Ol' Willie Don is just a dirty old man

[Bruzilla]

My beef with Ehrlich started the day after the election. I, like a lot of others, put a lot of time and effort (yes.. I was a volunteer for him and went door to door in my neighborhood pushing the vote out for him) into helping him get elected. I remember talking to a lot of people, and I don't remember gambling ever being an issue... education reform and gun control reform sure were. On election night most of the Democrats stayed home, and a record number of Republicans hit the ballot boxes, and we got "our man" into the state house by a slim margin. And what was the response? The same mainstream dribble you guys are offering... "there's too many Democrats in the state!" Every talking head in Maryland was saying how the only reason that Ehrlich got elected was that a lot of black/Democrat voters came out and voted for him, which was total BS. If that were the case he would have won by a huge margin given the high numbers of Republicans that surged to the polls and the huge numbers of Democrats who stayed home. For the pundits to be right most Republicans would have needed to vote for KKT, and I greatly doubt that happened.

Republicans showed that a Republican could win out in a state that's deludged with Democrats in the same way that the Newt and his guys took the Congress in 2004... we made a case, explained what we were going to do, and we followed through. Ehrlich won the election, and all you started hearing was how the Democrats actually elected him and how he now needed to play ball with them, and that's what he did for most of the time that I lived there under his governorship. The only "challenge" to the Democrats that he offered was his silly little pissing contest over water at the fountain at the governor's house that he had with Schaefer.

Sure, Ehrlich can compromise... sure, he can "work" with the Dems in the Legislature... "work" meaning he's going to do as they say do when all is said and done... and what will happen in the end? You guys lose more and more of your dollars, more and more of your jobs, and more and more of your rights. Ehrlich campaigned on coming in and undoing the damages of the Glendenning years, and he's done pretty much zip. What Ehrlich does is get wrapped around the axle on softball issues that the Dems throw at him and hasn't made a case for anything he was elected to change, and therefore he can't make an impact with the people who elected him.

So... he shouldn't be a "dictator", shouldn't work against the legislature by going to the people with a strong and valid case for change, and shouldn't dress down Schaefer over this incident eh? Then WTF is the reason that another Republican surge to the polls should occur this year? Why should folks like me bust their butts for this guy? If we're to believe the dribble that there's "too many Democrats!!!" then what's the point. They sit at home and watch "That 70's Show" reruns while O'Malley makes his victory speech. So I guess you'all are right... Ehrlich did the exact right thing by not calling Schaefer on what he did. Heaven forbid he should do something that might score him some points with women voters, or something that shows Republicans that he's got a backbone.

I hope you guys are ready for more setbacks under Governor O'Malley.

 

[Larry Gude]

I was wondering about that...

was a volunteer for him

...jilted lover syndrome. The anger in your posts was WAY out of character for you so I was thinking there had to be more to the story.


I will never, ever do any more than casual work for a candidate precisely because of your experience or at least my perception of what typically happens; They are POLITICIANS. They take an oath to the people, all the people, as it should be.

Everyone thinks you gotta have a dog and pony show, beat on doors and kiss babies. I'm from the Tommy Lee Jones school of political excitement: "I said I support him, didn't I?"

My vote is the greatest and only thing I'll ever give a candidate. Unless they wanna hire me, pay me big bucks for my opinions.

Sorry you got spurned.

 

[Larry Gude]

Again...

...I say you want it all now or you're taking your ball home and pouting.

As a Marylander, here, day to day, my perception is that Ehrlich is constantly and from day one working to do what he promised. You still want a dictator. Ehrlich still has to deal with Miller and Busch. There's been plenty of batlles and fighting, maybe you, because of too much sun, just missed it?

The one BIG thing Democrats have always had to their advantage is to always, ALWAYS get what they can get, even if it's just a dribble, and be satisfied only to try harder the next time. A million dribbles, over time, is a bucket full.

Republicans have always been characterized by; here, now, all of it or I'm going home.

Democrats view politics as life; it's what they do, a means unto itself.

Republicans view politics as a means to an end; let's get the job done and go home, a means unto an end.

Patience, I see, is not one of your many virtues my friend.

 

[Ken King]

Sure, Ehrlich can compromise... sure, he can "work" with the Dems in the Legislature... "work" meaning he's going to do as they say do when all is said and done... and what will happen in the end? You guys lose more and more of your dollars, more and more of your jobs, and more and more of your rights. Ehrlich campaigned on coming in and undoing the damages of the Glendenning years, and he's done pretty much zip. What Ehrlich does is get wrapped around the axle on softball issues that the Dems throw at him and hasn't made a case for anything he was elected to change, and therefore he can't make an impact with the people who elected him.

Sorry you are so disappointed with Ehrlich but the facts are that as of the end of the last legislative cycle he had vetoed 514 bills that made it to his desk with less than 20 of those being overturned.

But what the Governor can't do is run the entire state and if his ambitions (via bills) don't get out of committee and make it to the floor then nothing he wants done can get done.

The reason it seems nothing is changing is because the make-up of the Legislator has not changed and until that body becomes more balanced or sways its direction we will be stuck with the same focus of importance.

 

[vraiblonde]

The reason it seems nothing is changing is because the make-up of the Legislator has not changed and until that body becomes more balanced or sways its direction we will be stuck with the same focus of importance.

And that's exactly the truth.

Bru, think about the tightrope Ehrlich walks: one slip and the crocs are on him. If he'd have given Willie Don a smack, the WashPost would have crucified him without mercy. You want Ehrlich to be more powerful - me too! But, at the end of the day, he doesn't "tell" the legislature crap - think of Bush trying to "work with" a majority House and Senate.

That friggin' Wal-Mart bill is a great example. Ehrlich vetoes it, and the legislature overrides him by huge margins - straight along party lines. Personally, I'd like to see him smack every single one of those Commies in the head - forget Willie Don.

 

[Bruzilla]

And that's exactly the truth.

Bru, think about the tightrope Ehrlich walks: one slip and the crocs are on him.

That friggin' Wal-Mart bill is a great example. Ehrlich vetoes it, and the legislature overrides him by huge margins - straight along party lines. Personally, I'd like to see him smack every single one of those Commies in the head - forget Willie Don.

I'd like to forgo the analogy to crossing a stream filled with crocs, and focus instead on a more realistic one... I'm thinking more like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. You're on a cliff, and the bad guys are approaching to kill you. If you jump off the cliff into the ragin waters you might die, but if you stay there you're definately going to die. If I were Ehrlich I would be more worried about the Federales than the raging river.

What exactly would the Washington Post have crucified him for? The only way they could attack him would be to say that he was mean to Schaefer/an old man, but then they would be open to criticism of attacking Ehrlich for defending the dignity of a female aid, in which case Ehrlich still gets good ink and gains some votes from undecided women. The Post would also then open themselves to criticism that they support sexual harassment... so I don't see them rushing to Schaefer's aid. Ehrlich would also be seen by Republicans as still being a fighter and gets some more votes. Your view is to avoid criticism by appearing weak, and that doesn't work.

Personally, I would rather go down swinging than go down a weakling, but that's just me. I think this was a huge missed opportunity for Ehrlich, and I would bet O'Malley is smiling from ear to ear.

 

[Bruzilla]

Sorry you are so disappointed with Ehrlich but the facts are that as of the end of the last legislative cycle he had vetoed 514 bills that made it to his desk with less than 20 of those being overturned.

But what the Governor can't do is run the entire state and if his ambitions (via bills) don't get out of committee and make it to the floor then nothing he wants done can get done.

The reason it seems nothing is changing is because the make-up of the Legislator has not changed and until that body becomes more balanced or sways its direction we will be stuck with the same focus of importance.

Yes, he's done a lot of vetoing, but that shows he's been in a purely reactive mode. He's eating up his clock dealing with the Lib's agenda and not the one we voted him into office to pursue. I guess you can make the argument that he's has to play the hand that he's dealt, but I look at leaders like Reagan and others who had the same hands to play and won. I lived for two years under Ehrlich, and I can't remember him ever really making a case for anything. I remember reading, mostly in these forums, about him challenging one thing or another that the Libs were doing, but it seemed to me like he never left the state house. He never seemed very eager to come out and make more contact with the people. I think that successful politicians got that way because they got the people on their side, and I never saw Ehlich make that connection very well, and so he was pretty much left to himself to combat the Libs and they had free reign to do whatever. Yeah, it's all so easy to write all that off to the Liberal MSM, but it seems to me he helped out quite a bit by rarely being a public face for the issues and framing the debates around larger issues like Trevor's Nanny State concerns.

So yeah... I see this whole Schaefer flap as just another example where he could have made a direct connection with the people, and wasted it. But we'll see what happens in November.

 

[vraiblonde]

The Post would also then open themselves to criticism that they support sexual harassment...

BRUZILLA! WHO is going to accuse Willie Don of sexual harrassment?

The women who stood by Clinton and said that sex between consenting adults is no big deal?

The Democrats who said we shouldn't be talking about Clinton's sex life when our troops are in harm's way?

The media that fluffed the Lewinsky story, then got pissed because Drudge broke it?

Personally, I would rather go down swinging than go down a weakling, but that's just me.

I'll suggest that Ehrlich doesn't want to go down at all, swinging or otherwise.