Thursday, June 7, 2012
The late Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill is said to have originated the phrase, “All politics is local.” To the extent that he was right, it’s unfortunate. Understandable maybe, but unfortunate because of what says about Americans when they vote for candidates running for the House, the Senate or President.
Wednesday, June 6, 2011
“Jobs,” specifically the lack of enough of them and the right ones that fully exploit the capabilities of our people, is the most important problem we’re facing. Close behind is education, the key to how we stay competitive, individually and as a country.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Democrat Charles Albert “Dutch” Ruppersberger III has represented Maryland’s Second Congressional District since 2003. He’s running for his sixth term against Republican Nancy Jacobs who has been a Senator in the Maryland Assembly since 1999, and a Delegate in the Maryland House of Delegates for one term before that. This is my first article about Congressman Ruppe… Wait. With apologies for the informality, and meaning absolutely no disrespect – Seriously. – I’m going to call Congressman Ruppersberger “Dutch.” His full name and title take too long to type and read. I’ve never met the man, but he has a pleasant smile and I don’t think he’ll mind.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
The big reason is money. Almost regardless of what they do or don’t do while they’re in office, incumbents tend to be re-elected because their campaigns raise so much more money than their opponents’.
Most voters have no real idea what their incumbents have been doing in Washington. Who they vote for is largely based on campaign rhetoric. Money buys organization and advertising. The more money you have, the more likely you are to win, and that’s that. It’s unfortunate, but Congressional campaigns aren’t so much about ideas as they are about dollars.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Yesterday, I wrote an article entitled, “Negative Advertising: An essential means of voter education.” This piece looks at the flip side of negative advertising. From the campaign’s point of view, it’s as essential to winning as money. In fact, funding negative advertising may just be the primary reason the candidate needs money.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Hi. This is the first of two articles that I’m writing about “negative advertising,” a concept that I believe has been given a bad rap by the media and, most importantly, by the form of it that many well-funded candidates and their political action committees have chosen. This first piece is about its definition and essential role. (As usual, I’m going to write like I know what I’m talking about, leaving it to your comments to help me get it right.)
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
On Monday, May 21, Next Contestant published a piece called “9. Ben Cardin v Dan Bongino: Money buys access.” The article was about campaign financing and, specifically, the $563,946 which Senator Ben Cardin’s campaign has received from 43 organizations related to the health care services industry. Of those 43, the top 2 contributors are the American Medical Association PAC ($141,588) and the American Hospital Association PAC ($64,757). Please refer to the original article for source information.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
I’m thinking of having a debate, a debate between Maryland’s first-term, Democrat incumbent U.S. Senator Ben Cardin and Republican newcomer Dan Bongino. As far as I know, it would be the first blog debate ever. Major newspapers in our market, including The Baltimore Sun and The Washington Post, and broadcast television have all but ignored the race since the primary. I think they’re planning on waiting until it’s too late for the newcomer to overcome the incumbent’s huge advantage with respect to name recognition and campaign financing.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
It’s only fair. President Obama wants us to focus on Mitt Romney’s history at Bain Capital, and the media is on that like white on rice – an expression which made more sense before my wife told me that brown rice is better for you, no political metaphor intended.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Why do people and organizations contribute to campaigns? The simple answer is “self-interest.”
People, meaning individuals like you and me, contribute because we feel some affinity for a candidate. We agree with what he or she believes and/or we’re hopeful that the candidate, once in office, will do good for our country, our state, whatever, and for our families. Ours is a relatively small contribution that is passive in that we don’t expect anything specific for our money except to help our candidate get elected. We have no expectation of access or ongoing influence.