Red Maryland

A Brief Word about the National Committeewoman's Race

2012-02-01T21:53:00.000-05:00

Since I am both the Maryland Young Republicans Chairman and the Northeast Regional Vice-Chairman of the Young Republican National Federation, I've already gotten several calls on the following, so I want to address it as publicly as possible.

A letter was sent by Nicolee Ambrose to the members of the Republican State Central Committees around Maryland. The letter was sent on letterhead with the logo of the Young Republican National Federation, with Ms. Ambrose referring to herself as Chairman Emeritus, a title which she was granted by a vote of the 2007 YRNF National Convention held in New Orleans. The letter implied to several committee members that Ms. Ambrose has been endorsed by the Young Republican National Federation.

Ms. Ambrose's use of the Young Republican National Federation logo in this letter was without the permission of the YRNF National Committee, National Executive Board, or any other affiliated body. Ms. Ambrose has not been endorsed by the Young Republican National Federation, any of its affiliated groups, or the Maryland Young Republicans and any of its affiliated groups. No endorsement should be implied or inferred from the YRNF logo being improperly used on this letter.

Unfortunately, there will be more to follow....

The Broadside 1/30/12

2012-02-01T10:00:00.000-05:00

Guests included Will Upton from Americans for Tax Reform on Governor O'Malley's latest tax hike proposals, and Kristy Campbell from The American Conservative Union provided a preview of CPAC 2012.

A Network Notes remix set to Greg Kline's nuptials theme.

A special "salute" to the Institute for Liberty from Mike O'Mera.

And yet another reason why Andrew needs to be banned from running the board.

Listen to internet radio with redmaryland on Blog Talk Radio

The Jimmy Braswell Experience: 1/31/12

2012-01-31T21:21:00.001-05:00

Listen to internet radio with redmaryland on Blog Talk Radio

Reminder: The Jimmy Braswell Experience is Tonight

2012-01-31T18:31:00.005-05:00

The Jimmy Braswell Experience returns live tonight at 8 with Jimmy and Ethan.

Be sure to stick around until 9 PM, when the guys interview U.S. Senate Candidate William Thomas Capps....

Listen in or watch live tonight at 8 PM.

The Broadside Tonight 7pm

2012-01-30T13:00:00.001-05:00

We apologize for the technical difficulties last week, but we've made up for it with a jam-packed show this week.

Tune in here tonight at 7pm

Patrick Gleason, Director of State Affairs for Americans for Tax Reform, will join us to talk about the dog's breakfast of tax increases Governor O'Malley put on the menu for this legislative session.

Gregg Keller, Executive Director of the American Conservative Union will stop by for a preview of CPAC 2012.

And a special Network Notes remix.

The Broadside tonight at 7pm, only on the Red Maryland Network. Watch the show on Ustream on BroadsideTV.

Newt Gingrich vs. CNN’s John King and Wolf Blitzer on Media Bias: Outcome, 1-1

2012-01-29T14:25:00.005-05:00

--Richard E. Vatz

Many people think “the media” are consistently virulently anti-conservative, while many others think the media are not biased against conservatives at all.

Only a few people think that mainstream media – namely CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS -- sometimes are but sometimes are not hostile to conservatives.

I am a pundit who thinks the latter is true, although not equally fair and unfair. The two recent powerful examples of media-conservative clash in the Republican presidential debates are illustrative.

On January 19, 2012 and January 26, 2012, Newt Gingrich accused CNN’s John King and Wolf Blitzer, respectively if not respectfully, of unadulterated unfair treatment of conservatives in the Republican presidential debates in South Carolina and Florida.

The first attack appeared to help Gingrich win the South Carolina primary.

CNN’s King, who in mid-June of 2011 hosted a Republican presidential debate and consistently made derisive sounds to communicate his dissatisfaction with the answer and/or the length of the answer, hosted the January 19 debate.

He started that South Carolina debate by asking if Gingrich would “like to take some time to respond” to an ABC interview in which his ex-wife said he asked her to “enter into an open marriage” at a time in which he was “having an affair.”

In a lengthy response regarding the “destructive, vicious [and] negative nature of much of the news media,” Gingrich also ensured that there was a personal component of his outrage, saying in answer to King’s claim that he did not initiate the issue: “John, John, it was repeated by your network. You chose to start the debate with it. Don't try to blame somebody else. You and your staff chose to start this debate with that.” He then added that King’s significant introduction of such an irrelevant, personal issue was “close to despicable.”

Given King’s prior self-defined role as provocateur at the earlier Republican debate, the insistence of the question being the first asked and his recent Republican-negative reputation, no reasonable observer could doubt that Speaker Gingrich had portrayed King’s anti-conservative media bias accurately.

Then last Thursday night’s Floridian Gingrich-Blitzer clash was round two in the debate media bias wars.

After the debate had gone on for some time, Blitzer asked Gingrich, “Earlier this week, you said Governor [Mitt] Romney, after he released his taxes, you said that you were satisfied with the level of transparency of his personal finances when it comes to this. And I just want to reiterate and ask you, are you satisfied right now with the level of transparency as far as his personal finances?”

Gingrich lit into him with a vehemence not revealed by the language of the attack: ”This is a nonsense question. Look, how about if the four of us agree for the rest of the evening, we'll actually talk about issues that relate to governing America?”

Blitzer defended himself: “But, Mr. Speaker, you made an issue of this, this week, when you said that, ‘He lives in a world of Swiss bank and Cayman Island bank accounts.’ I didn't say that. You did.”

Gingrich argued that the question was illegitimate because it quoted him from “an interview on some TV Show…” but that this was a “national debate.”

Gov. Romney asked rhetorically, “Wouldn't it be nice if people didn't make accusations somewhere else that they weren't willing to defend here?”

Decision: Mr. Blitzer.

Unlike John King and a wealth of other anti-conservative questioners and news people in the media wars, Wolf Blitzer has no reputation of unfairness, even of just recent vintage, such as King; in fact, quite the opposite.

The question did not lead the debate, and it was eminently reasonable to ask a candidate if he stood by his statements issued publicly, especially statements indisputably material to a presidential race.

Gingrich, probably overconfident from his successful criticism of John King, had let his overconfidence lead him into an unfair misjudgment of what criticism would fly in this debate.

The lesson: media bias is real, but to accuse good journalists asking good, relevant questions of such unfairness is itself unfair and harmful to the quest to convince people of the existence of genuine media anti-conservative prejudice.

Professor Vatz has taught Media Criticism for about twenty years at Towson University. He is author of The Only Authentic Book of Persuasion (Kendall Hunt, 2012)

Towson Tigers 2011-2012 Basketball Team of Character

2012-01-28T17:28:00.008-05:00

--Richard E. Vatz

This is not a blog about basketball talent, for to write about that the author should have some exceptional knowledge about the sport, which, alas, this writer does not.

I do know something about character, however, and the gutsy first win of the season for Towson University basketball coach Pat Skerry, former assistant coach at my alma mater, University of Pittsburgh, and his never-give-up Towson Tigers in a transformative feat was a game I shall never forget.

The players, including especially, but not exclusively, Marcus Damas, Erique Gumbs, Robert Nwankwo, Jervon Pressley, and Deon Jones were effort personified. They never relaxed; they listened to their coach; they focused throughout, and they won a game they could win but were not favored to win.

I don’t know the stats, but it seems their rebounds, shooting percentage and turnovers must have been their best all year. Doesn’t matter. They could not have played with more heart than they did today. Every rebound was contested. When a ball appeared to be turned over, they pursued and pursued and pursued again. Throughout the game they fought every moment.

Their coach throughout the long season – a season that would seem longer but for the hard, unremitting work these young men put forth – has never mailed it in either.

I used to watch the team work out in the recent bad years when I would jog during practice, and many of the players would lounge around – it was so devastating: not the losing, but the lack of the very character they have shown before today and today. Those teams won more games than the players this year, but they had less guts.

A poetic note was sounded when an ESPN announcer called us "Towson State" – go ahead, buster; you obviously don’t prepare with the intensity of this group.

Again, my sport is tennis, another sport which measures character, so I cannot give you analysis of roundball playing excellence per play. But I go to all the games. I love Towson University, and the basketball men and their coach made me and the less-than-thousand or so folks who come to every game proud this afternoon.

Professor Vatz teaches at Towson University.

Looking for a Coward Mrs. O'Malley? Try at Home.

2012-01-28T11:05:00.002-05:00

The Associated Press quoted Maryland’s first lady Katie O’Malley telling the National Conference on LGBT Equality in Baltimore, “We didn’t expect things that happened to the House of Delegates to occur, but sadly they did, and there were some cowards that prevented it from passing.”

O’Malley later issued a statement regretting her choice of words.

Delegate Jay Walker (D-PG) said O’Malley’s statement was unsatisfactory

“Call me a coward, but I'm going to stand by my faith and my principles, as well as on my constituents' beliefs. Forget politics, my mom and dad did not raise a coward."

In one fail swoop Mrs. O’Malley alienated the crucial votes her husband needs to pass gay marriage legislation, and belittled the deeply held moral and philosophical convictions of those who oppose gay marriage.

Standing on your principles isn’t cowardice Mrs. O’Malley. It’s just another lame euphemism concocted to disparage those who disagree with you and your husband.

Then there is the hypocrisy factor.

Here is Mrs. O'Malley's husband tweeting “You have to have the guts to make the cuts and the foresight to make the investments.”

Of course Governor O’Malley hasn’t cut anything. O’Malley’s budgets have grown 16 percent since he first took office in 2007. His FY 2012 budget featured one of the largest general fund spending increases in the nation, and his FY 2013 general fund general fund budget increases by nearly $1 million.

In fact, Governor O’Malley was so courageous that in his FY 2013 budget presentation—containing 38 Power Point slides—he never bothered to mention the $35.9 billion total budget figure. A profile in courage indeed!

So Mrs. O’Malley, if you’re looking for a coward try looking for the one in your own home.

Red Maryland Radio: 1-26-12

2012-01-26T23:59:00.002-05:00

Hope you caught this week's edition of Red Maryland Radio.

Listen to internet radio with redmaryland on Blog Talk Radio

On this week's show:

Governor O'Malley wants to tax bloggers? We talking bout the digital products tax with Jeff Quinton;
We discuss the developing race for National Committeewoman, with Greg sharing a great deal of thoughts about both declared candidates;
In speaking of the upcoming Spring State Party Convention, I note that the convention was scheduled as the same weekend as the upcoming Young Republican Leadership Conference, despite my best efforts (hint: I'm not happy).
And Greg has some Network Notes...

All that and a whole lot more this week. Be sure to listen Thursday nights at 8, on the Red Maryland Network.......and don't forget that you can subscribe to the Red Maryland Network on iTunes.

Red Maryland Radio Tonight

2012-01-26T17:15:00.000-05:00

This week's installment of Red Maryland Radio comes at you tonight at 8 PM

Tonight on the show:

Governor O'Malley wants to tax bloggers? We talking bout the digital products tax with Jeff Quinton;
We discuss the developing race for National Committeewoman;
How is the tenor of the Presidential Race going, as we head into another debate and the Florida primary?
And Greg has some Network Notes...

Be sure to listen tonight and every Thursday night at 8, on the Red Maryland Network.......and don't forget that you can subscribe to the Red Maryland Network on iTunes.

Audrey Scott Responds

2012-01-26T09:35:00.004-05:00

Former MDGOP Chair and candidate for National Committeewoman, Audrey Scott issued the following response to recent criticism of her attendance at a rally in support of raising taxes to to support increased infrastructure spending.

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

It has come to my attention that there is an effort underway to discredit and misrepresent my attendance at an event in Annapolis last week. I think it is important to tell you the facts of the situation.

Last Thursday there was a rally at Lawyers Mall to protest the perpetual raiding of the Transportation Trust Fund by Governors to benefit the State's general operating budget. Since our State requires a balanced budget, Governors have repeatedly raided the Trust Fund for cash (so they don’t have to cut the budget).

Unfortunately, Gov. O'Malley has not repaid the Trust Fund, instead he wants to use it's depletion as a gimmick to gain the public's approval to raise taxes. In other words, to use the revenue from the new taxes to fill up the Trust Fund (which he will then raid again and again and again).

Who suffers? We do. The Transportation Trust Fund is used to pay for road and bridge construction and repairs of which much goes directly to Counties and Municipalities. There has not been a new road or bridge project in the Transportation Trust Fund for 2 years, and every existing project in the Trust Fund has been pushed back indefinitely. Our State is now sitting on a ticking time bomb – to the tune of $1.5 billion in urgent road and bridge repairs.

As a former Mayor and County Councilwoman, I know firsthand that cessation of transportation projects in our state is 1) a public safety issue and 2) has driven multiple companies out of business and thousands of workers into unemployment.

Republicans in the Legislature are in the process of introducing legislation to enforce that Transportation Trust Fund dollars must be used to finance transportation projects. I strongly support this legislation.

My goal in attending the event was to support the Republican Trust Fund legislation. We must put the "Trust back in the Trust Fund."

Some people are stating that my support to put the "trust back in the Trust Fund" means that I support a gas tax. This is dishonest and wrong. I do not support tax increases. I support cutting the budget. Period.

Supporting the Trust Fund does not mean you support a gas tax. I reject these kind of "gotcha politics" and it has no place in our Party and has no place in the race for National Committeewoman.

Rather, we need to focus our attention on fighting the Democrats … not each other!

I will confront any distortions about my record or my actions head on and I welcome your phone call to answer any of your questions.

Sincerely,
Audrey E. Scott

I believe Audrey Scott does indeed oppose tax increases however, more context is needed.

Scott works for Chaney Enterprises, which bills itself as "one of the leading suppliers of construction materials and supplies in the Mid-Atlantic.”

No doubt Chaney Enterprises would benefit from any increased infrastructure spending resulting from a hike in the gas tax.

I personally like Audrey Scott. I thought she did yeoman’s work in what is the thankless task of MDGOP Chair. However, I spend quite a bit of time railing against business lobbying to get from government—at taxpayer expense—what they can’t in the free market. While Scott can reconcile the contradiction of her personal opposition to tax increases while simultaneously advocating in her employer’s interests for them, I cannot.

Just look at the murderers row of corporatists supporters of the gas tax increase who staged the rally Scott attended. Looking at you Maryland Chamber of Commerce, Greater Baltimore Committee, Greater Washington Board of Trade.

Sure these groups mask their objectives in the guise of “public-private partnerships," but they are merely a clever conceit for funneling more taxpayer money to politically connected private interests. See State Center and offshore wind.

Furthermore, GBC, GWBOT, and the Chamber are fooling themselves if they think the temple monkeys in Annapolis would ever wall off a pot full of cash they can raid to cover their profligate general fund spending.

Too many conservatives and Republicans forget, or are ignorant of the fact that being “pro-business” is not the same as being “pro-free market.” Remember big business loves big government.

Exposing the corporatist aspects of Maryland Democratic Party rule is a powerful tool we can use to show how they've made Maryland a lucrative a place for the politically connected few at the expense of the rest of us.

Scott says we need to "focus our attention on fighting Democrats." I agree, but it doesn't help the cause when she--intentionally or not--defuses one of our best arguments.

President Obama and the State of the Union: After the Moving Partisan Oratory, the Problems Remain

2012-01-25T10:19:00.017-05:00

--Richard E. Vatz

Barack Obama could have used his extraordinary elocutionary talents in last night’s State of the Union address last night to outline the policies he would embark on to solve the structural deficit and national debt crises that face our country, but he didn’t. He could have addressed the growing international problems we face with a diminishing military, but he didn’t.

Mitt Romney, the likely but no longer certain Republican nominee for president this year, in a speech ahead of the president’s accused Mr. Obama of making campaign speeches instead of substantively dealing with America’s problems.

That was prescient analysis.

President Obama used the uniquely powerful real estate of the State of the Union address mostly to reiterate that the country’s financial problems are due to obstructionist Republicans and the self-concerned wealthy.

He affected incredulity – why cannot these conservatives just focus on “The Mission.” That’s what troops do, he said – they serve “as one unit, serving one nation, leaving no one behind.” Contrasting the selflessness asked of Republicans (and rejected) to that requested of the U.S. SEAL team (and accepted), the president argued, when they got Osama bin Laden, it didn’t matter whether they were Democrats or Republicans: “All that mattered that day was the mission...no one thought about politics... the mission only succeeded because every member of that unit trusted each other...”

The president erroneously portrays political disagreement on how we accomplish the mission for the mission itself, which is fixing the economy. In one of his characteristically false analogues, people agreed on both the mission of getting bin Laden and the strategy of how to get him.

Regarding the economy, President Obama argued repeatedly that one of the solutions is that "everyone does their [sic] fair share” and that the issue is making “folks like me [pay] my fair share of taxes...”

The president argued that "Tax reform should follow the Buffett Rule. If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes."

The two-fold argument against this approach is that even if millionaires (often in presidential speeches conflated with the far more wealthy “billionaires”) paid the increases Obama wants on their income taxes, it would make only a tiny dent in the national debt over ten years, although the range of estimates are breathtaking. Moreover, such taxes, which hurt small businesses taxed as individuals, severely affect employment.

But the rhetorical point is that the president did not honestly engage the arguments of those who disagree with him. There was no discussion of entitlements, the $500 billion decrease in military budget, the 8.4% unemployment rate, and how presidential policies would significantly reduce such a number outside of government hiring. There was the usual non-specific recommendation to “Expand tax relief to small businesses that are raising wages and creating good jobs.” That seems like a restrictive clause, but no matter: it was short and unspecified.

The president uses as his touchstone for tax change the current situation for the payroll tax cut and the situation before the Bush era for eliminating “tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.” The former, which helps the 47% who pay no income tax, goes to fund Social Security, and the latter, which allows people to keep some of their own money, goes to the general fund. Why are the years of comparison relevant? You could -- and Democrats do -- point to the confiscatory taxes of the Eisenhower years and say “Look at the break the well-to-do are getting, as contrasted with that era.” But the fact that there is precedent for unfair policy does not make that policy a reasonable basis for comparison.

Comparisons and contrasts with prior policies are somewhat arbitrary, but that doesn’t stop the president from making them to favor his pro-government spending preferences.

The president confidently interpreted his foreign policy as yielding success, but this was not a long-term assessment. Withdrawal of troops is always an easy way to build a temporary peace. The instability of the war situations in Iraq and Afghanistan went unaddressed. The situation in the Mideast went unaddressed. Pakistan went unaddressed, except to say that al Qaeda is scrambling. Let me praise one presidential sentence on a crucial foreign policy issue: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal." Good, if he means it.

The issues of taxes, government spending and a strong foreign policy were not engaged as problems to be solved. President Obama’s State of the Union was a classic campaign speech with good guys, bad guys and rhetorical flourishes, without good substantive confronting of the long-term financial and foreign policy questions that face the United States.

It’s a pity, for after the partisan cheering dies down for the magical oratory, the problems remain.

Professor Vatz teaches political persuasion at Towson University and is author of The Only Authentic Book of Persuasion (Kendall Hunt, 2012)

The Broadside on 1090 at Night SOTU Reax

2012-01-24T20:37:00.002-05:00

Mark and Andrew will be on WBAL AM 1090 tonight with reaction to Obama's State of the Union speech. Red Maryland contributor Rick Vatz will join them.

Tune your radio dial to AM 1090 or listen on line at wbal.com

Reminder: The Jimmy Braswell Experience is Tonight

2012-01-24T17:54:00.001-05:00

The Jimmy Braswell Experience returns live tonight at 8 with Jimmy and Ethan.

Tonight, the guys discuss the South Carolina Primary. And Chuck Norris.

Listen in or watch live tonight at 8 PM.

Is this the way to win an election?

2012-01-24T11:41:00.000-05:00

Last night I was tipped off (h/t Richard Cross of Cross Purposes) to a Washington Post item regarding bipartisan support for the gas tax increase. Yes, you read that right - bipartisan.

It seems our Chamber of Commerce types have the misguided notion that increasing the gasoline tax will allow the state to fully fund transportation projects, but I ask of them: what planet are you living on again? This is Martin O'Malley's Maryland - we all know that the money is going to be spent on 1,001 items in the general fund and the rest will go to build more mass transit and bike paths we don't need.

Meanwhile, the victims of the War on Rural Maryland will have to once again pay through the nose perpetually, because as proposed by one possible scheme advanced by a state commission the gas tax isn't just going to go up a nickel each year in 2013, 2014, and 2015 - nope, it's going to be indexed afterward to a construction cost index. So as union demands get more and more brazen and the cost of construction climbs at a dizzying rate, so will the gas tax. Nice system if you can con people into believing the roads will actually get fixed.

But that wasn't really the reason why I brought this subject up - most who frequent this page know I'm not keen on raising taxes when there are so many other solutions to our fiscal woes available to us if we only had the courage to act in a responsible manner.

To continue, I'm simply going to borrow a quote from the Post piece, which is from the AP:

Former Maryland Republican Party chairwoman Audrey Scott also attended, agreeing with other supporters that infrastructure is the key to economic growth and jobs. Scott also accentuated the need to safeguard transportation money, which too often has been tapped by governors from several administrations to plug other budget holes.
"They can’t raid the money that’s coming into the Transportation Trust Fund,” Scott said. “It’s got to be there for transportation needs."

To be fair, Republicans are attempting in this session to put just such a safeguard on the TTF. But her presence at the rally would lead me to presume she doesn't mind this tax increase, undermining the vast majority of Republicans who will likely vote against it. (I say likely only because a number of General Assembly Republicans have sold us out before, some more than others.)

It's also worth pointing out that Audrey is a former Chair of the Maryland GOP who spent a year finishing out the unexpired four-year term of Jim Pelura, who resigned (read: was ousted by an unhappy Maryland Republican Executive Committee) in 2009 - she only took the position when asked and didn't seek it originally. But somehow I don't think Pelura would have graced the rally with his presence, nor would current Chair Alex Mooney.

Yet Scott is in the running to join Mooney in party leadership as a candidate for the state's National Committeewoman post which will be voted on at the party's spring convention; longtime officeholder Joyce Terhes decided not to seek re-election. As it stands at the moment, it is a two-woman race as Nicolee Ambrose, a former Chairwoman of the Young Republican National Federation, opposes Scott for the post. While both have ties to the so-called "establishment," Ambrose isn't out stating the case for a tax increase, either. This doesn't seem like a good move from someone as ostensibly politically savvy as Audrey Scott.

Moreover, in a time when we need Republicans to hold the line against the constant onslaught of state government prying deeper and deeper into our wallets and our liberties, making such an effort bipartisan only hurts the GOP. I'm certainly aware that, while business groups like the Chamber of Commerce are generally backed by Republicans, their aims aren't always aligned with the conservative cause. (One prime example on a national level is illegal immigration.) At a time when the TEA Party distrusts the party apparatus, having a member of the "establishment" waving a gas can with a dime in it to signify the extra tax - on top of everything else working families (what few there are these days) have to contend with - isn't going to make us a whole lot of friends.

Friends in high places are one thing, but friends in low places can get us the votes to win elections. Let's not get away from our fiscally conservative roots.

Crossposted on monoblogue.

Republican Floridian Debate: Brief Romney-Gingrich Clash Plus Gingrich Appeasement

2012-01-23T23:52:00.006-05:00

Republican Floridian Debate: Brief Romney-Gingrich Clash Plus Gingrich Appeasement

--Richard E. Vatz

Well, the anticipated Romney-Gingrich fireworks came early, but were not sustained. Those who wanted Romney to show more life were not disappointed, but those who may have wanted Gingrich to have emphasized more issues in his favor may have been disappointed. Gingrich defended himself with non-substantive ad hominem attacks – this time he repeatedly said in a variety of ways that Romney had mischaracterized him and his failures, but avoided the “L” word (liar). Had I been coaching the former Speaker, I would have focused more on Romneycare, but Gingrich might have been concerned that his early-on support of that program would hurt him in debate. It did come up again with Romney’s familiar refrain of the program’s alleged saving grace of not requiring national coverage. The wealth of non-medical coverage in Romneycare is just one more problematic element of his relatively unexamined Massachusetts health care.

But on the issue of Newt Gingrich’s lobbying or not lobbying (and whether it can properly be called “lobbying”) for Freddie Mac, Newt never tells anybody what he did for the money, the $300,000 he received.

Gingrich, after a moderate push-back, became the mellower Newt. In this softer persona, he incongruously tried to enlist Ron Paul, leaving the audience incredulous by saying that he and Paul are so close on federal reserve and monetary policy that they could enter into a coalition.

Forgive me for resurrecting an expression of decades ago, but “gag me with a spoon.”

The irreconcilability of Gingrich and Paul, to Gingrich’s credit, comprises national security, troop policy, foreign policy and even economic policy for the most part. Their unbridgeable differences became quite evident as the debate wore on, as they discussed policy on Iran, a crucial presidential issue. Incidentally, Gingrich and Paul may be the most polarized American candidates ever on Israeli policy since 1948, an issue that was not raised. Where was the moderator on this matter?

Speaking of the moderator’s responsibility, Brian Williams has been my least favorite moderator due to his cocky “The Debate is About Me” style, but he did slightly at least attenuate some of his more offensive moderator stylistics. He let the candidates speak without consistently interrupting them; he lessened his condescension; and he slightly, but only slightly, lessened his “Candidate X says you’re a liar; what do you think about that?” approach.

Issues, Mr. Williams – stay on the issues. But he was better – 5 more debates and he’ll be a decent moderator.

The other questioners, Adam Smith (I know; I know – the incredible irony; the participants knew it as well) and Beth Reinhard were fine.

Candidates Paul and Rick Santorum have become more inconsequential, but Santorum throughout has been as conversant with a wide range of domestic and foreign policy matters as any candidate I have seen. Santorum’s 18-point loss in his last Pennsylvania Senatorial race was brought up in a debate for the first time (by Williams), I believe, and he really had no answer for it, except that it was a bad year for Republicans and he stood his ground in that election.

The issues of the Keystone Pipeline, the Dream Act, a national language of English, Iran and implications should Castro die and several other foreign and domestic policy issues were brought up with little difference among the candidates. Oops…Paul dissented on celebrating Castro’s death – Newt and he disagreed on this, damaging their putative “coalition.”

In the end this observer does not believe that Newt Gingrich has any chance to be nominated by the Republican Party. Mitt Romney does, and it is his nomination to lose. That is a change from the perception just days ago that it was his going away.

Dr. Vatz teaches political rhetoric at Towson University and is author of The Only Authentic Book of Persuasion (Kendall Hunt, 2012); Vatz will be away for the final Florida Republican debate

The Broadside on WBAL AM 1090 Now

2012-01-23T21:00:00.000-05:00

Tune in now to WBAL AM 1090 or online http://www.wbal.com/ and listen to Broadside hosts Mark Newgent and Andrew Langer.

Daniel Bongino for U.S. Senate

2012-01-23T20:00:00.000-05:00

U.S. Senate Elections in Maryland are a tricky proposition. So rarely do we get a great shot as Republicans to win an election that it’s important that we nominate a good candidate with a good message and great enthusiasm. The closest Senate election that we have had in recent times was Michael Steele’s 2006 loss to Ben Cardin. And while we are far past the point of nominating candidates like the late Ross Pierpont, our other candidates since 2000 (the late Paul Rappaport, EJ Pipkin, Eric Wargotz) have all been stuck mired in the 30-percent range.

This year we are presented with a varying number of candidates, some of which are perennial contenders, some of which are extremely qualified and able candidates. The top two candidates in the race are Daniel Bongino and Richard Douglas. Both would bring a lot to the table as U.S. Senators

Richard Douglas has an interesting and diverse background. He enlisted in the Navy, went to college on the G.I. Bill, got a Master’s Degree, went to law school and became a Staff Counsel for the Stevedore’s Union. He became a reserve officer in the Navy, serving a tour at the Pentagon and a tour in Iraq. He joined the Foreign Service, worked for the U.S. Senate, and became a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, and started a Defense contracting company working in logistics. All in all, Richard Douglas has a long and distinguished career serving the people of this nation.

Daniel Bongino, as many of you know, has just as interesting and diverse background. Growing up poor in New York City, Bongino joined the New York Police Department. While simultaneously working on the force, he put himself through college at the City University of New York. From there, he joined the U.S. Secret Service, working his way through the ranks until he joined the Presidential Protection Detail. On the detail, he immediately worked his way to become a leader of the detail and a lead in planning Presidential Security for Presidential trips to dangerous locations such as Afghanistan and Indonesia. As has been well documented, Bongino left the service to pursue this race. In addition to his law enforcement experience, he has advanced degrees in both Psychology and Business Administration, as well as experience operating small businesses in diverse fields such as web design, sporting goods, and risk assessment. Bongino has a wealth of law enforcement and small business experience.

All of that being said, the difference between Bongino and Douglas boils down to their positions on the issues. In forums and on the stump, both men have focused on different aspects of their experience. Douglas has relied on his national security background, and many of his answers to questions will come back to security policy or energy policy; two areas that are closer to his professional experience. Bongino, in addition to his professional experience, is well-read on a multitude of economic subjects. He really understands the economic situation in our state, and has a number of creative and conservative solutions that will put people back to work.

The other thing differentiating Bongino and Douglas is energy. Richard Douglas, for all of his strengths, cannot match the energy that Bongino on the stump. Take a look at these brief remarks that he gave at October’s Tea Party rally in Annapolis:

He gets it. He really understands not only what it is like to be concerned about our economy, but also what it’s like to see the failure of big government social programs. In a state with such a huge Democratic population, in an election where the likely Democratic nominee is a 40-plus year public official, we need the kind of energy and enthusiasm that Bongino brings to the table. We need somebody who can bring the conservative message of hope and prosperity to the masses.

The editors of Red Maryland enthusiastically and unanimously endorse Daniel Bongino for U.S. Senate. We encourage you to visit www.bongino.com to find out how you can help him win the nomination and to elect him as a U.S. Senator we can be proud of.

The Broadside Tonight 7pm

2012-01-23T13:05:00.004-05:00

Tonight on The Broadside:

Andrew welcomes National Journal's Hotline, Amanda Carey to talk about the GOP presidential primary.

Ana Puig, founder of Kitchen Table Patriots and field coordinator for Freedomworks PA. Talking about Newt's surge in SC, and the Tea Party support of him, as well as what she's been up to.

All that and more on The Broadside 7pm on the Red Maryland Network.

Reminder: Mark and Andrew will be hosting 1090 at Night on WBAL tonight from 9-midnight

Guests include: Daily Caller columnist Matt Lewis, who will join us to talk about the GOP presidential primary horse race.

and

WBAL TV 11 news reporter and newly minted podcast host Lowell Melser, will talk with us about his new gig as cohost of The Marc and Lowell Show, part of the burgeoning Mike O'Mera media empire.

I'm on with Marc Steiner tonight

2012-01-23T04:44:00.000-05:00

I will be returning to The Marc Steiner Show tonight from 6-7 PM on WEAA 88.9 FM.

We'll be talking the South Carolina Primary results and the way forward in the Republican Primary contest, among other topics.

Tune in and check it out

Baltimore County Transgender Bill may open school curriculum to transgender agenda

2012-01-23T00:04:00.004-05:00

Baltimore County’s controversial Transgender Bill isn’t just a safety, privacy, and small business issue; it’s an education issue too.

Recently, I read an article on a push by the National Education Association (NEA) to substitute biological gender with “gender identity” (or perceived gender) in the nation’s schools. Please read the article here; it’s important to this discussion. I then read that California (O’Malley’s mentor) is currently considering exactly such a bill. See recommendations made on the issue by California’s Transgender Law Center here; it’s an eye opener especially towards the end.

Shortly thereafter, the Baltimore County transgender bill, Bill 3-12 “Human Relations”, was introduced by Councilman Tom Quirk and co-sponsored by Councilmen Oliver, Almond, and Bevins.

The bill adds sexual orientation and gender identity or expression to the list of protected classes already covered by the anti-discrimination law. Bill language can be viewed here.

The law covers discrimination in the following five areas:

Housing
Employment
Education
Public accommodation
Financing

However, no further definition or parameters are included in the bill language that would define possible ramifications of the law in these five areas. It’s even less defined than a similar law passed in Baltimore City, which sets parameters and exemptions to the above. Even our hyper-liberal city and its legislators thought it prudent to add parameters.

I began to suspect there may be an agenda behind the bill beyond what was being stated. My suspicions were strengthened during public testimony at Tuesday’s bill introduction last week.

Catherine Hyde, Transgender Coordinator of PFLAG Maryland (Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) said, “The point of the legislation is to trigger the education that is necessary so that the other workers and the school system will understand that our children are just very, very special snowflakes and part of God’s great diversity.”

Once it’s codified into law, that’s when the more radical lobbying begins. Why am I such a suspicious, conspiracy theorist? Follow the money, folks.

The NEA and its state arm, the MSEA, which is the state’s powerful teachers’ union, started making contributions to county Democrats in 2005. Since that time, the unions have contributed $10,800 to our four sponsoring councilmen and their campaign slates. This figure does not include any contributions made in the the past year, since campaign finance reports were due Jan. 18 and the data is not yet available online. (I will update the figures once they become available.) See list of contributions here.

Could it be possible that these councilmen feel some obligation to the agenda of the NEA/MSEA?

Need more evidence of a hidden radical agenda? In an amazing coincidence, The National Conference on LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans) Equality is being held this year in Baltimore - this week. The conference runs from January 25-29 at the Baltimore Hilton at 401 Pratt Street. Among the topics of discussion - “Gender Identity Legislation in Maryland: Transgender Community & Issues”, and “Princess Boys, Two Mommies, and You’re So Gay: Current Issues and LGBT Advocacy in Elementary Schools”. This is just a sampling of their agenda.

It’s quite likely that neither our councilmen nor the majority of supporters of the bill are aware of this possible hidden agenda - yet. It’s being passed off as a response to the brutal beating of a transgender at a Rosedale McDonalds last year. But after the bill gets passed, that’s when the more radical lobbying by the NEA and special interest LGBT groups will begin. It happens incrementally and under the radar. True agendas are revealed only when and to what extent it aids the agenda. It’s up to us to pay close attention and learn the tactics of the radical elements of our society.

The worst part of all is that the radical agenda hurts the cause being put forth by the sincere members of the bill’s support.

Let your councilmen hear from you. Join us at the public input hearing on Tuesday, Feb. 14 at 2pm in Council Chambers at 400 Washington Avenue in Towson. Please arrive by 1:30 to sign up to testify. For more info, please email me at defeatobama2012@comcast.net.

Also, email and call all seven councilmen. Their contact information can be found here.

FOR MORE INFO: Here is the link to my previous articles on this topic.

Returning Tomorrow: The Red Maryland Endorsements

2012-01-22T09:22:00.001-05:00

Many of you here are also readers over at Red State, which of course is a direct ancestor of our little site over here. One of the proud traditions over at Red State is that the Editors will make endorsements in contested Republican primaries to work to ensure the election of candidates that are best suited to represent conservative interests, usually as members of Congress in Washington.

As we did in 2010, the Editors of Red Maryland will also begin rolling out endorsements of Republican candidates in Republican primaries.

Our endorsements will be candidates who are unanimously endorsed by the Editors; no split decisions on these endorsements. We will articulate why we support those candidates. And we will encourage you to act to help these candidates succeed in the primary election on April 3rd.

The candidates we pick are the candidates we want to help move Maryland forward.

In 2010 we endorsed 10 candidates, eight of whom went out to win their primaries, including such folks as Delegates Mike Hough, Tony McConkey, and Justin Ready.

So, keep your eyes peeled. Because the first endorsement will be announced at 8:00 PM tomorrow.....

Pat McDonough is a Doofus, and other things you already knew

2012-01-21T10:22:00.002-05:00

I've been trying to avoid pointing out the obvious, but this story, as reported by Lutherville-Timonium Patch, continues to grow legs. Or scurry around, take your pick:

Del. Pat McDonough says a bill he plans to introduce will protect Maryland's borders—this time against rats.

McDonough, a Middle River Republican more known for his stands on immigration issues, said his bill will prevent Washington, DC from exporting vermin to Maryland under a 2010 wildlife protection bill. But the law may not be everything McDonough thinks it is.

"My bill is an anti-rat trafficking bill," said McDonough.

McDonough's concerns arise from a bill he said was passed in Washington, DC that prevents the killing of rats. Instead, the law requires wildlife (including rats) be treated humanely and relocated "along with their families" to another area.

"I'm protecting the borders again, this time from illegal rats," McDonough said. "I'm very concerned about my friends in Prince George's and Montgomery counties. They're on the front lines of this."

McDonough said his bill would prevent DC from sneaking their rats across the border into Maryland's suburbs and eating our government cheese.

I'm almost speechless that we're even talking about trafficking in illegal rats. But here we are. The idea is even more ridiculous when McDonough's bill addresses issues that are not addressed by the DC bill, according to WTOP. So McDonough is wasting taxpayer money even bringing this issue up in the first place.

Mind you this is par for the course with Pat McDonough, to do something inanely ridiculous in order to get his name in the newspaper. I mean after all, we're talking about a guy who:

Floated his name for Governor briefly in 2009
Sent his flunky Sue Payne under an assumed name to disparage Dan Bongino on the June 2nd episode of Red Maryland Radio, then continued the line of attack on the June 9th episode;
Attempted to take a lot of credit for the DREAM Act petition drive, when most of the heavy lifting was done by Delegate Neil Parrott and his team;
Announced he was running for Congress, then that he was running for U.S. Senate, putting out this hilarious press release, said he wasn't running, put out a flier saying he was running, then disparaged State Senator Nancy Jacobs and her Congressional run, threatened to run against her, and then didn't.

Face it. Pat McDonough is a doofus. You know it. I know it. He probably knows it.

He's a third-rate elected official whose ego is not commiserate with the noticeably lacking intellectual capacity.

He is ineffective, even for those constituents that he is theoretically elected to serve.

He continues to announce that he is exploring to run for higher and higher offices without having the guts to actually follow through with it, while still being offended when other people don't seek his permission to run for office (or, as Mark summed up, “Everybody else put you plans on hold, because I ‘m the most relevant politician I’ve ever met.”).

He continues to consistently be an embarrassment to his district, the Republican Party, and the body to which he was elected.

If Pat McDonough really wants, for once in his life, to do right by his state, his party, and the ideals that he supposedly believes in, he needs to go away. Because our side is not helped by his continuance in office.

Final Republican Debate in South Carolina: Intensity Overload; Still No Surprises

2012-01-19T22:58:00.010-05:00

--Richard E. Vatz

Well, no one can say it was boring, as the number of viable candidates diminishes and conservatives Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich find the need to trash each other and candidates Ron Paul and Mitt Romney as well to have a chance at the Republican nomination.

The CNN choice not to use arguably the best moderator so far, Wolf Blitzer, was an inexplicable mistake. Maybe the network, per its own values, abjures a meritocracy and chose King, another very smart network personage with flawed judgment. More on that later.

Gingrich and Santorum hit Romney on his changes in position, while the latter defended his own inconsistency on opposition to right-to-work laws in Pennsylvania as due to Pennsylvania’s population’s perceived requirements. How is that different from Romney’s support of some left-of-center positions due to the voting realities of Massachusetts?

A lot of ground was covered, to give CNN’s debate its due.

Obamacare and Romneycare were debated with some questions remaining regarding the latter program’s private component. There are some aspects of Romneycare that are indefensible about which he is never asked, such as the complete psychiatric coverage afforded by the plan. This is from a Romney supporter. Still, he has made, and he made again, a credible argument regarding material differences from Obamacare in the state’s providing for the poor as opposed to mandatory federal coverage.

There were personal attacks on Gingrich’s representation of his political history consistency and effectiveness. There were attacks on Romney and Bain (and, as noted, his alleged mind-changing), but no new ground was broken. It was again evident as well that no one on the stage thinks of Ron Paul as a serious candidate.

The one peculiar weakness left unexploited is Rick Santorum’s claim of his tremendous electoral success in Pennsylvania against the great tides of liberalism there. He said he showed he could defeat a liberal incumbent. Santorum lost his last race in Pennsylvania by 18 points – 18 points! Why did no one bring this up?

Some good, serious points were made concerning the bill to punish piracy on the web. There were not major differences among the candidates on this (or several other matters), with a consensus that governmental control of the Internet was not a good idea -- not surprisingly conservative.

There was another waste of time on pushing the candidates to reveal their taxes. An audience member made this even more salient. No one argued why this is a pressing issue, and no one knows why it is important to have audience members ask questions. By the way, who chooses these questioners?

On the moderating of John King, again, a smart guy: why in the world would he open up the final South Carolina presidential debate by focusing on Gingrich’s ex-wife’s claim about his marital irregularities? Gingrich gave him Debate Hell: he said he was “appalled” and it was “close to despicable” to begin a significant debate that way, closing with the statement that he was “tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama.” Romney appropriately dismissed the topic, saying, “Let’s get on to the real issues; that’s all I gotta say.”

It was an embarrassment for CNN, which is not to say they were or will be embarrassed.

The fact is that most of CNN is left and pro-Obama, but they are usually less clumsy than was King at the debate’s start.

Any observers who thought they learned something they didn’t know regarding the candidates haven't been paying attention. Once again, the candidates were true to form philosophically, policy-wise, and even temperamentally, if you add equal amounts of intensity to each.

The question is which one can most likely beat Barack Obama, and to answer anyone but Mitt Romney means again that such an observer hasn’t been paying attention.

Professor Vatz teaches political rhetoric at Towson University and is author of The Only Authentic Book of Persuasion (Kendall Hunt, 2012)

Red Maryland Radio: 1-19-12

2012-01-19T21:20:00.000-05:00

Hope you caught this week's edition of Red Maryland Radio.

On the show:

Mark Newgent joins us to discuss the O'Malley Budget;
State Sen. Bryan Simonaire is again pushing to bring us an elected School Board here in Anne Arundel County; and,
Daryl Jones removal from the Anne Arundel County Council;

Listen to internet radio with redmaryland on Blog Talk Radio

All that and a whole lot more this week. Be sure to listen Thursday nights at 8, on the Red Maryland Network.......and don't forget that you can subscribe to the Red Maryland Network on iTunes.

Reminder: Red Maryland Radio Tonight

2012-01-19T16:30:00.001-05:00

Just a reminder that Red Maryland Radio comes at you tonight at 8 PM

Tonight, Greg and I will discuss:

The O'Malley Budget;
O'Malley has been campaigning against Mitt Romney in South Carolina; what does it mean for Maryland?
Daryl Jones removal from the Anne Arundel County Council;

Be sure to listen this and every Thursday night at 8, on the Red Maryland Network.......and don't forget that you can subscribe to the Red Maryland Network on iTunes.

Would You Like More Kerosene With Your Straw Men Governor?

2012-01-19T09:17:00.003-05:00

Governor O'Malley released the ahem "details" of his $35.9 billion FY 2013 budget yesterday.

During the Q&A session, WBAL Radio's Robert Lang asked O'Malley about the discrepancy between the data that shows his budgets have increased 16% and his claim to have cut the budget. A question no reporter had bothered to ask him since he started making the claim.

Instead of answering the question O'Malley proceeded to do what he does best--burn straw men.

Classic Martin O'Malley.

It is interesting to note that O'Malley never referenced the $35.9 blllion figure in his presentation. Reporters had to wait until they received the budget book to learn that number.

The total budget increased by $1.7 billion over FY 2012.

With this budget, O'Malley has increased spending by $6.5 billion in real dollars or 22% since he first took office in 2007.

Also, O'Malley's budget presentation claims to have cut general fund spending by $56 million. However, buried in the data (bottom of pg. 97) from his own Department of Budget and Management shows a general fund spending increase of nearly $950,000, an increase of 6.4% over FY 2012.

Funny how the more O'Malley spends, the more he claims to have cut.

Red Maryland Radio: Special Tweetup Edition

2012-01-18T20:57:00.000-05:00

If you didn't catch the live airing of the Tweetup Edition of Red Maryland Radio, taped at Two Rivers Steak House in Pasadena.

Listen to internet radio with redmaryland on Blog Talk Radio

All that and a whole lot more this week. Be sure to listen Thursday nights at 8, on the Red Maryland Network.......and don't forget that you can subscribe to the Red Maryland Network on iTunes.

Red Maryland Tweet Up Episode Tonight 8pm

2012-01-18T18:40:00.002-05:00

Check out the special Red Maryland Tweet Up episode taped live at the Red Maryland Tweet Up at the Two Rivers Steak and Fish House.

Red Maryland Radio, The Broadside, and the Jimmy Braswell Experience all wrapped up into one ridiculous podcast.

An episode you don't want to miss.

Tune in to the Red Maryland Network tonight at 8pm.

Ratifying a Myth

2012-01-18T10:00:00.000-05:00

A Maryland Democratic state lawmaker wants Maryland to finally ratify the 17th amendment—direct election of senators.

"It's time for all friends of the 17th Amendment to stand up and be counted," said state Sen. Jamie Raskin, a constitutional law professor who plans to introduce legislation this week to ratify the amendment…

Raskin sees parallels between the fight mounted 100 years ago by progressives who pushed the amendment as a way of preventing big businesses from buying senators through their state legislators and today's debate about the influence of corporate money in political campaigns
"We are dealing with a lot of the same issues that come out of mixing money and politics," Raskin said. "We should reaffirm the work of our forebears who prevailed over corporations."

Prevailed over corporations? Or just exacerbated the very problem they ostensibly sought to remedy.

Campaign finance data for Maryland’s two current directly elected senators appears to burst the bubble of good professor Raskin’s progressive sanctimony.

According to Open Secrets, the top campaign contributors to Barbara Mikulski include Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Constellation Energy, Honeywell, General Motors, Raytheon and Boeing, and of course the ubiquitous unions and trial lawyers.

Ben Cardin’s top contributors (including his time in the House of Representatives) include large health insurance companies--weren’t they opposed to Obamacare?--Goldman Sachs, Ernst & Young, MetLife, and same as Mikulski labor unions and trial lawyers.

Remember big business loves big government.

Senator Raskin should spend less time trying to calling up the ghosts of progressivism’s past and more focused on fixing the problems he and the rest of the movement’s contemporaries have wrought on our state.

Reminder: The Jimmy Braswell Experience is Tonigh

2012-01-17T17:13:00.000-05:00

The Jimmy Braswell Experience returns live on it's normal night tonight at 8 with Jimmy and Ethan

Listen in or watch live tonight at 8 PM.

Penultimate South Carolina Republican Debate: No Major Changes; No Real Surprises; Panelists Excellent

2012-01-16T23:45:00.016-05:00

--Richard E. Vatz

The one thing about presidential debates that has been true, whether primary or general election clashes since their inception in 1960, is that they generally offer diminishing returns. This, the mid-teens of debates in the presidential primary season, was no exception, except that there were slight emendations in intensity, at least for this viewer.

Everyone was true to form, except that we had excellent questioners this time around.

Mitt Romney seemed the most fluent, the least threatened and the most presidential. He avoided the frontrunner’s general weakness of playing prevent defense. If you watched Mitt in any of the debates, he is consistent, not adjusting his demeanor per the debate, as was done, for example, in the disastrous personality changes effected by Al Gore between debates in 2000. No major surprises, but his assurance that he will likely release his tax returns by April was reassuring. Finally the fight about Gingrich-Romney dueling misrepresentations in super PAC advertisements was put to rest when he asked Newt Gingrich if he (Gingrich) agreed that nothing could legally be done to affect their errant messages, and Gingrich…agreed!

Gingrich, slightly mollified from the angry candidate who had changed first from the calm, accepting candidate who abjured personal attacks, is always effective when he attacks the liberal Obama Administration’s naïve progressive policies, such as the president’s maximizing “dependency.” His attacks on Ron Paul, such as for his analogizing Osama bin Laden to Chinese dissidents, were spot-on but reminiscent of the old cliché about shooting fish in a barrel.

Paul gave the most convoluted and rambling answer to a question in the history -- including Ronald Reagan’s first debate in 1984 -- of presidential debates or perhaps any national debates when asked whether he supported the United States’ going after bin Laden. People get nervous and distracted in debates, but I believe he just cannot articulate his opposition in a way that any general American audience would find palatable.

Rick Santorum, once again, the keeper of the conservative values flame, talked about the Democratic rejection of the lifestyle which brings success in the American dream, as articulated by the (surprise!) Brookings Institute: at least completing high school, working full-time and not having children out of wedlock.

Rick Perry was once again clear and articulate, if not eloquent. His attack on President Obama’s alleged war on organized religion was quite effective. But Perry's race is over. He did so badly early on that he just cannot recover. Advice: don’t enter national debates until you are ready. Not profound advice, but generally true.

Finally, the questioners were all excellent, the first time that has been true but for Wolf Blitzer’s superintending of one of these debates. No one felt the need to be a “personality,” and Bret Baier, Juan Williams, Gerald Seib and Kelly Evans were all-substance, importantly substantive with excellent follow-ups, and smoothly fair to all participants – quite a feat.

Outcome: sorry, those who don’t want to hear it, but it is Mitt Romney’s race to lose, and he’s not going to lose it.

Prof. Vatz teaches political rhetoric at Towson University and is author of The Only Authentic Book of Persuasion (Kendall Hunt, 2012)

The Broadside 7pm Tonight

2012-01-16T17:27:00.003-05:00

Tonight on The Broadside

The controversial Suhail Kahn joins Andrew and Mark to discuss the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr.

J. Doug Gill will be on in the second half hour to talk about the just commenced Maryland General Assembly legislative session

The guys will talk about Mark's piece below on maintenance of effort education spending mandates.

And a fan of the show calls in to take her lumps after the Washington Capitals defeated the Pittsburgh Penguins last week.

Tune in tonight at 7pm on The Red Maryland Network

Maintenance of Banality

2012-01-16T07:04:00.022-05:00

With all the predictability of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, Maryland’s teacher’s unions are caterwauling about the seven counties that are not meeting their maintenance of effort funding requirements under the state’s Thornton education funding mandates.

Education advocates and state leaders say that school funding cuts by nearly one-third of the state's 24 local jurisdictions will undermine progress at public schools that have been repeatedly ranked as the nation's best. Class sizes are rising, teachers are not getting the support they need, and school buildings are not being well maintained, said interim state school Superintendent Bernard Sadusky.

"Parents should be outraged. The direct impact that this should have on children is devastating," said Bob Rankin, a lobbyist for the Maryland State Education Association, a teachers union.

County governments, which have suffered under difficult economic times, are interpreting the law that requires them to maintain the same per-pupil spending from year to year differently. Local officials contend that changes made during the final days of last year's General Assembly session, and a state school board legal opinion issued in May, allow them to dip far below funding levels required…

But General Assembly leaders, angered by the stance of some county governments, are seeking to change the law this session. "The counties aren't doing their fair share," said Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr., a Prince George's County Democrat.

Miller said he intends to make sure the law mandates that local governments can't decrease school funding. He said that he and House Speaker Michael E. Busch, an Anne Arundel County Democrat, both have "strong" opinions about the need for counties to maintain funding…

"The question is what value are you going to place on education," Sadusky said. In some counties, he said, governments have reduced some tax rates during good economic times as state education funding increased. Now, he said, the question is whether those leaders will raise taxes to fully fund schools.

Will these cuts be “devastating” as Mr. Rankin says? No. A look at the 2011 Maryland School Assessment data suggests he is merely repeating the old banality that more money in equals better results out.

The charts below show that there is no huge difference in Reading, Math and Science achievement—as measured by the MSAs—between the seven counties not meeting MOE requirements and the other 17 school systems.

Queen Anne’s, my home county, is spending $600 less per-pupil, yet MSA data shows its school system produces a higher percentage of proficient, and advanced students in reading, math and science.

The liberal Center for American Progress ranked Queen Anne’s schools high on their Return on Investment rankings noting:

To understand better how our Basic ROI Index works in practice, consider Maryland. We first ranked the state’s 24 districts along our achievement index. That put districts with relatively high achievement, such as Queen Anne’s County Public Schools, in the top achievement tier. (Queen Anne’s County has an achievement index of 87 and ranks sixth in the state on that measure). Districts with relatively low achievement, such as Dorchester County Public Schools, went into the bottom achievement tier. (Dorchester County has an achievement index of 72 and ranks third from the bottom on this measure.)

Then we looked at each district’s adjusted spending. Dorchester County had high adjusted spending, and so it went into the highest adjusted spending tier. (Dorchester’s adjusted per-student spending is $10,462 and ranks 17th out of 24 districts on this measure.) Queen Anne’s County had relatively low adjusted spending, and so it went into the lowest adjusted spending tier. (Queen Anne’s adjusted per-student spending is $8,648 and ranks seventh in the state on this measure…)

Queen Anne’s County had high achievement and low adjusted spending, and so it received a green rating. Dorchester had low achievement and high adjusted spending, and so it received a red rating.

Remember, Queen Anne's already raised property and income taxes last year to cover a FY 2012 budget deficit.

So why shouldn’t counties facing severe budget constraints be allowed to spend less on education—their largest budget line item—especially if they’re producing good results?

Red Maryland Radio: 1-12-2012

2012-01-12T21:27:00.000-05:00

Hope you caught this week's edition of Red Maryland Radio .

On the show:

Delegate Michael Hough and Justin Ready on the General Assembly Session, taxes, flush fee, and redistricting;
The Primary Election filing deadline, including the 6th District, and how many times can Brian call Pat McDonough gutless in five minutes
The Cardin/Muse Endorsement debacle for the Democrats

Listen to internet radio with redmaryland on Blog Talk Radio

All that and a whole lot more this week. Be sure to listen Thursday nights at 8, on the Red Maryland Network.......and don't forget that you can subscribe to the Red Maryland Network on iTunes.

Reminder: Red Maryland Radio is Tonight!

2012-01-12T17:31:00.001-05:00

Just a reminder that Red Maryland Radio comes at you tonight at 8 PM

In celebration of the start of the Maryland General Assembly session this week, Greg and I will be talking to two of our esteemed Red Maryland Caucus members; Delegate Mike Hough and Delegate Justin Ready.

Greg and I will also talk bout the Presidential Election, State Senator Anthony Muse's rage against the machine, and various other subjects.

Be sure to listen this and every Thursday night at 8, on the Red Maryland Network.......and don't forget that you can subscribe to the Red Maryland Network on iTunes.

Republican Gov. Haley Barbour: Despicably and Indefensibly Putting Innocent Lives at Risk

2012-01-12T12:53:00.007-05:00

--Richard E. Vatz

Lest you think that all the worst abuses of governmental power are committed by liberal Democrats, take a look at the reprehensible action by Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour as he left office. The Christian Science Monitor sums it up this way: "Outgoing Gov. Haley Barbour (R) gave reprieves to 208 inmates, including 14 convicted murderers, prompting Democratic legislators to reintroduce a bill that would curb pardon powers."

According to The New York Times, Gov. Barbour has granted pardons; some for those who had already left prison, to keep said information from future employers; and four for those who had committed murder and "had worked at the Governor's mansion." The four murderers Barbour released are David Gatlin, Joseph Ozment, Charles Hooker and Anthony McCray. Gatlin's release, according to CNN, "has intensified fears that the man will try 'to finish what he started,' one of his surviving victims said. 'I feel like my safety is in jeopardy,' Randy Walker, who was shot and wounded by Gatlin, said Wednesday. 'I wonder if he's going to finish what he's started.' Gatlin walked into a trailer in 1993 where his estranged wife, Tammy Ellis, lived and shot her in the head as she held their 6-week-old baby in her arms. She died of her wounds. Walker, the woman's friend, survived a gunshot wound to the head."

Sounds like a good candidate for assuming that rehabilitation has taken place.

The release of the murderers has been stayed by a circuit judge pursuant to Democratic State Attorney General Jim Hood's claim in court that the pardons were illegally effected.

What is Barbour's defense? According to The Washington Post, it was that "Most of the inmates had already completed their sentences." That is certainly reassuring.

Barbour, who has been on the Great Mentioner's (Russell Baker's great concept of decades past) lists for possible presidential consideration, has had in the past strange behavior that no reasonable American could fathom: according to the Huffington Post, he credited his state's White Citizen's Council for being a bulwark against the KKK. I suppose analogously that Nazi Germany's fostering the Judenräte should be given credit for enhancing Jewish employment in the late 1930s and 1940s.

When good conservatives rail against the blithe lack of concern for public safety and the "bleeding heart" judges and juries that couldn't care less about the release into the public of evil, violent miscreants, they must realize that such criminal diffidence does not inhere in liberals only.

Barbour knows none of those released will ever pose a threat to him.

As Hood accurately concludes, the ex-governor has leveled "a slap in the face to everyone in law enforcement and Gov. Barbour should be ashamed."

And conservatives should be embarrassed.

Prof. Vatz teaches Persuasion at Towson University and is author of The Only Authentic Book of Persuasion (Kendall Hunt, 2012)

Martin O'Malley Admits He's Gutless

2012-01-12T12:33:00.004-05:00

Governor O'Malley or his clueless twitter drone tweeted this gem earlier today

Given that we know O'Malley's budgets have only increased--his claims of cuts are pure fiction--then we'll take this tweet as public admission he is indeed gutless.

Persistent Increasing Achievement Gaps= #1 School System

2012-01-12T09:05:00.006-05:00

As sure as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, Maryland’s public rulers are crowing about the state’s number one ranking by Education Week, to justify our multibillion dollars in education spending.

For the fourth year in a row, Maryland public schools have come out on top on the annual state-by-state report card published by Education Week magazine.
Maryland earned its top place with an overall B+ grade, compared to a C average for the nation as whole.

BUT

Maryland public schools again did not place first on the measure of student achievement. This year, it came in third place after Massachusetts and New Jersey with a score of 83.9 — two points below Massachusetts. Student performance only counts for one sixth of the grade on the Education Week report card.

Achievement plus other factors, like socio-economic factors, teacher pay and education spending are factored in to the scores.

A true measure of a school system should be how well it educates all of its students, especially in a state that is constitutionally mandated to provide a "thorough and efficient system of Free Public Schools.”

Unfortunately, a look at the data shows that Maryland’s highly touted number one ranking (and the billions we pay for it) masks a system that produces persistent and ever increasing achievement gaps, and churns out high school graduates who need remedial math and English when they get to college.

We pay $6 billion annually for increasing achievement gaps between wealthy and poor students, and minorities and White students.

If Maryland is number one, then I’d hate to see what last place looks like.

Red Maryland Radio Tonight

2012-01-12T04:44:00.000-05:00

Red Maryland Radio comes at you tonight at 8 PM

In celebration of the start of the Maryland General Assembly session this week, Greg and I will be talking to two of our esteemed Red Maryland Caucus members; Delegate Mike Hough and Delegate Justin Ready.

Greg and I will also talk bout the Presidential Election, State Senator Anthony Muse's rage against the machine, and various other subjects.

Be sure to listen this and every Thursday night at 8, on the Red Maryland Network.......and don't forget that you can subscribe to the Red Maryland Network on iTunes.

The Jimmy Braswell Experience: 1/11/12

2012-01-11T21:19:00.001-05:00

Hope you caught this week's Jimmy Braswell's Experience. Take a look or a listen...

Listen to internet radio with redmaryland on Blog Talk Radio

All that and a whole lot more this week. Be sure to listen to Jimmy Tuesday nights at 8, on the Red Maryland Network.......and don't forget that you can subscribe to the Red Maryland Network on iTunes.

Reminder: The Jimmy Braswell Experience is Tonigh

2012-01-11T18:19:00.001-05:00

The Jimmy Braswell Experience returns live tonight with Jimmy, Ethan and Craig.

Tonight, the gang discusses the New Hampshire Primary, among other topics...

Listen in or watch live tonight at 8 PM.

2012 Maryland General Assembly Legislative Session Preview

2012-01-11T05:00:00.002-05:00

The Maryland General Assembly, or as my friend Doug Gill likes to call it the Cistern on the Severn, kicks off its 2012 legislative session today. Here is a run down of the big issues, and how I see things playing out.

The Budget

Maryland faces a $1 billion budget deficit for FY 2013. Governor O’Malley has said he favors a “balanced approach”, which is code for tax increases. O’Malley has foisted the fiction—with almost no accountability from the press—that he has cut over $6 billion in budget cuts. In reality the entire state budget has increased by 16 percent since he took office. O’Malley increased general fund spending by 11 percent one of the largest increases in the nation.

Maryland has a spending problem and the data bears this out. Since 1997 Maryland general fund spending increased 97 percent, while revenue increased by only 78 percent.

Don’t expect any real budget cuts, just more phantom cuts, which are just reductions to the planned increases. Spending will go up along with and taxes.

Taxes

Expect hikes in the gas tax and the flush tax.

Proceeds from the enhanced gas tax will ostensibly go to pay for O’Malley’s infrastructure stimulus plan. Yet Maryland’s own dismal experience with the federal stimulus plan shows the minimal impact on the state’s economy. Note to O’Malley: you only have yourself to blame for raiding the transportation trust fund to the tune of $861 million.

Doubling the flush tax will supposedly replenish funds needed to upgrade sewer plants. If only O’Malley and the Democrats hadn’t raided the Bay Restoration Fund to cover their general fund spending deficits.

Also, substantial property tax hike may be in the cards to keep up with O’Malley’s increase in debt spending and policy of replacing the cash raids on the capital budget to cover his general fund deficits.

Vinny DeMarco—stooge for Big Tobacco—is seeking another dollar hike cigarette tax. We need a higher sin tax on smokes because the last one worked so swimmingly that it brought in tens of millions of dollars less than projected, nurtured the black market for cigarettes, and led Maryland smokers to buy their smokes across state lines.

Education funding—the largest portion of the budget and main driver of the structural deficit—will continue to increase. Marylanders will continue to spend more money on our “number one” school system in return for ever-increasing achievement gaps, and churning out high school graduates, who need remedial math and English when they get to college.

Plan Maryland

Several legislators have filed bills to put the brakes on O’Malley’s Plan Maryland power grab. We’ll see whether there is enough bipartisan support to stop it. Remember, as a comparison between Texas and Maryland shows, markets are superior to central planning.

O’Malley is also reigniting his ill-conceived push to ban new septic systems.

Plan Maryland is the stick central planners need to coerce local governments to implement Smart Growth policies. Without state coercion, Smart Growth doesn’t work because developers respond to the demands of the market. Producers, responding to consumers needs, in a free market, is just not something O’Malley and the technocrats can allow in this “One Maryland.”

O’Malley says he doesn’t want the state subsidizing “stupid decisions.” Yet, in the end, taxpayers will end up subsidizing the unintended consequences O’Malley’s stupid decisions.

Offshore Wind

Conventional wisdom seems to say O’Malley’s offshore wind boondoggle is running into stiffer headwinds. Yet O’Malley’s new tack will be to back door the corporatist boondoggle through his hand picked appointees on the Public Service Commission. The idea is to set up a credit trading system—much like his renewable portfolio standard scam—for the potential wind power. Ratepayers still get stuck subsidizing a costly, inefficient form of energy, for the benefit of O’Malley cronies.

Gay Marriage

The measure failed to make it out of the House of Delegates last session, but O’Malley is backing it this time around. If it passes the Assembly—which is still not a certainty—look for a referendum petition to put same sex marriage before the voters. Imagine a November ballot with Barack Obama, the DREAM Act, and gay marriage.

Transparency and Ethics

There will be a lot of talk, but not much action, as the powers that be will eschew real reform in favor of window dressing.

As the late, great, Ron Smith once said, “all we can do is bend over, and await the denouement.”

Democrats on Defense

2012-01-10T19:40:00.000-05:00

As Martin O'Malley and company are about to launch a legislative session that looks to bring us historic spending and tax increases, the Democrats are still on defense from their endorsement of Senator Cardin that I reported on Saturday.

The Gazette reported yesterday that the tweets "don't reflect an endorsement":

The tweets weren’t meant to be endorsements of Cardin, but rather a promotion of Baker’s comments, said state Democratic communicationss director Matthew Verghese.
“The party strongly stands behind the records and the accomplishments of our sitting elected Democratic officials,” Verghese said.
The party isn’t taking sides, Verghese said, but is obligated to recognize the work of elected officials already in office.

Which is a very interesting way to deflect blame for the fact that they got caught. The tweets certainly didn't go unnoticed by State Senator Anthony Muse, Cardin's primary challenger, who also managed to be left off of the bill of the Maryland Democratic Party luncheon today:

Muse (D-Prince George’s), who last week announced a primary challenge to U.S. Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), had sat quietly through the speaking program at a luncheon put on by the Maryland Democratic Party that drew several hundred people.

Cardin got his turn at the microphone, as did several other high-profile Democrats, including Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) and House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) — both of whom implored the crowd to help re-elect Cardin this year, among other things.

Muse begged those who remained to listen to him “just out of respect.”

“Only after the primary do we endorse those that the people have said is our Democratic nominee,” he said after the music was cut off.

Most people continued toward the exits.

The Democrats are playing defense right now because they take their base for granted. The Maryland Democratic establishment has endorsed the white establishment candidate Ben Cardin as the preferred candidate over an African-American candidate (Muse). It makes it look like that the Democrats are taking the African-American vote for granted. And that's because they are. They believe that there are no repercussions for, as a party, endorsing the white candidate in violation of their own bylaws.

It's a sad statement about the modern Democratic Party here in Maryland....

The Jimmy Braswell Experience will air tomorrow

2012-01-10T17:50:00.000-05:00

Jimmy Braswell is under the weather. Ergo, The Jimmy Braswell Experience will air this week tomorrow, Wednesday at 8 PM.

Charticle: Texas miracle vs Plan Maryland

2012-01-10T08:58:00.003-05:00

Kevin Waterman joined us on The Broadside radio program last night (listen here) to give us his unique criticism of Plan Maryland--a three-part series he did over at Questing for Atlantis

From part 3 of his series.

First and foremost, I want to address the claims that government planning of land use policy is a necessary component of an orderly society and a functioning economy. Anybody who claims that is either lying or ignorant.
I know it’s a strong claim, but it’s a true one and we can know that because it’s been tried. Not only was it tried, it worked and has continued to work. Where you ask? Texas.
For all the talk of the “Texas miracle” on employment numbers, the real Texas miracle is in land use policy. In the Lone Star State counties are prohibited, by force of law, from implementing zoning codes and the state has shown no real interest in implementing anything of the sort at the statewide level. In fact, the only areas that have zoning controls in Texas are municipalities, and not even all of them have zoning codes.
And how has that turned out? In two words, quite well. By severely limiting the capacity of the government to plan land use policy Texas has ensured that it has a highly elastic housing supply that responds to shifts in the market faster and more efficiently than it did in other states. This in turn has had several positive impacts.
As former Center for American Progress staffer Matt Yglesias has observed, when government refused to use land policy controls to artificially limit the housing supply it resulted in much more affordable housing opportunities. Those prices helped draw people to Texas and thus ensure a better economy and lower unemployment through increased population growth:
What differentiates Texas from the rest of the United States isn’t an immunity to recessions, it’s a systematically higher population growth rate. That gap predates President Obama, predates the recession, and it predates Rick Perry, so I don’t think it tells us anything about any of those things. It’s driven, I believe, by proximity to Mexico and relatively cheap housing. This is to Texas’ credit. National living standards would be higher if the Los Angeles, San Jose, San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland MSAs along with the whole Acela corridor from Boston to Washington would adopt more robust Texas-style policies to increase the housing stock.
In addition to the key benefit of allowing the economy to grow, a lack of land use policy has also helped to insulate the Texas economy from the volatility that has rocked the rest of the country.
The above chart is the FHA’s Housing Price Index for Texas and Maryland running from 1992-2011. As you can see, Texas fared far better than my own state; by allowing the market to set the housing supply rather than government Texas largely avoided both the real estate bubble and the inevitable crash that followed when it popped. The evidence is clear – it is not returning control of land use policy to land owners that puts our economy in the hands of property speculators, it’s putting the control in government hands that threatens to derail our economy.

READ the whole thing.

The Broadside 1-9-12

2012-01-10T08:42:00.004-05:00

Hope you caught another exciting episode of The Broadside.

Delegate Kelly Schulz previewed the 2012 Maryland General Assembly legislative session.

Kevin Waterman was in-studio to give us his own unique critique of Plan Maryland. Check out his three part series at Questing for Atlantis.

Watch the episode on BroadsideTV on Ustream

Listen on the Red Maryland Network

Listen to internet radio with redmaryland on Blog Talk Radio

You can subscribe to the Red Maryland Network on iTunes.

The Broadside Tonight, 7pm

2012-01-09T15:59:00.003-05:00

Tonight on The Broadside:

Delegate Kelly Schulz of Frederick County will help us preview the upcoming Maryland General Assembly legislative session.

Queen Anne's County Central Committee member Kevin Waterman will join us to give us his take on Plan Maryland. See Part 1 and Part 2 of his three part series at his blog Questing for Atlantis.

Tune in here at 7pm for all that and more, tonight on The Broadside, only on the Red Maryland Network

Did You Hear the One About...

2012-01-09T10:53:00.006-05:00

...The chairman of a state political party $120,000 in debt, who raised over $100,000 for a congressional campaign he may not even run.

Mooney Financial Press Release

Mooney will let us know tomorrow morning, whether or not he is going to run for Congress.

If Mooney doesn't run, who in MDGOP leadership is going to ask for his resignation? It's one thing that former party chair Jim Pelura couldn't raise money, it's something else entirely when the current party can raise money... but not for the party.

Nicolee Ambrose, Audrey Scott Seek MDGOP National Committeewoman Spot

2012-01-09T08:12:00.004-05:00

Former Young Republican National Federation Chair, Nicolee Ambrose, and former MDGOP Chair, Audrey Scott, are seeking to replace Joyce Tehres as MDGOP National Committeewoman. Tehres resigned last week.

I spoke with Ambrose and Scott over the phone last night about why they want the job, and the issues facing the state party.

Both women said they are seeking the position for the same reason—to help make Maryland a true two party state.

Ambrose, also on faculty at the Leadership Institute, said she has a clear vision of what she wants to do with the position. “I want to take National Committeewoman beyond the traditional ceremonial role,” she said. Ambrose laid out three goals for the job: build a farm team for the state party, initiate more innovative fund raising specifically by bringing in new donors, and bring the state’s grass roots activists to bear.

Scott, a former Mayor of Bowie and member of the Prince George’s County Council sees the role as the extension of what she’s been doing for the last 40 years. “I have the experience and the depth we desperately need,” she said. Scott says that with her experience as MDGOP chair, there will be “no learning curve.” She touts the experience and contacts she’s made over her many years of campaigning.

Both Ambrose and Scott have a track record of success in local and state politics, and party building. Ambrose built the Baltimore Area Young Republicans out of nothing, and Scott was one of the few, if the only, elected Republicans from Prince George’s County.

I asked them about repairing what appears to be a schism between the grass roots TEA Party activist base of the party and the “establishment”—for lack of a better term—wing of the party. The Tea Party activists haven’t waited for the state party to get its act together. They’ve taken the bull by the horns and weather it is MDCAN or the successful petition drive to put in-state tuition for illegal immigrants on the ballot, the activists have filled the gap left by the state party.

Fair or not, Scott is going to be tagged with the “establishment” label. She took a lot of flak for her “party over everything” response when asked “principle over party or party over principle.” To be fair though she was state party chair and as she said, it was her job to make the party first.

Scott doesn’t see a division. “I don’t make a distinction between activist and establishment,” Scott said. “I’m absolutely an activist, I’ve done the grunt work, I’ve campaigned, and I’ve raised money.” Her bottom line is “we all have one common goal and that is to elect Republicans.”

Given her experience, Ambrose could be tagged with the same label as well. She see’s a lot of common ground between the Tea Party activists. “If you’re willing to role up your sleeves and do the hard work,” Ambrose said. “Then there is a seat at the table.” Ambrose shares the Tea Party’s commitment to fiscal conservatism. “I’ll fight for fiscal conservatism until the day I die,” she says.

As National Committee Woman Ambrose and Scott will have the opportunity to make Maryland more relevant in national politics, especially in regard to presidential primaries. I asked them what they would do.

Ambrose favors allowing Independents in Maryland’s primaries. In order to make Maryland a true two party state, “We need to invite more people in” she said. Ambrose touts her experience as chairwoman of the YRNF. “I was the first Marylander elected chair of YRNF, and that is a rarity for someone from such a small blue state.” As YRNF chair she made Maryland a targeted state.

She also believes that because the YRNF has the same organizational structure as the RNC, it gives her a leg up to make the RNC “realize the redness of our state and bring resources to Maryland”.

“I’ve never been a fan of that particular practice,” Scott said of allowing Democrats and Independents in Iowa and New Hampshire to have first crack at choosing the Republican presidential nominee. Scott, never one to shy away from expressing her opinion, wants to leverage her experience and make the RNC realize Maryland should not be overlooked. “I know the players and I’ve earned their respect, I want to capitalize on that for the benefit of the state.”

The state party is in dire financial straits ($120,000 in debt), and the current chairman is busy raising $100,000 for a congressional campaign he may not even undertake. Ambrose and Scott both see a role for the National Committee Woman to play in raising money for the state party, and both have held fundraisers this year for the party. “I’ve always been a fundraiser,” Scott said. Ambrose see’s herself keeping on the same track she is on with the Finance Committee. She touts a Christmas fundraiser that brought in double the goal she set. She also says Microsoft is going to volunteer its Washington DC, headquarters for a future fundraising event.

According to party bylaws the MDGOP Executive Committee, must appoint an interim National Committeewoman within 60 day of the vacancy occurring. The State Central Committee must elect a new the next National Committeewoman to fill the remainder of the term at the next convention.

CORRECTION

Tehres is not resigning, but choosing not to run again. Error regretted.

The Maryland Model (part three)

2012-01-08T20:19:00.002-05:00

This will be the final part of a three-part series; in case you're getting caught up here are parts one and two.

In truth, though, this part won't be based strictly on the Maryland Model. It's actually going to be a critique of a presentation I ran across, one which is presumably some sort of PowerPoint presentation translated to Scribed for the purposes of disseminating. Called Become a Force Multiplier: 5 Simple Tasks for American Activists, it addresses many of the issues we will face in 2012 with a particular focus on Big Labor's aspect. (Not surprisingly, since it's done by LaborUnionReport.com.) More importantly, they note that:

Several of the tactics and action models described herein have been adapted from models used by unions and other Left-wing groups. In other words, the Left is already using these models, you need to as well.

Fight fire with fire, as it is said.

As this presentation stands with the Maryland Model, it mainly focuses on the fourth leg of the stool: mobilization. That's not to say money, message, and media aren't important to them but they're choosing to focus on the mobilization aspect because labor unions tend to work in the components of money and mobilization themselves, and those on our side don't get the option of extorting money from hapless workers like they do.

And we do have a way of leveling the playing field in mobilization. Think of it in terms of a football game between the Ravens and the Steelers. This year, as well as frequently in the recent past, both teams are enjoying pretty successful seasons so games between the two draw a fair amount of interest.

In the case of both teams, there's a fan base which is mainly concentrated in their respective cities but also radiating out through the surrounding areas to a point where they begin to overlap. However, that's not to say there aren't supporters in the other "camp" - certainly there's a few Ravens fans within shouting distance of Heinz Field and vice versa.

And on both sides there are varying levels of interest, from the casual fans who pay just enough attention to remember to check the sports pages for the score on Monday, to those who may have a bumper sticker or article of clothing supporting their team, to those who plan their entire lives around being at the games on Sunday and hosting game-watching parties in the portion of their home festooned with team colors for the road games - at least the ones within easy travel distance they don't attend in person.

Translated into the terms of this discussion, you have the group of people who vote every four years, a smaller component who may put a yard sign out or may be enticed into attending a political event, and then you have those true believers who feel Election Day is their Super Bowl and work the other 364 days a year for their cause. I happen to theorize those people exist in rough proportion to the population at large which supports their cause, and unions only have about 1 out of every 9 workers - so we should easily find that many on our side once we begin to motivate them about what's at stake. Once I was an apolitical person, too. (I know, it's hard to believe but it's true.)

Maybe some other time I'll share my story, but in the meantime another key aspect of this presentation is encouraging the understanding of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Being genteel and too gentlemanly to get involved in a gutter fight just isn't going to cut it against opponents willing to use these sorts of tactics.

And I understand it's difficult to do some of these, like Rule #4 ("Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules") when the enemy feels rules are made to be broken - but the key is reminding people that many rules exist for a reason.

Again, fight fire with fire.

One other aspect of this presentation worth commenting on is their emphasis on precinct organization. While our county isn't among those with Central Committee organization by precinct, I have lived in places where they indeed organized the Republican Party by precinct; in fact I was twice appointed to represent a precinct which otherwise would have been vacant. Sadly, a large proportion of the precincts in my home county were.

Locally, we wouldn't mind having an unofficial organization of the 39 or so precincts in Wicomico County, although these precincts vary enough by size that perhaps some would need two or three coordinators. Since the nine members of our county's Central Committee are elected at-large, it would give areas which don't happen to have a resident presence on the Central Committee some voice in the process. A vote in Tyaskin, Willards, or Sharptown counts just as much as a vote in Salisbury as far as county affairs are concerned.

I'm quite aware that Maryland is considered a pretty safe Democratic state, but I'm not going to give up the fight. Dan Bongino today placed on his Facebook page this morning:

Maryland is not a "lost cause". There are no lost causes, there are only causes worth fighting for and causes which are not. The future of OUR great state is a cause worth fighting for which we can never forfeit. Our ideas deserve a fair hearing and our voices must be heard. Refusing to fight the fight not only acquiesces to failed, "government knows best bureaucrats", but has electoral ramifications far beyond our great state. Money not spent here by the opposition flows freely to the opposition outside of the state, making their fights that much easier. I understand we have had electoral outcomes over the past few cycles which have been disappointing but we can never quit and never give in. The only lost election, before election day, is the one we refuse to run in.

Exactly. Maryland and other heretofore liberal bastions suffer from a sclerotic disease of the same old failed people, policies, and ideas. The 99% really need something new, not more of the same old so-called solutions of tax, spend, and regulate everything that moves or creates prosperity. It's time for solutions, not making work for government bureaucrats.

Let's adopt the Maryland Model and work to make our state the haven of a new pro-liberty approach to government. It starts this year with confounding the gerrymanderers and giving us a more evenly split Congressional delegation, continues with electing local leaders in 2013 who will stand up for overtaxed citizens against a state which wants absolute local control, and culminating with sweeping change in state government two years hence, one which sends a message to the rest of the nation that liberty has regained its rightful place on the banks of the Chesapeake.

Fight fire with fire.

Crossposted on monoblogue.

NBC New Hampshire Republican Debate II: a Few More Sparks Signifying Little Change in Romney Prospects

2012-01-08T10:36:00.011-05:00

--Richard E. Vatz

The second presidential debate in 10 hours: MSNBC's professional conservative-haters were wowed by what they regarded as a potentially transformational debate in which Gov. Mitt Romney was challenged on his motives for leaving political office and his knowledge of Super PAC's advertisements.

Let's grant that Romney's motives in leaving politics were partially that he felt he might not win re-election. Let's grant that Romney, who claimed he hadn't seen the ads that Speaker Newt Gingrich claims were revelatory of "lies," was aware of what was in them regardless. So what? And by law he may not control them.

Sorry, this was no last minute, transformative debate, nor should it have been. There were a few quasi-new issues discussed, but everyone performed true to form: Romney was articulate, forceful and prepared -- the most prepared, as always, although his fellow debaters are no slouches in the debate preparation biz.

Sen. Rick Santorum, as always, provided the strongest right-wing arguments, and it must be said that again it was he who brought up the most important conservative mega-points, such as the fact that the key of keys to the Democratic-Republican differences is the former's emphasis on dependency.

Gingrich is always cerebrally impressive, and his unwillingness to accept the debate paradigm with many irrelevant and liberally-based questions from moderators was once again a breath of fresh air. Challenging the value of questions such as "what Republicans are you willing to hurt" or what remedy do you have for Americans who are "fed up with the fighting in Washington," he diminishes the questioner by implying "there is no more time for such nonsense." The issue is not policy outcome of Republicans' happiness or unhappiness; it is whether policies are reasonable, fair, far-sighted and effective.

Gov. Rick Perry, relaxed and at peace with himself was fine, save for his calling Obama a "socialist." Not true precisely, and certainly a dumb rhetorical move.

Again, Jon Huntsman is always the debates' Washington Nationals. He debated pretty well, but no one will long recall what he said in any of the debates.

Ron Paul was Ron Paul, nicer than in ads and interesting, as long as no one takes seriously his isolationism dressed up as economic policy.

David Gregory must be best friends with Brian Williams...it's all about him with his self-satisfied irrelevancies and interruptions. Is there no conservative at NBC who will say to him, "Hey, David -- focus your intelligence on disinterested formulations of important questions."

What we need are several more debates before the New Hampshire primary; the topic could be, "Do We Need Several More Debates?"

Outcome: mostly good candidates; mostly intelligence-wasting moderators with a few exceptions; and Mitt Romney has earned the Republican nomination for President.

Prof. Vatz teaches political rhetoric at Towson University and is author of The Only Authentic Book of Persuasion

The New Hampshire Debate and the Implicit Concession to Mitt Romney's Candidacy

2012-01-07T22:55:00.012-05:00

--Richard E. Vatz

The Republican race for the presidential nomination was implicitly conceded tonight, as none of his Republican opponents made a serious effort to derail or even undermine Mitt Romney's lead for that prize.

A rarity of political punditry did occur, incidentally, as ABC News observer Jake Tapper in a rare display of network perspicacity made that very important point in the network's initial commentary.

Diane Sawyer, George Stephanopoulos, and Josh McElveen were respectively acceptable, obfuscating and unmemorable as questioners. Stephenopoulos's twin sins of Democratic reflexes and self-centered participation, highlighted by his focus for minutes upon minutes on the pseudo-issue of whether states should have the right to ban contraceptives, once again proved that only Wolf Blitzer stands out as exquisite moderator in any of the debates. Scott Pelley and Diane Sawyer were not bad. Brian Williams is horrible, but good at promoting the importance of...Brian Williams.

The presumptive nominee is clearly former Gov. Mitt Romney, and if he is to be replaced in that position at this late date in debates, he would have to be depicted as irresponsible, dangerous or unelectable, and no one made or attempted to make any of those cases.

None of the nasty ad attacks by any of the candidates on other candidates was precisely reiterated, and I'm not convinced that a candidate has an obligation to violate decorum by using the same language he uses in an ad in a nationally televised debate.

Rick Santorum was what he always is: a well-prepared, pretty far right politician who lost his last election by 18 points and would lose badly as a presidential candidate. He has added to the debates consistently by making important observations regarding the societal consequences of the collectivist, anti-family ethic in America.

I never know quite what to make of Jon Huntsman, who served as ambassador to China in the Obama Administration. He never has seemed to have his heart in running, and he does not seem sufficiently contra-Obama to deserve the nomination.

Newt Gingrich's detestation of Gov. Romney appears to have dissipated, but his attack on the anti-conservative biases of the press was telling. He cited anti-religious bias and how it impacts social policy per the legal punishing of the refusal of, say, the Catholic Church to recognize gay marriage. One must say, parenthetically, that the consistent and insidious left-wing bias of the major networks' political reporting is so consistent that a reasonable person must infer that they are genuinely unaware of it. Walter Cronkite's deification and to this day the lack of realization of Dan Rather's erstwhile hatred of establishment Republicans are just two of the phenomena that demonstrate the lack of evenhandedness in recent and current reportage.

Ron Paul continued with his oxymoronic vicious nice guy routine, but avoided explaining the vile racial references existing for years in his newsletter, about which he has unconvincingly claimed ignorance.

Finally, Rick Perry continued his reputational rehabilitation with a clear, substantive performance, but that is, of course, not material to the eventual choice of the Republican nominee.

Mitt Romney, strong on economics, strong on foreign policy, inexplicable on some policy changes and health care policy except as a man who needed to win the Massachusetts governorship, is the winner in tonight's debate and deserves to be the Republican presidential candidate.

No one in tonight's debate made a dispositive argument to the contrary or much of any argument to the contrary.

--Prof. Vatz teaches political rhetoric at Towson University and is author of The Only Authentic Book of Persuasion (Kendall Hunt, 2012)

BREAKING: Maryland Democrats Break Own Bylaws with Cardin Endorsement

2012-01-07T13:00:00.000-05:00

The Maryland Democratic Party has violated their own bylaws when it comes to their endorsement of Senator Ben Cardin in the Primary. I reported on Thursday about how the Maryland Democratic Party has endorsed Cardin via Twitter over the challenge on State Senator Anthony Muse.

I received a tip from an anonymous source regarding the Maryland Democratic Party Bylaws, which are available online. Take a look at Article IX, Section 4 on Page 7.

Neutrality in Primary Campaigns - In Democratic Primary campaigns, the staff and headquarters of the Maryland Democratic Party may not be used to the advantage of one candidate over another, except insofar as services and information are equally available to all Democratic candidates.

By using the Maryland Democratic Party Twitter account, operated by a Maryland Democratic Party staffer, the Maryland Democrats through their endorsement of Cardin have violated their own neutrality clause in their own bylaws.

So not only has the Maryland Democratic establishment endorsed the white guy, they've also violated their own bylaws to do so.

Things just keep getting more and more interesting, don't they?

What you need to know about the Red Maryland Tweetup

2012-01-06T17:31:00.000-05:00

So as you know, tomorrow is the Red Maryland Network Meetup and Tweetup. Come out and meetup with the Red Maryland Network, our contributors, readers, fans, and other great Maryland Conservatives.

Join us at Two Rivers Steak and Fish House, 4105 Mountain Road in Pasadena on Saturday, at 2 PM for this great event. And once again, the event is free, the only cost to you is whatever you eat and drink.

Here's what you need to know

There's plenty of parking;
We'll be in the bar area; you probably won't be able to miss us
We'll be taping a Red Maryland Radio network broadcast to be aired at some point in the future.

Feel free to RSVP to the Facebook event page here.

For more information, feel free to shoot me an email (brian-at-briangriffiths-dot-com) or find me on Twitter @BrianGriffiths.

And we will see everybody tomorrow!

Steny Hoyer and the Revolving Door

2012-01-06T12:00:00.001-05:00

The chart below (hat tip Conn Carroll at Beltway Confidential) shows that minority Steny Hoyer's former chief of staff Corey Alexander, was part of the revolving door at Fannie Mae during the time it was inflating the housing bubble that led to the crash of the housing market.

After Fannie Mae, Alexander went to UnitedHealth Group, which spent millions lobbying for Obamacare.

There are other Hoyer acolytes who cashed in on K Street lobbying for big tobacco, large corporate giants, and of course, Wall Street.

Then there is Terry Lierman, Hoyer's most recent chief of staff, and former chair of the Maryland Democratic Party. Lierman was already slick K Street operator before going to work for Hoyer.

But by far the smelliest odor to emerge from this so-called public servant was captured by theWashington Post in a front-page story on October 31. Five days before signing on in June of 1999 to co-sponsor an ultimately unsuccessful bill to extend Schering-Plough Corp.'s patent on Claritin, he took an unsecured $25,000 loan from Terry Lierman, an outside lobbyist for the company. Lierman loaned his longtime friend the dough at 8 percent. The note set no repayment schedule, but it was callable anytime, effectively making Moran a puppet on Lierman's string...

As for the influence, Moran says Lierman never lobbied him on the Claritin bill. Lierman told the Post, "[I] probably did lobby Jim," on the Claritin bill, but he denied there was any connection to the loan. At any rate, on July 23, Moran sent a letter to his Democratic colleagues seeking support for the bill.

Remember this the next time Maryland's Democratic drones yammer about working for the little guy.