My significant other Kim Corkran took that shot, as both of us attended the inaugural Dock Daze event at Cedar Hill Marina in Bivalve with cameras in tow. Her shots will be interspersed among the remainder of the narrative.

There were two main components to the event. At one end you had the dock dogs, who on Saturday were leaping into a large swimming pool instead of off a literal dock. For many, seeing dogs get ‘big air’ and land with a splash was the main attraction. (Top photo by Kim Corkran, bottom photo is mine.)

The idea, as you can see in the top picture, was to lure the dog off the dock in pursuit of a toy. Generally dogs would leap between 15 and 20 feet from the end of the dock to the point where the base of their tail hit the water, with the best approaching 25 feet. (Apparently the world record is just over 29 feet.) The other components to the competition, conducted over the event’s two days, were a vertical leap contest and speed retrieve, with an overall winner crowned from the top finishers in each portion.

For their part, the dogs were just happy to get their toy and a little love from the master. (Both photos by Kim Corkran.)

There were one or two shy guys who wanted no part of the water, though. Dogs had 90 seconds on the dock to complete the jump and this one said ‘you want me to do what?!?’

On the other side of the marina there was a boat docking contest underway.

The idea of boat docking was to start at a point, accelerate to get into position, and quickly reverse course to back into the dock. Ropes were to be tossed over the four marked pilings, with the entire process generally taking between 20 and 30 seconds.

But the crowd enjoyed watching.

Another interesting attraction was chainsaw artist Rick Pratt, who demonstrated his ability several times over the two days.

Watching him work with the chainsaw, the random thought I had was whether he can do ‘The Lumberjack’ by Jackyl? I don’t know about that, but Pratt can create some seriously sturdy artistic objects.

Also in between were the usual array of food vendors and other selling wares of some sort. This outfit which sells The Fish Bomb was a key sponsor, and covered the bases well with a couple mobile billboards.

One of my favorite sponsors is moving beyond the Good Beer Festival to become a staple at local events.

Maybe they need to support their Maryland blog? Anyway, this tent had other popular sellers.

But I can’t bring myself to have a breakfast like this.

Maybe the closest the affair came to political was the tent put up by the Maryland Waterfowler’s Association, which advocates for duck hunters and the like.

You may have noticed the sign on the bleachers at the boat docking contest, but the local television program ‘Outdoors Delmarva’ was getting footage at the event for future episodes as well.

Surely there will be a lot of dogs and boats on their program over the next few weeks as the hunting seasons wind down and the tourists move in full force.

Kim gets the last shot. As we were leaving she took this picture looking down the marina. You’d never know there was an event going on nearby given this placid shot.

Since we didn’t stay for the whole day or come back on Sunday, there were a lot of things we missed like the live music, Sunday’s duck calling challenge, or the sailboat and paddle boat races also scheduled for Sunday. (With the heavy winds, those may not have occurred.)

But on the way out I believe I heard that about 1400 tickets had been sold, which would put this event in the same ballpark as the Good Beer Festival. Considering the somewhat small venue and remote location that’s a rather healthy turnout so I would anticipate a second event next year. If we were to go, though, next time we camp out on the hill and watch the tapestry unfold from there.

And of course, there’s money involved too. I get a monthly stipend from one client, have another I have occasionally contributed to which pays me on a per-article basis, and there are other one-off deals as well as my Examiner page. I also sell advertising and have a tip jar here, so on rare occasions I find a little extra in my generally anemic bank account.

But I also know some who have a different style of writing based on the concept of search engine optimization, better known as SEO. Some do it rather well and some have a hackneyed approach, but all are after that elusive goal of standing atop Google when you do a search on a particular subject. Obviously my SEO is generally anemic as well – a quick look at my site analytics tells me that just 3% of my visits come from search engines. Yet my Alexa world rank hovers in the 280,000 range, which tells me people somehow find this site.

Where I’m going with this is that I had an interesting e-mail exchange with a person representing a company which “has leveraged the power of the Web to create a unique group of specialty e-commerce stores,” according to its website. I’d rather not divulge the company but if you Google the phrase (as I did) it naturally sits at the top.

Originally he wanted me to add guest content to my site, but when I told him that monoblogue works because it is in one voice (with a few rare exceptions) he changed his tactic. What he wanted me to do was to create a post which had three instances of a particular key phrase, one of which linked back to his site, and establish a permanent link back to his site on mine. In return I would get “a total donation of $150.”

That’s a nice chunk of change, but I told this gentleman that, for that amount, I could give him a prominent advertising link on my site as opposed to a post which would eventually both fade off the front page of my site and probably Google in a short amount of time. It seemed like a better solution for both of us, but this person wanted the post.

Could I have written it? Probably, and perhaps I could have made the content interesting and relevant with my point of view. But it’s one of those things where I believe the post would have come out flat and not up to my personal standards of integrity and excellence.

Moreover, does this really contribute to the quality of the internet as a whole? Obviously the World Wide Web has panned out to be a gold mine for certain types of e-commerce (just ask those who benefited from Facebook’s IPO) but it also has its seedy dark corners and people who try to use it for destructive purposes. I’m not naive enough to believe all is sweetness and light in this realm or that every writer of any sort of quality is entitled to riches and fame, but I often wonder if writing just for the purpose of being on top of a search engine – whether the content is really relevant or not – is contributing to the quality of the discourse or the internet as a whole. Search engines also have a way of pulling the rug out from under those who simply exist to take advantage of their system.

So I suspect this gentleman and I will part ways. I offered him the opportunity to advertise on my site and he turned it down, which is his right. I’m certain he will find a writer who will do his bidding – after all, $150 for maybe a half-hour’s worth of work is a pretty good deal, and souls have likely been sold for far less. But I like to sleep soundly at night and the quality of this website is under my control, so if I can’t do something to a satisfaction standard I can live with it’s just not worth doing for any price.

I wanted to start out with a rather comprehensive look by Accuracy in Media at voter fraud. In truth, this is less of an expose than a confirmation because we on the Right had been thinking about this for years, and some of these accounts have filtered down to a local level.

Now I’ve heard people claim that voting should be a privilege reserved to property owners or to those who pay taxes rather than receive goodies from the government. I don’t agree with that approach, but I think that perhaps if local election boards are running into a problem with last-minute registrations scant weeks before an election, the simple solution would be to simply move back the deadline. Honestly, if people wish to register to vote they’re going to do it well in advance of the election. This would also do away with the open invitation to fraud known as same-day registration.

But I also agree we should do away with motor voter laws and eliminate early voting. If people are serious enough to vote they already have the right to get an absentee ballot. To me it’s a waste of taxpayer money to spend thousands on multi-day elections when just 2% of voters participate.

And don’t even go there and tell me I want to suppress turnout, because I don’t. I want prospective voters to take their responsibility more seriously. The left always screams “voter suppression” whenever some common-sense idea like photo voter ID or those others above are introduced, but they are all in favor of oppressive campaign finance laws. Isn’t that monetary suppression? Hypocrites.

The report is well worth a read.

Along that same line, writers Peter J. Boyer and Peter Schweizer ask why certain corporate interests can go scot-free under the Obama regime while others are hounded by the Justice Department. That’s not to say that Wall Street is a batch of crooks by any means, but in politics perception is reality and the fact that Wall Street gave far more to Barack Obama than John McCain leads to the thoughts of pay-for-play and cronyism.

Speaking of entities which give Democrats a lot of money, Matt Patterson and Trey Kovacs of the Competitive Enterprise Institute asked in the Washington Times why unions just won’t let go if a bargaining unit doesn’t want to stay with them. Well, the answer seems pretty simple to me – as they write:

There is a reason why unions are fighting to hold workers against their will and challenging laws that bring greater freedom to the workplace. Union leaders need a monopoly on labor in order to bankrupt governments and corporations, and they require unfree markets to maintain their own power and wealth.

That goes in the category of “duh,” workers be damned.

And this is a video worth sharing, even if I don’t necessarily agree with the point.

Personally I would prefer Medicare eventually be phased out or devolved to the states, but I realize that’s a decades-long process. Having said that, though, it’s obvious that Obamacare is the wrong direction to go despite the fact it cuts Medicare. Paul Ryan’s not pushing seniors off the cliff.

Finally, I wanted to bring up the attention being paid to a national issue by our own Congressman, Andy Harris. In a recent release, he decried the abuse of taxpayer dollars by those here illegally:

Illegal aliens are filing false tax returns claiming numerous fake child tax credits.  Once our tax dollars are in the hands of illegal aliens, it’s impossible to get the money back.  Once I learned about this outrageous loophole that allows billions of dollars per year to be stolen from US taxpayers, I knew I had to act.

In November of 2011, I joined Rep Sam Johnson in introducing H.R. 1956, Refundable Child Tax Credit Eligibility Verification Reform Act, to close this loophole.   The bill is necessary because the IRS claims that they are simply following the law.  We had hoped that the IRS would act without legislation.

One would think that the White House would instruct the IRS to stop giving away tax dollars to illegal aliens scamming our tax system.  This is an urgent and immediate problem, especially as we’ve passed the tax filing deadline of April 15th.

The child care tax credits have grown from $924 million in 2005 to $4.2 billion last year.  H.R. 1956 will curb the fraud in this program by requiring the IRS to only allow this tax credit for children with a social security number.  H.R. 1956 was assigned to the House Ways and Means Committee and I am waiting for the hearing to be scheduled any time. (Emphasis in original.)

So my question is why there’s been no hurry to move this bill? I guess one would have to ask Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) because it’s his committee. Perhaps his contributors would like the waiver to stand?

In truth, though, I think this is another in the series of ill-advised cautions by the Republican establishment to not risk alienating the Latino vote. Never mind that they turn off millions of voters who are concerned about the illegal alien problem – I’ll grant it’s less of a concern now that migration by illegals is now a net outflow due to a poor economy, but once conditions improve we may become a magnet once again.

Well, that cleans out my mailbox for the most part. Glad you stopped by for some original monoblogue content – I can’t put all my good stuff on Examiner because in all honesty I’m not sure their format would lend itself to such a post. That’s why I maintain this independent, conservative site!

But by all means you should subscribe to my Examiner page to get notice of when I do post there. I’m having fun juggling  all these writing plates! Haven’t broken one yet.

And a happy Mother’s Day to all the moms out there. I wrote this yesterday so I could devote a little time to the moms in my life today, so enjoy.

Well, the Examiner folks have wanted me to come back and I think it’s time to do so. However, I am likely going to change from working on the Baltimore site to working on the Washington, D.C. site. It’s sort of a clunky title, but unless there’s a last minute change I don’t know about I will be the Eastern Maryland Political Buzz Examiner. (There was – it’s now Eastern Shore Political Buzz Examiner, which I like even better.) I look at it this way – to me, anything east of Washington, D.C. is fair game and Annapolis is east of our nation’s capital. (Technically, the title is based on where I live since Salisbury isn’t an Examiner base city.)

So why return now? Well, my audience is now larger and this gives me the opportunity to broaden my exposure still farther and hopefully make a little bit of coin while I’m at it. And since we have a number of great political races on this end of the state I think I can fill a political coverage need for those readers. Similarly to how I handle PJ Media stories, the initial headlines will be here.

And that’s not to say I’m not looking at or for other opportunities. But the words I say about economic development also apply to a great extent in the writing business: if you don’t grow, you die. The idea in this world is to maximize exposure in order to build a brand audience. I’ve noticed in the last couple years that Facebook promotion helped my readership jump as did more frequent usage of Twitter. But these techniques can only go so far, and the great advantage of having a vast body of work on local and state politics is the opportunity to drive new readers to my archives by proper linking to my relevant content here on monoblogue. It can be a win-win for both readers and myself.

Like I said when I first started with Examiner, I have a hard time sometimes expressing gratitude to those who support me – certainly there are a few who have been fans of my writing since its humble beginnings. So thanks to everyone who has taken the time to drop by my corner of the blogosphere, and once I get re-established on Examiner you can bookmark the other page as well. But I’ll still be here, too.

In my first installment on the proceedings, I mentioned that the group Change Maryland has 12,000 members – although their cake maker wanted to grow them tenfold. But something I didn’t realize is that the number of those liking the group on Facebook is larger than those who like the state Democratic and Republican parties combined, and also more than those who like Anthony Brown, Peter Franchot, or Doug Gansler. Coincidentally, these are three of the top contenders for the 2014 Democratic gubernatorial nomination.

And Larry Hogan told me the group appeals to a broad cross-section of voters, drawing interest from Democrats and unaffiliated voters as well as Republicans. I was hoping to get a more formalized sit-down with him before the Executive Committee meeting, but we will have to do it another time.

Another happening at the convention was that Andy Harris formally endorsed Mitt Romney as part of his remarks at the convention. You may recall he was a state co-chairman for Newt Gingrich but with Newt exiting the race the time was right for Andy to get on board. As Harris said:

Mitt Romney has proven he is a great leader and a man of integrity during this primary election season.   I know Mitt Romney will direct this country back on the right path to economic prosperity.  I am proud to stand with Mitt Romney and ask Marylanders to stand with Mitt too.

But something Andy mentioned before the convention also deserves attention. When the Medicare Trustees released a report last week projecting Medicare would be bankrupt by 2024, Harris made the following statement:

The current Medicare system is not “stable” as the Administration claims; this report shows Medicare is going bankrupt.  Unless action is taken to save Medicare, beneficiaries will see dramatic cuts in benefits.  Instead of the Obama Administration’s plan to impose draconian cost-cutting measures which will lead to rationing of care for beneficiaries, we need comprehensive reform to the system to ensure the federal government keeps its promise of Medicare  to current beneficiaries and to future generations.  I am ready to work across the aisle to preserve the Medicare program through physician-patient centered reforms.

Yet I’m afraid Harris still misses the point. When you get numbers like this, it’s clear that Medicare needs a mercy killing:

On average, a two earner household pays $119,000 in Medicare taxes in their lifetime, but gets $357,000 in benefits out of the system.

Let’s review that. If I were to invest in something which would triple my money, it would be a tremendous opportunity. The problem is that, just like any other Ponzi scheme, those who arrive last are holding the bag. And since I would turn 60 in 2024 guess who’s the loser?

Speaking of Harris, his Republican Study Committee amplified recent stories with a thoughtful brief analysis of the job situation for college graduates. In the category of “duh,” they summarized:

You cannot impose ObamaCare, borrow $1 trillion every year, restrict energy production, constantly threaten higher taxes, and still expect entrepreneurs and small businesses to take the same risks and hire the same numbers that they otherwise would.

Another nugget that landed in my mailbox (through a friend) reminds me of the recent financial questions posed about a certain candidate in a very recent election. While the Democratic Governor’s Association claims to have raised $8 million in the first quarter of 2012, their FEC paperwork only shows $6.6 million. As it was explained to me:

The DGA is purportedly claiming that their fundraising totals include a 501c4 and a Super PAC, but the DGA’s new accounting methods raise a number of concerns:

1. RGA and DGA have long had 501c4’s, which are legally separate entities with different TAX ID numbers and thus in the past have not been used when tallying either organizations’ fundraising totals. The RGA has not and did not count any 501c4 money when announcing our fundraising totals.
2. There are many more restrictions on how c4 money can be spent. Consequently, it makes sense that 501c4 and 527 money be reported separately by both RGA and DGA.
3. 501c4’s report annually, so there is no way to verify a 501c4’s fundraising on a quarterly basis.
4. There is also no way to know if some of the money is double counted. If you look at the attached report of the DGA’s Super PAC, DGA Action, you will see that the bulk of its fundraising was the result of in-kind contributions from the DGA. DGA also contributed $48,340 to its Super PAC in the first quarter.
5. The 501c4’s 2012 fundraising totals are not due to be reported publicly until May 2013.

The only way to make an apples-to-apples comparison between the RGA’s first quarter fundraising and the DGA’s is to look at the money received by the 527’s on our 8872’s. Doing so will show that the RGA raised more than $12.2 million while the DGA raised just over $6.6 million.

Definitely worth mentioning is the fact the head of the DGA is none other than our own, not-so-illustrious Governor Martin O’Malley. I guess overstating financial figures seems to be in vogue recently.

Meanwhile, perhaps some convention fallout has begun. Matt Teffeau, who was an officer in the Mid-Shore Young Republicans, left this as part of a Facebook post announcing his MSYR resignation:

(W)ith the recent events at this past MDGOP Convention, I believe our party is moving in the wrong direction and will focus my time to my (Central Committee) position… As we look forward as a party in the State I believe we should unite to defeat Democrats instead of fighting between ourselves and putting our trust in others outside the party (such) as bloggers, tea party movement, etc..

Previously Matt had written about “(s)o many bad choices by our party (Saturday). And you wonder why dems out raise and get out the vote more. Self interest shouldn’t come first before values,” as well as “Murphyites will destroy this state party.”

I have to strongly disagree with Matt on those assertions. If you are to state the case – as the party establishment often  likes to do – that we are a “big tent”, then it seems to me that we who are TEA Party members should be embraced. Of course I happen to be a blogger and someone who supported Brian Murphy in 2010, so I’m quite aware that not everyone in the Solomons Island convention hall was a fan of mine, and I can accept that as the price I pay for being politically incorrect to the state GOP but true to my beliefs.

But the fact is the party made a decision based on the evidence presented to it by both sides. I can tell you Matt’s home county was unanimous in its support of both Audrey Scott and Louis Pope, and they have every right to believe what they will. Yet after the several conventions in a row I lost on something I held near and dear to my heart I didn’t threaten to take my ball and go home – I chose to stay and fight for what I believe is right. Above all I believe in certain principles and that everyone should have a fair opportunity in the political arena. The party should encourage all comers and let the voters decide.

Furthermore, I believe in the truth, and in seeking answers when I see something worth questioning. It just so happened that these answers didn’t reflect well on one candidate Matt backed.

And I would be remiss if I didn’t mention several other bloggers’ takes on the convention. While Joe Steffen allowed himself to gloat a little bit, Richard Cross more soberly dissected Audrey Scott’s failed effort and Julie Brewington – who happened to be a member of my county delegation via proxy – reflected on a “schizophrenic” MDGOP. Standing back at a larger overview were Richard Falknor and Ann Corcoran, although Falknor has a useful vote chart on the race that Larry Helminiak provided. And the guys from Red Maryland discussed it on one of their broadcasts. I don’t know if my name came up in vain there, but perhaps it did.

After the weekend I had I would expect no less.

We descended on the lovely village of Solomons Island this weekend to hold our Spring Convention. Because it was such an action-packed two days I’m breaking this post into two parts: one dealing with the events of Friday night and the other (for tomorrow) describing Saturday’s action. (Always leave them wanting more.)

First on the agenda was a Welcome Reception sponsored by the three Southern Maryland county Republican parties. In the photo on the right (in the light blue) is retiring National Committeewoman Joyce Lyons Terhes, whose retirement was the impetus in placing the convention there. Although it’s a long haul around the Chesapeake Bay for us on the Lower Shore, I suppose that’s payback for making them come to Ocean City two years in a row.

Also getting an early start on the proceedings was Larry Hogan, who was celebrating the first year of his group Change Maryland. Funny story: if you look at the cake Larry is pointing at, you’ll notice that there’s a mistake as the cake came with an extra zero. I call it optimism on the part of the baker, and while Change Maryland now has 12,000 members 120,000 is an admirable goal for next year.

Hogan has often been mentioned as a 2014 gubernatorial candidate because he made an abortive run in 2010 until Bob Ehrlich made up his mind. But the “unofficially officially in” David Craig had his own table as well, and was also a sponsor of the entire convention. No doubt he’s been laying the groundwork of a run for quite a long time.

Another key element of the convention was the two petition drives, both same-sex marriage and redistricting. I didn’t manage to get a photo of him, but rest assured Robert Broadus of Protect Marriage Maryland was among those collecting signatures in favor of that referendum. Yet it seemed there was more of an “official” push to have the redistricting referendum signed. (I will have an interesting backstory on this involving one candidate later on this week.) So I added my name to the redistricting petition.

Of course, there were other vendors as well. The rear guard effort continues.

But it wasn’t apparent in that evening’s Executive Committee meeting. And while party treasurer Chris Rosenthal opened up the meat of the business portion of the meeting by conceding 2011 “wasn’t that great of a year” for fundraising, he brightened up the room by announcing we were “back on the right track” for 2012.

Included in that optimism was a newly created endowment in honor of the retiring Joyce Lyons Terhes, a fund that Audrey Scott announced the creation of and initial funding for during the meeting.

In his report, Party Chair Alex Mooney expressed disappointment in the 2011 financial statement as well, stating “I accept responsibility…we didn’t do as well as I’d like.” But he’s “working hard” on getting the party out of debt and brought up the fiscal importance of this year’s Red, White, and Blue Dinner which will feature GOP political guru Karl Rove. “We need this to be a successful event,” said Mooney.

He also said there’s “no room for dissent” now that the primary is over.

A better financial tale was told by National Committeeman Louis Pope, who said the Republican National Committee is in “great shape” financially for the fall campaign, well on their way to their fundraising goals.

Those of us among the spectators – which included nearly all the Wicomico County delegation, unique among counties – also heard a number of other reports. Perhaps the most important among them was the Maryland GOP Hispanic Coalition report, where Linda Hernandez made the case that the Latino vote is “essential” to turn Maryland around.

Our County Chair, Dave Parker, was also head of the Credentials Committee, and he gave a fairly lengthy and detailed explanation of the balloting which would take place the next day for Delegate and Alternate Delegate candidates for the national convention. With nearly 80 hopefuls vying for the 20 spots, it was a complex process to gather all the information.

The final report was given by MDGOP Executive Director David Ferguson, who said we were “moving in the right direction” and need to “run the party like a business.” Fair enough, but he also had five priorities for the state party: an effective message, recruiting candidates, a permanent professional infrastructure, utilizing the referendum process as a check on Democratic power, and providing good customer service for local party units. He also had unkind words for Martin O’Malley and noted “Maryland is a GOP state at the local level.” (Apparently this is true, as we have a majority of local seats.)

We also learned during the meeting that the next convention will be held in Western Maryland – it would have been their turn this time had Joyce Lyons Terhes not announced her retirement.

But the Executive Committee meeting isn’t what those who come to the event a day early generally seek out. They come to be social, and those who have a political agenda know this. For example, three of the four National Committee candidates had hospitality suites – Committeeman hopeful Scott Shaffer was the exception.

Nice use of a lapel sticker by the Pope campaign, by the way. I did go to his suite but didn’t think I’d be too welcome in Audrey’s so I skipped it.

I made it a point to stop by this young lady’s space, though. Nicolee Ambrose had one of the more exuberant parties I attended.

Inside the suite, of course, you had signage for Nicolee’s bid. But there were a lot of other items there as well, as this table demonstrates.

And there’s a larger point as well. If you go back to Audrey’s sign two photos above, you’ll notice Nancy Jacobs is among those endorsing Scott. But Ambrose had plenty of space to put her items out in the interest of helping the Jacobs campaign.

I also found this guy there.

As I’ll detail tomorrow, Dan Bongino gave a great accounting for himself at our luncheon. But he was holding court in Nicolee’s suite when I arrived.

This was just a great picture someone taped up in Nicolee’s suite bathroom.

Next up was one of the more interesting conversations I had, with Eighth District Congressional candidate Ken Timmerman.

I confessed to him that his was one of the races I predicted incorrectly, believing that having three Montgomery County residents in the primary would split the vote enough to have him finish second. But he advised me to follow the money – since his MoCo opponents had very little – and noted the political geography of his district was more neutral toward opponent Dave Wallace than I thought.

It was a good give-and-take with the accomplished author, who posed with some of the books he was selling. Bet you could have had one autographed!

And sometimes it’s not about having the suite, but being seen. Two of these ladies are attempting to build a political name for themselves in the consulting field, so they were circulating among the rooms.

With Norma Secoura on the left, Kristin Shields (center) and Hillary Pennington (right) are two of the three behind Purple Elephant Politics, an “exclusive political networking group” which is attempting to stomp its way into the political fray through a number of outlets. They were among Nicolee Ambrose’s biggest backers.

And while I’m not exactly old, I agree that it’s time for a new generation of leaders to begin to emerge so it was good to see their involvement and interest. (They really were doing more than drinking margaritas.) As you’ll see in tomorrow’s installment, though, youth had a tough time being served.

Yesterday I moderated a comment on my Pork in the Park coverage from last weekend, which started a brief exchange. It wasn’t the glowing commentary I usually hear about the event, but I’m sad to say the guy had a point. I happened to find an extended version of the comments on a foodie blog this gentleman, Ralph Rossi, runs.

His contention was that the festival is beginning to become a victim of its own success because the food vendors are so spread out. Some in the food court placed in its traditional location did relatively well, while the others relegated to the stone parking lot struggled to make their rent. Now I can understand where it would be a problem to have rib vendors stacked up on top of each other considering the traffic they can create with the popularity of their items, but I hate to hear anyone having a bad experience at such an event. Even if there’s rain in the forecast, no one should feel the need to cut their losses and leave the day before the scheduled end.

According to the official Pork in the Park website, this year there were over 35 food vendors with just about half featuring barbecue or pit beef. Add to that space for other non-food vendors, the competitors, the stage and picnic area, and the other features and it’s enough to almost make you wonder if they’re ready to outgrow WinterPlace Park.

On a personal level, when I first heard of Pork in the Park I compared it to an event I was more familiar with in my hometown. Originally held along the riverfront in downtown Toledo, the Northwest Ohio Rib-Off was an event more geared for retail sale than competition – over 20 vendors would be serving and it was a challenge to try them all during the three-day event. So only having a handful of rib sellers threw me for a loop the first time I came to Pork in the Park in 2005.

Now I’m not sure what prompted the Toledo event to relocate to suburban Maumee, but it’s now held at the county fairgrounds and that location has advantages: the former ballpark for the Toledo Mud Hens is still there, providing a grandstand for concerts and events – Ted Nugent was the featured performer there last year. There’s also plenty of parking, an adequate amount of open space, and the location is suited for traffic to come and go since it was once a baseball stadium.

Returning to our festival, it looks like Pork in the Park has moved up in stature to have nearly 20 rib sellers (plus a whole lot of other food offerings) so perhaps it’s time to upgrade the facilities as well. Unfortunately the county doesn’t have a space available to it such as Toledo does, but there are some possibilities which intrigue me.

One possibility would be to do a short-term lease (for a week or so) of the vacant parcels of land adjacent to Perdue Stadium. Obviously there’s plenty of parking there if the Shorebirds are away, not to mention the grandstand for entertainment, and if the Shorebirds happen to be home there’s always the possibility to reverse the idea the county has had the last couple years of using the Perdue Stadium parking lot for a shuttle stop for Pork in the Park by using WinterPlace Park as parking. They would also need to close the portion of the northbound U.S. 13 off-ramp which leads to Hobbs Road, but that would be a manageable closing for a weekend.

Another thought would be to use a combination of county-owned facilities which are adjacent to each other: the Civic Center, the parking lot across Glen Avenue, and Wicomico County Stadium. Since we already close Glen Avenue for certain Civic Center events the traffic interruption wouldn’t be unusual. Additional space could come from the land formerly occupied by the demolished Salisbury Mall. The beer garden would have to be across the road from the Civic Center but aside from that there’s the advantage of having indoor facilities in case of rain.

If they’re not planning on moving – and obviously there’s the familiarity of the locale since all nine Pork in the Park renditions have been held at WinterPlace – I think they need to devote more thought to perhaps using the side of the facility where the Equestrian Center sits for the competition side and opening up the side of the park where competitors are now placed to become a long, linear food court.

Whatever the best solution is, the time to think about it is now. With the 10th anniversary coming up next year, the crowds may be bigger than ever. I don’t like people to leave our little corner of the world unhappy (well, unless they are playing the Shorebirds) and reading Ralph Rossi’s complaints made me feel like perhaps changes are necessary to assure the event continues to prosper and help our area tourism economy.

In the runup to the meeting, we debated whether we should invite the candidates to speak or not. Three of the four county chairs decided to say no, while the other was neutral on the issue. Because of that consensus, none of the hopefuls was invited to speak; however Audrey Scott got her “wires crossed” in the words of McCullough and showed up anyway. It created an awkward scene where we had to have her leave the room so an open discussion could take place.

But before she left, she made sure to tell everyone not to believe what was read on this site. And while she was careful not to single me or my site out by name, I must say that I will abide a lot of things because I bend over backwards to be fair but I will not be called a liar. In fact, I have taken steps to have the information I was provided by several reliable sources disproved and if I find out it is so I will make the correction. As of this writing I’m awaiting the confirmation, after asking a person I frankly thought she threw under the bus when the subject was brought up.

Unfortunately for Audrey, some of her more fervent supporters adopted the same condescending tone Audrey adopted when she discussed what’s been said about her in the campaign. This was especially apparent when one (female) backer wondered aloud if Nicolee Ambrose could handle the position while having a family, ignoring the fact that many women who serve in politics already do so quite well. These supporters as a group believed Audrey’s experience sets her apart, and I won’t deny she’s experienced. But that’s not what the position needs at this time; instead it needs bold leadership and frankly I feel Audrey Scott will treat the post like a retirement gift from a grateful party.

And then we have several points brought up by quad-county members about Audrey’s actions: the Rule 11 controversy, attendance at the rally supporting the gas tax and her weak retort that she only attended the rally to support a bill to keep the Transportation Trust Fund from being raided, and of course the “unelectable” Roscoe Bartlett comment. I found it fascinating as well that, just hours after Roscoe announced his support of Nicolee Ambrose in the NCW race, Audrey Scott slapped up her own grainy picture with Bartlett, taken at the Montgomery County Lincoln Day Dinner last Friday. She also rehashed the “let’s get behind our nominees” mea culpa but the damage has been done.

I also found out, in speaking to some of those attending, that at least two of them who are listed as supporters of Audrey Scott have no intention of voting for her. Of course, Audrey mentioned she would be happy to remove any names from the list but who wants to ask about something like that? It’s almost embarrassing, but more importantly these admissions chip away at her facade of support she’s attempting to build.

Compared to the NCW discussion, the contest between Scott Shaffer and Louis Pope was rather mild. There were some who wanted the change and some who didn’t, but for the most part neither drew many negative remarks.

But I wanted to bring up something I was told today, as a letter from Louis Pope arrived in my mailbox. It proves one thing that Scott Shaffer brought up earlier this week and that I wasn’t sure of: Pope is indeed sending out re-election items paid for by the RNC (at least the stationery is, and presumably postage too.)

I’m not worried about the couple hundred dollars which the RNC may be giving to Pope for his re-election (although it is an important item to point out) as much as I’m interested in this line that Pope wrote:

Over the last decade I have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for MDGOP and our local and statewide candidates here in Maryland, as well as presidential candidates.

I’ll take that at face value, particularly since Pope has led fundraising seminars in the past and has several entries on his political resume regarding fundraising for Bob Ehrlich, Michael Steele, and George W. Bush. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in a decade seems like a realistic amount.

Yet Audrey Scott claimed to raise $1.5 million for the MDGOP along with $1 million from the RNC for Victory Centers, all in the one year she was Chair. I’d be glad to believe that if the numbers were there, but as I dissected them last Sunday they are not. But even if she did, I quite frankly believe that her presence at the quad county meeting may have lost her more votes than she gained, particularly when the Allen West fundraiser that Nicolee Ambrose helped to organize was described in glowing terms. I don’t think MDGOP fundraising would suffer under Nicolee, particularly if she can bring those kinds of personalities to the state.

Out of a two-hour meeting, we spent well over an hour going back and forth about the National Committeewoman race. To me that points out the distinction between the two candidates, and I’ll be quite interested to see how the votes come out from the four counties involved in the quad-county meeting. Our votes may not mean a lot but they have to be earned, and coming down to attend a meeting where her opponent obeyed a specific request not to show up gives me the impression that Audrey Scott believes she’s entitled to be National Committeewoman because she’s served in the Republican Party at a high level for a long time.

I don’t believe in entitlements. I believe we need a leader, and Audrey Scott isn’t translating the success she had as Chair into a good campaign for National Committeewoman.

**********
In a recent article on Monoblogue, Michael Swartz of Wicomico County endorsed Louis Pope in the National Committeeman’s race, because as he put it it’s “a case of six of one and a half-dozen of the other.”  With respect to Michael (Monoblogue is one of my favorite reads), I’d like to point out some differences between Louis and myself.  At the end of the day, I’ve never been the type to hold grudges.  Whether a Central Committee member endorses or votes for Louis is his/her prerogative, and I’m not going to let that stop me from working with said Committee member in trying to make our party better.  But if anyone votes for Louis simply because they see no difference between the two of us, then I have utterly failed in communicating my vision for National Committeeman.

First off, Louis Pope is a two-term incumbent who believes that he is entitled to the position as long as he wishes to hold it.  He has characterized the National Committeeman role as a job reserved only for the most senior member of our party, essentially nothing more than a reward for past service.  On the other hand, I am an advocate of term limits (at my very first county Central Committee meeting after being elected, I proposed a bylaws amendment instituting term limits for Anne Arundel Central Committee members).  I have stated that I would not seek this position beyond a second term, because it is imperative to the party that we bring in new people and new ideas on a regular basis.  Allowing the party to be run by the same small group of people for decades at a time has done nothing to advance our cause.  Furthermore, I believe that any election like this should be based on future expectations – what the candidate is proposing, not what they’ve done in the past.  The NCM role is too important to be treated as a retirement package or social club membership.

Second, Louis was responsible for the Rule 11 waiver in 2010.  But this is only one example of a demonstrated pattern of behavior.  He has consistently used his position to sway the results in contested primary elections, by giving unfair advantages to one Republican candidate over another.  This year he served as state campaign chair to the Romney campaign, dismissing the other candidates.  Now, he is attempting to force a slate of at-large convention delegates and alternates on the State Central Committee at our upcoming convention.  My view is that no party officer should be publicly favoring one candidate over another in a contested primary – whether by waiving Rule 11, joining a campaign staff before the primary election, or otherwise endorsing a candidate before the primary.  Contested primaries make our party stronger, and the job of our party leaders should be to create a level playing field that allows all factions of our party to be heard, and ensures all candidates have a fair chance at winning over voters.  Louis believes he should decide the primary outcomes; I believe the voters should be the ones making those decisions.

I also believe that one of the main responsibilities of this role is constituent service.  For Louis, constituent service means nothing more than showing up twice a year at our conventions, and delivering a speech dictating the RNC’s decisions to us.  My pledge as National Committeeman is to contact all 24 county Central Committees before each and every RNC meeting I attend; finding out what you need from the RNC so I can truly represent you.  Any speech I give at the MD GOP conventions will include status updates on those items important to you.  Along the same lines, the state party needs to do a better job of ”sharing the wealth” within our state.  For example, the annual Red, White, and Blue fundraising dinner should be rotated around the state – and not simply handed to Howard County each year.

Louis believes it’s ok to spend RNC money on his reelection efforts (despite claiming he pays his own expenses).  I’m sending you an email (not a “Paid by the RNC” mailing).  As the minority party in Maryland, I believe we need to do things better and cheaper, like making the MD GOP’s communication efforts with the Central Committees 100% electronic.  Besides cutting out wasteful spending, this also makes us more efficient.  We all know what happens when we have to have a 10 day notice required because we’re relying on the US Mail.

Louis has lost the respect of many of his RNC peers, first by mismanaging spending on the Tampa convention and approving a budget putting the RNC in unprecedented debt, then by trying to stonewall RNC efforts to investigate that misspending and related rules violations.  I have already been extended an invitation to join the Republican National Conservative Caucus and the RNC Conservative Steering Committee by other RNC members should I win this election.  As much as my opponent would like you to believe it, Maryland’s stature within the RNC will not be diminished if he isn’t returned to the post.  In fact, our credibility will be restored.

Here are two articles you should read about Louis Pope’s tenure on the RNC, and here are two items you should read about how my vision differs from that of Louis Pope.

As I alluded to earlier, our state party has been held back by a small number of people in positions of power, who put their future ahead of the party’s future.  We have “leaders” who seek to hold on to their titles indefinitely.  We have fundraisers who would rather take their rolodexes to their graves than pass on their skills and contacts by mentoring and training the next generation.  We cannot survive as a party as long as there are people within it who are “too important to lose.”  A big focus of my campaign has been on the need to grow our party within the younger generations of voters, to begin recruiting younger candidates who can reach those voters, and to ensure that our institutional knowledge doesn’t end once our current leaders are gone.  But this will not happen as long as there are people at the top who refuse to get out of the way; people who would rather horde their few table scaps of power than ensure our party’s future.

Thank you for your consideration as your next National Committeeman.  I look forward to seeing you at the convention.  In the meantime, please visit my Facebook page to learn more about me and my campaign.

**********

In all honesty, I wish Scott had written this position paper about two to four weeks sooner because one of my chief complaints about his campaign was that it was so low key for several weeks. Because he was unknown to so many of those who serve on the 24 various Central Committees, it was truly up to him to make the rounds and explain why we need to topple the lone incumbent running. You can’t run your campaign in the last few weeks, because first impressions mean a lot in this particular election. His effort doesn’t favorably compare to the one Nicolee Ambrose is running in terms of mileage driven and meetings attended, at least that I’m aware of.

Now I’d like to respond to a few of the points Shaffer brings to the table. First of all, I don’t believe Louis Pope should be on the RNC for the rest of his life; in fact, I would make the case that 12 years is enough should he be fortunate enough to win this time. It’s why I believe Scott should pursue another party office in 2014 and if he’s still interested make a 2016 RNC run, which I’m more likely to support should I be able to win another term myself. If I do, that would be my last one because I’ve no interest in serving beyond 12 years either.

On the question of neutrality: I think some confusion over that was part of what doomed the Rule 11 resolution Heather Olsen and I put up at the Fall 2011 state convention. It’s a double-edged sword – for example, I was a Herman Cain backer at the time but I was also careful to note that the remainder of my Central Committee may not have agreed with me.

Yet being on the Central Committee should not preclude having an opinion on who is the best candidate. Where I object is when the party places its imprimatur on one candidate over another. And while Louis was one of those who invoked Rule 11 in 2010, he was a backer of our amendment last fall – even though he didn’t think it would be necessary anymore.

While I think Scott is understating Louis’s role to some extent – I recall Pope going through the finer points of fundraising at a seminar during a convention held in my first term, before Shaffer joined the AARCC, as one example – I do agree with Shaffer that communication could be better and Pope could be more of an advocate for individual concerns. That extends to Shaffer’s next point as well, although I would have to look and see about the “RNC money on his re-election efforts” since I don’t have any of Pope’s correspondence in front of me.

As far as the next charge, I would be interested to see those invitations. I’m quite aware that Louis is not the most conservative Republican in the Maryland party.

Yet I most agree with Scott’s final assessment of the state of our party. Having said that, though, and taking into account his paean to conservatism regarding those invitations he’s received, I’m having a hard time reconciling his conservative stance with his opposition to the effort to overturn Maryland’s newly adopted same-sex marriage law – a bill that almost every Republican in the General Assembly voted against. This places Scott on the opposite side of many who attended our quad-county meeting tonight. (I have much more on that tomorrow or Wednesday, depending on when I receive a certain piece of information.) Given that particular stance, I have a hard time supporting Scott. It doesn’t mean I couldn’t work with him if successful (so far in my five years on the Central Committee I haven’t voted for a single Chair on the first ballot, having voted against Jim Pelura, Audrey Scott, and Alex Mooney in succession) but I’ve grown to support them in time because they generally seem to have the party’s best interests at heart.

So it’s still pretty much six of one, a half-dozen of the other. I’m voting for Louis Pope, but I can see the case for voting in Scott Shaffer’s favor as well. Aside from one fundamental disagreement, he and I aren’t all that far apart. Shaffer can do a lot of good and prove his worth if he can lead Anne Arundel County as a testing ground for his GOP growth theories. We have 24 counties, and if something works in one it may be worth a shot elsewhere.

First I have a legislative wrapup from a pair of Baltimore County Delegates, Susan Aumann and Kathy Szeliga. Take your pick; they are essentially the same. I find it interesting how the two have pooled their efforts, which I suppose makes sense since their constituencies are relatively similar.

This leads me to note that I’ll have the final chapter of the McDermott notes in the next few days. Whether he will be as breezy as the duo of ladies seemed to be remains to be seen, but I’m sure he was frustrated by the overall tone of the session and most of the outcomes.

And then there was the assertion, repeated by Annie Linskey at the Sun, that the budget is not balanced. Yet it seems to me we’ve made a number of midcourse corrections in the past when revenues weren’t as expected, so the only difference is that in this case the cuts have to be made by July 1st, when fiscal 2013 begins. Meanwhile, now that the $218 million Maryland Mega Millions jackpot has been claimed the state already has a little bit of unexpected revenue. Somehow the money is always found.

Meanwhile, from the perspective of the pro-business advocacy group Maryland Business for Responsive Government, the “doomsday” budget is misnamed:

“Ironically, the Governor and legislature could have called the doomsday budget a ‘new day’ budget, declared victory and gone home,” said (MBRG President Kimberly) Burns.  ”But it was never intended to be taken seriously, and there will now be a mad scramble to continue government spending at record levels as a special session looms on the horizon.”

When spending is up hundreds of millions of dollars (instead of over a billion, as Governor O’Malley would have liked) the fight over semantics is fairly meaningless, and the ‘doomsday’ is more like the day of reckoning when state taxpayers have their last dimes shaken from them. What really matters is the fact the state is spending more money than it did in fiscal 2012 and it has to come from somewhere.

But I can say that one local business is thriving, and perhaps that’s in some small part due to the patronage of my readers. I’m pleased to announce that the Robinson Family of Business has extended their sponsorship of my enterprise! So look for their advertisement atop the website for awhile longer – if you’d like to join them and my other sponsors, the details are here.

On the other hand, a group of local multi-band shows punctuate the fall and winter months, with many of them occurring at the behest of promoter and local musician and radio program director Skip Dixxon. The 10th Annual Spring Luau is one.

It was a gloomy evening that didn’t remind me of spring when they got together.

Nevertheless, I arrived a little after what I thought was the 4 p.m. start time and found out it began at 3, so I missed The Hooplas and barely caught the last two songs of Dust n’ Bones.

Neither of them were their namesake Guns n’ Roses tune, which is disappointing. I think it would be a great closing song for them.

But the winner for best-named band, hands down, had to be Drink Drank Drunk.

Their playlist was more reminiscent of an early ’70s band than most – when was the last time you heard ‘I’m Your Captain’ by Grand Funk Railroad on the radio, let alone by a cover band? Growing up in the Midwest it was more of a staple song, but I wasn’t sure GFR made inroads to the East Coast.

Another Midwest favorite, Rush, made it onto the bill of Witches Brew.

If you don’t believe me, here’s their (somewhat altered) playlist.

‘In The Mood’ is a forgotten gem from the Canadian trio, obviously done with a twist with the female vocal. And Susan was springlike in her non-black attire.

EZ Action also featured a lady, and also reached back into the early days of what’s considered classic rock (as opposed to oldies) by reviving bands like Spirit and Badfinger.

I also liked the appropriate Spring Luau attire.

Anchoring the middle of the 12-band lineup was Petting Hendrix.

They were rocking enough to cover a somewhat more modern playlist but fun enough to do their own version of The Jeffersons theme (‘Movin’ On Up.’) Definitely different.

This photo wasn’t taken during that song, but I liked it enough for inclusion.

Returning from the D.C. area to do another of Skip’s shows was Hightest.

Their set was more in the hard rock vein as they jammed out with some Van Halen and Alice in Chains, among others.

Interestingly enough, we were a little ahead of schedule at the time so the sound guy got to play a couple as part of the Bob Brown Project.

Literally they did two songs before clearing the way for Vivid Season.

If you can read upside down, here’s what they played. They managed to get all these songs into their timeslot.

And I like how this picture came out as well. If there were a picture of rock n’ roll I think it would qualify.

I’m going to add another solo picture here. This lady did not sing or perform, but she had a difficult task.

She was holding up the camera to record Bride Dressed in Black’s performance.

The very active, very intense Christian-themed band blends hard rock and hip-hop with mostly original songs. They also had a little bit of swag (which the young lady pictured above was in charge of) and they certainly made more fans at the event. In fact, they jumped around so much that the guitarist in the center with the red guitar must have landed wrong and twisted an ankle or knee – by the end of the performance he was on a stool. Hate it when that happens.

The lead singer here may look familiar.

Loud Love and Drink Drank Drunk share the same lead singer but Loud Love plays a more hard rock set featuring a batch of Van Halen.

Believe it or not, they were almost through. The last band standing was The Phantom Limbs.

I like The Phantom Limbs and I’ll tell you why. Not many bands take all the influences they seem to have and make them sound this fun. They can play a seven- or eight-minute original jam and it’s all good.

So we can all thank the guy in the middle of this for putting the Spring Luau and other shows together. By the way, I have no idea who the lady was who asked me to take the picture or who the other two guys were, but here you go. Use it for what it’s worth, whoever you are.

It’s just another weekend of local rock around Delmarva.

It’s obvious that the GOP is at somewhat of a crossroads here in Maryland. The 2010 election didn’t go as well as the party would have liked at the top, since none of the statewide candidates even sniffed victory in their races. Just as a sad review, Bob Ehrlich lost by a 56-42 margin to Martin O’Malley, and he was the closest of the statewide losers. Bill Campbell lost the Comptroller race by a 61-39 count and Eric Wargotz was blown out 62-36 by Barb Mikulski. Worst of all, the party didn’t even field an opponent for Attorney General Doug Gansler, allowing him to save his campaign funds for a 2014 run and assist other candidates.

Down ticket, the state results were mixed. Republicans got back to their traditional 6-2 deficit in our Congressional delegation when Andy Harris avenged his 2008 defeat to Frank Kratovil, and they also returned to the 43-seat minority they enjoyed in the middle of the last decade – their best showing in the House of Delegates in modern history. And aside from the loss of two Maryland Senate seats in close races, the GOP was relatively successful at the local level in picking up a number of local seats.

But the Maryland Republican Party faces other problems as well. Their ongoing financial struggles meant they had to abandon their prime West Street office location for one a little more off the beaten path, a converted residence around the corner on Cathedral Street. Ambitious fundraising goals are set but not met.

And finances have a lot to do with the races for National Committeeman and National Committeewoman. Both the incumbent National Committeeman Pope and Committeewoman hopeful Scott (who was Party Chair at the time) have hung their hat on the fact they brought a lot of national money to the state party, which was used to establish seven Victory Centers. These Victory Centers were supposedly set around the state, but in reality most were in or near the First Congressional District. This is likely the result of the state party’s waiver of Rule 11 in April, long before the September primary and only scant days after Bob Ehrlich made it official he would run.

But one has to ask the question: would that money have come if the national Chair at the time was someone other than Michael Steele? There’s no way of answering that question, but it brings up another one: if Pope and Scott are willing to take credit for the windfall which came our way in 2010, will they accept the blame for the poor fundraising we’ve endured before and since?

And there is that Rule 11 question. I have heard anecdotal evidence that the Victory Centers were generally used to push the Ehrlich and Harris campaigns, while local efforts were somewhat left to fend for themselves. Of course no one should be dependent entirely on the state party for his or her money and support, but the local successes are made all the more remarkable because of that attitude while the close losses are more stinging. Here in District 38, a bigger push in Wicomico County could have won the Senate seat for Michael James, who won both Wicomico and Somerset counties but lost in Worcester County. I happen to think the difference was created (at least locally) by TEA Party activists who rolled up their sleeves and got as many conservative Republicans as they could elected. But how many TEA Party supporters were turned off by the heavy-handed activities of the state GOP invoking Rule 11?

While I’ll concede that Rule 11 doesn’t appear to be an issue in this election – even though the temptation was there in the case of Roscoe Bartlett – I appreciate that Louis Pope lent his support to the Rule 11 resolution Heather Olsen and I attempted to advance at the last state convention. While we decided not to pursue it this time around, I know I’m going to keep it in my back pocket just in case.

On the other hand, Audrey Scott did her best to invoke her own version of the rule on behalf of the candidates she supported. One person who objected was Delegate Michael Hough who wrote in response to quotes attributed to Scott regarding Roscoe Bartlett:  ”One must ask if these are the kind of false and negative attacks we want coming from our National Committeewoman?” There’s no question that Audrey was within her right to do so, but one has to ponder how much she will back other candidates in the race now that her choices lost – particularly when the perception his victory is “impossible” could damage Roscoe Bartlett’s chances in the Sixth District against a well-funded Democratic challenger in John Delaney.

There’s no question that both Pope and Scott have a long history in the Republican Party, and for that they deserve our respect. But I’m pleased that both drew opponents.

Let’s begin with Scott Shaffer. He began his campaign with a bang, and I was one of the first to point this out. But I haven’t seen a whole lot of follow-through since and, to be quite honest, I don’t see a significant enough difference between him and Pope to be convinced his lack of party experience wouldn’t be detrimental to our cause.

And something else which could be detrimental is Shaffer’s support for same-sex marriage, which is outside the party orthodoxy. I understand that he’s under the belief that younger voters who support gay marriage would be more open to joining the GOP, but being wrong is being wrong whatever the age. In response to a group called Maryland Republicans for Marriage Equality, he wrote:

Thank you for your endorsement. Personally, I support marriage equality. As a Central Committee member trying to build our party in Maryland, I also strongly believe that attempts to define this issue along strict partisan lines only hurt our party in the long run. Whatever one’s stance on this issue, it has much less correlation to party affiliation than it does to other factors such as age. Young, fiscal conservative voters, who wish to keep government out of their personal lives as much as possible, should be the future of the Republican Party. Yet they’re registering as independents/unaffiliateds in record numbers because they see so many current Republican leaders as outdated and out of touch on social issues. I am committed to bringing these voters back into the Republican Party, and I support groups like Maryland Republicans for Marriage Equality who recognize that the core Republican values of individual liberty and limited government should be the lens through which we view this issue.

I happen to believe that social issues have a tie to fiscal conservatism, because much of what we spend our government money on stems from the continuing erosion of the moral high ground. Obviously, gay marriage is nowhere near the most important issue in the Committeeman race but the party should stand for morality – though not necessarily government enforcement of same.

I think Shaffer would be better suited to pursue a party office at the next opportunity and then try again in 2016. No doubt we will continue to be trying to attract younger voters (although I doubt gay marriage would be the ticket in that respect) so his time may come then.

But at this point, I recommend retaining Louis Pope as National Committeeman, with the caveat that another better candidate could jump in the race.

As opposed to Shaffer’s relative silence in the race, Nicolee Ambrose has been all over the state trying to convince Central Committee members she’s worth voting for. Now if you judge the number of endorsements Scott has supposedly received (and I say ‘supposedly’ for a reason) from various Central Committee members around the state, you may believe it’s an exercise in futility. But there’s always the chance to change hearts and minds.

Now I can guarantee you I don’t agree with everything that Nicolee Ambrose has stated on the campaign trail – for one thing, I don’t believe in open primaries because I think it’s better to bring the people to the candidate’s conservative point of view (like Reagan did) than to select the squishiest GOP candidate who’s supposedly ‘electable’ (see Dole, McCain, Romney, etc.)

But here’s the key question: Audrey Scott has been involved with the Maryland Republican Party for a long time, and what do we have to show for it? In the year she was Chair, we managed to alienate an important segment of the conservative population (the TEA Party) by invoking Rule 11 and spent a whole lot of money – for what? Yes, Andy Harris won but people were so mad at Frank Kratovil that he didn’t have a prayer of winning his seat back. All that money didn’t come to the local level and we’re the ones who won despite that.

On the other hand, there are several elements Ambrose brings to the table. For one thing, she built up the Young Republican organization in the state, and a number of those alumni are the ones who began seeking local office two years ago or were the backbone of several successful campaigns.

Secondly, Ambrose was involved at the national level for several years with the YRNF, which dwarfs the year-long national involvement of Scott. Because she was surely looked upon as a caretaker for the Maryland party, did Audrey Scott gain the contacts that Ambrose seems to have? I didn’t see Audrey’s name on the invitation for the recent Allen West MDGOP fundraiser, but Nicolee was instrumental in putting it together.

That also goes in line with Nicolee’s approach to fundraisers. The MDGOP seems to put all its eggs in one basket, holding an annual Red, White, and Blue Dinner. I’ll grant that the exact methods we use for fundraising are more of a decision for the MDGOP Chair, but why not try other fundraising ideas and spread them around the state? I think Nicolee would be much more open to new ideas than Audrey would be.

Finally, there’s the question of generational change. Audrey Scott represents a Maryland Republican Party that’s afraid to change and scared of its own shadow. While at this time I’m not confusing Nicolee Ambrose for a street fighter, at least the potential to make her one is there. And with Pope at her side to show her the ropes on a national level, Maryland could have a future star in the making.

Of course there are some who will tell you differently. The other day I received a letter that claimed Audrey Scott “has produced results.” They go on to state Audrey “was able to eliminate over $250,000 in debt” and “is responsible for the fantastic Victory Centers which allowed our down the ballot candidates to succeed. Due to her leadership the Republican Party now has majorities in 15 counties.” This is signed by a group of “young guns” in the party.

But since they argue Audrey will “continue to look for new ways for our Party to innovate,” let me ask: what was new about spending money on Victory Centers? We just happened to have someone from our state in charge of the Republican Party at the time and a Congressional seat they wanted to win. What if Andy Harris had won in 2008 – would they have gone all-out to preserve his seat rather than gain it? In all this, Audrey and her allies stress the results of the one year she spent as Chair – at a time when the pendulum was swinging our way anyhow thanks to liberal overreach – as the reason she should be National Committeewoman.

With Louis Pope vs. Scott Shaffer it’s almost a case of six of one and a half-dozen of the other, but in the National Committeewoman race I believe the decision is clear: If you want the party to advance and not run in its same old place, Nicolee Ambrose is by far the better choice.

And as I said earlier, there are a lot of Central Committee members who have supposedly made their choice by backing Scott. But I suspect they must be quite happy with the status quo because under Scott that’s the way it’s going to stay. I’m looking for a change because, quite frankly, based on previous results the Maryland Republican Party can’t do a whole lot worse.