A day late...

I've got a bunch of relevant thoughts about this story and the related post on Howard County Blog #1. But first, the petty stuff.

I thought I had cornered the local market on Round Ups or Roundups, depending on your preference (I switched to "Round Up" on the advice of marketing consultants who, in their infinite and costly wisdom, explained that the title into two words, each with capitals, was more "impactful." And, impact is what this blog is all about).

Continuing with the petty stuff, how did HCB1 manage to write a post at 7:30 am on a Sunday morning? There is no way I can compete with such earliness. I'd like to mandate at least an 8 am start for weekend Howard County blogging. Anything before that is just out of the question.

Now, the real stuff.

The Republican members of Howard County's state delegation are not too pleased with the way their bills have been treated. As I said before, I don't think the bills in questions should have been approved, mainly because they meddle with decisions that should be made by a local body.

Unafraid of using hollow rhetoric, both sides traded verbal barbs.

"Today, the Democrats voted against agricultural preservation, for higher taxes and against seniors who own homes in Howard County," (Delegate Warren) Miller said.

Del. Neil F. Quinter, a Democrat who led the opposition to Miller's bill, responded in kind:

"Today, we voted to protect the environment, to preserve our dwindling farmland from runaway development and for fiscal responsibility, while the Republicans voted to gut agricultural preservation, trash the environment and blow a hole in county finances the way they've blown a hole in federal finances."

Here's to speaking without actually saying anything. Yippee!

HCB1, meanwhile, has his own take on the killed bills.

Bates argued that her bills would help taxpayers while Democrats said they would pre-empt county government tax-cut initiatives and cost millions of dollars in revenue.

And she is right and the democrats position is misleading at best. Just because the delegation approves the measure doesn't mean that it will pass the entire geneneral assembly. It also would have been a great prod to use against the County Executive and the County Council in order to get them to move on the issue.

(First quote from the Sun's story).

While we may have to agree to disagree on the worthiness of the bills, the belief that the entire General Assembly would not pass a bill approved by a local delegation is, according to my understanding, completely false. Not having served as a legislator, I can't say for sure if it's true, but from what I know, it is a unwritten rule that local bills approved by a local delegation will always win approval from the rest of the legislators. And this is they way it should be.

When local bills are involved, legislators should focus only on their counties, and not start meddling with the affairs of others. I don't want some schlub from some other county thinking he knows what's best for us. I leave that up to the schlubs who we actually vote for (I'm using schlub in this case as a term of endearment). Just as I'm sure citizens of other counties don't want my elected schlubs getting into their business. They're may be exceptions to this, but generally if a local delegation approves a bill, the rest of the General Assembly should assume that its worthy of wider approval.

Another piece of the article deals with something I object to on principle -- roadside sign waving. HCB1 is a supporter and participant in such activities, and I probably even saw him on my way to work last Friday -- though Chris Merdon, the actual candidate, was nowhere to be seen. Despite my feelings about sign waving, I can assure you that I was not one of those waving back with the one finger salute.

My real problem with sign waving is not the distraction factor, which the article focuses on. I just don't think it's effective. I understand that politicians need to get their names in the minds of as many voters as possible, but sign waving doesn't seem like it will really accomplish that, especially for our County Executive candidates who are both pretty well-known (or am I just too out of touch).

Another problem I have with the practice is pretty well summed up with this old post of mine.

[I]sn't this kind of a metaphor--however strained--for the state of politics in general? That is, superficial. I understand campaigning door-to-door and talking to voters. Doing so can help a politician understand what people really care about. But what good does (sign waving) serve?

I'm still waiting for an adequate response to that last question.

My feelings about the practice notwithstanding, I admire the postman-like work ethic of sign wavers. Neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night stays these campaigners from the swift completion of their appointed sign waving. Or something like that.