Tag Archives: Red Maryland

Red Maryland, Republicans

Hogan Cheerleader Blog Continues MD GOP Fear Mongering Campaign


There they go again. Building on the Maryland Republican Party’s  fear mongering mass email over foreign election observers, Hogan Cheerleader Blog Red Maryland continues the scam by implying that election observers would be Russian and this is how the Russians interfere in our elections.

Of course, anyone who reads a newspaper should know this isn’t how the Russians tampered in 2016 and that fighting off observers is playing into Trump’s “fake news” scam by fighting off efforts to improve and to secure our elections.

The could have also bothered to search the web and found the 2016 OSCE election report. Among the over 400 observers were exactly two from the Russian Federation. In contrast, the United Kingdom and Spain, to take just a couple of examples, sent 25 apiece. You can read their final report, including recommendations, here.

Red Maryland bloggers may not say they don’t like Trump and Hogan is different. But they sure are his – and Larry Hogan’s – “useful idiots” as Lenin might say. Needless to say, Governor Hogan has remained #HoganSilent on MD GOP Trump tactics.

Share
Media

Why Does the Capital Publish this Guy?

Normally, I view the Annapolis Capital as a good paper with often a fine bead on state politics due to its location. But after reading Brian Griffiths’ column, you have to wonder about their judgement.

Griffiths, the editor-in-chief of the Republican blog Red Maryland, writes regular columns published in the Capital. In his latest oeuvre, he argues that Gov. Larry Hogan is unbeatable. OK, so far. That’s a matter of opinion–I happen to disagree–but a perfectly legitimate position.

The way Griffiths goes about making his case through a series of ad hominum attacks and utter falsehoods is not.

Regarding Ben Jealous, Griffiths writes the following:

Former NAACP President Ben Jealous, darling of Bernie Sanders supporters, who has yet to propose a policy that would not be fully endorsed by the Communist Party.

It’s like Griffiths feels bad that that he missed out on the Red Scare of the 1950s or has watched Red Dawn far, far too many times. Reviving McCarthyism, however, is not a serious attack but a smear. Surprise, surprise but Jealous is not a Commie pinko who hates America and does not advocate for Leninism or gulags.

Instead of making a serious attack based on Jealous’s advocacy for policies he views as failed, reheated old-style liberalism, Griffiths goes for the reheated, old-style smear. No editor at the Capital saw this and said this is unserious and over the top?

Griffiths goes on to do the same to Rich Madaleno:

Ultra-left-wing state Sen. Rich Madaleno, infamous for being a flip-flopping fabulist — but most famous for personally insulting first lady Yumi Hogan.

The idea that Madaleno insulted Yumi Hogan is practically the definition of fake news. Madaleno wrote the Governor a letter asking him to ban travel to Indiana because of its endorsement of rank discrimination in its so-called Religious Freedom law. In the letter, Madaleno had the audacity to compare the Hogan’s family to his own by pointing out that the law would allow discrimination against Hogan’s family because of the First Lady’s divorce and against his own because he is married to man.

Griffiths can only think this an insult if he thinks either divorce is shameful and unmentionable in polite society or that Madaleno had no right to compare his own marriage to that of the Governor’s. In other words, Griffiths and others who mindlessly mouth this ridiculous, false attack are really just smearing Madaleno for being an uppity gay guy who thinks that he’s normal.

And I haven’t even gotten to “ultra” and “flip-flopping fabulist.” Again, why does the Capital turn itself into a smear machine?

Good debate and strong views are healthy in opinion columns. But what value is the Capital adding through publication of regurgitated smears? Are there no Republicans available who can make a positive argument for Republican policies and critique those of Democrats without basing it in lies and smears?

If you want a serious analysis of the unworkability and upper-class bias of Jealous’ free college proposal, go check out Barry Rascover because you won’t find it–or anything else that passes for thoughtful analysis–in Griffith’s column in the Capital.

If Griffiths wants to keep publishing this dreck on his blog, he should feel free. I suppose the Capital can too but they can do better and should be held to account for publishing lies and smears.

Share
marriage equality

Republicans Still Angry Marriage is Legal and Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples Isn’t

As I pointed out not long ago, Republican Del. Richard Metzger is still on the anti-same-sex marriage hobby horse and sponsoring a bill designed to allow discrimination against same-sex couples under a bogus claim of protecting religious freedom.

Governor Hogan responded weakly, with his office saying that he would wait for the legislative process to proceed. Contrast this lack of backbone to stand up for established law and actual Marylanders with his willingness to oppose Syrian refugees–an issue on which he has zero power. A real profile in courage.

Wrong on the Basic Facts

Red Maryland, however, has not been silent. A pity, as their post contained a real whopper:

2012’s Question 6, which was supported by Maryland Democrats and current Republican Senate candidate Chrys Kefalas, contained not a single provision protecting the religious liberties of any Marylanders.

Has Brian Griffiths read the legislation to which he linked?

Section 2 reads:

SECTION 2. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That an official of a religious order or body authorized by the rules and customs of that order or body to perform a marriage ceremony may not be required to solemnize or officiate any particular marriage or religious rite of any marriage in violation of the right to free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by the Maryland Constitution and Maryland Declaration of Rights. Each religious organization, association, or society has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine, policy teachings, and beliefs regarding who may marry within that faith. An official of a religious order or body authorized to join individuals in marriage under §406(a)(2)(i) of the Family Law Article and who fails or refuses to join individuals in marriage is not subject to any fine or other penalty for the failure or refusal.

Section 3 and Section 4 are also about religious protection:

SECTION 3. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That:

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious organization, association, or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised, or controlled by a religious organization, association, or society, may not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges to an individual if the request for the services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges is related to: (1) the solemnization of a marriage or celebration of a marriage that is in violation of the entity’s religious beliefs; or (2) the promotion of marriage through any social or religious programs or services, in violation of the entity’s religious beliefs, unless State or federal funds are received for that specific program or service.

(b) A refusal by an entity described in subsection (a) of this section, or of any individual who is employed by an entity described in subsection (a) of this section, to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges in accordance with subsection (a) of this section may not create a civil claim or cause of action or result in any State action to penalize, withhold benefits from, or discriminate against the entity or individual.

Of course, all of these provisions are redundant of the Constitution’s protections of religious freedom but were included to assuage concerns nonetheless. Red Maryland also neglects to mention that marriage equality expanded religious liberty by finally permitting religions that want to conduct legal same-sex marriages to do so. Yep, many religious people are pro-same-sex marriage.

I hope that Red Maryland corrects the record and apologizes to Republican Chrys Kafalas for their inaccurate claim in their slam against him for showing the content of his character by standing up courageously for religious freedom and his own civil liberties. Chrys demonstrated what used to be called leadership in the pre-Trump Republican Party. But I’m not holding my breath.

The Republican Discrimination Agenda

Red Maryland describes Metzger’s bill as follows:

Basically, the law is designed to ensure that religious organizations that have a moral objection to gay marriage don’t have to be forced to participate in one. You would think that this would be a basic common sense idea, that religious individuals would not be forced to officiate or participate in a same-sex marriage.

Not one rabbi, priest, minister, imam etc. has been forced to officiate a single same-sex marriage against their will in any place in the nation. Not one. So let’s put that red herring to bed.

Instead, the bill is designed to protect the likes of Kim Davis, who as a public official has a duty to issue marriage certificates that are now perfectly, but she finds repugnant. Where does this end? Religious beliefs are personal and vary endlessly. Can people like Kim Davis refuse to issue marriage certificates to mixed race couples if it offends their religious beliefs? What about divorced couples? Or to people who have committed adultery?

The idea of not forcing religious individuals to participate in same-sex marriage is equally broad. Should Holy Cross or Adventist Hospital be able to prohibit a same-sex spouse from being with their spouse or making medical decisions if needed on the grounds that it would force a religious organization to “participate in marriage” as described by Brian Griffiths.

This is not a religious freedom agenda. This is an effort to roll back anti-discrimination protections for lesbians and gay than have been established law in this State since 2001 with no problems not withstanding the howls from the right. Red Maryland thinks that the reality of same-sex marriage is a good excuse to change this.

Again, where does it end? If you follow the logic, anyone can discriminate against anyone on religious grounds because religious beliefs are inherently personal. It would be the undoing of all anti-discrimination law, which is the point.

In our daily lives, we all have to rub up and deal with lots of people who live their lives differently than we choose. As it turns out, the people of Maryland and the First Amendment are managing just fine without this legislation. Marylanders understand that it takes all kinds to make a world and are not such special snowflakes that they need protection beyond the boundaries enshrined already in law and the Constitution against the reality of same-sex marriage. After all, they voted for it.

Share