AFP Lower Shore Meeting - Tuesday

The Lower Shore chapter of Americans for Prosperity is having a meeting tomorrow evening at 7PM.  The meeting will be held at the Greater Salisbury Committee building, 200 W. Main Street, Salisbury.

Park in the parking lot between the Library and the Plaza.  You access the building on Camden Street between Channel 47 (WMDT) and the Plaza Gateway building.

If you can, RSVP at 410-251-8884 or americansforprosperitymd@comcast.net
If not, come anyway.  Take the opportunity to meet a growing group of people who stand for individual liberty and free markets.

cross posted at Delmarva Dealings

More below the fold.

Egregiously Irresponsible Media: Iran Careers Toward Apocalyptic International Crisis While Michael Jackson Reported as Still Dead

"It happened during baseball season, so the [San Francisco] Chronicle didn't cover it." – Tom Lehrer on a perennial media shortcoming


It is the worst of times, and most major media – especially electronic media -- think that the specter of international crisis is less important to report on because more people are interested in Michael Jackson. That about which the public thirsts for knowledge is more important to non-serious journalists than that which affects Western Civilization’s chances for survival (apologies to Arnold Toynbee).

President Barack Obama faces a tremendously consequential choice in presidential decision-making: whether to stay the course in Iran, hoping that the partially quashed revolutionary movement there can serve to stop, among other aspects of Iranian extremism, the move toward acquisition of nuclear weapons. Or – should he prepare to support Israeli military action to end or delay such a catastrophic political transformation?

In tomorrow’s Washington Post, Afshin Molavi, an expert on Iranian politics, asks, “Where are the labor unions, teachers unions, science academies, university students and ordinary Americans from all walks of life who took to U.S. streets last year to back an unlikely presidential candidate whose motto of hope and change is mirrored by Iranians half a world away? The key difference between them? Iranians are facing guns and violence as they wage their struggle for a democratic future.”

One answer: they don’t think the Iranian situation is a crisis or even momentous. Why? Partly because, again, mainstream media are giving short shrift to their coverage.

Tonight’s NBC Nightly News led off with coverage of Sarah Palin’s announcement that she will resign as Governor of Alaska, a major event which finally broke the daily stream of coverage of the death and investigation of said death of Michael Jackson, which was the second story. There was no mention – no mention – of Iran at all, including reports that Iran may try several British Embassy employees for, as the Associated Press puts it, “fomenting postelection turmoil.” There also was no mention of North Korea, which today fired 2 more missiles off its eastern coast in the latest in its series of dangerously escalating nuclear provocations.

The world may end in fire or the world may end in ice. But if it should end in the former, some media coverage would be nice.


Professor Vatz teaches an advanced course in Media Criticism at Towson University

More below the fold.

Best Ways To Avoid Maryland's EZ Pass Fee

A while back, I chronicled how to avoid Maryland's ridiculous $1.50 EZ Pass fee. With the charge now a reality, I want to remind people that there are options other than sucking it up or canceling your account altogether. Unfortunately, anyone on a reduced fare commuter plan through the Maryland Department of Transportation will likely have to absorb the cost. In the long run, reduced toll fares justify paying the fee. Now, for the majority of us that merely use EZ Pass for convenience, other options exist.

Media outlets have been touting Delaware and Virgina EZ Pass since they don't levy account maintenance fees. Still, these jurisdictions charge some time of deposit to obtain a transponder. Therefore, the deal isn't as good as advertised. Personally, I found two better options. Both of which allow motorists to utilize EZ pass lanes up and down the East Coast.

Bar none, the best deal lies can be found through the Peace Bridge in New York. There's no charge for a transponder. Likewise, there's no maintenance fees. To get this deal, customers only need to maintain automatic replenishment through a credit card.

Closer to home, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission has a $3.00 annual fee, but they'll waive the transponder fee for those customers willing to automatically replenish their account through a credit card.

I have an account with Pennsylvania mainly because I wasn't clued into the Peace Bridge option until later. Either way, both provide better alternatives than paying Martin O'Malley $1.50 a month for nothing.

Crossposted

More below the fold.

More On Kratovil and Waxman-Markey

Last week I wrote that Frank Kratovil would probably be an aye vote for Waxman-Markey because of the large agricultural interest in MD-1. Well here's the proof for my theorem.

However, Rep. Frank M. Kratovil Jr., D-1st-Md., put in an amendment to
restore the rights of local farmers. His spokesman, Kevin Lawlor, said
Kratovil's amendment would make Maryland farmers eligible for as much as $1
billion in incentives for reducing emissions. The estimate, he said, is based on
a Congressional Budget Office analysis.

"There are going to be people for (the bill) and those against it. But that
fact is that he worked to help the bill help Maryland farmers rather than allow
it to steamroll them," Lawlor said.

Also, note that the article quotes the farmers' deep suspicion of Waxman-Markey.

I'm not doubting Martin Watcher's League of Conservation Voters argument either as they contribute money and volunteers to their preferred candidates. You've seen them, the hygenically challenged clip board toting college kids, who knock on your door just as you're sitting down to dinner. You know the kids with open-toed shoes and closed minds.

It's just that Kratovil probably needs the farmers more than the greens. But give him credit, he found a way to appease two special interests that are usually at odds with one another.

More below the fold.

The Sun likes Obama's Coporatism, Just Don't Point it Out

There has been an interesting convergence of what appeared to be separate arguments and issues involving the Sun editorial page and Second Opinion blog.

Sunday, in the Second Opinion blog, editorial page editor Michael Cross-Barnett invoked Godwins Law on Anne Arundel County Republican Women’s President Joyce E. Thomann for her crude “blitzkrieg” comparison of Obama to Adolph Hitler. Cross-Barnett argued that Thomann is merely another exhibit in the evidence chain of an illegitimate “Obama/Hitler nexus” deep within the conservative mainstream. I reject his argument about the conservative mainstream (see below) but, Thomann is fair game because of her sloppy, slack-ass argument.

However, Cross-Barnett then uses Jonah Goldberg’s (cue snickering from Griffiths and Kline) Hitler/Volkswagen comparison to Obama/GM as another data point in his argument.

I'm not calling Barack Obama a Hitler and I'm not calling him Nazis and all the rest. But, you know, in fascism, we saw the people's car. We call it the Volkswagen, where the state said what we're going to do is we're going to take over the auto industry -- government and business and unions are going to get together and we're going to create cars to fill a political need rather than a market need and give people these cars."

What Goldberg is referring to is corporatism, the animating principle of fascist economics. According to Wikipedia corporatism is defined as:

a system of economic, political, and social organization where corporate groups such as business, ethnic, farmer, labor, military, patronage, or religious groups are
joined together under a common governing jurisdiction to try to achieve societal
harmony and promote coordinated development.

Think community organizing writ large.

Steve Malenga essay , at Real Clear Markets, on corporatism explicates the idea for us in terms of how we’ve seen Obama’s economic policies before.

But we are entering quite a different age right now, one in which the President of the United States and his hand-selected industrial overseers fire the chief executive of General Motors and chart the company’s next moves in order to preserve it. Conservative critics of the president have said that the government’s GM strategy is one of many examples of an America drifting toward socialism. But President Obama is not a socialist. But President Obama is not a socialist. If his agenda harks back to anything, it is to corporatism, the notion that elite groups of individuals molded together into committees or public-private boards can guide society and coordinate the economy from the top town and manage change by evolution, not revolution. It is a turn-of-the 20th century philosophy, updated for the dawn of the 21st century, which positions itself as an antidote to the kind of messy capitalism that has transformed the Fortune 500 and every corner of our economy in the last half century. To do so corporatism seeks to substitute the wisdom of the few for the hundreds of millions of individual actions and transactions of the many that set the
direction of the economy from the bottom up.

Corporatism periodically re-emerges precisely because it is an appealing political formulation, seeking as it does to present a middle-of-the-road alternative to socialism on the one hand, and capitalism on the other. …

But a version of corporatism also emerged in the 1920s in Fascist Italy, where Mussolini conceived of syndicates in numerous industries composed of labor leaders and businessmen helping direct the Italian economy in the service of Fascism. Hitler’s solution was more thorough, to eliminate those organizations and associations within Germany that opposed him and to smother individualism by instituting a corporatist regime of forcible coordination among trade unions and business groups.

As chilling as these authoritarian versions of corporatism sound today, in the 1930s they found admirers in the U.S., where the ravages of the Great Depression provoked public longing for a safer, more thoroughly planned economy without as much resistance and debate from recalcitrant business leaders or opposition party members who opposed the New Deal. Even today one occasionally hears a longing for a benign version of this elaborately planned economic world in phrases like “getting the trains running on time,” or in a recent column in the New York Times which suggested that Hitler’s wartime buildup amounted to a successful government stimulus in Depression-era Germany.

Goldberg’s defenders (me included) made this argument in the comments section and the liberals’ response was similar to the dumbfounded look your dog gives you when you feed it a piece of broccoli.

That however, is merely a side show to the lager point.

In two editorials this week the Sun applauded two rank examples of corporatism—House passage of Waxman-Markey and Wal-Mart’s support for Obamacare. See Steve Carney’s Examiner post on how these two events are just another example of big business and big government once again hopping into the corporatist bed. Also, be sure to note the incestuous relationship between the Center for American Progress (Judd Legum’s former employer) and corporate lobbyists.

My question: If it’s unfair—and a violation of Godwin’s Law—to point out the corporatist connections between Obama and Hitler’s economic policies (Mussolini and Franklin Roosevelt practiced too) then what does it say about the Sun, which is cheerleading the very same corporatism?

More below the fold.

Martin's "Bull-on-the-Beach"

From the Presser: (Italicized Comments Mine)

GOVERNOR MARTIN O’MALLEY DELIVERS KEYNOTE ADDRESS BEFORE THE MARYLAND MUNICIPAL LEAGUE

O’Malley highlights Maryland’s progress as product of choice, not chance

Ocean City, MD June 30, 2009 - Governor Martin O’Malley delivered the keynote address tonight before the Maryland Municipal League, a membership association of city and town governments through the State. During his address, the Governor highlighted Maryland’s progress, even during difficult economic times, and the choices that produced such progress.

“Maryland is once again that center State, leading the way in times of great adversity, better positioned than other states to pick ourselves up from off the mat, and power through this recession,” said Governor O’Malley. “I would submit to you that this is no accident. Our progress together is a product not of chance, but of choice. We’ve made tough choices to protect the hardworking families of our State – choices that are allowing us to make our government work again for every family in Maryland.”

(Excuse Me, but if we are picking ourselves off the mat, why do we need so many Federal dollars to survive?)

Noting the challenging economic times that all local leaders must navigate their respective jurisdictions through, the Governor acknowledged that “the hardworking families of our State need and deserve a government that works for them. I would arguer that never have they needed us more. In these times, when we face both great challenges and great opportunities, the stakes are too high to leave our future up to chance.”

(Do they need a government that works for them, or do they need to work for the government? It seems only the latter will have any jobs. More self-importance of big-government being needed. Instead of leaving recovery up to chance, how about leaving it up to the free market, bud?!)

Governor O’Malley asked the audience to imagine Maryland five years from now, asking “What kind of State do we want to be in five years? What sort of future will we choose for Maryland?”

(Hmmm... I hope it will see you and your new B.F.F. at 1600 Pa Avenue out in the unemployment line, and true leaders running the place who know what "Freedom", "Liberty", and "Security" really mean!)

“We can admit to each other tonight that we don’t have all the answers about how that future will look,” said Governor O’Malley. “But there are some things that we do know. We know that the choices we make today will have a direct effect on the kind of State we will be tomorrow. And we know the costs of inaction.”

(So, you admit you don't have the answers, but want to be in control of every aspect of our lives anyway? Riiiight.... that seems so wise of us to let you do that... in a pig's eye!)

The Governor highlighted extraordinary signs of progress that set Maryland apart from many other states, including Education Magazine’s ranking of Maryland’s public schools as number one in the nation, saying, “It’s not by chance, but by choice that today our students’ test scores are on the rise in every county, in every grade, in every subject and across every single demographic line.” The Governor noted that our choices today can elevate our public schools to a position of global leadership.

(Again, no mention of the work of Nancy Grasmick, what a class act to take credit for someone else's achievements!)

Maryland’s economy has weathered the national recession better than many other States. Governor O’Malley outlined the choices that have allowed Maryland’s high-tech and high-potential sectors such as life sciences to thrive even in difficult economic times. “We know that we can create jobs and grow our economy if we choose to support and invest in bio and aero and green technology; if we have the courage to set and defend our goals for creating and protecting hundreds of thousands of Maryland jobs in growth sectors, and we choose to reawaken a newfound commitment to science, technology, engineering and math education.”

(Yeah, right... create Green jobs for your cronies (cough... windpower) while killing many more jobs for those "hardworking families of our State" you falsely profess to care about!)

The Governor also highlighted ways the State has strengthened the safety net for Maryland’s working families, passing sweeping foreclosure reforms, expanding health care coverage, and standing up for Maryland’s energy ratepayers. “We know that we can continue to protect our hardworking families if we choose to put our families first in these difficult times,” said Governor O’Malley.

(Let's take these one at a time. Foreclosure Reforms: So, you are hurting the hardworking families who work for mortgage companies by not letting them collect on bad debt. You hurt private people from helping those in arrears save some equity in their homes buy buying them before foreclosure, giving the family time to find a place they can afford... a win for the bank, the mortgage rescuer, and the family that would be out on the street... now that is all gone! Expanding Health Care Coverage: You either force those small businesses who can't afford it to offer it anyway, or you force the taxpayer to pay for it... while expanding the definition of dependents of state employees to include same-sex-couples, at a great cost to the taxpayer once again! Standing up for Maryland's Energy Ratepayers: You gotta be frickin kidding me!! You can say that with a straight face? You have done little to reduce energy costs, and thanks to your efforts, and those of that B.F.F. of yours again, they will... what is the term he used.... "Skyrocket"!!)

Also noting Maryland’s progress on the environment, Governor O’Malley said “We know that if we have the courage to set tangible, achievable goals and to hold our efforts open and accountable, we can save our waterways. We can grow smarter. We can create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. We can reduce our energy consumption and increase our use of renewable energy.”

(These goals are not goals, but requirements. They are neither tangible nor achievable, and you wouldn't know what "open and accountable" was if it bit you where the sun don't shine! There's that allusion to the imaginary "hundreds of thousands of new jobs", while you are killing existing, real jobs that existing, real people work at! While encouraging renewable energy is commendable, requiring it, even though it is expensive, is not. The real goal is not replacing existing energy with renewables, but you admit it is reducing energy consumption. You'll do that, all right, if it means cap and taxing us into the stone age!)

Noting the importance of state and local partnerships to maintain and build upon this progress, Governor O’Malley concluded his remarks: “Throughout the 375 year history of Maryland, as a people we’ve been confronted with a timeless question: Will we allow our circumstances to change us, or will we work together to change our circumstances? What type of State will we be in 5 years? The choice is ours.”

(The choice is only "ours" if by that you mean your audience at the time, government workers. Their bosses, the Citizens, will be left with little choice, and little freedom!)

A voluntary, nonprofit, nonpartisan association controlled and maintained by city and town governments, the Maryland Municipal League (MML) works to strengthen the role and capacity of municipal government through research, legislation, technical assistance, training and the dissemination of information for its members. Through its membership in the National League of Cities MML offers legislative representation in Washington, urban research programs, and a national municipal government information exchange. MML is the only statewide organization in Maryland composed solely of municipal officials and devoted to the promotion of all branches of municipal administration.

(Wow! There's the admission that the organization is tasked with promoting big government! See terms like "strengthen the role and capacity of municipal government", or "devoted to the promotion of all branches of municipal administration"... Where is the organization charged with limiting the role of Government intrusion in our lives?)

More below the fold.

Taking a Bullet Intended for Someone's Foot and Other Bad Advice for the GOP

There has been a great deal of discussion about the recent comments made by Joyce Thomann, ostensibly under the imprimatur of the Republican Women of Anne Arundel County. If you have not heard about this, here is some background.

Personally, like most Republicans, I would prefer this story go away. A real debate is emerging, however, about how Republicans and/or conservatives should respond to the left's united attack premised upon what have fairly universally been regarded as "unfortunate" comments and some have called me out for my thoughts on the matter.

So, here goes.

I do not believe that anyone has an obligation to defend these comments or Joyce Thommann, especially given that she herself has admitted they were wrong by apologizing for them. Why should any elected official, candidate or party leader expend their credibility defending the indefensible? Why is it cowardice to say that the comments were "inept" and that Thomann was "right to apologize" (which is what County Executive Leopold said) or that they are "unfortunate" as the party is trying to grow (which is what Councilwoman Vitale said)? Why should aldermanic candidates who sincerely disagree with the statement endorse it?

Make no mistake. This entire issue is an effort by Judd Legum to raise his profile as he runs for a Delegate seat in the Annapolis area and fits perfectly into the hard-left's efforts to brand all Republicans as extremist kooks who can't handle a black President (epitomized by Olbermann's nightly rantings). Legum, Olbermann and their blogger buddies are scumbags trying to score cheap political points. The local media is happy to dive in because it is a simple, sensational story that fits in their template that Republicans are extremist kooks. There are plenty of other examples of the same storyline, be it the hypocritical infedelity of Gov. Sanford or a local GOP official posting a joke stating that Michelle Obama's relatives are apes. It is a tactic of the left to promote these stories.

So what do we do?

One "defender" of Ms. Thomann said that her statement was "careless" and that she disagreed and, this cannot be repeated too often, Ms. Thomann apologized for the comments and admitted they were "insensitive" and a poor choice of words. This was not an erudite comparison of Obama's agenda and the tenants of National Socialism, a la Jonah Goldberg. It wasn't even an accurate metaphor of the speed of Obama's agenda in Congress and the conquest of Europe. Rather, it was a ham-handed attempt to set aside reason and logic in favor of using the hyperbole and shock value of the name "Hitler". It was "careless", "inept" and "insensitive" and destroyed the credibility of the legitimate point of a call for urgency in resisting the President's agenda. It was the stupid rant of a woman whose zeal far exceeds her judgment and who, frankly, should have more sense but does not.

The Mike Netherland/David Kyle/Don Dwyer's of the world do not see it this way. While some may choose to remember the good works of Ms. Thomann despite her recent error, the "ultra-defenders" believe what she said was "nothing inappropriate", that she was merely "saying what she believes" and to not defend her to the utmost is "spineless" and raising our "hands in surrender and throw[ing] Mrs. Thomann to the thought Gestapo". (Talk about hyperbole!). They revoke the conservative bona fides of (and threatened to destroy) anyone who does not endorse these statements. (By this logic, of course, Thomann herself might have some explaining to do after apologizing and saying that the President is "an honorable man and a dignified public servant and as such he's worthy of our great honor and respect". Buy hey what's rationality among friends.)

The fact is, though, this course of "going down with the ship" to defend the indefensible and refusing to recognize that people on our side can go beyond the pale is exactly what the left wants. Why do you think the Capital was so quick, after ignoring his emails for years, to publish the castigation of RWAAC by Mike Netherland the day after he issued it? It feeds their template, damages our credibility and distracts from the real issues where the conservative message is making headway.

But Greg, you say, what about the hard lefties crying "McBusHitler" for years? They made crazy comparisons for years, why can't we? Well, for one, we in the blogosphere have used this term as a shorthand to describe the loony left who has no credibility. I talked about this in the "Nut Ball Box" segment of my podcasts.

Do you really think taking the same tact is the right way to go? An over the top, crazy comparison we criticized for years is now okay because it is made by someone on our side?

Some say yes. That is their right. I respectfully disagree and think intelligent, credible, principled conservatives with spines can see this approach as no recipe to compete in the marketplace of ideas or any legitimate political debate.

So, we don't have to defend it, or excuse it.

The fact is some other Republican may say something stupid again or say something stupidly again. I hope they don't. But if they do, I will not pretend the Emperor has no clothes and say how brilliant their comment was.

More below the fold.

A Measure of Reason?

As predicted the Baltimore Sun Editorial board lauded the abomination that is the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill, passed by the US House of Representatives. Just as predictable was its fact-free fear mongering and specious argumentation about climate change.

As expected, Friday's debate on the floor of the House of Representatives produced the usual misinformation and hysteria that have typified the nation's climate change deniers. But in the end, some measure of reason [emphasis mine]prevailed, and House passage of the landmark American Clean Energy Act is rightly seen as an important step toward reducing America's production of greenhouse
gases…

Too often lost in the debate is just how serious a threat human-induced climate change poses in the form of rising sea levels,more-extreme weather and droughts, retreating glaciers and a loss of fresh water resources, increases in disease and poverty, and much political upheaval and instability around the world. The evidence of climate change is too unequivocal and the consequences too dire to be ignored.Yet that course of action is precisely what opponents, primarily Republican conservatives, would prefer.

Their chief criticism - that the bill would be too costly - is directly contradicted by the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan agency that has projected its cost at $175 per household by 2020. When rebates are considered,many families should actually come out ahead.

It’s telling that the editorial writer couldn’t bother to accurately address “denier” arguments without resorting to a straw man argument. Contrary to the editorialist’s assertion the CBO report does not refute the chief criticism of the bill. That CBO report was cooked from a predetermined recipe, much like the flawed computer models alarmists use as proof of their doomsday scenarios. Also, note the use of the word “denier” meant to evoke the image of a Holocaust denier. This is to be expected because for liberal editorialists "conservative" is just another word for bogeyman.

Here are a couple of snippets from the Institute for Energy’s fisking of the CBO and EPA on this:

There are several major flaws with the CBO approach, but perhaps the most outrageous example of sleight of hand is the CBO’s focus on after-tax income. Because Waxman-Markey will raise prices more than incomes, households will necessarily become poorer. This will push households into lower tax brackets—and thus have lower tax liabilities to the tune of roughly $8.7 billion. Normal people would consider this to be a downside of Waxman-Markey. CBO is not normal. It considers this $8.7 billion as an addition to total household income—money from heaven!—and goes about celebrating the effect of this policy without saying a thing about the cause…

We see that the number reported in the press—“$175 per household by 2020”—represents only 20 percent of the CBO’s projected increase in household costs. The other 80 percent of the gross price hikes is transferred away from unlucky consumers and into the pockets of politically-connected beneficiaries. Since this wealth is redistributed, it’s still in “households” (somewhere) and so the CBO doesn’t report the gross figure, which is five times higher than the number bouncing around the press.

But that’s not the end of it. CBO didn’t score anything but the “cap and trade” part of the bill…not the renewable energy mandate, not the additional costs of complying with the bureaucratic nirvana of new standards for energy efficiency of lighting for home art and “personal spas,” etc. In some parts of the country, the “You Must Obey” renewable energy mandate could force significantly higher costs on consumers and businesses.

If the cost of Waxman-Markey is as negligible to working families as the CBO claims, then someone better send a memo to Ben Cardin, who deemed cap and trade “the most significant revenue-generating proposal of our time.”

Still, even if we were to concede the Sun’s argument (we don’t) that climate change is too big a threat to be ignored, what is the end benefit of Waxman-Markey? The answer is, as Michael Corleone said to Senator Geary in Godfather Part II: Nothing. Yes nothing. If the Senate passed and President Obama signed cap and trade into law, we would see a meaningless one-nine hundredth of a degree change in global temperature. This is the reason why alarmists always couch their arguments in terms of emissions reduced not in temperature averted. The inconvenient truth is that as carbon emissions continued to increase over the last decade and temperature has leveled off and even cooled.

Only the Sun could label a bill, which will reduce GDP by $10 billion, increase energy costs for the average family by $1,500, destroy over a million, jobs, increase electricity rates by 90%, and gas prices 78%, a “measure of reason.”

More below the fold.

Thoughts on RWAAC-Gate

There was a story in the Capital yesterday about pressure on RWAAC President Joyce Thomann to resign in light of her comments. I don't think Joyce Thomann should resign. Resignation is the honorable way out, and there was absolutely nothing honorable about what she said. The RWAAC Board should refuse her resignation and remove her by their Constitutionally mandated methods.

There has been a lot of harrumphing about Republicans who have failed to defend Joyce's comments. Mike Netherland has been characteristically off the reservation with some of his learned thoughts on the matter:

If no other good can come from the Thomann affair let it be that it has opened the eyes of conservatives in and around Annapolis as to who in the Republican Party are most likely to throw you overboard when the going gets a little rough.

Somehow, Mike has determined that the entire Republican Party does not consist of "conservatives" but of merely "registered Republicans", and that RWAAC's disapproval of Thomann's statement will "forever be an ugly stain and its only lasting legacy." (Coincidentally, Mike considers himself a true Republican conservative. Go figure).

You know it's one thing to defend a Republican when what they do actually merits a defense. Attacking Democrats on an issue, standing up for principle on policy, and those kinds of things are worthy of my defense. Idiotic comparisons that basically wrap the Republican elephant in a box of hand grenades with their pins removed deserve no sort of defense. Joyce in her position as President of a Republican Club should be focused on doing her part to elect Republicans and get the Republican message out to the people. And as anybody who has ever heard of Godwin's Law can tell you, if you have to invoke Hitler in your argument you've already lost. These comments did one hell of a lot of damage to the cause of conservatism and the cause of the Republican Party.

Conservatism is in a tenuous moment here on our country. We do have a situation where we have a number of Republicans trying to masquerade as conservatives in order to obtain and maintain elected office. Of course, that point has nothing to do with comparing Obama to Hitler. This is the time we need to be attacking the policies of this President (which are, in fact, dangerous to our country). This is the time we need to be focused on defending conservatism and the conservatism message. Taking even one minute of time to defend ridiculous outbursts like this takes valuable time away from defending conservative principles and electing conservative candidates.

So no, I cannot be bothered to defend what does not deserve to be defended. And I don't give a damn who questions my conservative bona fides for it.

(Crossposted)

More below the fold.

Fighting Crime with Stupidity

You don't have to be paying too much attention to realize that you go to Arundel Mills these days at your own risk. Crime has become damn near commonplace at the sprawling mall complex that was (theoretically) designed to be a haven for tourists and for local commerce, not a magnet for criminal elements. Well, instead of doing something constructive to combat the crime wave that has overcome the mall, County Councilman Daryl Jones has decided to do something.....else:

Citing a recent robbery and the perception that Arundel Mills mall is unsafe, County Councilman Daryl Jones is considering introducing a bill that would require all malls to install security cameras in their parking lots.

Yeah, that is Jones' total solution to the Arundel Mills crimewave; security cameras at all malls in the county, much like a Baltimore County law I wrote about four years ago. To prove how completely asinine the Councilman's suggestion, chew on this nugget information:

Les Morris, a spokesman for Simon Malls, the parent company of Arundel Mills and Marley Station in Glen Burnie, declined to talk about how the legislation would affect the malls without seeing the specifics.

"We have an extensive (closed-circuit TV) network that covers the property, both inside and out," he said.

So Jones' solution to the crime problem at Arundel Mills is to require all county mall owners to have the same system that is not solving the problem at Arundel Mills. That's brilliant.

As usual, Democrats always try to enact "solutions" that deal with our crime problems in ways that are designed to make the public feel comfortable with their surroundings as opposed to actually dealing with the crime problem. Democrats love the idea of an ever expanding network of surveillance cameras that we have noted in the past will never stop one crime from being committed. Not one. You might get some cool footage of somebody being robbed (or worse) in the parking lot, but it will be the very definition of naivete to think that a street criminal is going to be deterred one bit by a camera (unless we are installing some sort of Transformers).

The prudent solution would be working with the Simon Company in increaisng police patrols and police presence in the are to arrest criminals......but who ever said Maryland Democrats wants to actually implement prudent solutions?

(Crossposted)

More below the fold.

MDE's Abuse of Power, Abuse of Reason

One of the classic arguments that liberals like to put forth is that when disaster strikes, the government should be strong so it can "help," Ronald Reagan's words notwithstanding. However, here in Maryland, it seems like a certain government agency thinks that the when disaster strikes, your first responsibility should be to......the government.

After last weekend's tornado, officials from the State Department of the Environment managed to determine that John Long of Dundalk had "purposefully placed a significant amount of yard waste, debris or items that could have resulted from the recent storm we had" into a nearby creek and a nearby flood plain. Mind you, MDE had exactly no reason to suspect that Mr. Long was responsible for the debris that was in the yard. In fact, trash and refuse has been washing down from nearby locations off of Merritt Blvd for fifty years prior the last weekend's tornado, and a lot of the debris that MDE is trying to ping Long for has been washing up during that entire time period. In fact, I'm hard pressed to figure out a good reason as to why MDE decided to wait until immediately after a natural disaster to start poking their head around this particular area. Butthat doesn't seem to keep the zealots that Martin O'Malley has placed in charge of the Department of the Environment from demanding that Long clean up the mess he didn't make....under the penalty of a $10,000 a day fine if the mess is not cleaned up within thirty days.

We all know that Governor O'Malley and many of Maryland's other leftist Democrats enjoy using the power of government to keep the citizens in check. But even the most adamant liberal has to be able to comprehend that a government that is prepared to use its instruments of power to put the screws to a homeowner who is trying to clean up for a natural disaster is a government that is abusing its power. And you have to think to yourself that it is only a matter of time that a government that is going after the downtrodden is going to come after you.

Perhaps you might want to let MDE Secretarty Shari WIlson or the Governor's Chief of Staff what you think of their ridiculous handling of this matter.....

(Crossposted)

More below the fold.

Wrecking the Economy, Down ... Socialized Medicine to Go

For those of us who live in Maryland's First Congressional District, we should give a big thanks to "Blue Dog Frank" Kratovil for voting to grind our economy to a halt.  What's next on the Obama - Pelosi - Kratovil agenda?  Socialized medicine.

Think about it; it's a great combo.  Rather than sitting at home freezing because you can't afford to pay for your heating bill, you can get in line at the doctor's office to wait six months for anything but the most mundane care.

Andy Harris Argues for REAL Health Care Reform

cross posted at Delmarva Dealings

More below the fold.

President Barack Obama and President Ronald Reagan: “The Great Placater” vs. “The Great Communicator”

--Richard E. Vatz


President Barack Obama and former President Ronald Reagan have a lot in common, personality-wise. They respectively are and were eminently likable, generally unthreatened personalities who can and could articulate their agenda with understandable, passionate prose. They both understand and understood how to marshal public support for their policies and how to debate opponents without giving personal offense.

What is the most telling difference? President Reagan was “The Great Communicator,” and President Obama is “The Great Placater.”

In the words of Lou Cannon, the Washington Post writer who became the Reagan biographer, President Reagan “earned that title [“Great Communicator”] because of his skill at talking evocatively and using folksy anecdotes that ordinary people could understand.” But equally significant, Cannon understood, President Reagan was capable of righteous anger on occasion.

At the 1980 New Hampshire debate for the Republican presidential nomination, sponsored by the Nashua Telegraph, then-Governor Reagan famously lost his temper. The newspaper’s representative threatened to turn off Gov. Reagan’s microphone when he insisted that several other candidates be allowed to participate, contrary to candidate George H. W. Bush’s wishes. Gov. Reagan said furiously and memorably – and effectively -- “I paid for this microphone!”

Also cited by Mr. Cannon, President Reagan resolutely and memorably on June 12, 1987, demanded of the Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” Again, the Reagan anger was not frequent, but no one was surprised when it reared its lovely head.

That takes us to "The Great Placater," President Obama. Mr. Obama so lacks manifest anger that when he shows irritability, it passes for outrage. Witness his recent press conference when he was asked whether he had been able to stop smoking, and he responded that the reporter’s motivation was that she thought it was “neat to ask me about my smoking,“ but then, as he always does, he immediately lightened up: “But that's fine, I understand. It's an interesting human -- it's an interesting human interest story.”

President Obama’s desire to placate one and all – from Reverend Jeremiah Wright to the Fox network to conservative columnists who were invited to meet and greet the new president chez George Will in January – extends dangerously to our nuclear-acquisitive political enemies.

When Iranian reform protesters courageously protested the pre-determined election and were threatened, attacked and harassed, President Obama merely said he was “concerned.” In subsequent days, when it became clear that some protesters had been killed (and one day coincidentally after this writer had said on Maryland Public Television that the president should say he was “appalled”), the president said he was “appalled and outraged.”

The word from the President’s supporters is that he was and is concerned that displaying his outrage may make Iran (and perhaps before Iran, the equally nuclear weapon-acquisitive North Korea) more resentful of his “meddling” and less willing to negotiate.

Critics, such as this writer, opined and believed that such rhetorical accommodation was and is irrelevant: that Iran would claim Obama-U.S. “meddling” regardless. And that’s what happened. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has demanded President Obama apologize, perhaps aware of the President’s proclivities toward such accommodation. Thankfully, Obama has refused, apparently pushed too far in his placating mode.

“The Great Placater” can hurt himself with his accommodating rhetoric in domestic policy, and the world might improve as a result. In foreign policy, however, such naïve rhetoric may contribute to the catastrophe of a nuclear-armed Iran and North Korea.




Professor Vatz teaches Political Persuasion at Towson University

More below the fold.

Why I Think Frank Voted the Way He Did

I have no more insight than anyone else into the mind of Frank Kratovil... but I do know politics pretty well and it's pretty easy to guess campaign strategy. During the last campaign, Kratovil focused on the determination of a special interest group that Andy Harris wasn't pro-environment enough. That same special interest group, that backed Kratovil during the campaign, told all members of Congress that if they didn't vote for this bill, then they would be denied their endorsement.

In the next election, Frank Kratovil needs to be able to point to the League of Conservation Voters endorsement and say "see, this special interest group says I'm better so you should vote for me."

Now when you look at the two biggest votes Chris Van Hollen cared about, Kratovil is 2 for 2. And 2 for 2 on voting for bills that he didn't even read.

More below the fold.

Frank Kratovil and GOP Cap and Trade 8

Waxman-Markey/cap and trade (to call it by its real name is an affront to the English language) passed the House last night 219-212. Frank Kratovil—who as of Friday afternoon had not read the bill—along with Steny Hoyer, Chris Van Hollen, Dutch Ruppersberger all voted aye, leaving Roscoe Bartlett the only Maryland representative voting against this massive energy tax.

Unfortunately eight Republicans were bought off and crossed over providing the decisive margin. Followers of Maryland state politics are familiar with spineless Republicans. Two examples being: Delegate Marie Antoinette (Page Elmore), who literally sold his vote for cake, and James Milquetoast King, who in his explanation of his vote for slots—enabling Martin O’Malley’s tax increases—tried to tell us two plus two equals five.

Friday afternoon, C-SPAN was actually an interesting channel to watch. Representatives were literally making deals on the House floor, see the video below of a representative asking for “clarification” of exactly what goodies he’s getting in return for his vote.



Should the bill become law, Frank Kratovil just handed Andy Harris the 2010 congressional election.

Why?

Well despite the cooked-book CBO report many Dems waved in the air like canon law, Waxman-Markey in reality would:

·Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $9.6 trillion;
·Destroy 1,105,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs;
·Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation;
·Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent;·Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent;
·Raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,500; and
·Increase inflation-adjusted federal debt by 26 percent, or $29,150 additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation.

All for a meaningless one nine-hundredth of a degree change in average global temperature.

Memo to Frank Frank Kratovil: Not a good idea to follow the Martin O’Malley energy strategy: Promise lower energy costs, then do everything in your power to increase them.

Oh and don’t bother to ask about the scientific report—suppressed for political reasons by Obama’s EPA—that debunked the EPA’s endangerment finding on carbon dioxide, because you know our leader told us that science no longer takes a back seat to ideology. The only government report Obama wants criticized is the CBO report that laid out the true, staggering price tag of his health care bill.

Hopefully the Senate will have the wisdom to kill Waxman-Markey as it did Lieberman-Warner last year.

More below the fold.