terms any removal of troops from Iraq prior to their mission being completed.

Emergency Preparedness – Planning for the Unexpected

Do you support or oppose the allocation of additional local, state, and federal budget dollars for emergency preparedness and disaster relief?

I SUPPORT this on a local and state level but OPPOSE this on a federal level, given their disastrous record of accomplishment in the wake of last year’s Gulf hurricanes. Also, I must say that while local and state governments share in the blame for the New Orleans fiasco, shame on residents for not taking matters into their own hands and being prepared. It must be stressed that emergency preparedness begins at home!

(Editor’s note: the last question asks if I’m a NAACP member.)

To answer the final question, I am not a member of the NAACP and as long as they are diametrically opposed to what I feel is Constitutional government, I would not consider becoming a member. As you said in one of the forums, we are all colored to one extent or another but advocating larger, more controlling government as most of your positions would does little to advance people but instead chains them into dependence on the government instead of the pillars of family, friends, and faith that used to hold sway in the black community.

With that, I will close my remarks. I do want to thank you and the Wicomico County Branch of the NAACP again for holding these candidate forums. Many of the complaints I have with the NAACP organization come from actions of its national leaders and tend to overshadow the good your branch does for the local community. I look forward to working with you on issues where we can find agreement and amicable discussions about those we don’t.

Respectfully submitted,

Michael Swartz
Candidate, Wicomico County Republican Central Committee

It’s unfortunate I haven’t heard about that because it was like answering my own Ten Questions times two. I am curious how many others answered the questions and whether they were politically correct about this and agreed more often than not with the NAACP.

Tonight is my last night of campaigning, so to speak. At 7:00 in the morning the polls open and probably about 15 to 16 hours later I’ll know just how successful my little bit of campaigning was. The order of finish in the race I’m in will certainly tell a tale of what the Republicans in Wicomico County think of their party. But if I finish fourth (behind the three incumbents, who have much more name recognition than I) I’ll consider this a pretty successful campaign and start working on all the other GOP survivors’ bids for election.

In print no. 4

This also got pushed back a couple days because of the announcement of my candidacy for Wicomico County Republican Central Committee.

On Wednesday, I was quoted in a Daily Times story on Ben Cardin’s new War on Terror stance. If the link ceases to work, here’s the money quote I gave to reporter James Fisher:

In any case, conservatives who may have been inclined to pick Steele over Cardin or Mfume won’t have second thoughts after Cardin’s speech, said Michael Swartz of Salisbury, who runs a Web log that focuses on state and local politics, www.monoblogue.us.

“I think, in a way, he’s trying to kick Bush when he’s down,” Swartz said of Cardin.“I think he’s wanted to say this for awhile. He might have thought this in 2002, but he sure as heck wasn’t going to say it. Now he can get away with it.”

He actually did quote me pretty well, the only thing is I actually misspoke. I was thinking of when we started the push to topple Saddam Hussein (that actually occurred in 2003), but no matter. The point remains.

Now, as part of my efforts to collect items for the weekly election calendar, I’m now on Rep. Cardin’s mailing list. Here’s a release I got in my e-mail on this subject:

Dear Friend,

More than three years ago, President Bush sent our brave men and women to war in Iraq with no strategy in place to bring them home – and the American people have paid a heavy price. To this day, the President wants to simply stay the course.

I disagree.

I voted against the war in 2002 and today, in a speech at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy, I called on President Bush to take a new direction in Iraq. We must immediately start bringing American troops home and we must reengage the international community in Iraq’s reconstruction.

Military experts recommend bringing American troops back home at the rate of 10,000 per month, which would cut our troop level in Iraq in half by the end of 2006. We should be able to bring all American combat troops home from Iraq by the end of 2007. A gradual drawdown will allow U.S. military advisers to continue training Iraqi troops but will put Iraqi officials on notice that the new Iraqi government must soon take full responsibility.

Our troops have performed magnificently under difficult conditions in Iraq, but they can not remain there indefinitely. Most military officials agree that American forces are over-stretched and would be unable to quickly respond to another situation at home or abroad. Furthermore, military recruitment has slowed considerably during the Iraq war.

At the top of the list to come home should be our National Guard units. Many of these units, including hundreds of guardsmen and guardswomen from Maryland, have been overseas far longer than ever intended. They need to come home so they are prepared to respond to local needs.

In order to effectively drawdown American troops from Iraq, we must have the cooperation of our allies in the international community. President Bush and Secretary of State Rice should organize a peace conference to negotiate international responsibilities with allied nations and mend the relationships that were damaged by ignoring diplomacy and rushing to war three years ago. The entire world has an interest in a free and secure Iraq; rebuilding Iraq should be a shared responsibility among allied democratic nations.

More than 2,400 young American men and women have lost their lives in Iraq. More than 18,000 troops have been wounded and more than $300 billion dollars have been spent. It’s time for a change of course.

I hope you will join me in calling on President Bush to begin bringing American troops home.

(at this point he references an item on his website)

Thank you for your trust and support,

Ben Cardin

Well, I don’t know if I can trust him with national defense issues and I certainly don’t support his call to bring the troops home by a date certain. When the job is finished, we will bring the troops home. As I’ve said before, I think we’re closer to the end than to the beginning now. But it’s foolhardy to give the enemy a timetable so they can lay low until the time is right.

Personally, I see no problem with having a forward base of operations in Iraq much as we do in Germany, Japan, Korea, and dozens of other countries. Obviously, that’s up to their government but seeing that we’re going to be dependent on a lot of oil from that region of the world (with thanks to Rep. Cardin on that since he’s a reliable vote against U.S. drilling) it’s clear to me that a forward deployment is a good thing.

Our enemy doesn’t go by a timetable dictated by the next election. They’ve waited many years and generations to have their opportunity to strike back against the Christians and the West. We need to have the same resolve they do and the same goal: to subdue the enemy until he’s no more.

In print again

Today the Daily Times published my letter to the editor – as usual I hate the way they chopped it up. The editor and I need to have a chat about the proper use of paragraphs. And they always kill the lines I use to heighten the humor or irony in the letter.

This is the version I actually sent to them:

To the Editor:

Normally I’m not in the business of predictions – if I could predict the lottery numbers I’d be a much wealthier man. But one thing that is becoming clearer to me is that if an immigration bill is passed with certain provisions still in the measure, the backlash against Hispanics and Spanish-speakers in this country (legally or illegally) is going to make the anti-Muslim incidents after 9/11 look like a tea party.

Even before this letter was written, word was getting out about some of the less-than-onerous penalties that illegal immigrants will face from this bill. For example, I’d like the government to send me a check for $10,721.09. That would cover the last two years of taxes I paid, less refunds. If an illegal alien is allowed to only pay 3 out of his last 5 years in back taxes, why can’t I? Of course, I filed and paid my taxes in a legal manner.

And it’s not just the “undocumented.” Their employers are exempted from paying taxes that would be due as well. So it’s not necessarily that illegal immigrants would do the jobs Americans won’t do; it’s more along the lines that businesses sure clean up financially by hiring them to do the jobs Americans can do, but where the employers can’t skirt tax laws by hiring Americans!

Worst of all, for those who have suffered from identity theft by having their Social Security number allocated by someone who didn’t have the paperwork to get one the proper way, you get to watch the folks who possibly have ruined your credit escape without punishment. And to add insult to injury, they’ll also get to collect Social Security based on their time here illegally. Who among us thinks that, given the government’s track record on keeping information straight, someone isn’t going to have their Social Security check get based on the wages of the undocumented worker rather than properly credited for decades of better-paid sweat and labor?

Now if I, a born and raised American, attempted to misuse another’s Social Security number, there’s a possibility I could be fined and imprisoned – unless I’m misusing the number of a black Republican running for the U.S. Senate. Then I’d get a slap on the wrist; still, that’s more punishment than these lawbreakers would receive.

Personally, I’d prefer we work on tightening up the borders and actually enforcing existing laws on immigration. But all of this “reform” is a result of chasing the possible voting bloc that would be magically given a right that others who went through the process properly wait years to be granted. There may be 10 million, 12 million, or even 25 million illegal immigrants who would be allowed to vote in upcoming elections. But there’s untold millions who would see this travesty and unleash their power at the ballot box at anyone who’s pandered to the illegal influx just to win the next election.

I’m truly hoping that the backlash I spoke of above is only expressed at the ballot box, but I fear some Americans may seek another way to vent their frustrations.

See how much better that reads and sounds? Then again, that’s why I have this blog, because I’ve learned that editors of actual newspapers love to chop up my letters and make them look like origami sans the beauty.

To me, the immigration issue has become like affirmative action. Unfortunately, there’s an attitude in this nation that states that blacks who attain high positions must have gotten them through affirmative action rather than their own hard work. That’s only true in a minority of cases, but the stigma remains. This also holds true with minority “set-asides”, where a few companies have thrived simply by being owned by a minority, not necessarily by doing good work. That’s just like the old axiom that a woman sleeps her way to the top of the corporate ladder – rarely true, but believed by many nonetheless.

And just like I’d like to see affirmative action sunsetted out of existence, I’d like to see the illegal immigrant problem cease too. But to me that would involve enforcing the existing laws against employers, cracking down on Social Security number misuse once it’s found, and helping the Minutemen build their border fence.

It just takes politicians who have cojones. As Rush would say, a little Spanish lingo there. While the term is appropriate, the action is sadly lacking.

Signs, signs, everywhere (gang) signs…

Over the last week or so, and culminating in a public forum last Tuesday, the topic du jour on the local blogosphere was the gang problem in Salisbury and how to combat it. Unfortunately, I ended up missing both sides of the Tuesday gang forum presentation due to work and a previous appointment, but I read in Justice For All? here and here that it was a very good presentation.

With that, I became inspired to make a request to my local elected official, who happens to be the famous (or infamous, if you support the so-called “Dream Team”) Debbie Campbell. It went something like this:

Dear Mrs. Campbell:

In the last few days, there’s been quite a bit of discussion about what to do about the problem of gangs in Salisbury. At the same time, you have been one pushing for more accountability in city government, and by extension, those who own or seek to develop property in the city. It’s a sad fact that only about 1/3 of the dwellings in Salisbury are owner-occupied, right now I’m one of those 2/3 who rent.

But with owning property comes responsibility, and I’ve seen a lot of instances (either in person or on local blogs) where gang graffiti (or “tagging”) is allowed to remain untouched on buildings and structures. I know one element (albeit a minor one) of preventing gangs from establishing their “turf” is to paint over these tags and symbols as quickly as possible after they are applied. Further, leaving these symbols sets a bad example for property maintenance in that locality – one tagged house or outbuilding can start bringing a whole neighborhood down and embolden the “wannabe” youths who may become inspired to join up with a local gang.

I’m sure there are ordinances on the books regarding how landlords and other property owners maintain their property. But something I think should be added is a regulation that owners (or their agents) should regularly inspect their properties and eliminate this graffiti as quickly as possible, or after a period of time the city would fix it and charge the owner to do so. (Preferably the owner would take care of it, I know Salisbury’s city employees are already overburdened.)

While I am certainly in the libertarian camp of those who favor as few restrictions as possible on property use, I also find that the current risk to public safety from gangs does outweigh the right of the property owner to use his property as he desires. Something that does not seem to be shown enough in this day and age within Salisbury (and in many other places for that matter) is pride of ownership, and it’s going to take whole neighborhoods to combat this scourge we are facing.

One caveat: I would like to see this ordinance set with a sunset date, but this is only because I believe laws (at least those subservient to the U.S. and Maryland Constitutions) should be revisited periodically in order to determine their appropriateness for the conditions present at the time. Currently I’m of the opinion that such a law is appropriate, hopefully in a decade it may not be required anymore.

Since I’m no student of the law nor do I have a copy of the Salisbury city ordinances handy, I’ll leave it up to you and/or the city’s legal department to properly word what I’m describing as either a new ordinance or as a supplement to an existing one. But I appreciate your taking a few minutes to read my concern and thank you for your service in general.

Sincerely,

Michael Swartz
(address)

I sent this out on Wednesday, so far no response from Debbie Campbell. That’s a bit surprising, I have spoken to her on one other occasion and thought her rather courteous.

That brings me to another topic peripheral to the gang subject. There was this comment on JFA? in regard to a throwaway line Hadley posted endorsing Mike Lewis for Wicomico County Sheriff (clipped verbatim):

I’ll vote for Mike Lewis before I ever vote for major doris who does nothing but campaign at the expense of the citizens of this county. Pretending to be representing the Sheriff’s Office. Righttttttttttttt.

Like I said, I did not attend the gang forum so I have no opportunity to verify this – however, I did listen to the pair of interviews given on Bill Reddish’s WICO radio morning show and read the account in the Daily Times. Nowhere on those accounts was it mentioned that Major Doris was running for sheriff. She certainly had every opportunity to plug her campaign on the two interviews she shared with Dan Daugherty, but in truth she let him do most of the talking. So I’m assuming that at the gang summits, it wasn’t made obvious that she was in the running for the post.

Now I’ll grant that name recognition is a big part of the political game, but could it be that Sheriff Nelms delegated the task of handling the gang summit to Major Schonbrunner? It’s his opinion that she should take over the job when he leaves after this term, so why not give her the responsibility of putting the event together? Makes sense to me, and it ties in with her current administrative position within the office.

I’ve had a couple opportunities to speak with Major Doris for some length, and both times I’ve found her accomodating and willing to answer questions. If anything, I think she’s quite the low-key candidate and far from political.

As I’ve said before, if you think that the Sheriff’s Department is run well, certainly there are candidates from within representing both parties. If you want to shake the place up, again, both parties have at least one person with a law enforcement background that doesn’t involve the current Sheriff’s Department. But whoever wins is going to have to put up with a gang problem that we need to solve as a community.

Temporary ban

Some clown is hammering me with comment spam, so as a temporary measure I’m going to make people log in to comment and have previously approved comments. This is unless someone has a better idea, because I’ve had to moderate over 100 comments today and I’m not in the mood for it.

If you happen to be a new commenter, leave an e-mail at my address (go to About and you’ll find it.) Maybe I’ll find out who’s dumping these comments then and blacklist their ass.

Update: I think I did find the particular IP address responsible, so I’m lifting the restriction. Surprisingly, it’s the very next number up from one I banned earlier (yeah, right, like I’m really shocked. A pox on your house.)

The “Gas War” e-mail

Actually, I got an interesting e-mail today from Drea, it was one that was sent to her and forwarded on. Here’s the e-mail I received, with the forwarded note by the sender she got it from:

I’ve been doing this for at least a year. If you haven’t yet, I suggest that you start. Not only will it hurt the bigger companies, but it’ll most likely be less expensive going somewhere else, like an Arco if you have it (just make sure it’s not owned by exxon or mobil first). Also, if I can avoid driving around town I will, for the sake of gas, the environment and my health. Biking is great exercise and it’s fun!

(B.C.)

GAS WAR – an idea that WILL work …

This was originally sent by a retired Coca Cola executive. It came from one of his engineer buddies who retired from Halliburton. It’s worth your consideration.

Join the resistance!!!!

I hear we are going to hit close to $ 4.00 a gallon by next summer and it might go higher!! Want gasoline prices to come down? We need to take some intelligent, united action.

Phillip Hollsworth offered this good idea. This makes MUCH MORE SENSE than the “don’t buy gas on a certain day” campaign that was going around last April or May! The oil companies just laughed at that because they knew we wouldn’t continue to “hurt” ourselves by refusing to buy gas. It was more of an inconvenience to us than it was a problem for them. BUT, whoever thought of this idea has come up with a plan that can really work. Please read on and join with us!

By now you’re probably thinking gasoline priced at about $1.50 is super cheap. Me too! It is currently $2.79 for regular unleaded in my town. Now that the oil companies and the OPEC nations have conditioned us to think that the cost of a gallon of gas is CHEAP at $1.50 – $1.75, we need to take aggressive action to teach them that BUYERS control the marketplace … not the seller’s. With the price of gasoline going up more each day, we consumers need to take action.

The only way we are going to see the price of gas come down is if we hit someone in the pocketbook by not purchasing their gas!

And, we can do that WITHOUT hurting ourselves.

How? Since we all rely on our cars, we can’t just stop buying gas. But we CAN have an impact on gas prices if we all act together to force a price war. Here’s the idea: For the rest of this year, DON’T purchase ANY gasoline from the two biggest companies (which now are one), EXXON and MOBIL. If they are not selling any gas, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit. But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of Exxon and Mobil gas buyers. It’s really simple to do! Now, don’t wimp out on me at this point…keep reading and I’ll explain how simple it is to reach millions of people!!

I am sending this note to 30 people. If each of us send it to at least ten more (30 x 10 = 300) … and those 300 send it to at least ten more (300 x 10 = 3,000) … and so on, by the time the message reaches the sixth group of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION consumers. If those three million get excited and pass this on to ten friends each, then 30 million people will have been contacted! If it goes one level further, you guessed it . THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE!!!

Again, all you have to do is send this to 10 people. That’s all! If you don’t understand how we can reach
300 million and all you have to do is send this to 10 people . well, let’s face it, you just aren’t a mathematician. But I am. So trust me on this one. How long would all that take? If each of us sends this e-mail out to ten more people within one day of receipt, all 300 MILLION people could conceivably be contacted within the next 8 days!!! I’ll bet you didn’t think you and I had that much potential, did you!

Acting together we can make a difference. If this makes sense to you, please pass this message on. I
suggest that we not buy from EXXON/MOBIL UNTIL THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO THE $1.30 RANGE AND KEEP THEM DOWN. THIS CAN REALLY WORK.

Kerry Lyle, Director, Research Coordinator

So I took a few minutes and wrote Drea back. (Names initialized to protect the innocent.)

Hi Drea,

Personally, I’d rather boycott Citgo because its owned by the Venezuelan government and their anti-American thug dictator Hugo Chavez.

All the oil companies pretty much have to pay the same price for a barrel of oil that’s imported. I’m sure D. and B. are angered about having to pay so much for gas, but if someone found a large oil field in Oregon, something tells me that they would be the first to line up and oppose the new drilling.

And by the way, if price of gas were to drop down to $1.30 a gallon, the only people who would lose out are the oil companies and the owners of the service stations – the taxes on a gallon of gas won’t drop. And that’s anywhere from 24 to 50 cents a gallon depending on state (including the 18 cents a gallon the feds charge – notice they’re making no moves to drop that, even temporarily.)

In terms of oil price, the price of gas is relatively proportional. When oil was $15 a barrel about 6-8 years ago, we paid 90 cents a gallon and the oil industry was hurting bigtime with layoffs and such. Now oil is $75 a barrel and the oil industry is fairly profitable.

If you ask me, the short-term solution to this whole problem is allowing more oil exploration and gaining more refinery capacity. Medium-term solutions involve using resources we already have in our country, particularly making oil from the shale found in several Western states.

In the long-term we will find a substitute for oil, as diesel and gasoline supplanted wood and coal-driven steam power for transportation needs. Hopefully the government will get out of the way and allow this research to go on, even if it does pay huge dividends to the people smart and brave enough to venture into the field and risk the failure of their ideas.

Oh, just so you know, I live pretty close by an Exxon/Mobil station, I just filled up there yesterday because they had the best price of the three that are close by me. It’s generally where I fill up my car. So if this boycott idea worked, I’ll be happy to play contrarian and let them lower the price so I can fill up my car more cheaply.

take care,

Michael

In researching the matter further, I’ve found that the author, “Kerry Lyle”, claims to be from the University of Alabama, but no one by that name teaches there. From this website I followed the link to this website, which hasn’t had much play of late. But perhaps he/she is responsible for this letter.

And Phillip Hollsworth? He’s a very popular guy, the one who came up with this idea. Apparently he’s also a figment of someone’s imagination. A similar letter has circled round and round the Internet since 1999.

So I wonder…will this reply to the idea go round and round the Internet? It would be nice, but somehow I doubt it.

I know the couple who started sending this particular branch of e-mail because I read their blogs, they’re young liberals (oh, sorry, “progressives”) who perceive themselves as well-meaning folks. But with age comes experience, and I knew that this e-mail chain was a hoax. I just love to tweak the anti-free market people whenever I can and expose them to a dose of reality. Thanks for allowing me to do that!

Reaction to the Daily Times

With the several letters written and published in today’s paper, I decided to add my two cents’ worth. This was mostly because, with the exception of Peter Gerardo who stated he edits a blog, it didn’t appear to me that anyone who wrote actually was a blogger.

So we’ll see if this makes it into print soon. Generally a letter of mine (if published) takes 2-3 days from my computer to their paper, mostly because they call me to verify I wrote it. Look at this as a possible sneak peek of Thursday or Friday’s paper.

To the Editor:

A lot of interesting comments were in the Daily Times recently about the local blogosphere and its effects on the Delmarva political scene. While I’m not one of what I call the “big three” (Delmarva Dealings, Duvafiles, Justice for All?) two of the three are kind enough to link to my site as does The Goldwater’s Oracle. So yes, I am a local blogger.

Blogging is not my “real job.” It’s something I do because I care about my country and my adopted home state and city. I have a number of passionate opinions about political issues and since the paper couldn’t print a daily letter from me, I went out and actually spent the money for server space and a website to call my own. People are free to read it and comment on what they see there, and, except for when they’re not germane to the subject at hand, I’m not afraid to post the comments. My blog also provides me the freedom to write about other subjects near and dear to my heart that aren’t political but I feel strongly about nonetheless.

The other unique thing about blogging is that there’s many different styles. Some have frequent short posts about specific news items, while others are more editorial-style commentary. Mine falls under the latter category. If there’s an item I comment on, I’ll generally link to it so the reader can judge for himself whether my opinion holds water. For example, recently I commented on a pending bill in the General Assembly and linked to the actual text so a reader could get the context.

Recent news items have shown the promise of the blogosphere. There are things that can be improved about our area, and having a source to point them out without going through the established local media or being ignored by an uncaring local government is quite revolutionary. It’s a bit like a Block Watch program, with many eyes keeping a sharp lookout of neighborhood goings-on and reporting to others when things are amiss.

I decided to write this letter because it seemed from those published that, with the exception of Mr. Gerardo who edits a blog, none of the writers had an inside scoop on what goes into one. As there are many styles of blogs, there’s also a vast range of opinions held within them. Yes, my blog features my political viewpoint, but that is stated right on the top. I don’t hide the allegiances I’ve formed or claim to be non-biased.

So, because I’m signing my name at the bottom of this letter, and it’s easy enough to follow a link to reach my site from the aforementioned blogs, it’s apparent that I’m not anonymous, either. My goal is to have a well-written, persuasive blog with both news and views. Follow the links and tell me if I’m succeeding – I welcome the feedback.

Michael Swartz
Salisbury

Speaking of feedback, I had some not-so-nice things said about me regarding my last post. The funny thing is, I still link to his website. Go ahead and take a gander at what he says on his site, then tell me I don’t get a variety of viewpoints.