Ben Cardin v. Dan Bongino: All hat. No cattle.

Posted on by

…Including a challenge to Republican Dan Bongino.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Today, as you can see from the header, is June 19. The date is important because websites change from time to time. The first position statement we’re going to discuss is taken, verbatim, from Senator Cardin’s Senate website, www.Cardin.Senate.gov. It’s the “Economy & Jobs” statement from the “Issues” tab of his U.S. Senate website. We’ll go through this text first, and then the “Economy” statement from the campaign’s website, www.BenCardin.com.

Continue reading →

Dutch Ruppersberger v. Nancy Jacobs: Earmarks and campaign contributions.

Posted on by

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

A couple of days ago, Next Contestant published an article entitled, “Earmarks: Incumbent business as usual in Washington,” in which there is a table showing the number and value of the earmarks which were sponsored by Maryland’s representatives in the House and Senate.

Continue reading →

Earmarks: Incumbent business as usual in Washington.

Posted on by

Sunday, June 10, 2012

We elect our Congressmen/women and Senators to represent us when they legislate in the national interest. Unfortunately, that’s not all they do. A good deal of their time, and a great deal of our money is spent devising “earmarks” to benefit us locally. Not incidentally, these dollars legislators get for local causes improve their prospects for re-election.

Continue reading →

Dutch Ruppersberger v. Nancy Jacobs: Vision versus old school politics.

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Dutch Ruppersberger v. Nancy Jacobs: Congressman Clueless.

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Money: Ever wonder why incumbents are so hard to beat?

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Negative Advertising: Changing voters’ minds.

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Negative Advertising: An essential means of voter education.

Posted on by

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.)

Continue reading →

Ben Cardin v. Dan Bongino: Reasonable questions.

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Ben Cardin v. Dan Bongino: The great blog debate.

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →