Party uber alles?

Yes, it's time for me to set some folks straight again.

Let me begin by saying that I'm quite aware Audrey Scott, as MDGOP Chair, is paid to elect Republicans. But is this the right message to put out?



Sometimes you have to stand for something besides not being the other guys. Oftentimes we make our decisions based on the letter after the name, not realizing that there's supposed to be underlying principles inherent within.

I think Brian Murphy understands this too. He criticized Scott in a blistering radio interview message:

For the last 100 years, the Maryland Republican Party has been irrelevant, and so they’ve just said, ‘Well, the only way to win is to look like Democrats.’ No, the way to win is what Ronald Reagan did: to stand on principle.

[The GOP] is really having an identity crisis. Over the weekend, there was a telling video, and it was really pretty disgusting, quite frankly. The reason I’m running is because we’ve lost sight of our principles in our party. If the Republican Party is one thing, it is a party of principles. It is a party of conviction and passion. Our Founders were all men and women of principle and passion.

There was this Rule 11 thing, where the Republican Party, most folks don’t know about it, they don’t really care. It’s this little group that decided to endorse Ehrlich, even before he filed. It was basically a vote against me. But that was a symptom. And this video, this weekend, was the real disease. It was the Chairman of the Republican Party… she said, ‘Party first. Party over principle.’ Which shows she doesn’t understand the Republican Party is the party of principle. That’s why we’re losers in Maryland.

Now, I already have heard the argument about Brian being a Democrat for awhile, yadda yadda yadda. Perhaps what attracted him to switch was the fact our party has good conservative principles and he felt he was the best person to lead us in that direction? To dismiss him is to dismiss a number of other leaders on a more local scale who simply were fed up with politics as usual. A church wouldn't turn away someone who wants to convert, so why should we?

Unfortunately for establishment Republicans, I give a damn about principles too. One thing I demand is a fair shake for all candidates and let them stand or fall on their own merits, not being Obamalike and clearing the playing field for a chosen candidate. Yes, I'm proud to be a Republican but the "R" next to the name doesn't guarantee a vote when I think they fall short on principles. That's why I am unabashedly a Murphy supporter - on the other hand, Wayne Gilchrest was one of those types who wasn't what I considered a good Republican to be. Fortunately Bob Ehrlich has just enough good points that I can support him in the general election if he doesn't lose the primary. Chances are he won't.

That being said, though, in the next term the GOP is going to need to have the whip handy in order to corral Ehrlich in the right direction and make sure he follows through on those areas conservatives supported him for. That means crossing the aisle to accomodate Democrats is verboten - let them come to us. If Ehrlich wins he makes the budget and that's part of the political Golden Rule - he who has the gold, rules. So screw the Democrats - they're more than happy to do it to us when they're in power. It's our contention as conservatives that following our philosophy of limiting government will lead to more prosperity and freedom for all, not just chosen special interests.

More than likely it's too late for Murphy's words to make much of an impact for this election - votes are already being cast and, with our party (led by Ehrlich) now hypocritically embracing the early voting we fought against, Brian Murphy has fewer minds to change. But there is still hope for the next cycle, and if Bob Ehrlich wins and becomes the titular leader of the Maryland GOP he shouldn't be allowed to just expect the party to back his every move or become a vehicle for his re-election. We already tried that once and we see where we were led.

(On a side note, perhaps it's time to consider something our neighbor to the south does and limit governors to one four-year term. While we're at it, 12 years in the General Assembly is more than enough.)

It's what makes your local Central Committee elections almost as important as choosing the best Republican candidates to follow the party's conservative, limited-government philosophy through to a seat in the General Assembly.

But it's more important that our party conveys a message that principles matter and the people should have their say in electing a candidate. This Rule 11 fiasco wasn't quite as covert as my birth state's practice of regularly trying to avoid contested primaries in statewide races by cajolery but it still has the stench of a backroom deal written all over it. In an era where more people than ever are fed up with 'politics as usual' and don't think there's a significant difference between the two parties, there's no need to make my job as a Republican harder by providing more evidence those perceptions are correct.

Crossposted at monoblogue.

More below the fold.

Promises, Promises

Democrats are shrieking like banshees over "empty promises" from Bob Ehrlich. However, they should be worried about broken promises from Martin O'Malley. Especially welching on deals he made with lawmakers in his own party.

Despite the hubbub over Arizona’s illegal immigration law, the issue hasn’t taken hold as a particularly salient concern in Maryland’s 2010 gubernatorial election. Good thing for Martin O’Malley as people on both sides would be reminded of his broken promises on the matter.

While it’s true O’Malley ordered his administration to comply with REAL ID Act provisions, like slots he originally opposed making Maryland REAL ID compliant. In fact, it was O’Malley’s push for the slots referendum during the 2007 special session that reveals his perfidy.

During the special session, Red Maryland reported that O’Malley bought slots opponent Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez’s vote for the referendum in return for a two-tiered driver’s license system in Maryland.

And indeed we were correct.

In the 2006 campaign, the governor won the Hispanic vote with appearances such as one at Casa de Maryland, the immigrant advocacy group in Takoma Park, where he told reporters that "I don't believe that at the state and local level that we should exacerbate the problem by enacting policies that put up barriers to getting a driver's license or getting to and from work or home…"

So advocates such as Del. Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-Montgomery) and Kim Propeack, Casa's director of political action, accused O'Malley of a "betrayal" -- both women used the word -- when he announced last week that Maryland would no longer issue licenses to people who cannot prove they are here legally. As of 2010, when the federal Real ID law kicks into effect, even people who have long held Maryland licenses will be denied renewals.

"The governor did not keep his promise," Gutierrez says. "This is what he promised me when he was begging for my vote for the slots referendum, which I gave him. And that is the last time I do that."

This is what happens when you sell your vote and your integrity to the man without principles.


While we applauded O'Malley for finally flopping onto the right side of an issue, we know full well it wasn't out of any honest concern for principle, rather the result of licking his thumb and to gauge which way the wind was blowing.

Of course, this isn’t the only instance of O’Malley’s hypocrisy—and pandering—on illegal immigration. In July O’Malley criticized Arizona’s immigration law saying, it “kicks the door open to racial profiling and detentions without real probable cause," while completely ignoring the fact that as mayor of Baltimore he implemented and defended a zero tolerance/ mass arrest policy of citizens with no probable cause.

More below the fold.

My Other Endorsements

I've made some personal endorsements in addition to the Red Maryland endorsements over at my site.

Please note: these are my personal endorsements, and are not the endorsements of this site, I just wanted to use this vehicle to spread the word.

More below the fold.

A Note About the Establishment

There has been a rumbling among the Brian Murphy contingent that Red Maryland endorsed Bob Ehrlich for Governor because Red Maryland is "part of the establishment."

Nothing of course could possibly more laughable, and it really shows the Johnny-come-lately nature of a lot of these Murphy supporters.

Red Maryland takes pride in the fact that we do what is right to move the conservative movement forward. If that means that we expose delegates who vote for tax increases, expose inside Central Committee baseball, help show wayward Republicans the door, or help defenestrate an ineffective Party Chairman, we do it.

It also means that we buck the trend. We endorsed conservative Michael Hough in 3B against the liberal incumbent. We endorsed conservative incumbent Tony McConkey and conservative challenger Vic Bernson as they take on establishment liberal Republicans Cathy Vitale and David Boschert.

Red Maryland is not the Republican establishment. Far from it. You'd be surprised the calls that our editors get from the "establishment" questioning why we do what we do.

But all that being said...we endorsed Bob Ehrlich for Governor for reasons that Mark eloquently stated here. When it comes to taking our Martin O'Malley, we will pick the proven leader over the neophyte former Democrat every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I understand that some of you disagree with our pick. I get that. But when it comes to trying to create a more effective conservative party, it seems like the Murphy people would rather alienate their friends than support their own guy.

More below the fold.

EXCLUSIVE: The Red Maryland Interview with Bob Ehrlich

I got the chance to interview Bob Ehrlich at campaign headquarters in Annapolis on Friday afternoon. Please watch (and excuse the editing.....)

Red Maryland Interview with Bob Ehrlich from Brian Griffiths on Vimeo.

More below the fold.

Media Watch VI on the Race for Maryland’s Governorship: Final Status as the Games Begin

--Richard E. Vatz

As the post-Labor Day gubernatorial election campaign begins in earnest, this may be the propitious moment to finalize an assessment of the performance of some of the major allegedly impartial print media. This is the sixth in a series of critiques of print and electronic media coverage of the 2010 Maryland Governor’s race.

In all honesty, it is difficult to exaggerate how journalistically terrible The Baltimore Sun was in 2006 (and several years before and after). Virtually every news piece on the gubernatorial election was an advertisement for the (Martin) O’Malley campaign. The letters-to-the-editor column was so slanted by the number and length of letters in favor of the Democratic candidate that the Sun had to give the excuse that they printed letters consistent with the percentage they received favoring each candidate. It’s hard to assess whether they hurt themselves more by the admission that they chose what to print by the utterly invalid measure of the number of letters they received on each side of an issue (attention letter generators!) or by the inference that this was simply one of their false claims.

Their letters-to-the-editor editor of that period is now thankfully gone, as is the writing of their reputedly nice-but-incompetent ombudsman. Also gone are their op-ed editors of that era and the editorial page editor of that year, whose journalistic malefactions are too numerous to recount.

In this series I have complimented the Sun regarding their remarkable turnaround in quality of coverage vis à vis 2006 (and before and after), including general fairness, impartiality and actual lack of references to many issues 4 years ago (BGE rate increase, slots, racial attacks on Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele, etc., etc., etc.). Most of the Sun writers assigned to the Governor’s campaign are now quite thorough as well as impartial in their writing, and some of the evenhandedness has simply left this observer dumbfounded. The op-ed page now includes excellent regular conservative columns by Marta H. Mossburg and Ron Smith. The columns by liberal Dan Rodricks have improved. The political op-ed writer of 2006 is thankfully writing his anti-(Robert L.)Ehrlich screeds elsewhere.

The Post's news articles on the Maryland Governor's race, always well-written, have become somewhat less blatantly hostile to Gov. Ehrlich, especially those by Aaron Davis, but their editorial page has become less friendly.

Most of these points have been referenced in this series, but I have not remarked extensively on the editorial page, wherein the criteria of journalistic excellence are different. Parenthetically, I still have some personal problems with leftover humanoids from the pseudo-journalistic Dianne Donovan-Ann Lolordo op-ed period, but we’re focusing on the overall product.

Regarding the editorial page, an elementary distinction should be made of which some casual readers are unaware: the editorial page traditionally prints the point of view of the newspaper’s editorial board – not a balance of views -- and may include letters to the editor. The op-ed page is the page opposite the editorial page and traditionally contains a variety of points of view with a liberal-conservative balance.

Still, the editorial page should have the sophistication to recognize strengths and weaknesses of both Democratic and Republican candidates. The 2006 Sun’s editorials were as bad as the news coverage and op-ed page, with virtually no criticism of the O’Malley candidacy and the ripping of Gov. Ehrlich’s without exception.

What is the change this year? While the editorial page is not writing disinterestedly, it has ripped Gov. O’Malley in language one would never have anticipated when the editors have disagreed with him. No example demonstrates this better than the July 28 Sun editorial (and a follow-up letter as well) titled “O'Malley's reckless slots politics.” The article castigates (strong word, yes, but the word “reckless” is a rhetorical bombshell) Gov. O’Malley’s “public stance in favor of the referendum to overturn the Anne Arundel County zoning law that would allow slots at Arundel Mills Mall...a move that smacks of political opportunism.” (“Opportunism” is a fighting word as well.)

In today’s Sun there is an almost equally surprising editorial, “Here Comes the GOP,” which not only accurately predicts a tough year for Democrats across the U.S., but also predicts a close race for Governor in Maryland in which Republicans “are going to be fielding a proven winner [emphasis added]...”

You read correctly: no snarky gratuitous attacks in that assessment and an undilutedly positive description of Gov. Ehrlich.

Let’s look at some of the other points that you never would have seen just a couple of years ago in a Sun editorial: the newspaper’s editorial recognizes the crucial Vatzian god-criterion, intensity (one hopes the Gonzales pollsters do some day), and how its absence among Democrats presents them electoral problems this year. There is a fair and honest assessment of the “enormous” Tea Party rally at the Lincoln Memorial last weekend, a rally which dealt with Rev. Al Sharpton’s counter-rally in a “friendly way.” There is, to be sure, an unfair couple of paragraphs assessing Republican’s “cynical” alleged lack of recommending solutions to the nation’s problems and citing the Democrats’ “great case” for praising President Obama’s first term. But in 2006 such errant opinions would have constituted every paragraph.

This is not your older sibling’s Baltimore Sun.

None of this changes my willingness to bet one year’s salary (I know: that is not much) on whom the Sun or Post will endorse (yes, the Post endorsed Gov. Ehrlich 2006; it won’t in 2010), but it puts the newspaper within the parameters of excellent metropolitan papers’ covering an election for chief executive of the state.

Overall: going in, the field is not precisely level at the Sun or even at the Post, but there is every reason to buy these newspapers for a good and mostly fair account of this incredibly close race between Govs. Martin O’Malley and Robert L. Ehrlich.

--Professor Vatz teaches political rhetoric at Towson University

More below the fold.

Kratovil's Bailout Bunk

MDGOP did a great job throwing cold water on Frank Kratovil's first TV ad claiming his alleged independence from Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic majority.

Turns out Kratovil's ad has more truthiness issues.

From FactCheck.org:

At least five freshman Democratic House members are running ads claiming they voted against the bank "bailout," when in fact none was in Congress when the bill setting up the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, was enacted.

Mary Jo Kilroy says she "voted against the bank bailout."

Kathy Dahlkemper says she voted "against a bailout that helped Wall
Street."

Frank Kratovil claims to have cast his vote in opposition
to "the big bank bailout."

Dina Titus’ ad maintains she "even voted against the bank bailout."

Glenn Nye’s ad tells viewers he went "against his own party" and "voted
against the Wall Street bailout." ...

Here’s what happened: As the law was structured, the treasury secretary (then Henry Paulson) had access to only $350 billion, half of the total package, at first. The second half would be available only if the administration went to Congress and asked for it. Treasury would get the money unless Congress said no. The first $350 billion of the TARP money was quickly spent.

By the time the Bush administration, at the request of President-elect Barack Obama, filed a request with the Senate for the rest of the money on Jan.
12, 2009, there were widespread complaints that too much of the first tranche had been used to bail out large institutions and not enough to help homeowners. The new funds could have been blocked had both houses of Congress voted to do so, but on Jan. 15, 2009, the Senate defeated a disapproval resolution, 52-42, effectively voting to release the funds. Treasury almost immediately announced it would use some of the money to shore up a deeply crippled Bank of America.

Where was the House in all this? Pretty much irrelevant. Eventually there was a similar vote in that body. Kilroy, Dahlkemper, Kratovil, Nye and Titus all voted for the disapproval resolution, and it passed, 270-155. But the vote came on Jan. 22, a week after the Senate’s vote (and two days after Obama was sworn in). Treasury already had the money.

In other words, these five — and everyone else who cast a yea or nay on the resolution — knew the vote on the unpopular program was purely symbolic.

Kratovil's ludicrous bailout claim reminds me of the lame excuse he sent to constituents explaining his vote for cap and trade.

Opponents of a cap-and-trade regulatory system need to remember that we
already have cap-and-trade here in Maryland. Maryland has been part of a
regional cap-and-trade initiative since 2007, which has generated tens of
millions of dollars in revenue to the state to fund consumer rebates and energy
conservation programs.

Kratovil is referring to RGGI which is nothing but an unnecessary energy tax, which just as the federal cap and trade bill, has no measurable effect on climate and provides carbon pork for environmental activist groups.

Yet more evidence that voters need to return Maryland's first district to the Republican column.

More below the fold.

Baltimore State’s Attorney’s Race of Jessamy vs. Bernstein: Vote for Serious Change or Vote to Perpetuate Failed Leadership

--Richard E. Vatz


As a professor of political rhetoric, I honestly cannot think of a candidate I have ever wrongly supported or opposed, but my prognostication skills are not equal to my judgment calls.

I wrote in Red Maryland weeks ago and said on several television and radio stations that Gregg Bernstein had no chance against Patricia Jessamy for the State’s Attorney’s race in Baltimore City.

I may have been premature – okay, wrong -- in that judgment.

Assuming that the race is in doubt, let me assert the argument that Baltimore City should elect Mr. Bernstein.

It is not a close call.

In the State’s Attorney’s race in Baltimore City, the primary race for which begins today and ends September 14 -- don’t make me explain; I dislike early voting and all other little tricks which expand the electorate to include those who have little interest or knowledge in or of the issues in political races – I can make no case for voting for Patricia Jessamy over her challenger, Mr. Bernstein.

This Red Marylander has written several columns about this race and its participants. The arguments for voting for Bernstein and against Jessamy are overwhelming: to wit, their relative competence, demeanor, value hierarchy and specifically, manifest concern for the safety of the citizens of Baltimore, which category, alas, includes people close to the author of this article.

Through several debates and months of campaigning it has become undeniable that re-electing Patricia Jessamy guarantees the continuance of a State’s Attorney’s office which is insufficiently concerned about expending the energy to put dangerous felons behind bars and/or putting them there for long periods of time.

The statistical arguments have already been made regarding her low 35% conviction rate and the fact, as Bernstein points out, that in “2009, 80% of the 6500 domestic violence cases in District Court were effectively dismissed.” Add to that the horrendous representative fact that in the case of the murder of Stephen Pitcairn, his killer had been earlier caught on city surveillance cameras robbing a man, but the case was not prosecuted because a witness recanted.

Mr. Bernstein promises a sea change in the attitude and seriousness of the pursuit of felons by the State’s Attorney’s office. He promises serious prosecution and a “hands-on” State’s Attorney. He promises a reversal of the criminal-friendly statistics above.

Regarding the problem of witness fears of testifying, candidate Bernstein also has credibly alleged that Mrs. Jessamy’s office will not prosecute cases in which there is a willing-to-testify witness, if there is only one such witness. Such a policy adds more points on a road map for criminals.

Stunningly, the defense of this policy by Mrs. Jessamy’s campaign spokeswoman, Marilyn Harris-Davis, was as follows: "As a general rule, the state's attorney does not prefer to proceed with single-witness cases in which there is a single, uncorroborated witness.” In the past, according to The Baltimore Sun, Mrs. Jessamy has claimed unconvincingly that prosecuting with only one witness jeopardizes sustaining convictions.

Please spare me the questionable statistics regarding alleged diminution of crime in the city. Even if true, such statistics do not reflect excellence in the State’s Attorney’s office, still leave the absolute and relative danger of crime in the city and ignore the “revolving door” problem encouraged by that office. Also, please do not misunderstand: the pillars of justice are also cracked by the woefully irresponsible judges in the city (and to a lesser extent in the rest of Maryland) but also by weaknesses created by the police. At least, though, the police are trying to enact changes to relieve the criminality problem in Baltimore.

Nineteenth Century political theorist Alexis de Tocqueville’s famous dictum that “in a democracy, the people get the government they deserve” is overly-simplistic today. Certainly large voting minorities do not deserve reckless public policy by the State's Attorney's office and an utterly unresponsive criminal justice system generally. The threat to public safety, created by irresponsible voters who re-elect intelligent-but-inadequate leaders, leaves those voters morally responsible. Equally true, however, is that it leaves all of the electorate and those who are not old enough to vote or not eligible to vote vulnerable.

Yes, Baltimore citizens' safety and lives and quality of life are all jeopardized if voters re-elect people who don’t take their civic responsibilities seriously.


--Professor Vatz teaches political rhetoric at Towson University

More below the fold.

RedMaryland on the Radio Saturday

I will be a special guest on the Pat McDonough show (guest hosted by Sue Payne) on WCBM 680 AM tomorrow from 8pm until 10pm. Please tune in as we discuss the beginning of primary voting and a number of key races, including the Ehrlich/Murphy match up.

I am told we will have some special guests calling in as well so you will not want to miss a show that I am sure will have people talking.

If you are not in the area, listen live online at wcbm.com and those of you with smartphones can catch the station through the sticher app.

More below the fold.

Huckabee endorses Ready

As the Washington Post is reporting, our friend and endorsed candidate Justin Ready has been endorsed by former Arkansas Governor and Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.

Governor Huckabee, in his endorsement, stated

"A small business owner, Justin understands firsthand how excessive spending and high taxes wreak havoc on a business and he will fight to reduce taxes and eliminate wasteful spending. Electing Justin Ready will help bring real positive change to Maryland."

More below the fold.

Playing PEPCO

Martin O’Malley has made quite a stink about PEPCO lately.

Here’s an interesting timeline of events this summer regarding O’Malley and PEPCO


August 8: O’Malley requested the Public Service Commission investigate PEPCO’s response to July thunderstorms, which knocked out power to hundreds of thousands of customers in the DC suburbs.


August 7-10: PEPCO executives, board members, and one of it’s PACs donate nearly $20,000 to O’Malley’s campaign. $33,350 total this cycle.













September 1: O’Malley and Board of Public Works approve $21 million contract for PEPCO to perform energy efficiency upgrades to BWI-Marshall Airport.


Interesting how O’Malley’s call for an investigation of PEPCO, and a $21 million state contract award to PEPCO, bracket $20,000 in contributions from PEPCO to his campaign.


That’s one hell of a return on investment for PEPCO.


Of course, this is standard operating procedure for Martin O’Malley. Demagogue, pander, shakedown, repeat.


The last time O’Malley made electricity and election year issue BG&E customers saw an 85% increase in their monthly bills.


Curious that a governor who ran on lowering energy costs for Marylanders has done everything in his power to increase them.

More below the fold.

Support our Endorsed Candidates

One of RedMaryland's endorsed candidates Justin Ready has a new commercial demonstrating why he deserves your support in his race for the House of Delegates in District 5A.




Another of our endorsed candidates, Mike Hough, has a new radio ad you can listen to by clicking here.

More below the fold.

Ulysses Currie Indicted

From the Washington Post

Longtime Maryland Sen. Ulysses Currie, one of the most powerful and popular figures in the General Assembly, was indicted Wednesday on charges that he took more than $245,000 in bribes to use his position and influence to do favors for a grocery chain.

The 48-page indictment, filed in U.S. District Court in Baltimore, comes after a years-long FBI investigation into consulting work Currie (D-Prince George's) did for Shoppers Food and Pharmacy. Over six years, the indictment alleges, Currie took action to help Shoppers sell liquor at one store, save money in the construction of another store and buy land. Two former Shoppers officials also were indicted by the federal grand jury.

Shoppers hired Currie to work as a consultant focusing on public affairs, minority recruitment, and outreach and community relations. But in reality, prosecutors allege, Shoppers paid him to use his Senate seat to benefit the company's business and financial interests.

Currie, 73, highlighted his actions in a paper he wrote in September 2007, hoping to justify continued payments from the grocery chain, the indictment says. He called the document "Accomplishments on Behalf of Shoppers." He wrote that he was "in a unique position to assist Shoppers in expanding its mission and increasing its bottom line" and that he would bring the company "many more opportunities," court papers say.

Hardly a surprise. Any surprise would be limited to the fact that federal prosecutors have only indicted one Maryland Democrat, something that can only be attributed to incompetence of lack of ambition.

Beyond the snark, however, Currie serves as a metaphor for one party rule. When all the reins of power are under the control of one party, the odds of misfeasance and malfeasance being exposed rapidly drop to zero.

More below the fold.

Frank Kratovil: Not So Independent

The Maryland GOP has released an ad going after Pelosi bootlick Frank Kratovil who now, after two years of slavish devotion to the Speaker, claims to be "independent." It pretty well tells you everything you need to know about Kratovil's record.

Kratovil's election was a monumental political FAIL on the part of the GOP and did more than anything else to demonstrate that self-described moderates, like the unlamented Wayne Gilchrest, are more often than not little more than narcissists who can't defend their lack of ideas and defect to the democrats when they lose at the ballot box.

Andy Harris should restore MD-01 to the Republican column and we are confident that he'll be a good fit in the new conservative majority in the House.

More below the fold.

Fun with Campaign Finance Reports

Digging through campaign finance reports might seem like a tedious chore to some. However, it can be quite fun especially when you come across massive contributions from lobbyists, developers, and Wall Street fat cats that put the lie to Martin O’Malley rhetoric about being on “our side.”

The most recent reports filed this election cycle are chock full of such gems.

The Democrat-Developer Complex
Martin O’Malley once said of corrupt Baltimore developer Ronald Lipscomb “he is a man of vision, talent and commitment to the greater good” and that citizens of Baltimore should be “proud of what he is accomplishing…” Of course, what O’Malley meant by “greater good” were the mountains of cash Lipscomb dumped into his campaign coffers and that of the Democratic machine.

Looking at O’Malley’s latest filings he’s still going after the developer vote.

O’Malley took $12,000 from LLCs connected to John Paterakis the developer who along with Lipscomb plead guilty to violating campaign finance laws in the bribery case of Baltimore City Councilwoman Helen Holton.

Another interesting donation is from $4,000 from MKE Associates LLC. According to the State Department of Assessments and Taxation database MKE Associates LLC was formed in 2006 to invest “in any kind of property real or personal.” SDAT also shows that MKE has shown no property holdings to speak of since it was incorporated. The authorized name on MKE’s articles of incorporation is Jordan I. Bailowitz, a tax attorney for mega law/lobbying firm DLA Piper. DLA Piper’s political action committee is a huge donor to Maryland Democrats. Bailowitz has donated roughly $1,900 to DLA Piper PAC in oddly numbered contributions. Why Bailowitz couldn’t donate the $4,000 to DLA Piper PAC or to O’Malley directly is puzzling. Interestingly enough, the resident agent for MKE is George Philippou the attorney for Paterakis’ H&S Properties. DLA Piper represented Paterakis after the state prosecutor indicted him for campaign finance violations.

I’m sure Purple Line zealots in Montgomery County are thrilled with the $4,500 in contributions O’Malley and Anthony Brown took from Mr. ICC Kingdon Gould’s companies. Wonder if any of those donations came at fundraisers held at that bastion of Purple Line opposition the Columbia Country Club.

In 2006, the Maryland state prosecutor rebuked the O’Malley campaign for accepting illegal conduit contributions from Baltimore-based developer Edward St. John. Yet in 2010 O’Malley still raked in over $50,000 through the LLC loophole from entities connected to St. John.

Wall Street Calling
O’Malley loves to rail against “corporate greed” yet he and his running mate have no qualms about accepting $16,000 from corporate raiders Steven and Mitchell Rales. The Rales made their fortune by greenmailing and junk bond financing through convicted Wall Street swindler Michael Milken’s firm. For a governor who’s newly found election year mantra is “jobs,” it is disconcerting that he would accept such largesse from corporate raiders known for slashing jobs out their acquisitions. Just last year the Rales’ parent company Danaher cut 3,300 jobs while buying up more firms.

Richard Domaleski, CEO of World Energy Exchange and his wife gave O’Malley $8,000. World Energy Exchange specializes in trading carbon credits—the environmental equivalent of mortgage backed securities. Thanks to O'Malley Marylanders already pay an unecessary energy tax to fund carbon credit trading that does fulfill the goal it was ostensibly created to meet.WEE’s carbon credit business is sure to see a boost after O’Malley’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act regulations are implemented. Good luck getting an answer from the Maryland Department of the Environment on who is writing those regulations and what they might look like.

Hedge fund manager Daniel Leeds and his wife gave $8,000. With those contributions O’Malley isn’t just getting Wall Street cash but tapping into the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. Leeds is a founder of the secretive Democracy Alliance a consortium of wealthy progressives, which provides seed money to the great constellation of left wing advocacy and policy groups throughout the country.

The Good Lobbyists
O’Malley fire bombed whole cities of straw men to falsely paint Ehrlich as a lobbyist. Yet as my esteemed Examiner colleague J. Doug Gill noted, O’Malley’s contempt for lobbyists stopped at his bank account’s edge. That trend continued in the latest campaign finance reports. O’Malley received over $10,000 from high priced DC and out of state lobbyists.

Remember, according O’Malley and Maryland Democrats lobbyists are bad, bad folks, just not THEIR lobbyists.

More below the fold.