Sunday, December 21, 2008

Ravens Going to the Playoffs. Do you want tickets?


Whew!
What a week for Ravens' fans. One win stolen took us all down, then one game won decisively kept us on the edge of our seat until the end! Could you believe that last three and one-half minutes!
The playoffs look to be in the Ravens' future. Are they in yours?
The Timonium Optimist Club and Foundation, Inc. is selling raffle tickets for each playoff game the Ravens appear in.
The tickets are only $5.00 each and there are only three hundred tickets available!
Get your raffle tickets now by sending me a comment that indicates how many tickets you want! (There are not three hundred available. They are selling as you read this.)
Get your raffle tickets.
In the event the Ravens do not make the playoffs, extremely unlikely now, the winner of the 12/31/08 raffle will take home $400.00!

Monday, December 15, 2008

Are you ready for some Ravens Playoff Football Tickets



Friends and Family who are Ravens' fans:

Some of you may know that the Timonium Optimist Club & Foundation, Inc., an IRC 501(c) (3) tax exempt corporation, raffles off a pair of Ravens' season tickets each summer as one its our fundraising projects. Since the team may be headed for post-season play, the club has exercised its option to buy tickets for any post-season home games. We have organized a rush raffle of the tickets. Here is how it works:

· We will sell only 300 raffle tickets at $5 each. (Not bad odds!)
· Every ticket sold will be good for a chance to win two tickets to the first playoff game. When the Ravens win, everyone’s ticket goes back into the pot for a chance at the next game – potentially three drawings.

Wildcard game drawing: Dec. 31
Division playoff game drawing: Jan. 7
AFC Championship game drawing: Jan. 14

If the Ravens do not make the playoffs, the default prize is $400.

Proceeds, of course, go to support the Timonium Optimist youth programs and projects. Checks should be made payable to "Timonium Optimist Foundation."

If you would like to purchase tickets for this raffle, please let me know by email ASAP. I will make every effort to get tickets back to you in time to use as stocking stuffers -- no problem for those of you who live close enough to Baltimore that I can deliver them personally. (If you are further away, you could always put an IOU in the stocking.)

FYI, the seat location is Section 513, Row 14, Seats 1 and 2 (center end zone).
eBay listings for tickets in similar locations for two seats to the wildcard game are offered for $390. Championship tickets are going for $750.

Merry Christmas and good luck!!

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Is Voter Fraud Everywhere?

Bernie Thomas, the Baltimore Examiner News and Traffic Examiner, diverged a bit into the voter fraud fray. The story is worth a read and the video clips worth watching. As with everything on the internet, though, keep your critical thinking cap on.

A couple of minor points, if I may, on the combined article:

Voter ID was challenged and ended up getting to the Supreme Court. At no level in the trial process did the opponents produce one witness who was deprived of their vote because they showed without ID or stayed home because they did not have ID. It is a theory, not supported by evidence.

Registered voters are not removed from the voter rolls because of foreclosure. A person may challenge the residency of a voter, but if the voter produces acceptable evidence of residency in the precinct or election district, they will be permitted to vote without prejudice or further checking. If the voter does not have evidence, but is a registered voter, they will be permitted to vote a provisional ballot and take up to six days to show up at the election office with their evidence. What is evidence? Governments ID, a current bill from a utility or correspondence from a government agency to the claimed residence are acceptable. The challenged voter can display a voter registration card, a social security card, or an employee photo ID. The only legal basis for a challenge is the identity of the voter, not their residency.

Voter-roll purges are not an evil designed by the Republican Party. Changing your address with the Board of Elections is low on most people's priorities when they are moving. If the move takes place within the state, the system will catch up with them when they show at a poll or they will get a prod when they change their drivers' license address or vehicle registration.

The story relates no identified unlawful voters. Not true now. Voters have been identified in several states. Perhaps the AAG in the story was fired for not doing a good job. Government appointees are often fired without any explanation of cause. All of those so fired will plead no fault in their work. All of their superiors will privately find fault with the employee.

The story also mentions something that greatly concerns me. ACORN checks 100% of the voter registrations that their agents collect. Someone other than an election official is looking at those applications before the voter is registered. Who can say that the applications were completed? Who can say that the information reflects the registrant's wishes? What if the registrar advises the registrant, correctly, that they need not affiliate with a party?

Many, many people believe two things about party affiliation. One is that their party primary is always distinct from the primary for other parties. This true in some states, but not in all. The other thing is that they must vote only for candidates of their party, even in the General Election. This last belief ends up in people not voting when they are unsatisfied with party nominee. However, in this case, we have the opportunity for ACORN staffers to review applications and send on the ones they want, with the potential to assign party affiliation. Increases in a party's registrations results in the other party's members staying home. Voter suppression is the technical term for this.

Voter-roll accuracy requires a great deal of coordination between many agencies of governance and the Board of Elections in each county in the country. People who move, people who die, people convicted of felonies, people who served their punishments are all classes of voters whose records should be updated.

Some convicted felons lose the vote. (Are these the people we want choosing our leaders and setting our policies?) The courts are required to notify the Board of Elections of felony convictions. When the felon has served their time and made required restitution, the right to vote should be returned. We ask the voter to notify the Board of Elections to ensure that the voter registers in the correct Election District so that they receive the full right to vote an entire ballot.

Dead people rarely notify their local board. The folks who settle the estate rarely think about notifying the local board. Surely, the Department of Health will take care of that. Until recently, there was no requirement for such notifications. Now, when the notification comes, a typo in an eighty-year-old birth certificate may result in no-match with the voter registration record. The typo issue can work both ways, by the way. Local Boards have received notice of a death with absentee ballots sent in by spouses. Some of the ballots are voted! Can a dead person vote by absentee ballot if the Board of Elections isn't aware of the death? Can a spouse who does not like the other's vote report them dead on the ballot? Can a spouse or caretaker vote an absentee ballot after the death of the voter? Presently, there is no way the local board of elections can know.

(In Maryland, there is a ballot question to amend the state Constitution to permit early voting. If a person votes early, and dies before Election Day, should their vote count? How would we know which vote not to count since every ballot is secret? Can you say, "Early voting is another bad idea."?)

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

. . . Fear Itself, and Absentee Ballots

Professor Schaller makes several good points against early voting, all of them valid. The proposal in Question 1 has the additional downside of placing the early voting locations in places not necessarily friendly to all voters in the county.

Let's look at some additional factors. Ballots are not finalized until forty-five days before the election, provided that the courts do not uphold one of the several challenges to questions and issues proposed for a ballot.

Each county, as has been pointed out by Marylander, does not use the same ballot. Even within an election district in Baltimore County, there will be more than one ballot. This is worse during Gubernatorial Primaries and General Elections. Adjacent election precincts can have different State senators and Delegates, different Congressional Representatives, different County Council Members and more. To have forty different ballots in a county is not unreasonable. This bill allows any registered voter to vote anywhere in the state! Good luck getting all of the ballots in the state to every county polling place.

Beyond the logistics of producing, printing, distributing and securing ballots, there are the voting equipment, staffing and security issues. Local boards currently pull hens teeth to get an adequate number of election judges and train them before and for one Election Day. This question requires judges for ten days before the election.

The real problem with this question lies in the other part of it.

Absentee ballots are the most fraud prone of all voting methods. It is bad that a person not entitled to vote can cast a vote and cancel the vote of a legally qualified citizen. Most people illegally present in the country do not want to call attention to themselves, but there are significant numbers in some precincts that will lie on the application regarding citizenship and vote.

The less risky way for those voters and those who would try to influence the election results through fraud is through the Absentee vote. Let me explain.

A person not entitled to vote registers fraudulently, and then requests an absentee ballot. They execute the ballot and mail it in, never having to risk physical apprehension or identification and challenge. They merely submit a copy of the driver's license issued by the MVA to thousands of aliens every day. But it can be worse.

An organization of individuals could obtain a list of voters, active and inactive, from the local board of elections. They could then identify individuals who, by their history, are not likely to vote. The perpetrators of the fraud would then send in a change of address for each identified voter. When the change is effective, they send in a request for an absentee ballot and then vote that ballot. If the voter shows up at the precinct, the poll book will show that an absentee ballot was requested and the voter will vote a provisional ballot.

Absentee ballots are counted on the Thursday after the election. While that counting is going on, the Provisional Ballots are reviewed and entered into the election files. If an absentee ballot has been received, the provisional ballot is rejected. The fraudulent absentee ballot is counted. The real voter is confused. Confidence in the electoral system is undermined. Very few voters will have shown up and even fewer will challenge what happened. None of the votes will be changed because the systems ensure that each ballot counted is not identifiable with a voter.

What if such an effort only resulted in fifteen votes in each precinct? There are 219 precincts in Baltimore County. Fifteen fraudulent votes in each would result in 3285 votes.

There are about 487,570 registered voters in the county according to the State Election website as of October 1, 2008. If there is 75% turnout, 365,678 voters, one percent could be fraudulent. The numbers could easily be higher without raising an alarm.

In the past ten Presidential elections there have been, on average, five states with more than fifty electoral votes total that have been decided by less than one percent of the popular vote. Those numbers could have changed three of those elections.

I do not have actual vote totals for the states in those ten elections, but I think that several states might have turned on less than one percent of the vote. This is how an election can be stolen with the help of legislatures.

Instead of making it easy to register and vote, we should make it harder for frauds to be committed. Perhaps we can ask for new signatures every five years. Or, sit down for this one, requiring a photo id at the polls and with absentee ballots. Copies are easy to get. A person's agent can take the id to the local copy center, library, post office, or law office to get one.

States should spend the money on signature recognition software and hardware. It's on the market. It processes the applications and flags the signatures that don't match for a human to deal with. Currently, we rely on humans, very few of them and none of them trained in handwriting analysis, to catch this. The results are abysmal.

By the way, it is not the ACORN attempts to register Mickey Mouse and the NFL Cowboys that will result in fraudulent votes. It is the fictitious persons, registered by mail with fraudulent identification cards, made for just that purpose, which will defraud the voters.

Monday, October 6, 2008

Voter Registration Numbers Are Not Reliable Indicators of Results

On October 5, 2008 Baltimore Sun columnist Dan Rodricks blogged about the voter registration for young people in Maryland. This was preceded on October 2 with a post about an elected Republican changing his party affiliation to unaffiliated and the dire condition of the Republican Party in Maryland.

Dan: Some facts.

The State Board of Elections didn't whimsically reinstate a policy allowing 17-year-olds to cast ballots or register to vote. The Attorney General opined that since someone who was eighteen on General Election Day could vote in that election, the same person should be entitled to vote in the Primary Election that selected the nominees for the ensuing General Election.

In Baltimore County, Republican registrations had been gaining on Democrats for the ten years prior to 2004. The gains were in hundredths of points, but they occurred every month.

In the last five months, the months for which I have figures handy, the Democrats have been registering three for every Republican registrant. Unaffiliated registrations were running even with Republicans, but in the last four months have been edging to a 1.25:1 ratio.

Your conclusions about what is happening and mine differ. Registrations have tended to follow the money. One party control of government always drove registrations. I know it is hard to believe, but many people are sure that their party affiliation affects their earning ability. I have lost two jobs in quasi and state government based on my affiliation. I have never gotten a job because of that.

First, let's get rid of the affiliated bases, the eighty percent of all voters who are Republican or Democrat.

Of the remainder, in Maryland, people register as Democrats to maintain jobs and receive contracts. They also donate to campaigns for those reasons. People who wish to avoid problems with affiliation register as unaffiliated. People who wish to staunch the flow of campaign literature register as unaffiliated. (This no longer works as it did decades ago because all campaigns target the unaffiliated.) One of my sons registered as unaffiliated out of a) rebellion, b) a desire not to be pigeonholed by others, and c) to avoid partisan mail. He received more mail than the three affiliated voters in the house did!

Democrats were very aggressive in conducting voter registration drives in high schools and colleges in the last four years. They were particularly effective in 2008. On Primary Election Day, people were flooding into election precincts demanding to be allowed to register and vote, or to vote in the Democrat Primary in spite of their registration as Republican or something other than Democrat. How this plays out in the General Election cannot be known.

Historically, the elections that had great turnout were the elections that presented contests to the voters. People stay home if the result is a foregone conclusion. However, if there is a contest the proverbial wild horses will not keep them home. In this respect, the media hold the cards. Gore was declared dead four weeks out. Same for Kerry. Then, the media kicked in with new poll numbers and people showed up in unprecedented numbers and the races were all too close.

During the 2008 Democrat Primary, the media declared Hilary dead in January, and then discussed how close each subsequent race was. Voter turnout was through the roof. If you build a race, they will come.

As for conclusions about Maryland, let me point to the last four gubernatorial contests. The registration numbers for each gave the Democrats a 2:1 advantage going in, but no result was even close to that. Every race was decided in single digits. My conclusion: registration numbers in one party states do not provide a sound indication of the results of political contests.

Saturday, September 13, 2008

They said it on the news – it must be true

They are all saying it, so it must be true. John McCain's campaign is telling lies. That is what they are saying.

The McCain campaign commercial claimed that Barack Obama has the legislative accomplishment of voting for comprehensive sexual education for Illinois children in Kindergarten. George Stephanopoulos said it was a lie. Joy Behar said it was lie. David Brooks said it was not truthful. Mark Shields said that by saying this, McCain has become dishonorable.

Forgive whom you must. The piece of legislation in question is some years old and nearly fourteen pages long. Illinois SB0099, amending the existing law to add K through 5 to the Sex Education statute, contains this text:

 6        (105 ILCS 5/27-9.1) (from Ch. 122, par. 27-9.1)

 7        Sec. 27-9.1.  Sex Education.

 8        (a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate  in

 9    any  class  or  course  in comprehensive sex education if the

10    pupil's
his parent or guardian submits written objection

11    thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or

12    program  shall  not  be reason for suspension or expulsion of

13    such  pupil.  Each  class  or  course  in  comprehensive  sex

14    education offered in any of  grades  K
6 through 12 shall

15    include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted

16    infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread

17    of HIV
AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in

18    sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.

19        (b)  All  public elementary, junior high, and senior high

20    school classes that teach sex education  and  discuss  sexual

21    activity   or   behavior
intercourse shall emphasize that

22    abstinence is an effective method of preventing unintended
is

23    the expected norm in that abstinence from sexual  intercourse

24    is  the  only  protection  that  is  100%  effective  against

25    unwanted  teenage  pregnancy,  sexually transmitted diseases,

26    and HIV
acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) when

27    transmitted sexually.


That is from page 1 of the amendment. Underlined text is added to the law and struck-through text is removed.

At line 9, the legislation considers this bill as regarding "comprehensive sex education". At line 13, it adds grades K through 5 to those students receiving instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. At line 19, this includes the teaching of sexual activity or behavior. Barack Obama admits to voting for this legislation in committee.

I can forgive the McCain campaign for believing that a bill about comprehensive sex education amended to include K-5 on a vote by Barack Obama for sharing that with the public.

But, on the news, they said it was a lie.

They also said that the Obama comment this week about putting lipstick on a pig was not in response to the Sarah Palin comment about lipstick on hockey moms differentiating them from pit bills. You be the judge. The audience certainly seems to know what he was saying. The pause in his delivery, the wait for the audience to get "it" isn't confusing. Only Obama's defenders, only those who wish to pick another battle will leave it alone.

Behar, Brooks, Shields and Stephanopoulos, and many others in the media, said it was deceitful and misleading to accuse Obama of referring to Sarah Palin. He later characterized his statement as a common figure of speech for him. However, consider his delivery, not only on Letterman, but also at a campaign event. In the original, he stumbles and trips over getting the line right, but nails the wait for reaction. In the last two, the words slip off his tongue without any pause. Perhaps he was nervous the first time. Perhaps he understood the certain outcry to come. I cannot know.

What do you think?

Saturday, August 30, 2008

Size Counts

Since the day President Bill Clinton campaigned for Martin O'Malley, the buzz in Maryland was that O'Malley was a leading candidate for Vice-President on Hillary Clinton's ticket. Then, O'Malley was elected Governor of Maryland.

I suspect he took a deep breath and made the decision to reciprocate and endorsed Hillary's candidacy for the presidential nomination. The buzz became a roar, and O'Malley hadn't started to govern, yet.

The first session of the General Assembly of Maryland displayed the new Governor as a pragmatic who did not attempt to openly drive the agenda. Shortly after the end of the session, he began to terminate the employment of Republicans hired to middle management jobs during the last four years. The only discriminate exercise was to leave those who still had strong connections in politics in place.

Governor O'Malley continued to campaign against Governor Ehrlich, calling a special session of the General Assembly to fix the fiscal problems left by Ehrlich. When he was done, O'Malley, elected over an incumbent with favorable of over fifty percent in the polls just one year before, had his favorable drop to the low thirty percent area. This represented double devastation. First, the people who had elected him knowing he would raise taxes had turned their backs on him. Second, his base was turning against him. Sixty percent of registered voters in Maryland are with his party, yet his approval ratings looked like he was a Republican. Governor Ehrlich had approval ratings on his way out the door similar to O'Malley's winning portion of the vote. Now, though, O'Malley was receiving approval ratings ten points (and more) below Ehrlich's gubernatorial vote.

We can only imagine the reaction of the Maryland Governor, the one with approval ratings in the tank, to the announcement that a Governor with approval ratings of ninety percent was selected for his dream job of Vice-president!

Governor O'Malley can do either of two things to settle his future. He can continue to pillage Maryland, doing the things he has determined are necessary without regard for the people's wishes and needs, securing his future as a former Governor. Alternatively, he can learn for the Governor's who rode success in their states to national prominence. Ronald Reagan, Tom Ridge, both Roosevelt's, Taft, Bill Clinton, even Jimmy Carter, found that working for the people will be rewarded.

Governor O'Malley will learn that size matters, or shrivel and shrink like George Costanza on a cold day at the pool. He need only look to the success of Sarah Palin and wonder what could have been.

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Crazy or sly?

"The definition of crazy'' we are told, "is to do the same thing over and over expecting a different result."

Patuxent Publishing's newspaper The Jeffersonian caries of series called Party Line. Each month a spokesman for the Republicans alternates with a spokesman for the Democrats, offering a partisan argument. The most recent article is one that brings the above adage to mind. Again, we have the same person, James Kehl, representing the Democrats of Baltimore County, attempting to deceive the public and indict his chosen political enemy with deceptions. Let me explain.

The title of his piece, "My encounter with Sen. Andy Harris" indicates an encounter with Senator Harris. An encounter is defined as a meeting, one that might be brief, it might be unexpected, hostile or violent, but a meeting, nonetheless. What is described? A sighting of Senator Harris. America did not encounter Senator Clinton on television at the DNC Convention. They saw her. Mr. Kehl continues to explain that he decided not to have a meeting, an encounter.

Based on this "encounter", we are led to believe that voters, bearing their Baltimore County Board of Elections issued Identification Card, swarmed to him, saying in unison, "Please tell us, oh great and wise spokesman for Baltimore County Democrats, what issue would you have confronted the Senator with, had you the courage and bravery we know you to be saving for a better opportunity, instead of the passive aggressive behavior you appear by your own words to have chosen?"

Then, Mr. Kehl tells the readers that "someone" researched the legislative records. Not him; not Joe; not Mary; not an intern; not David - "someone" - a most creditable source, we are to assume, because you used them, did the research and provided it to you.

No one cares if there is a fact or a fiction in the rest of the item. It is based on deception, and relies on unknown and unverifiable parties for the meat of the item. Like much of this author's work, this reads like a fantasy, like something for which the readers must willingly suspend disbelief for the premise, and logically, what follows.

Take away the trickery and deception, cite legitimate sources and toss away the devices of the fiction writer and we are left with a partisan attack on the chosen enemy and the praise of the hero. That, I believe, is what Party Line is for. If nothing else, people who read about politics can differentiate "stuff piled higher and deeper" from information that can help guide them in choosing their representatives.

Here is an example based on the article: Senator Harris has been elected three times by the people in his district to represent them, even after redistricting. State's Attorney Kratovil has been elected twice by the people of Queen Anne's County to represent the people of that county in criminal prosecutions. This information comes from their campaigns and is verified by the records of the State Board of Elections.

There you have information that can help voters without misleading them.

Here is another example based on the item: Marylanders know that Senator Harris is a Republican in a minority in the General Assembly. President of the Senate Mike Miller declared four years ago that he would bury the Republican Party in Maryland. He leads efforts to stop Republican sponsored legislation from becoming law. A county State's Attorney, like Frank Kratovil, is elected independently in order to diminish political influence in criminal prosecutions. A State's Attorney might lobby the General Assembly for strong laws, but should not compromise his independence by dealing with legislators from either party.

Once again, information that can help voters make decisions about the qualities they want in their representatives. Noting there casts aspersions on either candidate. It particularly does not, as the item does, impute that Mr. Kratovil compromises his independence of office.

In the end, no one objects to partisan articles. They stimulate the readers. By the same token, no one likes to be deceived or tricked by delusional, passive aggressive activities. Please, Baltimore County Democrats, find one of your passionate, honest, members to represent you on these pages.

Or not! I am probably the only Republican to raise the objection, and that, against my party's interests.


Tuesday, August 26, 2008

The Democrats Opening Bell

We don't have cable television. We canned it when the kids got interested in television on the theory that without much to watch they wouldn't. They didn't. They don't.

We watch a lot of PBS. They have made some great efforts in competing with the mindlessness that fills early evening network broadcasts. We have been watching endless PBS promotions for their October series on presidential elections. Not once did we see anything about their convention coverage.

With full knowledge that the big three would only give us one hour each night, I went to PBS at 8:00 PM for Antiques Road Show. What a pleasant surprise. Jim Leherererer (I can't quite get that pronunciation, or aparrently spelling, down) and company giving us commentary during the slow spots and letting us listen to the speeches.

As enriching as the format was, I found the team of Democrat apologists, oops, Presidential Historians, to be either offensive or comedic relief. Come on guys, add something to our understanding, don't relieve yourself on our legs and tell us its raining. A little more Brooks and Shields style evaluation will let the viewers make judgments about the information broadcast.

I hope the Republican convention will not have one-sided commentary. Challenges to ideas are far my edifying than sycophants. Knowing that your ideas will be thoughtfully considered will strengthen your ideas.

Saturday, May 3, 2008

Get active!

From the Reagan Republican Club in northern Baltimore County comes a regimen for success.

FREE EXERCISE PROGRAM SPONSORED BY THE BALTIMORE COUNTY GOP


- Includes personal instruction

- All equipment provided

- Work out with your conservative friends

- If you can walk, you can do this program

- Stop for short breaks every 50 yards

- Requires only 2-3 hours per week

- Benefits include closing the gap on the Dems, helping out Andy Harris' campaign


You can't afford to pass up this offer! But you must act now and RSVP to info@ReganRepublicanClub.com


First session starts this Saturday at 10am at Kingsville Elementary (opportunities on Sunday also). Burn some calories through the innovative new Voter Registration Program! Sign up now!!

Friday, March 21, 2008

How to blow a whistle

Baltimore Sunpapers columnist Dan Rodricks does a great job – of agitating reasonable folks by jumping to conclusions in his column.

For instance, he has taken up the cause of a Police Officer who was fired for not only not reporting problems he identified as part of his duties, but instead making anonymous reports to the media that were sure to embarrass his employer, Governor Ehrlich, and assist the governor's opponent in the next election.

Like all of us, Rodricks has a blog that often continues the discussions he initiates with his columns. Sometimes the comments light my fuse. Like this one.

In response to Reader Tom Ryugo's questions, I offer:

Q1. Should John Dean have shut up and said nothing?

A1. John Dean witnessed and participated in criminal conspiracy. He should have left the room and reported his observations to law enforcement and Congress, before he was caught.

Q2. Should Anita Hill have shut up and said nothing?

A2. Anita Hill should have made a complaint of facts of the harassment that occurred so that an investigation could determine possible wrongdoing and appropriate actions could have ensued. I suspect she did and we can find that record. Oops! The first we heard from her was at the behest of the president's political opponents to smear a nominee to the Supreme Court. In turn, she received a left-liberal reward; she is a college professor.

Q3. Should the Secret Service agent who spoke up against Bill Clinton (have) kept his mouth shut?

Q4. Bill Clinton was convicted of Perjury on the basis of copious testimony collected under subpoena. No agent made anonymous allegations to the media. The agents did not testify to criminal acts. They connected the dots with their observations and the testimony of the victims to otherwise unwitnessed crimes. Similarly, the Impeachment of Bill Clinton was not as the result of sworn officers leaking information to embarrass the head of the Executive Branch. In all cases, the Secret Service Agents, sworn officers, followed the regulations of the agency and the law. They did place themselves outside of their sworn duty.

Q4. Should Linda Tripp have kept her mouth shut?

A4. Lind Tripp was not a law enforcement officer. She became aware of possible criminal activity and reported it. Thinking she was protecting herself and her friend, she committed a crime unique to Maryland by secretly tape recording the evidence that would lead to incriminating evidence. Bill Clinton could have spared us by keeping his mouth shut and not inviting Monica Lewinsky to do other than keep her mouth shut.

Q5.Should the soldier who found photos of Abu Ghraib have simply burned them?

A5. Found them? What were you doing during the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib story. The soldier deserved the Courts Martial. He was aware of what he should have recognized as behavior by members of the armed forces that violated the written code of conduct. He didn't report it. he made videos and still photographs and published them on the Internet because he thought they were cool and would give everyone a big laugh.

As an obvious and blatant conservative, I defend the Ehrlich administration for terminating an employee who was charged with keeping our facilities secure and protected who failed to fulfill his responsibilities. For that, he should have been disciplined. For violating the public trust, he deserved to have his employment terminated.

As a dyed in the wool liberal apologist dedicated to defending the O'Malley administration at all costs, often with full regard for the truth, I must stand and defend the governor for not giving this unreliable, untrustworthy, unethical former police officer a job, even though his goal of embarrassing Governor Ehrlich was noble, and it probably assisted the O'Malley election.

Next question, please.

Saturday, March 15, 2008

Fame & Fortune through Immorality and Corruption

Alan Greenblatt, writing for Ballot Box, asserts that the most certain way for politicians to gain publicity is to act in an illegal, immoral or corrupt way.

It being Saturday morning in Maryland, I can't help but think of our Governor O'Malley. If he had made his claims about the Maryland budget to federal investigators, he would be eligible for charges similar to those faced by Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart. Can you say illegal? Maybe not.

When I think about the farcical Maryland General Assembly Special Session of October 2007, I can't help but think about the immorality of strong arming legislators to vote for tax increases in a declining economy, and adding huge government programs to a previously balanced budget while claiming there was a deficit. When I consider the claims of the O'Malley campaign to stop the 72% increases in our electric rates, I think of the immorality of the lie and the illegality of even considering such an action, a violation of both contract law and the laws of the state. Immoral? O'Malley? Completely!

When I think about the 37% and higher raises given to Governor O'Malley's inner circle, while limiting state workers to 2%, while 6% is the statutory limit. I think corruption. When I think about the refusal by Governor O'Malley to appoint a Secretary of State because the person he likes for the job apparently refuses to work for under $100k per year, I think corruption. When I think of the Department Secretaries brought back from the Glendenning administration, who previously accepted the salaries established, but now must have more, I think corruption.

When I think about Governor O'Malley I think a politician acting immorally, corruptly, and possibly, illegally. I can but hope that Maryland voters think of him this way too.

O’Malley and Spitzer: Comeback chances compared

The headline is a tease. However, the article was not, at least not when first posted forty-five days ago.

Check out Josh Goodman's take on the two governors before the Spitzer jump off the cliff.

Of course, O'Malley inoculated himself against the stories of marital infidelity by dragging his wife to a press conference and saying he did not do it. Why did he do that? It seems that a staffer, likely, baited a staffer of O'Malley's future gubernatorial opponent into a conversation about the topic on an internet bulletin board. O'Malley then accused the sitting governor of spreading the rumor of infidelity through his staff. In O'Malley's lawyerly mind, the act of the subordinate, a servant, in taking the bait was the act of the Governor, the employer. That is a difference between O'Malley and Spitzer, that and the arrogant hypocrisy of Spitzer.

O'Malley's vulnerability lies in his opponent's ability to continue to hang his sins around his neck.

A fair shake of the stick

My fascination with things electoral led me to the Governance Magazine blog, Ballot Box, a seeming little read gathering of writers focused on government.

A recent post there by Blogger/Reporter Alan Greenblatt asked the question about the Spitzer affair: Does it hurt the Dems?

One commenter, and there are not many to the Ballot Box, suggested that there would be no fallout if Spitzer had hung on and that the calls by Republicans in the New York assembly should have been fodder for attacks on Republicans fund raising. He ended with,"Nuff said." As if that would be the last word on this.

I would agree. Democrat falls from grace are generally handled gently and soon forgiven, if not forgotten.

On the other hand, Marc Foley, Senator Craig, and other Republican sinners are inserted into every stump speech of every Democrat running for any office. It looks like this:

"This Republican member of (insert governance body), this man who held himself out as in favor of family values, as a champion for law and order, as a moral light in the dark, was nothing more than (choose one - a closet homosexual, someone who would force himself on employees who were afraid to resist, a common philanderer - or insert your own) who attempted to force his hypocrisy on others. Well, my Republican opponent, although not charged or alleged to have done the same thing, aligns himself with (insert name of miscreant Republican) and the Republican party that tolerated this behavior for so long, protecting its member from public scrutiny merely to (choose one - retain, gain) a political majority that gave the republicans the power to do to you and your children as they pleased!"

Too much said. Too much unexamined hypocrisy. Too many watchdogs that are the dogs in the fight.

(The last four paragraphs were also posted as a comment to "Does it hurt the Dems?")

Friday, March 7, 2008

On the rocks or neat?

At the core of the problem between parties and unaffiliated voters is a desire to participate or not.

Since the third Presidential election, parties have been a factor. The activists who shared general beliefs in how a government should function joined and selected their best hope, a candidate who would garner wide affection from the voting population. Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists; Democrat-Republicans vs. Whigs; Democrats vs. Republicans, the list has, if anything, expanded over the centuries. Parties have always been collections of likeminded people who join in the pursuit of power.

What is different in the current unaffiliated ranks is that these folks have declared, in writing, that they do not want to be a part of any available recognized political party. I suspect that this arises more out of electoral-political-fatigue than out of a lack of identification with any party. In a word, "laziness" best describes these folks.

"Complainers" or "whiners" are the next best descriptors. In every state, a person can register to vote as affiliated or not. In every state, people are free to change their affiliation, or not, as often as they please. This lets the liberal-conservative look at a field of candidates early and join the party of their favored candidate. Likewise, the Conservative-liberal can join the party of the candidate carrying their desired banner and cast their vote in the primary election. Even principled party members can change form one party to the other when the choices of their stripe are unattractive as compared to the opposition party candidate. Instead of filling out the form to make the change for that permits them to make the choice, they complain that they had no say. They complain that the parties did not offer good choices for them. They whine about the partisan system.

In 2008, many in the parties are making the same complaints about their primary choices. For instance, Rudy G was the first Republican to announce and he did not appear on a ballot until Florida. Fred Thompson was leading all of the media polls but the voter polls eliminated him early. All summer and fall, we were subjected to debates between all the people in both parties who were destined to drop out as soon as the voters were to get a chance to say who they liked. By the time the second real voter polls came around ten viable Republicans had become two and ten viable Democrats had too.

In getting to this result, many state parties permitted people not in their party to vote in their primary. These partisan groups let people who disagree with them influence their candidate selection. They did not do this as a strategy to draw unaffiliated voters to a particularly desirable candidate. They did this as a matter of course. How can a state party permit unaffiliated and opposition party voters to select their candidate and then trumpet the results as an achievement?

Unaffiliated voters and those who choose parties that do not appear on primary election ballots turned their backs on the primary system. Their complaints are no more valuable that the opinions of small children who cry because they soiled themselves and become uncomfortable with the result. They are as teetotalers arguing about the taste of beer as compared to whisky.

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

Vinnie sets trap with wooden nickel as bait

Vinnie DeMarco has been a long time, yes ubiquitous, socialist to communist representative of programs that harm businesses and impose the will of a minority on the majority. He, and the Maryland Citizen's Health Initiative, building on the Democrat Party model of gathering small special interest groups to oppose or support a narrow issue, threaten legislators with the wrath of the coalition if their oppressive demands are not met.

Of the tools DeMarco has regularly employed are the red herring and the straw man. Here we have the classic red herring, with a side order of straw man and a newspaper reporter willing to give it undeserved credibility by running with it.

There will not be a President Bush for much more than two weeks when there is a Representative Harris. Oh, my! Perhaps there was a false premise in the DeMarco argument, too. It does get confusing when so much stuff is thrown at the wall at one time. In this case, without Sunpapers reporter Brad Olson, there isn't even a wall.

How about this one: "Vinnie DeMarco and the Maryland Citizen's Health Initiative commend Maryland State Senator Andy Harris for his vote as part the unanimous effort of the Maryland General Assembly and Governor Ehrlich to address the high costs for prescription drugs. It is our fervent hope that the Democrat controlled Congress act to remove the Federal constraints on this effort. We call on Senators Ben Cardin and Barbara Mikulski to take the leadership on this on behalf of the Maryland General Assembly, the former Governor and the citizens of Maryland."

Oops! Please forgive me for my foolishness. Democrat party operatives like DeMarco praising Republican legislative actions is as unlikely as Rush Limbaugh endorsing a Democrat for the Presidency.

Democrats: Nothing to like about our candidates

I read with great interest the Party Line (D) column of the 2/26/08 edition of the Jeffersonian. Once again, it started with a tease that it there would be positive information about the current presidential campaign. Once again, it disappointed by spewing out more than 400 words of rumor, innuendo and attack against two well qualified Republicans and patriots, Senator John McCain, and Senator Andrew Harris, men whose service under arms to the United States is well documented, as is their energetic representation in the Congress and General Assembly, respectively. The only favorable words from the columnist about the Democrat candidates: These are two highly qualified candidates. He goes on to state that only the Democrat candidates care about the best interests of the United States.
In a sister publication, The Northeast Reporter, of the same week (2/28/08), a letter to the editor from Shannon Lowe decried Republican Delegate Joe Boteler III for commenting on Democrat Todd Schuler for his leftist views, and criticizing Governor O'Malley for reversing the action to close the Hickey School in opposition to the majority of the people living in Cub Hill. It further objected to partisan Republicans blaming the Democrats for bad things happening in Maryland. I agree that nasty partisanship degrades the discussion of political issues and has a negative effect on our community. I am not as certain that giving credit where it is due is partisanship. My recollection is that Democrats have dominated the General assembly, and get credit for all of its actions, good and bad, for more than one-hundred years.
I agree with Ms. Shannon that it would be nice to hear from elected officials about how we can unite and face issues, but her party is dedicated to burying the Republican Party for at least ten years. I doubt that the Democrats intend to join the Republicans in that nasty, partisan grave.
It is saddening that the Democrat party in Baltimore County cannot find someone to write positive articles about Democrats. I would like to repeat my plea that the Democrats find a spokesman who can tell us why their candidates are worthwhile of our consideration, and compare and contrast them with Republican Candidates. If that isn't possible, perhaps we could read about what makes voting for Democrats a positive thing.
James Kehl, besides being a member of the Democrat Party Central Committee, is a CPA and the author of a book on tax law. In short, all non-political indications are that he 's a bright guy! I have to wonder what impairs his ability to promote positively his party's candidates.
I hope other readers of community newspapers will join me in calling for raising the political discourse to a civil level that permits honest criticism and discussion that honestly informs.

Monday, March 3, 2008

Gimme your money! I’m running for office!

Elected officials write campaign finance laws. Elected officials have a prime directive - get re-elected. Everything they do that can influence re-election is done in that light.

Elected officials wrote and passed the current Maryland Campaign Finance laws (Maryland Code Annotated, Elections, Title 13 Campaign Finance). The Democrat party has held a huge majority in the General Assembly since time immemorial. Each section of the law was passed with consideration of how it would affect the officials' re-election.

Someone has to be held accountable for campaign finance faux pas, intentional or accidental. It would not do to hold the official accountable for these acts, so the scheme has a treasurer who is. The rules are strict, too. Only the treasurer can accept or disburse funds.

There is a case in Maryland where a member of the House of Delegates was convicted of stealing campaign funds and expense account funds. He appealed and the Court of Appeals overturned his conviction and refused to allow as evidence against him the campaign finance reports that he had signed. Only the treasurer was permitted to sign the documents. Any other signature invalidated the forms and they were not permissible as business document evidence. Without the documents, the state could not prove their case. The delegate, who had resigned upon conviction, ran for re-election in 1994 and won. He has a new campaign finance fund, a new expense account, and a job at IWIF, former home of Tommy Bromwell, current home of former Attorney General J. Joseph Curran.

From news reports on the Oliver case, Councilman Oliver admitted that he wrote checks. Under Maryland Campaign Finance Law, only the treasurer can write checks. The treasurer is responsible for the checkbook. Either the Councilman forged a signature, or the Councilman signed a check without lawful authority, or the treasurer pre-signed checks for the Councilman to write as he wished. All three are very bad things to do.

The only time the candidate is liable is when, if acting as the campaign chairman, the mandated reports are not filed timely. The fines cannot come out of campaign funds.

Public Financing of Political Campaigns - Remember the prime directive for elected officials? Do nothing that would impair reelection. Keep that in mind.

PFPC is an idea that comes to us out of the great progressive era of Teddy Roosevelt. It was debated and discussed ad nauseum in a time when the population was inclined towards progressive ideas. This from the era that gave us great programs for leveling in society so that we did not have to suffer through any more robber barons.

Current promoters, all of them elected officials or progressive organizations, complain of the bad influence of money in political campaigns and want to limit it. They also complain of having to spend hours on the telephone fundraising in order to fund campaigns for re-election. Oh, and there is the pitch that political campaigns have become so expensive that well qualified people are reluctant to get involved in representative politics. They call their proposals Clean Campaign Finance Reform. You have heard the joke about how you can tell when a politician is lying - his lips are moving. The lips are flying!

Let us look at some of their arguments. There is too much money in politics. You have heard huge numbers from the media. The presidential campaigns are generating more money per week than President Bush raised for each of the last two campaigns. If you put together all the money for all the campaigns in the country from January 2001 through December 2004, a presidential election cycle, you wouldn't have enough money to pay for the potato chips purchased by Americans during the same period. It is not so much that there is too much money; it is more like not enough of the money finds its way to the elected official's campaign.

Big donations get big attention from elected officials. If I understand this, they are saying that because they have been in office for years, and some people have given the maximum permissible contribution each cycle, that these elected officials are influenced by this money. They do not need campaign finance reform, by their own admission; they need to be turned out of office. More than Clean Money, we need clean politicians.

Well-qualified people, does this assume that current office holders are generally not well qualified, find political campaigns to be too expensive. PFPC schemes establish limits that diffuse this fear, we are told. There is nothing in the PFPC scheme to remove the real problem in this respect, huge campaign war chests held by officials to warn off challengers. Senator Paul Pinsky, the principal proponent of PFPC, has not had a credible challenger since he challenged and beat an incumbent. Since raising money is always seen as a sign of strength and support, rather than collect big checks, PFPC requires a number of small contributions to demonstrate public support. Who has the tougher job of raising these little amounts, the incumbent with a list of thousands of contributors from prior years, or, on of Senator Pinsky's favorite examples, the janitor in the building occupied by the fortune five-hundred company president? Clean Campaigns? It really is more like underhanded dirty dealing.

PFPC gets more people involved in running for office. This might be true. This was one of the stated goals of the Maryland Commission on Public Financing of Political Campaigns. This is somewhat deceptive. A goal to serve the public interest would be to increase the number of challengers elected to public office, and that has not happened. It is unlikely to happen. For example, consider the case of the janitor challenging the two-term incumbent. The incumbent is worried, for good reason. The incumbent might counter this by encouraging several people to run in the challenger's primary. The incumbent can muster a smear campaign against the threat, to be carried out by the solicited challenger. The smart, campaign savvy incumbent can easily keep the credible challenger distracted while remaining above the fray. When the incumbent's record is called forth for public consideration, he characterizes this as an attack from a desperate candidate involved in a dirty primary campaign. This does not cost anybody any money, except the public, and we already know how incumbents regard the public's dollars. This is but one obvious example. Seasoned political operatives know many, many ways to undercut a good candidate. Another easy way to go is to get an independent to run in the General Election and use public money to siphon off votes from the challenger. Remember Ralph Nader and Ross Perot. Remember the impact they had on the presidential contests. PFPC does not even require them to come up with their own money to run spoiler campaigns. Spoiler campaigns are not run merely to please the incumbent. There will always be a quid pro quo at the end. In the 2008 Presidential campaign, Governor Huckabee is said to have stayed in the race in order to minimize Governor Romney, splitting g the conservative vote and giving Senator McCain an easy walk to the nomination. Huckabee is suspected of angling for a VP spot in exchange. Senator Clinton is being encouraged to drop out of the race so she can be added as VP to Senator Obama's nomination.

Presently, incumbents have name recognition, established fundraising and volunteer organizations, and the power of incumbency, the ability to promote themselves at no expense to them, but often at a dollar cost to their constituents, to aid them with reelection. Public finding, even when shared with their opponents, provides them with money without working for it. This is not corruption because of the sharing aspect of the scheme. It is a scheme that will continue progressives in office. Virtually all of the support for PFPC comes from the political left. In Maryland, the left has promised to bury the right. Does anyone really believe that PFPC will level the playing field? If so, can I interest you in some land just east of Ocean City, Maryland?

Real political corruption does not have anything to do with campaign contributions. It has to do with corrupt people. Minor politicians will be caught with their hand in the campaign cookie jar. Recall the scandal surrounding the expenses for hotel room in Towson for Baltimore Mayoral candidate Keiffer Mitchell. This not unlike the Baltimore County Councilman Oliver situation. Both campaigns saw the money sitting there and decided to use it for things prohibited by law. Real corruption takes big money and that cannot flow through a regulated campaign finance system.

Tommy Bromwell was not caught up in campaign finance problems. No matter how much was in his campaign account, or how much he might have needed money for personal things while serving as a Senator, he didn't skim. It was guaranteed he would be caught. He would go into debt before he would ever consider such a thing and there is no indication that he even considered it. He was corrupted by big money. Instead of getting a big paycheck to do the job at IWIF, he exchanged it for similar money to wield influence in state government. Once he went down that easy money path, he became addicted. That was his downfall. The people in the money chain rolled on him. His friends and loyal supporters aren't mad at him for taking the money and the services in exchange for his power, they are mad at the scummy people who rolled on Tommy and snitched him out. There is no shortage of big corruption for elected officials. I recall that Oliver North faced similar charges over a security fence built at his home at no cost to him. Saying that money is the problem is the equivalent of blaming guns for crimes. Neither political party is without corrupt members. Lord Acton's admonition about power comes to mind.

PFPC does not level the playing field. The results from the four states and New York City that have tried this, and all are very different from Maryland, but for one party domination and progressives in their legislatures. Public funding will be used by candidates without a prayer and by incumbents who are not threatened. The first will tilt at windmills and the second will use the money to self-promote at your expense. And that, my friend, is the key.

Polling on this topic always favors: reducing the influence of money in elections; reducing the time incumbents spend raising money and increasing the time they spend on issues important to you; reducing the influence of big donors on public policy; giving you an equal voice with the special interests; cleaning up elections; removing the financial obstacles to well-qualified people who want to run for office. All of these are runaway winners. There is a runaway loser question on these polls, when it is included: Are you in favor paying higher taxes to fund political campaigns in Maryland?

Under the current laws in Maryland, and excepting the office of Governor, candidates for election solicit money from people they think will support their candidacy. People who contribute can be assumed to support that candidate. There are exceptions to this, for instance an employee who buys a ticket to a fundraiser because the boss really wants them to, but largely, contributors to campaigns are supporters. People would be surprised to find out that the Democrat candidate for the Eighth District Senate seat made financial contributions to their Republican candidate's campaign. People would be more surprised to find out that they had contributed to the campaign of someone for whom they would never vote. Under PFPC that would happen to everyone who paid taxes under threat of going to prison. (All taxes are voluntarily paid under threat of going to prison.) There are plenty of governmental programs funded by tax dollars that significant numbers of people disagree with. That happens in republican government. In at least one state with this plan and insufficient money to fund everyone who chose to run, a court challenge resulted in the government having to allocate funds from other programs in order to fund political campaigns. Are we ready to have schools closed, firehouse shuttered, reductions in the number of police officers, all of the foregoing coming from the left's play book, so that we can finance the political campaigns of anyone who can generate four-hundred five dollar contributions? At the Federal level, the check-off for allocations, not additional taxes, to the public funding of presidential campaigns cannot support the needs of the program. Thankfully, most candidates find traditional funding sources – citizens. If the proponents of PFPC would be honest and tell us that it would be Additional Taxes to Fund Political Campaigns, this would be a non-starter.

Public financing of political campaigns is a bad idea for the public. It will not reform the influence of money in politics. It will not open the doors to the state house to new people. It will continue to aid incumbents, making their already all but guaranteed reelection even more assured, and nothing more.

Check back for campaign finance ideas that will help the public.

Saturday, February 16, 2008

What is really on Del. Schuler's mind?

The ninety-day session of the Maryland General Assembly has always generated amusing stories. Many people have lamented that the “characters” are disappearing from politics to be replaced by bland products of polling. I am not sure whether we should be offended or amused by Del. Todd Schuler.

The Northeast Booster, a publication of Patuxent Publishing serving Northeast Baltimore County ran a story by political editor Bryan P. Sears about the future aspirations of Mr. Schuler, a young man with a reputation for squandering his time and treasure in the alehouses of central Maryland and little more. He ran for election against George Bush and for the progressive era of Teddy Roosevelt and worse.

Perhaps there is more to Del. Schuler’s proposal to remove the term marriage from Maryland than previously met the eye. Following is a letter sent to Editor Sears. It remains to be seen if Patuxent sees fit to publish it.

Dear Editor:

Sadly, we all know what happens to work performance once someone
decides to quit, retire or change jobs: they stop working. Let’s hope the
residents of the 8th Legislative District don’t suffer unduly as Del. Todd
Schuler casts about, trying to decide what he wants to do with his life as he
looks around for something more attractive. (Del. Schuler eyeing Bartenfelder’s
seat, Northeast Booster, February 13.)


With little community experience before running for the House of Delegates against President Bush (who wasn’t running) Todd’s work in the House of Delegates has been similarly out of touch with the values of the people of the 8th District.

The legislative leadership gave him a pass on the Special Session tax bills. When he had a chance to do his job and vote for or against slots, he deferred his responsibility to the voters, forcing them to learn far more than they needed to about the issue so they can make an informed choice. His current bill to erase the term “marriage” from Maryland law is another example of how out of touch he is with the constituency
of this district.

His vacuous thinking, as illustrated by his comment, “The thought process is that I am the only incumbent Democrat living in (Bartenfelder’s) district so I have to consider it,” says a lot. If Del. Schuler believes that only incumbents can run for open seats, as he indicates, why, oh why, did he run for the House of Delegates to begin with? Moreover, what, oh what, will we who live here do for representation in the House of Delegates with no incumbents like him to replace him?

In recent years, hard working people who were in tune with the community and refused to shirk their responsibilities represented the 8th District. Residents of the 8th legislative and sixth councilmanic district deserve representatives who will address our issues, schools and roads being front and center, and share our values.

Our delegates belong in their Annapolis offices and legislative chambers working for us, not hanging out in the social establishments of our capital city dreaming about
another meal at the public trough.

Fortunately, there are excellent potential candidates to represent us. As mentioned in the article, one is former delegate John Cluster. Other candidates include civic leaders who have worked hard for the community, but never felt the need to hold office, such as longtime Perry Hall community leader David Marks.

The 8th District needs, and deserves strong, dedicated, proven leadership in Annapolis.

Please join me in encouraging Del. Schuler to focus on his job instead of Councilman Bartenfelder’s posterior or its placement.