20060907 KDDC Thoughts on the Carroll County primary election

Thoughts on the Carroll County primary election on Tuesday, September 12th, 2006.

Posted by Kevin Dayhoff September 7th, 2006

The Baltimore Sun has come out with its endorsements of candidates for elected office in the Carroll County primary next Tuesday. For the complete Sun article, click here.

For my KDDC post listing all the candidates for elected office in Carroll County click here.

**For the District 4 Senate election the Baltimore Sun gives the nod to incumbent Republican Senator David Brinkley “whose district includes parts of Carroll and Frederick counties…”

The Sun notes that Senator Brinkley is a “Republican who works well with and is respected by members on both sides of the political aisle in the legislature.”

I could not agree more. I would add extraordinarily knowledgeable, wise and thoughtfulness to his accolades.

**For the District 4B Delegate race, the Sun says that incumbent Republican Del. Donald B. Elliott should get the vote. The Sun cites his positions on transportation needs and the importance of agriculture reflect his constituents' views.

Another no-brainer. “Doc” Elliott is highly approachable, pleasantly straightforward, hard-working and, his knowledge on health-care issues is renown in Annapolis.

** For the District 5 Senate, Baltimore and Carroll County, the Sun endorses “newcomer Michelle Jefferson, a former chairwoman of the local Republican Central Committee and candidate for the state senate…” The Sun suggests that “Strained relationships between local officials and the county's delegation over home rule need to be smoothed out.”

Well, the strained relationships certainly need to be ironed out, but replacing the long-serving incumbent Senator Larry Haines is NOT the answer. Hopefully as the vote next Tuesday will illustrate, many Carroll Countians have no problem with the Carroll County Delegation to Annapolis disagreeing with the Carroll County Board of Commissioners. We call it “checks and balances.”

In full disclosure, my family and I have counted Senator Haines as a friend for longer than he has been an elected official. I believe personal friendship means something. It has never interfered me with disagreeing with Senator Haines upon occasion, although no examples come quickly to mind.

I believe that as the vote will bear out; many Carroll Countians have been taken aback at the personal attacks on his profession, his church and his religion in his opponents’ overwhelming anxiety to marginalize him for disagreeing with the commissioners on issues.

The pundits, newspapers, opponents and activists have also greatly overlooked Sen. Haines’ excellent constituent service over the many years.

That is not to say I wish Ms. Jefferson to drop-out of her role in community leadership. I have a great deal of respect for her spunk. But perhaps before she eventually goes to Annapolis – or 225 North Center Street, in some capacity before her political career is over - she gets more experience before she ventures into the hallways and aisles of the Maryland General Assembly – where they eat their young and look longingly at friends for desert. At this stage in her career, Annapolis would eat Ms. Jefferson alive.

For the District 5A Delegate race, the Sun likes Republican C. Scott Stone and Del. Tanya Shewell.

I do also – however, no race in memory has given me more heartburn. My colleague as mayor, Hampstead Mayor Haven Shoemaker deserves the consideration of the voters. Quite intelligent, experienced, knowledgeable on the issues and approachable; I think that he would represent Carroll County as equally well as Mr. Stone, Del. Shewell or incumbent Del. Nancy Stocksdale.

Of all of the candidates, I have known Del. Stocksdale for much longer than she has been an elected official and she wrote the book on constituent service.

I feel very strongly that I could go to any of the four with an issue and get a fair hearing. In the long-run, that may very well be how voters make a decision in the voting booth.

All four candidates and their supporters have been very pleasant to me about the enormous quandary in which I find myself. That speaks highly of all four contenders. Of the four, I find myself agreeing with Delegates Shewell and Stocksdale much more than I agree with Mr. Stone or Mayor Shoemaker; however, all four candidates are pleasant in disagreement.

I do not necessarily look for a candidate in whom I agree with across the board, I look for knowledge base, approachability, commitment to constituent service and someone with whom I can disagree without them getting disagreeable.

I wish we could send all four to Annapolis. Take your pick.

There has been some discussion in the community that the negative tone of the election will back-fire on all challengers and voters will return all the incumbents as a result.

For more on this, see my Tentacle column of August 23rd, 2006, “Why go negative?” and my Westminster Eagle and Eldersburg Eagle columns on September 6th, 2006: Eldersburg Eagle opinion: “Just say no to reality TV mentality in Carroll County election” and for the Westminster Eagle opinion: “Just say no to reality TV mentality in Carroll County election”

In the District 9B Delegate contest to represent southern Carroll County, the Sun has endorsed incumbent Delegate Susan Krebs.

Another very difficult race for me as I very much like the positions of her challenger Larry Helminiak.

However, Delegate Krebs is quite hardworking, knowledgeable and friendly in any discussion on the issues. I have thoroughly enjoyed working with her over the years and feel that Carroll County would be well served by another four more years by Delegate Krebs.

I think that Delegate Krebs has been done a great disservice by some of her rabid supporters by their negative campaign against Mr. Helminiak – and the commissioner opponents.

How much the behavior of some of her supporters will hurt her election day is to be seen. The approach by some of her supporters is not the Delegate Krebs that I have very much enjoyed getting to know over the years.

I also like what I see and hear from Mr. Helminiak. I disagree with both candidates on several of the issues, however, my experience with both leads me to say that Carroll County would be served well in Annapolis by both contenders.

Ultimately, the nod here may go to the incumbent, in spite of the behavior of some of her supporters – but this may be one of the closer races to watch in the central Maryland area.

The Sun did not address the race for Senator from District 9; however, Senator Allen Kittleman is a rising star in Annapolis and by all means needs to be returned to office. His positions, knowledge and advocacy on agriculture, business and finance and race relations serve him and our community well.

For Board of Education, the incumbents Gary W. Bauer and Patricia W. Gadberry deserve another term, however, the idea of Dave Roush ascending to an elected leadership position will be great for Carroll County in the big picture. Take your pick.

For Judges of the Circuit Court of Carroll County: Judges J. Barry Hughes and Thomas F. Stansfield should be overwhelmingly voted into a fifteen year term. In Carroll County, we don’t take politicizing the judiciary very well. Both jurists will join a legacy of the many great judges that has come from the Carroll County legal community and history will reflect upon them well.

_________________

I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat it over and over again; a rule among classier community leaders prohibits promoting oneself by personally sniping at someone who holds a different point of view.

It is not only bad form but it makes you look like someone with the warmth and humanity of a water moccasin. It is always the source of amazement to observe folks who, in the same utterance, plead for understanding and tolerance for their views and then demonize or manufacture a personal attack on anyone who disagrees.

Often a candidate for office can more clearly define what they are against by positively articulating what they are for. Unfortunately, it would seem that many are only against things or persons and have no plan, vision or positive proposals for voters to consider.

In Carroll County the traditionally conservative Carroll County Democratic Party has disintegrated in the last 20 years. In the 1980s, some young and idealistic liberal Democrats hijacked the previously conservative Carroll County Democratic Party and swung it precipitously to the left – and off a cliff.

This has been a great disservice to Carroll County.

Formerly registered Democrats left the party in droves and joined the Republican Party. Traditional and very conservative Republicans have not adjusted well to this change and chaff at the approaches of the liberal “Rockefeller” Republicans.

(I hate to speak poorly of liberal Carroll County Democrats while they persist in a vegetative state but) since the Carroll County Democratic Party has not regained consciousness – (except in the municipalities, where liberals have quite a toehold) and shows no signs of recovering anytime soon; the tension in the Republican Party in Carroll County is palpable and will take a number of years to sort out.

It is imperative that a community have competing ideas and competition for leadership.

As it is, Carroll County must depend on competing ideas to come from the same party – the Republican Party. For many of us – we’re okay with that…

In central Maryland, many new folks have moved into the area and now that they occupy a home in a former corn field, they feel strongly that many of the folks in a leadership role and have handled issues, such as growth and development, poorly.

For someone like me that has become exhausted with the erosion of our traditional Carroll County quality of life, the NIMBYism, the increased complexity – and the growth and expense of government, as a result of poorly planned growth - - there are certainly examples that a sea-change in approach is/was necessary.

However, often many – not all - the new folks aspiring to be community leaders feel a huge sense of entitlement and are vehement about their positions and justify their unpleasantness by their sense of entitled outrage. Often these folks are insufferable.

To repeat a wonderful observation by the Washington Post some time ago – that I sure wish I had written: “The numbing repetition of uncorrected falsehoods creates a phony atmosphere of uncertainty around key questions... Eventually voters throw up their hands and accept the fact that they’ll never know for sure what the truth is, and confusion ensues

Add to this dynamic: the unpleasantness of the challengers and in some cases, the incumbents, has turned-off many voters. Faced with the devil we know or the unpleasant challenger, many citizens are going to go in the voting booth and choose the incumbent. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, history will tell; besides, there will be more elections and we’ll have a plenty of opportunities to tweak or change the direction of government.

Carroll County has done quite well for almost 170 years, the next four years will work their way into the fabric of history just fine.

This is a wonderful place to live and it can only get better, because of, or in spite of government and elected officials.

Whether you agree or disagree with my thoughts, be sure to vote next Tuesday. In most races, the primary will determine our future.

Kevin Dayhoff writes from Westminster Maryland USA.
E-mail him at: kdayhoff@carr.org
www.thetentacle.com
Westminster Eagle Opinion and
Winchester Report
www.thewestminstereagle.com
www.kevindayhoff.com

20060907 KDDC C Scott Stones Primary Election Endorsements

C. Scott Stone’s Primary Election Endorsements

In a recent email, candidate for the District 5A’s delegate seat for Carroll County, C. Scott Stone has weighed in with his endorsements for the Carroll County primary. Pasted below, it its entirety, please find his thoughts:

The outcome of the Republican Primary Election on Tuesday, September 12th,
is critically important to the future of Carroll County.

The battle between slow-growth, moderate Republicans and pro-growth, radical Republicans that began in 2002 is not yet over. The current state legislators in District 5 and many non-incumbent County Commissioner candidates want to return to those days of rampant, unrelenting residential growth throughout Carroll County.

We offer our wholehearted support for the following candidates. These
individuals have demonstrated their commitment to teamwork and possess proven records of accomplishments on behalf of Carroll County citizens.

Together, we believe they represent the best and brightest prospect for
Carroll County’s future.

Carroll County Commissioners:
Julia Walsh Gouge
Dean L. Minnich
Perry L. Jones, Jr.

Maryland State Senate:
David R. Brinkley (District 4)
Michelle Jefferson (District 5)

Maryland House of Delegates:
Donald B. Elliott (District 4B)
Haven N. Shoemaker, Jr. (District 5A)
C. Scott Stone (District 5A)
Susan Krebs (District 9B)

Carroll County Republican Central Committee:
Michael R. Guerin
Roberta J. Windham

Judges of the Circuit Court of Carroll County (non-partisan):
J. Barry Hughes
Thomas
F. Stansfield

Board of Education of Carroll County (non-partisan):

Gary W. Bauer
Patricia W. Gadberry

We know you are busy, but your vote is crucial. When you go to the polls, please consider voting for these outstanding candidates. Our county, our future, hangs in the balance!

Sincerely,Friends of C. Scott Stone
http://www.cscottstone.com/
Authority: Friends of of C. Scott Stone - Theresa A. Stone, Treasurer

20060907 KDDC Joshua Bolten responds to Senator Harry Reid et al

Joshua Bolten responds to Senator Harry Reid et al

September 7, 2007

The following arrived in my inbox recently from one of the many political email distribution list to which I subscribe… As a matter of fact – if I am not mistaken, I received it from several times…

Yesterday Joshua Bolten, the President's chief of staff, responded to a September 4th letter sent to the President by a dozen Democrats.

The letter by Senator Reid, Representative Pelosi and ten other
Democrats recites four elements of a proposed "new direction" in Iraq.

Mr. Bolten points out that three of those elements reflect well-established Administration policy -- and the fourth, beginning to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of the year without regard to the conditions on the ground, is dangerously misguided.

The letter by Joshua Bolten is substantive, on point, and worth reading. For more, see below.

_________________

September 5, 2006

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid

528 Hart SOB

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Reid:

Thank you for your September 4 letter to the President. I am responding on his behalf.

A useful discussion of what we need to do in Iraq requires an accurate and fair-minded description of our current policy: As the President has explained, our goal is an Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself.

In order to achieve this goal, we are pursuing a strategy along three main tracks -- political, economic, and security. Along each of these tracks, we are constantly adjusting our tactics to meet conditions on the ground. We have witnessed both successes and setbacks along the way, which is the story of every war that has been waged and won.

Your letter recites four elements of a proposed new direction in Iraq. Three of those elements reflect well-established Administration policy; the fourth is dangerously misguided.

First, you propose "transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection."

That is what we are now doing, and have been doing for several years. Our efforts to train the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) have evolved and accelerated over the past three years.

Our military has had substantial success in building the Iraqi Army -- and increasingly we have seen the Iraqi Army take the lead in fighting the enemies of a free Iraq. The Iraqi Security Forces still must rely on U.S. support, both in direct combat and especially in key combat support functions. But any fair-minded reading of the current situation must recognize that the ISF are unquestionably more capable and shouldering a greater portion of the burden than a year ago -- and because of the extraordinary efforts of the United States military, we expect they will become increasingly capable with each passing month. Your recommendation that we focus on counter-terrorism training and operations -- which is the most demanding task facing our troops -- tracks not only with our policy but also our understanding, as well as the understanding of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, that Iraq is a central front in the war against terror.

Second, your letter proposes "working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources."

You are once again urging that the Bush Administration adopt an approach that has not only been embraced, but is now being executed. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is pursuing a national reconciliation project. It is an undertaking that (a) was devised by the Iraqis; (b) has the support of the United States, our coalition partners and the United Nations; and (c) is now being implemented. Further, in Iraq's political evolution, the Sunnis, who boycotted the first Iraq election, are now much more involved in the political process. Prime Minister Maliki is head of a free government that represents all communities in Iraq for the first time in that nation's history.

It is in the context of this broad-based, unity government, and the lasting national compact that government is pursuing, that the Iraqis will consider what amendments might be required to the constitution that the Iraqi people adopted last year. On the matter of disarming militias: that is precisely what Prime Minister al-Maliki is working to do. Indeed, Coalition leaders are working with him and his ministers to devise and implement a program to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate members
of militias and other illegal armed groups.

Third, your letter calls for "convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort."

The International Compact for Iraq, launched recently by the sovereign Iraqi government and the United Nations, is the best way to work with regional and international partners to make substantial economic progress in Iraq, help revitalize the economic reconstruction and rebuilding of that nation, and support a fair and just political settlement in Iraq -- all while preserving Iraqi sovereignty. This effort is well under way, it has momentum, and I urge you to support it.

Three of the key proposals found in your letter, then, are already reflected in current U.S. and Iraqi policy in the region.

On the fourth element of your proposed new direction, however, we do disagree strongly. Our strategy calls for redeploying troops from Iraq as conditions on the ground allow, when the Iraqi Security Forces are capable of defending their nation, and when our military commanders believe the time is right.

Your proposal is driven by none of these factors; instead, it would have U.S. forces begin withdrawing from Iraq by the end of the year, without regard to the conditions on the ground.

Because your letter lacks specifics, it is difficult to determine exactly what is contemplated by the phased redeployment you propose. (One such proposal, advanced by Representative Murtha, a signatory to your letter, suggested that U.S. forces should be redeployed as a quick reaction force to Okinawa, which is nearly 5,000 miles from Baghdad).

Regardless of the specifics you envision by phased redeployment, any premature withdrawal of U.S forces would have disastrous consequences for America’s security. Such a policy would embolden our terrorist enemies; betray the hopes of the Iraqi people; lead to a terrorist state in control of huge oil reserves; shatter the confidence our regional allies have in America; undermine the spread of democracy in the Middle East; and mean the sacrifices of American troops would have been in vain. This new direction would lead to a crippling defeat for America and a staggering victory for Islamic extremists. That is not a direction this President will follow. The President is being guided by a commitment to victory -- and that plan, in turn, is being driven by the counsel and recommendations of our military commanders in the region.

Finally, your letter calls for replacing Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. We strongly disagree.

Secretary Rumsfeld is an honorable and able public servant. Under his leadership, the United States Armed Forces and our allies have overthrown two brutal tyrannies and liberated more than 50 million people. Al Qaeda has suffered tremendous blows.

Secretary Rumsfeld has pursued vigorously the President’s vision for a transformed U.S. military. And he has played a lead role in forging and implementing many of the policies you now recommend in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld retains the full confidence of the President.

We appreciate your stated interest in working with the Administration on policies that honor the sacrifice of our troops and promote our national security, which we believe can be accomplished only through victory in this central front in the War on Terror.

Sincerely,

Joshua B. Bolten

Chief of Staff

Identical Letters Sent To:

The Honorable Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Leader

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader

The Honorable Dick Durbin, Senate Assistant Democratic Leader

The Honorable Steny Hoyer, House Minority Whip

The Honorable Carl Levin, Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee

The Honorable Ike Skelton, Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee

The Honorable Joe Biden, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

The Honorable Tom Lantos, Ranking Member, House International Relations Committee

The Honorable Jay Rockefeller, Vice Chairman, Senate Intelligence Committee

The Honorable Jane Harman, Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee

The Honorable Daniel Inouye, Ranking Member, Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee

The Honorable John Murtha, Ranking Member, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee

# # #