Standing Pat

If you had told me a few months ago that 4 PM on July 31st would come and go with the Orioles making no significant moves, I would have thought you were crazy. Instead, it happened today. And it makes perfect sense. And this is what makes me feel better about it:

Despite not making any moves at baseball's non-waiver trade deadline, Orioles club president Andy MacPhail said today that the plan to build for the future is still in place. It's just that he didn't believe any of the offers he fielded matched his inventory.

"We had opportunities to do something stupid and we didn't do it," said MacPhail, in a teleconference roughly an hour after the trade deadline passed.

Let's face it; how many times have the Orioles done something stupid at the trading deadline (or, frankly, at other times) and done it. The last time the Orioles made a deal that could have made a significant impact was trading Larry Bigbie at the 2005 deadline to Colorado for Eric Byrnes, who was non-tendered at the arbitration deadline, anyway. And the last time the Orioles had a veteran they traded at the deadline was five years ago, when Sidney Ponson was shipped to the Giants for Kurt Ainsworth (pitched 33 innings for the Orioles), Damian Moss (made 10 starts, got nontendered, and washed out with Tampa Bay in 2004, and the start of the trade, prospect Ryan Hannaman (who last pitched professional with Frederick in 2004).

I'm glad to see that MacPhail could have pulled the trigger, but didn't just trade guys for the sake of trading guys. The veterans who could help a club this year (Huff, Payton, Millar, Hernandez, maybe Mora, Bradford, and Walker) will all clear waivers anyway and there is always the possibility that Brian Roberts, George Sherrill, or others could be traded for more significant pieces in the offseason.

Besides, not tearing the team apart will help morale and hopefully help the team reach .500 at the end of the season. Which, considering what I said in March, is a pretty damn big fear.

Here we go again

Not that I want to continue to prop up the left wing through pointing out their fallacies, Eric Luedtke has decided that it is time to tax the middle class into poverty through the creation of a funding source for transportation projects other than just the flat gas tax. Luedtke's reasoning is as follows: people are driving less due to high gas prices and the O'Malley Recession, ergo we need to find out a new way to make sure transportation projects can be funded.

So is the solution to do the logical thing and cut discretionary spending to cover the shortfall? Of course not, that wouldn't fit in with Luedtke's myopic worldview and limited economic understanding. Instead, he has two harebrained schemes designed to take money out of your pocket:

One alternative is congestion pricing, at least around the urban areas of Baltimore and Washington. The idea is that you set up a series of concentric rings around the cities, and use a sort of EZ-Pass system so that as commuters get closerto the center of the city, they pay a little bit as they enter each new ring. Similar systems have been successfully implemented in a number of places, most notably London.

That's right. He wants to charge you to drive on roads that you already have paid for, roads that are currently free. Now, I'm not opposed in principle to toll roads, particularly ones that are used in privatization plans that either takes highway maintenance off of the state budget, or the construction of new roads through private funding. But Luedtke's idea of brining congestion pricing to the US is the type of statist idea that is anathema to our way of life and would be devastating to the middle class and small business owners alike:

A payment of £8 is required for each day a chargeable vehicle enters or travels within the zone between 7am and 6pm; a fine of between £60 and £180 is imposed for non-payment.

That's the equivalent of $16 per day to enter downtown London, and I'm sure that Luedtke's scheme would involve similar or even higher congestion payments. It is ridiculous and it is absurd to think that such a system would even be proposed by somebody who wishes to be taken seriously.

As usual, he ends with a gem:

So, in the near future, we're probably going to see a drop-off in money for new transportation projects and reconstruction of infrastructure. Unless the state's politicians show a level of bold leadership that's not typical of politicians in bad economic times. Fat chance.

But at least there we can agree. Until Democrats show the type of leadership that understands the need to cut discretionary spending on unnecessary social programs in order to meet our common infrastructure needs, or until Democrats show the courage to call for and implement privatization systems, our transportation infrastructure will continue to remain unimproved, and the oft-raided Transportation Trust Fund will continue to dwindle....

Rewarding Failure

The day after I point out once again the shortcomings of mass transit in Maryland, it looks like poor transportation planning will continue in the Baltimore area:

In a shift away from highways-first transportation policies, top elected officials in the Baltimore region have decided to direct about $340 million in previously unallocated revenue over 20 years entirely toward mass transit projects.

The action by the Baltimore Regional Transportation Board comes in response to protests from citizen advisers and transit advocates that its previous long-range plan, called Transportation Outlook 2035, was too heavily weighted in favor of road projects.

The board is recognized by the federal government as the chief planning body for transportation in the Baltimore metropolitan region. Its members include the mayors of Baltimore and Annapolis, the Baltimore, Anne Arundel, Harford and Howard county executives, the Carroll County commissioners and state transportation officials.

The money comes primarily from Gov. Martin O'Malley's 2007 package of revenue increases from such sources as the vehicle titling tax and corporate taxes. The added revenue from that package had not previously been factored into the regional board's long-range plans.

In a vote last week, the board determined that all of the added funds should go to short- and long-term transit projects, a shift in priorities that officials said reflects concerns about air pollution, gasoline prices and dependence on fossil fuels.

Now, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with what the Transportation Board is doing here, if it were not for two key points:

1. Highway Capacity: Anybody who drives around the Baltimore metro area realizes that there are a number of highway projects that need additional highway funds. The Beltway, Route 100, Route 29, and I-83 could all use additional lanemiles in order to meet the already existing demand for these roads, to say nothing of the demand for these roads by 2035.

2. Rewarding poor performance: It makes it very hard to take the Transportation Board seriously as a governor body if they are going to dedicated $340 million in funds to be spent by an agency that has proved that they are, in fact, beyond incompetent. While the money will not all be explicitly spent on Transit Administration related projects, suggested expenditures include additional MARC service and the expansion of the Baltimore subway line. Given the MTA's poor performance so far, why do local county government wish to reward that failure with the potential infusion of more capital for the MTA and its management to squander?

How long will it be before Maryland has adequate and responsible transportation planning? And how long before Governor O'Malley makes the necessary wholesale changes that that Maryland Transit Administration so desperately needs?

So much for Hollywood's worship of "Truth to Power"

The Hollywood left always like to rally around the flag of somebody who stands up to Republicans or, more specifically, stand up to the Bush Administration. They are "saying truth to power" as the kids like to say.

Well, actor Jon Voight wrote a column in fact stating truth to power, at least the truth to the powers that be in the Democratic Party:

The Democratic Party, in its quest for power, has managed a propaganda campaign with subliminal messages, creating a God-like figure in a man who falls short in every way. It seems to me that if Mr. Obama wins the presidential election, then Messrs. Farrakhan, Wright, Ayers and Pfleger will gain power for their need to demoralize this country and help create a socialist America.

The Democrats have targeted young people, knowing how easy it is to bring forth whatever is needed to program their minds. I know this process well. I was caught up in the hysteria during the Vietnam era, which was brought about through Marxist propaganda underlying the so-called peace movement. The radicals of that era were successful in giving the communists power to bring forth the killing fields and slaughter 2.5 million people in Cambodia and South Vietnam. Did they stop the war, or did they bring the war to those innocent people? In the end, they turned their backs on all the horror and suffering they helped create and walked away.

A very much needed slap to the face of the Hollywood left.

Of course, the mindset of the fringe of the fringe of the fringe of American society can be best summed up by this idiotic post by some idiot named Jeffrey Wells at a blog called "Hollywood Elsewhere":

My honest deep-down reaction is that I now have a reason to feel negatively about the guy. I'm not saying Voight is on the HE shit list (although the idea certainly feels good -- just as it felt good to imagine the same thing last spring about Tina Fey when she became a rabid Hillary person on SNL), and I certainly don't think a symbolic condemnation along these lines would matter much to anyone. Nonetheless, it's going to be hard henceforth not to think of Voight as some kind of diseased wingnut.

That's right, the people who are trying to entertain America thinks that anybody who doesn't believe the Barack Obama, and that people who are not obsequiously subservient to the extreme leftist direction he is taking the Democratic Party and the direction he wants to take America, these people think that you and I (and probably 52% of their potential audience) are diseased. Diseased.

What a sad and pathetic statement from a sad and shallow community that isn't half as smart as they think they are.

What of course is most humorous is the fact that the same people who glorify Communist sympathizers who were blacklisted during the 1950's, these people who stood out for the crowd and stood up and spoke truth to power, are the same ones who ostracize conservatives for speaking up for the things that they believe in. These people are shallow, smug, and narrow minded in ways that I cannot dream of.

Hollywood's intolerance in the name of tolerance is said and pathetic, and maybe explains why the movies that most push a left-wing agenda bomb at the box office.

The Brian Griffiths Minute: 07-29-2008

The usual "high-quality" audio and video feed is decided less so for this show when even compared to the usual version. But hey, that's the perils of taking the show "on location":

RedMaryland radio is back Tuesday

RedMaryland Radio, hosted by Greg Kline and yours truly, is back on the air Tuesday evening at 5:15 on Oldies 970, WAMD in Aberdeen.

Our guest tomorrow will be Terry Gilleland, former member of the House of Delegates.

Have a question for Andrew? Question for us? Comments you want us to read on the show? Let us know at our new show email address, redmarylandradio@gmail.com. And be sure to check out our website at redmarylandradio.com. Be sure to listen to past shows posted under the "Past Shows" section of the site.

Check us out: (H/T Radio Locator)

Too Smart by Half

Eric Luedtke trots out a theory that Mike Miller is in all actuality going to retire, he's just not telling anybody at this point in order to keep the Senate together in one place.

Luedtke's thought process there is completely rational, and totally something that Mike Miller would do in order to continue being Master of the Senate. However, whee Luedtke's analysis goes wrong is right here:

Martin O'Malley's polling numbers have been, in the words of one West Wing character, 'Less than yeasty.' He needs to bring those poll numbers up to have a good shot at re-election. In order to bring up his poll numbers, the Governor is going to need the legislature to, you know, legislate. And not just normal naming of post office legislating, but big time get popular and ground-breaking stuff done legislating. Now, if Miller is retiring in 2010, and that fact is public knowledge, the State Senate's Democratic Caucus would spend the next two years splitting into factions as Senators Frosh and Middleton jockey for position.

And I don't think he could possibly be any more wrong here. The reason that O'Malley's poll numbers are less than yeasty has everything to do with what the Senate has done for O'Malley. Miller led the Senate towards higher taxes. Miller ensured the Senate didn't cut parts of the budget to make up the difference. Miller helped the Governor pass his ludicrous spending plans. Let's face it: Mike Miller being Mike Miller and helping out Governor O'Malley is exactly why the Goveror's poll numbers are in the tank. O'Malley got what he wanted, which is something that taxpayers are less than enthused about.

The funny thing is that if Miller had stayed retired, and Luedtke's "Lord of the Flies" scenario came to pass, the Senate would be virtually in a stand still. And that means that none of the Governor's out of the mainstream tax and spend proposals would ever see the light of day. In that scenario, the divided Senate protects O'Malley from O'Malley, with the only piece of legislation derailed that would hurt the poll numbers would be the likely temporary election year tax cut that Democrats always like to pass.

In Luedtke's analysis, he assumes of course that a Miller retirement would have been the end of the universe:

But as for the whole idea of keeping the Senate Democratic Caucus in line, here's something our Democratic State Senators need to remember - if O'Malley loses, all of us lose. Not just in the larger sense of getting stuck with another four years of Bob the Golfer. But also in two very serious ways: 1. A strong showing by a Republican gubernatorial candidate could increase Republican turnout and swamp some of our Senators in the more marginal districts, decreasing our advantage in the Senate, and 2. Whoever is elected Governor in 2010 will have significant power over the redistricting after the next census, and could create districts in such a way as to completely screw with Democrats, as happened with the Republican gerrymandering in Texas. Sitting Senators stuck in the same district. The map redrawn to create Republican districts in Democratic jurisdictions, such as northern Montgomery County. It. Would. Be. A. Disaster. In other words, if the Senate didn't do its job without papa Miller to ride herd, they wouldn't deserve re-election, because they'd be doing serious damage to the party.

Because for Luedtke and his ilk, the party always comes before the people. And he, of course, forgets what happened when the Glendening map was thrown out in court for....completely screwing Republicans and conservative Democrats, with sitting Senators stuck in the same district.

Of course, Luedtke calls it a disaster....I call it a good start.

What remains unsaid

The Sun again realizes something that has existed for quite some time:

Maryland's rural areas are likely to have a serious shortage of doctors in coming years, the state's medical establishment has warned.

Two government panels that are preparing recommendations on the problem for the governor and the 2009 General Assembly are studying the conclusions of a report by the Maryland Hospital Association and MedChi, the Maryland state medical society.

The report, known as the Maryland Physician Workforce Study, concludes that a shortage of doctors in rural Maryland is likely to worsen significantly by 2015 as older physicians retire and new ones choose to practice elsewhere.

Of course this is almost identical to an article they wrote in January that said the same thing.

But more troubling is the fact that, like the January article, the Sun provides political cover for the Democrats. What remains unsaid is that t was the Democrats, remember, who objected to Governor Ehrlich's medical malpractice reform during the 2004 Special Session. It was the Democrats who wanted to allow for unlimited caps on lawsuits against doctors and medical practitioners. And it was the Democrats whose obsequiousness to the trial lawyer lobby led them to create a situation like this one, that encourages doctors to pack up and leave the state.

And that's to say nothing about higher taxes...

That's what is pathetic about the Sun's article. The failed medical malpractice reform, combined with higher taxes and higher expenses, are driving doctor's out of the state. Like just about every problem facing Maryland right now, the cause for this one can be laid squarely at the feet of the Democratic majority...

Go Green by Saving Green

Resident arena apologist Dan Rodricks couldn't go three days without talking about the new arena, with yesterdays column adding new levels to his preposterous stance on the matter:

Here's how Baltimore gets the world's attention, attracts an NBA or NHL franchise, pulls in a major corporate sponsor, establishes another tourist destination a couple of blocks from Camden Yards, helps foster a new sector of jobs in Maryland and reduces long-term operating costs of its new downtown arena: with pizza made from tomatoes grown on the premises.

It is absolutely essential that the city recruit a visionary architect to design the new arena, and this design must be green from the ground up - even below ground - and I'm not kidding about including a terrace or hothouse for a tomato garden.

When I say "green," I don't mean 20 percent green. I mean green beyond green - far beyond what has been achieved in public and private spaces so far. Baltimore's new arena should meet or surpass goals of the U.S. Green Building Council. It should have a major wow factor architecturally but also set an example of sustainability for the nation and the world.

So to recap, Dan Rodricks, who already thinks that spending millions to build a new arena is more important than fixing schools and eradicating violent crime, now wants to double the cost of the arena, while increasing the price of tickets and concession on the middle and working class families of the area, just to make his bleeding heart feel better.

That's not to say that some of his ideas aren't good. I have no problem with the use of solar panels, particularly in light of the more effective and cheaper solar technologies that are out there these days.

But when you consider that fact that this new arena will be used more than the current arena, and the fact that the probably location of this arena is going to create traffic congestion worse than what we current see for the facility, wouldn't the most environmentally friendly suggestion regarding the new arena, if Rodricks were really serious about putting the environmental issue first, would be to not build it in the first place?

Rodricks support for the arena is somewhat inconvenient given his wacko environmental stances over the years. The easiest way to reconcile this is to save Baltimore taxpayers some green of their own, in the manner of the money that can be saved by not building this silly project.

Messing with the wrong Mariner

While the debate is going to rage about how wasteful it is to spend hundreds of millions on an arena in Baltimore, has anybody noticed that the City is going out of its way on this arena deal to screw one of its leading corporate citizens?

Sure, everybody has their own opinion of Ed Hale, but does it really make any sense to bring substantial financial ruin upon the only franchise that has called the Baltimore Arena home for the last 28 consecutive years? Of course it doesn't. Only a hard-headed, on the take idiot would come to the conclusion that you should tear down the current venue, kick out the current tenants, and build a brand new venue with the same crappy traffic and location problems as the old venue.

But of course, the person they are screwing is Ed Hale. And he has the money to do something about it. And it looks like Ed Hale is going to go into business for himself:

With Baltimore possibly building a new arena on the site of his team's home, 1st Mariner Arena, Blast owner Ed Hale will be looking for a new place to play - or he might just build one himself in Baltimore County. "I knew this could eventually happen," he said of the arena building site. "I've looked at UMBC and Towson University for possible places to play, but they don't work [because of small capacity]. And I've looked at possible sites in Baltimore County to build an arena - to privately build an arena - outside the city that would seat from 12,000 to 15,000. A nice size for our team and small concerts. And I've already had calls from people in Baltimore County with property who have said, 'If you want to do it, let's go.'" Hale said he will look into all of his options, including a lawsuit, if he finds he is severely damaged. "[The Blast] was never taken into account," Hale said when asked about the city's decision to build a new 18,500-seat arena on the 1st Mariner site. "We've been there for 20 years. Bernie Rodin brought the team to town in 1980, and we're not relevant? I've been a pretty good citizen. I've never asked for anything, and not one thing has been given to me."

So let's follow this. The city really had two options here. They could choose to build the arena in a new location, then tear down the old arena and sell the extremely valuable real estate for downtown redevelopment. Or, they could tear down the old arena and build a new one on top of the land, leaving the city without an arena and screwing over their one leaseholder.

By choosing option # 2, the city has created an interesting dilemma. If Hale goes through with his plan, now the Baltimore area will have two brand new arenas that will potentially be in competition with each other for some of the same shows, some of the same attractions, and some of the same sports teams. And on top of it, the Hale venture is going to probably be more accessible for the dollars of suburban families that will be needed to make either arena profitable. Does that make any business sense at all for the city of Baltimore?

Instead of doing the right thing and crate a situation that benefits all stakeholders, the city is going to do the boneheaded thing and engender negative feelings and potentially a direct competitor to their brand new arena enterprise. It makes me wonder if anybody on Mayor Dixon's staff truly understands the rules of business and the rules of economics....

The Tool and his Arena

Baltimore's favorite toolbox Dan Rodricks once again pipes in with his tired argument about how important it is to build a new arena in downtown Baltimore:

As for the nattering negativists who will surely say this is a dumb idea, that it will never work, that Baltimore will never get this and never get that - well, blah, blah, blah. We've heard it all before. Mr. Grumpy-Gills really should treat himself to the big picture sometime. I know. It's hard. You've grown accustomed to thinking weenie and being cynical. After all, that's part of our national culture, and the condition has long been acute here in Baltimore...

...But, really, the many of you who think small, and who make a hobby of ridiculing Baltimore and taking glee at the city's flaws, you who today think building a big, new arena on the site of our old, dumpy-but-still-bookin'-dates one is a foolish idea - you really need to get out more.

Seriously, the city has changed and is continuing to change. News flash: It's getting better. You should swear off blog entries, power down your PCs and get out of your basements for a day. Take a walk downtown.

Seriously, Rodricks needs to lay off the bong water and get real. Baltimore has sky high crime, with crime still at near crisis levels on a per-capita basis. Taxes are out of control. The Mayor is on the take. Schools are falling apart and failing to educate people. But Rodricks, in his infinite wisdom, thinks the most important thing to do is building a friggin' arena.

It takes a sports columnist, Rick Maese, to bring any common sense to the pages of the Baltimore Sun on this issue:

It's handy and it's dandy. Easy to fold and easy to hold. When you see your favorite politician, pass it on. When you see your local sports team owner, be sure to share. Because here it is for the very first time: The definitive, dead-on, no-excuses checklist.

If your city can't check off each of these items - ahem, pay attention, Baltimore - then maybe it should think twice before throwing public money at a sports arena or stadium.

And Maese goes on to list several common sense things that should be required to be in place before the city of Baltimore spends one penny on the construction of this new arena.

Somebody in Baltimore needs to get their priorities straight. Better schools, better roads, and safer streets are more important than a brand new sports arena. An arena is a symbol, yes it's true. But only an idiot like Rodricks would place more importance on spending hundreds of millions on a symbol, then spending money to truly reform the city's needed substance.

Of course, the city has other problems too, which I'll address in my next post.

No Kidding they're Sorry

The Baltimore Sun headline could have just been shortened to "MTA is sorry" as opposed to expanding upon the point, but the song seems to remain the same with the Transit Administration:

The head of the Maryland Transit Administration offered beleaguered MARC train commuters an apology and a series of explanations Wednesday for what he called six weeks of service "far below what customers expect or deserve."

In an e-mail to MARC riders, MTA Administrator Paul J. Wiedefeld disclosed that on-time performance during June had fallen to 63 percent on the Camden and Brunswick lines, and 81 percent on the Penn Line.

"Although some service disruptions are unavoidable, there were instances where we could have taken actions to reduce the anxiety, frustration and inconvenience that you and your family, friends and colleagues experienced," Wiedefeld wrote.

So once again, the MTA cannot deliver reliable service to customers. Customers that are doing their part to reduce the amount of cars on the highways between Baltimore and Washington, but who can never seem to get any reliable service....ever.

Yes, I know that Paul Wiedefeld is sorry, because that's exactly what his job performance has been as the MTA Administrator. Why Secretary Porcari or Governor O'Malley have not taken measurable steps to fix the problem, and to fire Wiedefeld and the rest of the MTA senior staff is beyond me. As usual, O'Malley and company never take the proper corrective action.

When, oh when, is Maryland going to get serious about improving mass transit?

Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!

Getting past the racial nonsense from earlier, Eric Luedtke wrote a spiel about school vouchers today and how vouchers are not the "silver bullet" conservatives claim that they are. Of course, I'm not sure who exactly calls them a silver bullet. Nor do I know of anyody who says that vouchers were the be all and end all of education reform. Nor is it only conservatives who support voucher programs. But hey, let's humor the lad, pat him on the head, and accept his premise for the moment.

Luedtke's arguments (and virtual recitation of NEA talking points), of course, can be easily deconstructed.

Four decades ago, far too many minority kids and kids living in poverty were put into 'vocational' tracks, rather than college prep tracks. Four decades ago, very few schools in the country were confronting the challenge of teaching english language learners, something standard in schools today. And, something major that Chapman neglects to mention, four decades ago most schools didn't even make a reasonable attempt to accomodate students with special needs. Meeting the moral obligation and federal mandate to provide quality special education is alone responsible for a huge uptick in education spending. As to no visible payoff, the National Assessment of Educational Progress reports that both reading and math scores have increased since the early seventies, despite increasing challenges and demographic trends. In other words, Chapman's either too lazy to back up his assertions with research, or he lied.

Luedtke is a history teacher, so he really should no better than to automatically assume that there is only one way to skin the beast here. Just because test scores are up does not mean that the there is improvement. Many of the core subjects that were taught in schools 30, 40, 50 years ago are no longer taught, and if they are taught they are taught in a way to appeal to the most common denominator. Students are not learning the things they learned back in the 1970's. They are not learning the useful life, career, and work skills that they did thirty years ago. True, a lot of that has to do with horrifically bad parenting, but schools have dropped the ball here because instead of teaching children to do things, they are teaching children to achieve on these tests. That's not learning, that's memorization, and there is a difference.

Let me pull out this extra special quote:

Four decades ago, very few schools in the country were confronting the challenge of teaching english language learners, something standard in schools today.

Apparently in Luedtkeville, people were teaching English speakers back in the day. What I think he means is that schools were not forced to teach ESOL students forty years ago in the manner in which they are today. But doesn't the existence of ESOL students and the challenges the Luedtke speaks of flying in the face of the increased NAEP scores that he referenced? Is Luedtke (again) trying to have it both ways? How can tests scores be up with all of these other challenges that require more school spending.

1. Vouchers can not possibly help the neediest students. Why? Because private schools, unlike public schools, get to decide who they accept. This means, among other things, that a school could use voucher money and only accept rich kids, that a school could reject all special education students, or that a school could choose only the highest performers and then claim the success of those students as their own success.

Luedtke immediately shifts from racism to class struggle here. Why? Who knows. The entire concept of private schools, of course, is that they get to decide who to accept. Isn't that the point of private schools? To provide alternatives for students who can best qualify for their services? Of course students should have to apply and be accepted at private schools to use their vouchers. If private schools were being forced to accept all comers who had a voucher, than nobody would accept the vouchers and the system would collapse before it ever got off of the ground. That would force schools to return to the mean, thus meaning that all schools regardless of their being an expensive private school or the worst urban school would be returned to the mean. And let's face it, the mean is not what public education should be striving for. His premise, as usual, is flawed.

2. Vouchers reduce accountability. Private schools aren't subject to the same accountability measures as public schools. In many places where vouchers have been implemented, there is a separate, less stringent, system of accountability for schools that voucher students attend.

Luedtke, as we mentioned, is a teacher. He is a member of the teachers union. Once he reaches tenure, he is virtually unable to be fired. How's that for accountability?

One can take a look around at the students being churned out by some school districts and see that accountability really isn't a big priority, either for the school system or for the students within that system. The "accountability" argument is a strawman because public schools could not stand up to the scrutiny that the education lobby wants to impose upon private schools participating in voucher programs. The only "accountability" at this point lies in tests given only after students are taught to the test. Unfortunately, teachers and administrators have learned that accountability can be sidestepped if students spend more time preparing to take a test than learning important concepts or developing their writing and critical thinking skills. Skills that are useful to be successful adults. Accountability in that way only means that teachers and school districts are meeting requirements only to protect themselves and in order to meet the requirements of the poorly title and even more poorly thought out No Child Left Behind Act.

3. Vouchers are expensive. Places that have implemented vouchers have effectively had to create two school funding streams. Think of it as a financial commitment to an entirely new school system. In other words, those who support vouchers also support large tax increases, or large budget deficits.

Once again, say hello to the strawman. As usual, Luedtke backs this up with nothing. And, frankly, it is an intellectually dishonest argument. The per-pupil cost of a voucher is much less than the dollars spent per-pupil in the public school systems. The only way that there would be "two school funding streams" would be in a situation where politicians wanted to create a voucher system without proportionately reducing the amount of dollars being spent in the "regular" school system. Even in an appropriate situation where voucher money would be taken directly out of the operating budget of the school system, the per-pupil spending in public schools would increase since the cost of a voucher and the cost of educating a student in private schools would be much much less than that of public schools.

4. Vouchers don't work. The research on voucher programs is fiercely debated, but the most neutral observers out there pretty much agree that, for the vast majority of students, vouchers don't improve the quality of education, nor does the competition force much change in public schools. There are, of course, exceptions, individual kids for whom the opportunity to choose their school through vouchers has made a huge difference. But...

The truth is that vouchers work. And it's not just public school voucher programs that work, either. A private foundation in Pittsburgh has made it work there, with fantastic results:

Most of the 830 pupils who attend the Extra Mile schools are non-Catholic and low-income. An average of 70 percent of the pupils -- and as many as 87 percent in some schools -- have family incomes low enough to qualify for the free or reduced-price lunch program.

Parents who rely on the Extra Mile subsidies to help pay school costs are on public assistance, are low-wage earners or are not working because they're in school. Many are single parents. Some are grandparents or great-grandparents raising children who were neglected by their own parents.

These families put education first despite obstacles they face in their lives.

"[The children] learn academics, but they also learn a real sense of themselves, that they can fly," said Ambrose Murray, executive director of the Extra Mile Foundation.

And really isn't that what it's all about. Vouchers aren't about being "the silver bullet" to fix all schools. No mainstream supporter of school choice realistically wants to see the abolition of all public schools. But vouchers are about opportunity. The opportunity for talented children stuck in decrepit schools to learn, to thrive and to provide a better life for themselves and for their progeny. That's why one leading former elected official said the following about school choice:

Some say that school choice, especially vouchers, will weaken public education. My response is that choice can only strengthen public education by introducing competition and accountability into the mix. Others claim that school choice is undemocratic. My response to them is that choice is in keeping with the aspirations for freedom that formed the core of American democracy. As former Delaware Governor Pete Du Pont once wrote, "It's about the liberty to choose what's best for your children." All of us should have that choice.

Some say that school choice is elitist, or even racist. The truth is that black low-income children are among the prime victims of the nation's failing public schools. African-American parents know this all too well. This is why they have been so open to the idea of school choice...

...I am convinced that with time, and through open dialogue, critics of school choice will come to see this movement for what it is: part of an emerging new civil rights battle for the millennium, the battle for education equity. We need to give poor children the same right that children from more affluent households have long enjoyed. The right to an education that will prepare them to make a meaningful contribution to society. It is that simple.

Who made that statement? Kurt Schmoke. And he's not the only pro-school choice liberal out there. Newark Mayor Cory Booker is a supporter, too. And when you expand the concept of school choice further, including charter schools in the equation, even more liberals support the concept as well. Just look at the bipartisan support for D.C.'s Opportunity Scholarship Program, which has received the attention and support of both DC Mayor Adrian Fenty and Senator John McCain.

5. Vouchers are not the only way to give families a choice. School choice can be provided within the context of public schools. I've written before (a long time ago, so I won't dig it up) about the school choice programs Montgomery County has created, the Down-County Consortium, the Northeast Consortium, and the Middle School Magnet Consortium. These programs allow students to pickwhich school they want to attend, and to pick schools with specialized elective that they either have an interest in or want to pursue a career in. For example, the Parkland Middle School program in Aerospace and Robotics Engineering has given middle schoolers a chance to take extremely advanced scientific courses at a young age. And this is in a community highly impacted by poverty.

This is one argument in which Luedtke isn't necessarily wrong. To have true school choice one would have to have a number of options within the public schools in addition to vouchers. Luedtke, of course, would have institutional knowledge of this as he teaches at one of these schools in Silver Spring.

But let's think about this rationally, too. If public schools were fully capable of meeting the educational needs of all students, providing all students with the opportunities they need in order to succeed and achieve, wouldn't public schools be doing it already? And furthermore, if public schools and public school teachers were already meeting all of these needs and succeeding, would not the union enthusiastically support more teacher accountability in order to highlight those teachers who were achieving and succeeding in these schools. The truth is that public schools currently cannot meet this need, and we owe it to ourselves as citizens to offer students appropriate opportunities to advance. And sometimes that means thinking outside the box and allowing the market to take care of things.

6. Finally, vouchers are unpopular. Conservatives would have you believe that the only people who oppose vouchers are the teachers unions. This simply isn't true. Every time vouchers have appeared on the ballot since 1972, they have failed. And majorities in every public opinion poll oppose them.

When you start citing opinion popularity a reason something is bad, you're in trouble. True, there are a number of states in which voucher referenda went down. But except for Utah, all of those states were and remain heavily unionized states. It's easy when you realize that labor unions would coalesce around the teachers union to defeat a voucher program, even when it against the interest of those some union families.

When it comes to cockamamie arguments like this, I easily and readily remember one addage from my middle school days that always seemed liked liberal groupthink happyspeak, but it fits here:

"What's right is not always what's popular, what's popular is not always what's right".

It is easy to see why Luedtke is dyspeptic about the notion of school vouchers. As a union activist, that's potentially money out of his pocket, more power away from his union, and one way to determine whether or not public schools (and, ergo, union members) are getting the job done. If parents and students have the opportunity to vote with their feet and choose to go to private schools or to another public school with their voucher money, that may mean fewer opportunities for teacher's union members to earn higher promotions and higher pay. The opposition to vouchers by union members and their advocates has less to do with protecting interests of children and more to do with protecting their self-interest. They fear the open educational market that would be created.

For something truly informational regarding school choice, check out the Heartland Institutes's short pamphlet detailing ten arguments for School Choice, which is a nice and concise primer on the issue and why it is so important to improve educate.

The argument against vouchers by Luedtke and the teacher's union, thus, can easily be summed up by the words of one Governor William J. Le Petomane:

We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!

EDIT: The Manhattan Institute is not a liberal think tank, far from it. That error has been corrected, apologies.

This never ending Racialization is getting old

Once again, Eric Luedtke goes tries to equate conservatism to racism again, this time in regards to school vouchers:

Vouchers is one of those, an attempt to apply a radical conservative ideology to a public good. To give you an idea of what I mean: Milton Friedman, the great conservative economist who wrote Capitalism and Freedom, not only proposed school vouchers, but argued that the Civil Rights Act is not necessary because market forces will end discrimination. I'm sure Rosa Parks would have been comforted to know that if she had not sat down on that bus, the free market would have eventually solved segregation for her.

An unnecessary, pointless cheap shot at Friedman. It would also be a cheap shot to note that the Civil Rights Act would not have been necessary had Democrats not supported Jim Crow laws for 80 years, so I won't say it.

But how come the privileged Caucasians over at Free State Politics equate everything conservative to racism? You might almost think that they have no other arguments to stand on.

I'll address Luedtke's nonsense comments on education in a separate post....

Al Gore: Owned

The Al Gore is God Society may take umbrage with this, but let me share with you this clip from Meet the Press yesterday as Al Gore tries to defend his "do as I say, not as I do" lifestyle:



Glenn Reynolds notes the following:

My observation is that Al Gore is looking (and sounding) more and more like a Baptist televangelist all the time.

Amen...

Taking the good with the batty

Noted lefty-loon Michael Dresser actually looked like he was starting out with something interesting and sensible this morning:

Tom Hicks knows almost everything there is to know about Maryland highways. He's 75, and has been the State Highway Administration's chief traffic safety engineer for 40 years. He's as frisky and energetic as a new recruit and isn't planning to retire "till I get it right."

Hicks is a passionate advocate of safer roads but not a by-the-book devotee of current posted speed limits. In fact, he's all for raising the speed limit on some Maryland highways.

"We're really somewhat fraudulent in our speed limits - like on the Beltway," Hicks said during a recent extended chat at the highway administration's safety office near BWI.

OK, that's a good start. What was next?

Hicks said that on limited-access highways, it's safest for drivers to go with the flow rather than stick to the legal limit. Based on years of study of driver behavior, he has a high degree of confidence in the judgment of most folks on the road. Except for a stubbornly fast 10 to 15 percent, he said, drivers tend to choose a sensible rate of speed - regardless of the posted limit.

"The motorist is setting a pace based on conditions at the time, no matter what the signs are," Hicks said. What matters most to safety, he said, is "relative speed." That is, the less difference between thee and me and all the others on the road, the better.

Hey, it looks like somebody is finally starting to make sense when it comes to traffic policy, speed limits, and law enforcement. And of course, it is a traffic engineer. It's nice to see that somebody who has the experience and the background on speed limits and traffic flow is speaking out so publicly about how bad state policy is in setting speed limits on limited-access highways.

Of course, never one to actually make a lick of sense, Dresser pipes in with his own poppycock:

My suggestion, for which Hicks is blameless: Increase the prevailing speed limit on roads such as the beltways, Route 32 and Route 100, but couple that with stiffer enforcement, including the use of cameras. Cut the unofficial police zone of tolerance, now 10 to 15 mph, roughly in half.

Next, establish 80 mph - or 20 over the limit - as the Line of Doom for Maryland roads. Mandatory court date for reckless driving. No probation. Big insurance bills. Big billboard campaign.

Yes, this is no less crazy than when Dresser floated such nonsense on Christmas Morning 2006. Of course, this is completely insane assuming that the highest threshold would be 85 MPH on a posted 65 MPH roadway. One can easily and safely negotiate most highways in the region that are outside of the immediate metropolitan areas at speeds of 85 or higher. Artificially limiting speeds at 85 will do nothing but exacerbate the existing problems. It still takes the judgment away from the driver and the police officer and immediately creates a crime that may or may not be happening at the time.

Dresser's cockamamie plan will accomplish nothing but higher court fees, higher administrative costs and, somewhat ironically, fewer cops on the street to enforce his silly idea.

I Get Letters

I'm not going to spend too much time talking about the John Leopold piece in today's Capital because it really doesn't say any more about John Leopold being in it for John Leopold any more than I do any other day.

But I get letters, and this is a doozy:

On Friday night...we got caught in a several mile long backup at a sobriety checkpoint on Rt. 3 in Crofton. It was 10pm when we hit the bumper-to-bumper traffic…and we sat…and we sat some more…creeping along Rt. 3 at a snail’s pace. We sat…idling, moving along one car length at a time for over an hour…3 lanes of heavy traffic having to merge into 1 lane. When we finally reached the front of the ‘checkpoint’, every car that had been waiting for over an hour was waved through. No one was stopped. No one was ‘checked’….....As we drove through this ‘checkpoint’ we passed 30 or 40 county and reserve police officers chowing down on what looked to be hotdogs and drinks being served out of a trailer. Tell, me…why did I sit in that mess for over an hour? Why did I have to waste my time and my gas (which, by the way is hovering around $4.00 per gallon in case the county hasn’t noticed)? For what??? Capt. Teare? County Executive Leopold? Do you have an answer?

This is the responsible Government that John Leopold is trying to foist upon the people of Anne Arundel County? Free hotdogs for cops at a Sobriety Checkpoint? And while I'm not a big fan of sobriety checkpoints in general, I'm certainly not a fan of turning them into a cookout, either?

Anybody care to try to explain this? Anybody? Bueller?

Kratovil: Look for the Union Label

Eric Luedtke has his knickers in a knot because Andy Harris has accepted $9,000 in contributions from Oil Company PACs.

That got me thinking, how much money has Frank Kratovil taken from, say union PACs?

AFL-CIO COPE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS COMMITTEE	03/26/2008	2500.00	28990858481
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION-COPE	02/22/2008	250.00	28930766435
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION-COPE	03/14/2008	500.00	28990809503

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVT. EMPL. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE	03/24/2008	500.00	28931214256
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES - P E O P L E, QUALIFIED	03/27/2008	5000.00	28990875596

COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA-COPE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS COMMITTEE

02/21/2008

5000.00

28930818828

DRIVE - DEMOCRAT REPUBLICAN INDEPENDENT VOTER EDUCATION - PAC FOR INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF T	04/09/2008	1000.00	28931584922
ENGINEERS POLITICAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE (EPEC)/INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS	05/21/2008	5000.00	28991319554

DRIVE - DEMOCRAT REPUBLICAN INDEPENDENT VOTER EDUCATION - PAC FOR INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF T	04/09/2008	1000.00	28931584922
ENGINEERS POLITICAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE (EPEC)/INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS	05/21/2008	5000.00	28991319554

MACHINISTS NON PARTISAN POL LEAGUE OF THE INT'L ASSN OF MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE WORKERS

03/27/2008

5000.00

28990788019

NEA FUND FOR CHILDREN AND PUBLIC EDUCATION

03/28/2008

1000.00

28990863773

POLITICAL EDUCATIONAL FUND OF THE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT AFL-CIO

02/27/2008

1000.00

28990616933

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION (SEIU COPE)	02/06/2008	5000.00	28990697192
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION COMMITTEE ON POLITICAL EDUCATION (SEIU COPE)	04/11/2008	5000.00	28931693286
SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION LEAGUE	03/25/2008	2500.00	28990855976

TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS COMMITTEE	05/01/2008	1000.00	28991270198
UAW - V - CAP (UAW VOLUNTARY COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM)	03/10/2008	1500.00	28931127438
UNITED ASSOCIATION POLITICAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE	03/27/2008	5000.00	28931174045
UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION ACTIVE BALLOT CLUB	01/16/2008	1000.00	28930610559
UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION ACTIVE BALLOT CLUB	02/29/2008	5000.00	28930819742
UNITED STEELWORKERS POLITICAL ACTION FUND	03/31/2008	2500.00	28931077829
UNITED STEELWORKERS POLITICAL ACTION FUND	03/31/2008	2500.00	28931077829

That's $63,750 in contributions from unions to the Kratovil campaign. Not counting other donations from D.C. PACs.

If Andy Harris has been "bought" by the oil companies, does that mean that unions bought Frank Kratovil seven times over?

Sycophantic Obsequiousness

FSP is once again touting the merits of Al Gore's hypocritical, pie in the sky plan to railroad the U.S. towards clean energy without regard to economic consequences. But, of course, the fringe element never lets the facts get in the way of a good story and the pseudonymous poster "lefty" is exposing the fringe element for what they truly are.

In the comments in that post, "lefty" decides to launch into an attack on me personally instead of discussing the (lack of) issues I brought up regarding Gore's hypocrisy and the clear lack of a consensus on climate change. Instead of discussion, I get stuff like this:

So if I write a blog entry that says that all conservatives are deranged sociopaths who like to have carnal relations with goats, would it be OK for a bunch of allegedly influential liberal bloggers to pick up the story and create a similar feeding frenzy, on the grounds that the "consensus is building that Brian Griffiths and his conservative friends are all goat f*****s"? That's the moral equivalent of what you're claiming. The problem is that this kind of stupid-ass feeding frenzy only happens on the starboard wing of the blogosphere.

Classy.

These are the type of people that are, unfortunately, at the vanguard of the left-wing movement here in Maryland. People who a sycophantic and obsequious to whatever the Democratic Party is standing for today, and will stoop to any level to keep discussion, dissent, and debate out of site and out of mind. As I stated before, people like "lefty" believe in the Plutocracy, that they know better than you and that it is their Geia-given right to shout you down for disagreeing with them.

I feel bad, because I can go to bed every night with my conscious clear that I am thinking for myself and supporting policies in the best interest of my state and my country, not blindly following bad ideas in the name of the party.

Making a Mockery

Good to see that politicians can also get away with reckless behavior virtually unscated

House Majority Leader Kumar P. Barve pleaded guilty Thursday to drunken driving as part of plea agreement.

''I'm here to take full responsibility for my actions," Barve (D-Dist. 17) of Gaithersburg told the court. ''... I have learned from this situation and I will never do this again."

District Court Judge Mary C. Reece placed Barve, 49, on one year's unsupervised probation and fined him $1,000 with $800 suspended because it was a first-time offense.

He was arrested by Gaithersburg City Police at 11:43 p.m. Nov. 29, according to traffic citations. Barve was charged with driving while impaired and driving under the influence, which required the four-term delegate to stand trial.

He also was charged with failure to obey a traffic device and failure to drive right of center, each a $90 fine.

Sadly, Barve's slap on the wrist is pretty common in the world of drunk driving and criminal prosecution in Maryland, as Greg Kline pointed out with his experiences as an attorney.

Unfortunately, Barve would have been the perfect person to make an example of. He should go to jail for his offense (like many other convicted Drunk Drivers should also be sentenced to time in jail). But he isn't.

Instead of serving as an example of the consequences of one's actions, Kumar Barve serves as an example both of the nearly criminal negligence in our judicial system when it comes to punishing lawbreakers, and also as another sad example of the Democratic Chain Gang that is tainting the highest levels of the Maryland Democratic Party and Maryland State Government.

The Continually Unraveling Consensus

If there is anybody left who actually believes that there is a scientific consensus that global warming is happening, chew on this:

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"

Now obviously, an influential component of a very large and important organization of scientists distancing themselves from this unproven theory should shatter the notion of a consensus in support of anthropogenic global warming.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Al Gore had his little shtick the other day, and Michelle Malkin helps expose he and his minions for what they are:

The Racialization of the Purple Line

It looks like we are getting close to the point where the Purple Line in Montgomery County is going to get dragged down an unnecessary road.

To make a long story short, there is a lot of opposition to the construction of the purple line, and the Columbia Country Club is at the vanguard of that movement because the proposed course may or may not be on land that belongs to the club (yes, it's a pretty convoluted story).

Well, what first drew my attention to Eric Luedtke's post today about the issue was this:

The Purple Line is mass transit, and while mass transit helps everyone, the socio-economic group that most benefits are those who live below the poverty line.

Which, of course is patently absurd. Mass transit does not help everyone. It only helps people who use mass transit. Ask some of the folks who live near the Light Rail line if they have been helped by mass transit when it brought crime into their neighborhoods.

Unfortunately, that was only the beginning. Because Luedtke then jumped to the assumption that it's a racial issue:

Now, I absolutely don’t believe that David or most of the other Purple Line opponents I’ve met are intentionally being elitist. But they are advocating for an inequity, in the same way that a person who is not at all racist can unknowingly support elements of institutional racism. And the Columbia Country Club, whatever its role in their effort, is the poster boy for that whole issue.

Emphasis mine. Luedtke makes the same fundamental mistake that Michael Dresser made in the Sun last week by assuming that opposition to mass transit is fundamentally race based. And this is a card that the fringe left seems to be starting to play more and more every day. The left is trying to make any opposition to mass transit not based on the need for construction, the route, or in this case even the violation of private property rights (well, maybe). They immediately assume that the Columbia Country Club and the people who oppose the Purple Line are doing it to keep minorities and lower socioeconomic classes down. That of course further clouds the issue as to where and if the line should be built, burying behind an unneeded haze of identity politics.

I really don't have an opinion about the Purple Line itself, but I do not see why the debate about its construction needs to join many other topics that have needlessly been impacted by race. The introduction of race into the discussion of the mass transit by Luedtke, Dresser, and others is unnecessary and just makes it harder to discuss issues where racism is a legitimate problem.

Slow as usual

Blowhard-at-large Joe Albero posted an "email from a reader" today like it's breaking news about the role of Government in the move of the Colts.

Too bad Mark Newgent wrote about the exact same thing two weeks ago.

Poor Joe, always a day late and a dollar short.

Electoral Victory through Conservative Branding

Two veteran Republican operatives agree with the branding problems with the Republican Party:

In 2006, voters rejected the Republican brand - not conservative ideals. America remains a right-of-center nation. Indeed, the greatest Democratic successes in 2006 were when they ran conservative Democrats who at times seemed more conservative than their Republican opponents (examples include Sen. Bob Casey in Pennsylvania and Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina).

The same pattern has been seen this year. Yet the talk among the congressional Republicans has been on how to appear more moderate. It is as if the leaders want to adopt the "me-too Republican" approach that failed so dismally until the election of Ronald Reagan. Running away from the conservative philosophy will only ensure a long-term Republican minority, such as happened in the 40 years before the "Contract With America..."

...What are the conservative principles that need to be emphasized? They are quite simple and resonate with most voters: strong economic policies that stress less government, less taxes, and the entrepreneurial spirit of the individual; a strong national defense; enforcement of immigration laws; and a willingness to fight environmentalists to allow drilling on American soil.

Read the whole thing, as this is just more proof that the problem with Republican politics in the 21st century is not the ideology of conservatism, but leadership that itself is not conservative. Once we figure out how to fix that, Republicans will reassume the mantle of ascendancy that we lost when Congressional leadership went native a few years back.

RedMaryland Radio is back Wednesday

RedMaryland Radio, hosted by Greg Kline and yours truly, is back on the air Wednesday evening at 5:30 on Oldies 970, WAMD in Aberdeen.

Our guest tomorrow will be Andrew Langer, Eastern Shore Coordinator for the McCain Campaign.

Have a question for Andrew? Question for us? Comments you want us to read on the show? Let us know at our new show email address, redmarylandradio@gmail.com. And be sure to check out our new website at redmarylandradio.com. (We're still working the kinks out of it!)

Check us out: (H/T Radio Locator)

I really have nothing to say....

....other than I think that this violates Maryland's helmet laws for motorcycles... I think. These are allegedly zero gas emission vehicles, like a Segway on steroids. But what this has to do with hybrid buses, which is what story that the Sun attached this goofy photo to, is beyond me.

Governor O'Malley and Big Labor

Following up with yesterday's post about Maryland, labor, and the O'Malley Administration comes more complaints from the left regarding the O'Malley's Administrations dealings with the labor movement. Adam Pagnucco at Maryland Politics Watch has a long post discussing the topic. Be sure to read the entire thing, but here's a sample of the grievances big labor has with O'Malley and the Democrats:

Among the bills that died in 2008 were ones requiring employers to provide shift breaks, requiring construction contractors on state jobs to participate in state-registered apprenticeship programs, requiring construction contractors on state jobs to provide health insurance, requiring construction projects over $500,000 to have lavatories, prohibiting state agencies from purchasing apparel from sweatshops, requiring any casinos permitted by the slots referendum to negotiate project labor agreements for their construction jobs, establishing a Public School Labor Relations Board, and increasing the maximum weekly unemployment insurance benefit.

However, one of the most interesting pieces of this puzzle is near the bottom of the post:

"What's the alternative?" asked one labor leader, dismissing out-of-hand any consideration of the still-detested former Governor Robert Ehrlich. That may be a valid point, but here is the problem for Governor O'Malley: how many people in his base are now asking that question?

This goes back to something I discussed yesterday as it relates to big labor and their predisposition to blindly follow Democrats. It's true, labor leaders really are left with nowhere else to go other than the oft-mentioned possibility of a primary challenge by Comptroller Peter Franchot. But union members themselves, that's another story.

When you really get down to it, the preponderance of union members themselves are not liberals, and will not steadfastly adhere to the Democratic Party line. If labor leaders falter, particularly in Maryland, they will lose access to the administration and to government officials if they even hint that there is a possibility they may endorse a Republican. Labor leaders are held captive by the political climate, hence they often put their interests ahead of their members interests. But there is nothing to stop union membership from bolting. Many of these members are Republicans or Reagan Democrats. They believe in small government, own firearms, and don't want to pay more in taxes. It's true, from the perspective of the union leader who isn't getting their agenda passed, there may be nowhere to go. But at the same time, union members may turn away in drovers due to the higher taxes and more statist agenda coming from O'Malley and the Administration.

And if you read the rest of Pagnucco's post along with what FSP's Eric Luedtke has to say about the Democratic base, then the Governor's re-election could be quite a minefield before he even has to worry about the return of Governor Ehrlich. I've talked before (and Isaac Smith so helpfully points out) about how the fringe left does not find O'Malley fringe left enough, and because of that it looks like that Governor is certainly going to be living in interesting times between now and November 2010.