Every so often I like to see what the other side is doing, so I go and catch up on Maryland Juice. Yes, David Moon is probably my mirror-image on the left, but I have to hand it to him because he writes quite well. Anyway, yesterday he wrote a piece bouncing off a Maryland Reporter post about the distribution of poverty in Maryland, and I responded with the comment below, which I will separate rather than blockquote myself.

**********

But how does one lift themselves out of poverty? The preferable method is a well-paying job, and I would argue that the state’s policies on development indeed constitute a “War on Rural Maryland.”

I live in Salisbury, and the problem we have is very simple: we have a good university which attracts students from across the region (including the western shore) but no well-paying jobs to keep them here. Incubators of jobs are discouraged from starting up in this part of Maryland because of the hostile business climate, manufacturing won’t come here because the infrastructure is sorely lacking, and all that seems to be left is a few state and institutional jobs here and there. I know the decline of the local building industry wiped my former job out, probably never to return.

On the other hand you live in Montgomery County, which benefits handsomely from its proximity to the federal seat of government. Businesses know they have to pay a premium to be near that population center so they grin and bear it, but guess what? What can work there doesn’t work out here.

Instead, the state seems to have a policy that rural land needs to be either purchased outright (taking it off local tax rolls) or have its usage restricted so much that it essentially becomes worthless. By doing that, farmers are put at a severe disadvantage because their chief asset is the value implicit in the possibility of development of their land. Selling an acre or two of frontage off a 80- or 160- acre parcel isn’t going to significantly affect an overall crop but it could make the difference between profit or loss for a farmer. But that soon won’t be allowed anymore in Martin O’Malley’s Maryland.

For all the talk about One Maryland from your side, the reality is there are at least three. The western panhandle could lift themselves up if the state government would get its head out of its rear end regarding fracking and our end of the state would do just fine if government realized the punitive policies which are fine for your end of Maryland aren’t helping when we have business-friendly Delaware just across the border. Let the counties figure out what’s best for them, and stop dictating what we do from Annapolis.

And I’m curious: if your contention that Republican are to blame for denser amounts of poverty in “their” areas of the state is correct, what does it say about Baltimore City – a Democratic stronghold for decades – being the absolute poorest?

**********

I think that about covers it. But there’s another point I’ll make here, too.

As it is measured for the purposes of the map, poverty is a relative term. Let’s say Person A makes a poverty-level income and lives in Wicomico County while person B lives in Anne Arundel County and makes twice as much. Person A could find it easier to scratch out a living in a rural area because of the lower cost of living than Person B living in a high-priced suburb. Yet on that map Wicomico is painted orange, implying it’s a poor county, while Anne Arundel is a bright blue.

And notice a rising tide lifts all boats. The counties which are in the best shape tend to be those with pockets of wealth, either through being bedroom suburbs to large urban areas (Anne Arundel, Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Howard) or hideaways for the vastly wealthy, which I would categorize Queen Anne’s and Talbot as. In fact, if you change the criteria to a concentration of population existing at less than 200% or  300% of poverty level, the two Eastern Shore counties regress slightly but the bedroom suburbs remain high on the list.

But the argument that Republican parts of the state are leeching off the other portions is a red herring anyway, because the state will keep on spending huge amounts of money to satisfy certain constituencies. If you doubt me, just remember the hue and cry put up when we were “only” going to spend $700 million more than we did in the last fiscal year. Until someone shows me a pattern of budgets with year-over-year declines and their effects of state residents I’m not going to believe that we can’t survive with less. Real, working Maryland families have had to.

Last year, we were surprised to find Governor O’Malley selected the two Republican picks for the Wicomico County Board of Education, incumbent member Robin Wright and former Delegate Carolyn Elmore. But just a year later we will need to find a replacement to finish out Wright’s five-year term.

While the published report came out Wednesday, I was actually aware of this about a week earlier. But I chose to keep it under my hat because I didn’t have permission to divulge the reason she decided to leave; now that I have seen it in the public realm I have my take on it. The Daily Times changed the actual text of the letter, though – this is from the copy of the letter I received as a member of the Republican Central Committee:

The financial disclosure requires very personal information about my family members, our family business, and business partners to be made available to the public. Many of our media outlets are uncaring with such information and would not be responsible for how information is released and distributed. I hope you understand my first responsibility is to protect my family and our business. (Emphasis mine.)

The part in bold was missing from the news item with a different sentence in its place, and that omission from the Daily Times story is quite important. Obviously we aren’t looking for people to enrich themselves on the public dime – although far too many seem to – and there are some good reasons to see the financial dealings of those who we entrust with the taxpayers’ money. But too often this information can become part of a partisan witch hunt or used to divide a candidate from his or her constituency. Wright’s family has a successful business and it’s obvious she would like to keep it that way.

A further effect, though, is one of discouraging good candidates from stepping up. Just like Wright, a person who is successful in business may see the ethics requirements and how available they are to people and simply say “forget it.” Seeing how the local newspaper of record may have played fast and loose with the intent of what was said in order to protect their interests, there’s no telling what devious outcomes are possible with someone’s ethics information.

I would also like to clear up a misconception on the part of the Daily Times staff. In the case of a vacancy in a Republican seat on the Board of Education, it is the Republican Central Committee who makes the selection – not both central committees, as the Daily Times implies. The Democrats tried to play this game last year, too – we Republicans can select a pool of qualified candidates on our own, thank you, so your help is neither needed nor desired. I don’t recall you ever asking us for input when Democratic vacancies occur. I could think of some good Democrats to add to various boards, except the problem is they keep switching over to the GOP because their former political party abandoned them on their pell-mell leftward slide.

If Republicans, Democrats, and unaffiliated and minor party voters want input on our Board of Education, all we have to do is adopt an elected school board. We can blame the Democrats (particularly local Delegates Norm Conway and Rudy Cane) for thwarting our chance of bringing that to fruition in the next two years.

In the here and now, though, we have a school board member to replace. Because Wright’s resignation isn’t effective until June 30, it’s fairly likely we will begin the discussion of selecting her replacement at our next Central Committee meeting June 4. Hopefully the prospect of filling out ethics forms won’t scare off good candidates.

Delegate Michael Smigiel:

“Did anybody here vote for somebody to create a quarter-billion dollar slush fund for you?” – reaction to a provision in the BRFA called the “Budget Stabilization Fund.”

“They’re telling us to move forward into a tax bayonet, pointed right at the heart of the middle class.”

“We’re going to be one Maryland united against these tax increases that they’re trying to put on us.”

“Only in ‘entitlement math’ is the fact that you’ve got a $700 million increase (but it becomes) a half a billion dollar cut.”

“A triple A bond rating means one thing: you’re willing to tax anybody, any amount, anytime. I would much rather have my freedom, I would much rather our counties have their sovereignty, then to have the burden of having to pay that $35 billion (in teacher pension liability) coming due.”

Introducing Delegate Mike McDermott: “Our next speaker has changed the way things are done in the legislature as far as speaking goes. They had to repaint the walls after Mike spoke the first session because he peeled a little of the paint off.”

U.S. Senate candidate Dan Bongino:

“Frankly, I’m tired of hearing about how Republicans – we’re this anti-government, anti-tax crowd. Folks, that’s nonsense. You know it and I know it. I will proudly give you my last dollar to fund our fighting men and women overseas…I will proudly fund our police, our fire, our teachers, our court system. But folks, I will be damned if I pay one more dollar to fund a cowboy poetry festival in Nevada.”

“We have all the gifts in the world (in Maryland.) Why are people leaving? It’s not us, it’s them…it’s him (Martin O’Malley.)”

“They like to classify people into ‘us’ and ‘them’, because if they don’t have victims they don’t have anything.”

State Senator E.J. Pipkin:

“(As of Wednesday, when the revenue bills pass) Martin O’Malley is officially the $2 billion governor.”

“One thing (Democrats) can never, ever stop: that’s the idea that we can have better ideas than what’s on the table, and we have the right to put them forward, and eventually our better ideas will win out.”

AFP Maryland head Charles Lollar:

“We have the arrogance of an administration that wants to take more money from you and I…it doesn’t work, you’re wasting more of our money.”

“It’s an issue about taking money from those who create opportunity and trying to give it to those who simply don’t want to create opportunity.”

“Whether it’s five people, 15,000 people, or 500 people – this is our state, this is our country, and you’re not going to take it without a fight on your hands.”

“We created the greatest economy on God’s green earth with sweat equity, an American spirit, and a belief in God that was greater than our own. And now my fear is…my daughters are going to inherit a state that does not understand the American spirit.”

“You cannot pursue happiness sitting on your rear end.”

To Governor O’Malley: “On our watch, you will not be able to continue to raise taxes and sleep peaceably because we’ll stand right outside your window…until you understand this is our state.”

David Craig, Harford County Executive and 2014 candidate for Governor:

“This is actually a doomsday session, not a doomsday budget. I could live with the budget that was proposed.”

“If you look at our history, we were called the Free State. Now we’re the Fee State. I’m surprised they didn’t charge you a fee to come here and stand and listen to this.”

“Please don’t die, because it’s going to cost you twice as much to get your death certificate.”

“We don’t have Democrats in this state – I get along with Democrats. We have ‘monocrats’ in this state. They just want a one-party state so they can run things.”

Delegate Mike McDermott:

“We have a governor that is increasingly putting the burden on our children’s children. Nonstop. It is the kids – today we were inside, and all the kids are taking the tour, and they’re walking around looking at history, and I’m thinking ‘you know what, every one of you poor kids is getting tagged for this.’”

“We’ve got the best schools that debt can buy.”

“When the governor moves you forward, just remember you’re walking a plank. That’s where we’re moving forward on, we’re moving on a plank.”

“Governor, if you’re not going to change your ways – if you’re not going to cut our taxes, if you’re not going to control our spending – then the next time you bring a budget in here, and we strike it, you strike the colors of the state of Maryland and you run up the Jolly Roger! Because this is nothing but a pirate ship! The only thing missing from the Governor and his staff is a patch over one eye and a parrot on his shoulder.”

Delegate Neil Parrott:

“Washington County, I look across the border – I see West Virginia. I see Virginia. I see Pennsylvania. And I see businesses, unfortunately, relocating or locating to those other counties instead of coming to Washington County.”

“We’ve got to stop this tax and spend attitude. It’s out of control. We also need to stop the one-party system in Maryland; it’s not working.”

“One other way – besides just winning elections – that we can change our state is something we haven’t used very much, but we just used it last year for the first time. They wanted to raise our taxes to give it to illegal aliens – that’s what they wanted to do and they still want to do it. Thanks to you all, last year we stopped that.”

“This year, I came to session thinking ‘you know, we’re (in a) $1.2 billion structural deficit,’ which just means this: we came to session thinking we’re spending $1.2 billion more than we’re taking in. That must be Governor O’Malley’s top priority…instead, he spent over half the session pushing through a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in Maryland.”

“This (Congressional districting) map is an example of politicians choosing their voters. We don’t want politicians choosing their voters, we the voters want to choose our politicians.”

Senator Nancy Jacobs, a 2012 Congressional candidate:

“Governor O’Malley does not live in reality. When was the last time this man bought a gallon of gas? Before he was here – on our taxpayer dime – he was in the City of Baltimore and they paid for his gas. When was the last time he bought a loaf of bread, or a gallon of milk? We should put him on one of those game shows and see if he knows the price of any of these things, because I don’t think he does.”

“I always thought that when (O’Malley) said we’ve got to move the state forward, that’s code for here comes another tax.”

“(O’Malley) has higher aspirations and they are costing the citizens of Maryland so he can go to Washington.”

Delegate Cathy Vitale:

“We didn’t pick the cuts. We didn’t select what was going to happen. The doomsday budget was carefully selected to cause you to come back here to fix the problem. Anybody figure out there’s a problem?”

“Decisions were made, it’s time to live with them. Go home.”

Delegate Gail Bates:

“Our beautiful State House dome is made of wood…do you know they don’t have a single nail in that? It was all put together with wooden pegs. Do you know why? There was a tax on nails, and they refused to pay it.”

**********

As far as actual results go, the protest didn’t do much. We’ll get the income tax on those who make a middle-class living, the tax on certain tobacco products, and other “revenue enhancements” we don’t need. But now we have them on record again, and you can bet votes from this Special Session will find their way to the monoblogue Accountability Project.

The study, which was a joint effort between the Kauffman Foundation and Thumbtack.com, a company which bills itself as “a place where you can hire help locally,” surveyed over 6,000 small business owners with some of the main goals being to find out:

• In general, how would you rate your state’s support of small business owners?
• Would you discourage or encourage someone from starting a new business in your state?
• How would you rate your company’s financial situation today?

In all, the study counted up 21 different metrics, ranking each state and 40 cities across the country in their business-friendly attitudes. Locally Maryland graded out as a C- overall, which translated into a ranking would put them between 31st and 33rd. There were two other states with a C- and 12 states which had a D or F grade; meanwhile, six states did not receive a grade – Alaska, Hawaii, North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Presumably they didn’t get a large enough survey sample from these smaller states. (The same holds true in our little corner of the state, as there were no responses south of Talbot County and only four on the entire Eastern Shore.)

Our state, surprisingly, did best on training programs with a B+ grade. I wasn’t shocked to see a low D+ grade on licensing, though. (The complete methodology and analysis is here.)

What did surprise me, however, was the fact Delaware only ranked as a C. But their tax code was given an A+ grade. Other adjacent states received overall grades of C (Pennsylvania) and A (Virginia.)

So why is this important?

Every so often, particularly when a new administrator takes over, we hear the government promise to make life easier for businesses by streamlining the process. But it seems that these words are just so much lip service in most cases – sure, you may see a “one-stop shop” but there are still reams of paperwork to fill out, license fees (read: government revenue) to collect, and other non-productive busy work for a prospective business owner to do. Obviously, a city or state which makes it easier to go through these hoops will eventually accrue an advantage over adjacent areas – it’s most painfully obvious in Maryland, which seems to lag behind neighboring Delaware and (particularly) Virginia in job creation.

The Founding Fathers had a vision of each state being its own laboratory of government, competing in how best to serve the public good. With respect to business climate, it’s obvious some are better than others and that’s one reason why some states are more prosperous.

However, with that being said, one also has to examine the goals of each state as well. If a state is interested in promoting job creation under the belief that a rising tide lifts all boats and their prosperity comes from the people doing well and contributing a small share of that wealth to the public coffers through reasonable taxation, that’s one philosophy I tend to agree with. On the other hand, if states figure that those who embark on business are cash cows to be milked until old Elsie crumples over from exhaustion, they do reasonably well until word gets out and people become fed up. The corollary effect of this philosophy is one where the public finds only large-scale businesses such as chain stores can be successful, because they have the overhead necessary to deal with these government-created issues whereas a mom and pop operation does not. Eventually that stifles competition,  leading to collusion and a system of corporate cronyism.

Maryland seems to fall into the latter category, and there’s only one key reason they can get away with it. If it weren’t for having the seat of federal government power close by Maryland would be an economic basket case much like most of the Eastern Shore, with little industry or development to speak of. That’s because business policies are set to take advantage of the economically captive audience of the I-95 corridor. Martin O’Malley and other Democrats speak of ‘One Maryland’ but in reality there are at least three, and perhaps four: the western section, which could prosper if allowed to exploit its natural resources, the center of the state which relies on government to succeed economically, and the Eastern Shore, where agriculture and tourism reign supreme. Southern Maryland is sort of a blend between the latter two because of Washington, D.C. and its sprawling growth down the Potomac River.

Granted, there are local economic factors in play as well: while Virginia is a relatively prosperous state as a whole, I wouldn’t characterize their Eastern Shore as thriving. Localities are the same way – as businesses open up around the outskirts of Salisbury, the downtown area dries up. Needless to say, government policies are far from the only reason people decide to locate a business where they do. But they can make a difference in whether an enterprise succeeds or not. If taking eggs from the golden goose is all government seems interested in, don’t be surprised when the goose starves to death.

Small startup businesses already have a difficult time getting established in this economy, and the question becomes whether their efforts are helped or hindered by government. Over time, localities have tried a number of different approaches to attracting business like setting up infrastructure for industry on a speculative basis, establishing tax abatement policies, becoming a lender of last resort, and so on. All these can be helpful, although they aren’t exactly making the playing field more level.

Taking the step into entrepreneurship is already stressful enough, so the goal of government should be one of making the process as simple and painless as possible. Fortunes have been built in America based on good ideas, and government should take its place in line for its rightful share instead of taking advantage of those who have a dream.

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.

If you want to read part 1 first, here you go.

It was a cloudier morning once we got underway Saturday. Just as an observation, though, I’ve always wondered why we put all these signs out front of our convention site when it should be presumed we would be voting for the candidates.

I suppose this is helpful to those who come in the morning to find the location for the convention.

For those of us who stayed overnight and chose the option, however, we were treated to a hearty breakfast and, after Harford County Executive (and “unofficially official” candidate for Governor in 2014) David Craig exhorted us to “be unified” we heard former state MDGOP official John Gibson, who now works as the regional political director of the Northeast Region of the RNC, discuss the “Path to 270.”

Gibson contended that President Obama has fewer paths to 270 than he did in 2008, when the “issues matrix was in their favor.” As examples, John believed President Obama couldn’t count on states where the Democrats were boldly saying they had a shot, like Georgia or Arizona.

Instead, with job approval numbers plummeting among a number of key demographics, President Obama is stuck having to secure his base instead of trying to get new voters. Just watch where he travels, said Gibson.

Among states Obama won last time, Indiana is already conceded to be “out of reach.” Other states which could come into play after Obama wins in 2008: North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

After attending an interesting seminar on petitioning techniques and social media, I walked over to the convention hall to get this shot. Little did we know that some hours later passions would be high in that room.

But first we began the convention session with a welcome from Calvert County Chair Frank McCabe and a series of reports, beginning with Senator J.B. Jennings.

You’ll notice my county was in the back of the hall, so the convention hall pictures will be few and far between.

But Senator Jennings walked us through his description of the session, noting that the budget wasn’t completed on time and recounting the final hours before sine die. While Speaker Mike Busch couldn’t get the House to extend its session and Senate President Mike Miller was trying to reach agreements on a budget, the Senate GOP took the opportunity to filibuster the tax bills. Still, the budget is $700 million more than it was last year, said Jennings, and “it’s not a doomsday.”

We were also alerted to the possibility of a Special Session the week of May 14, so we should “keep the heat up” on Democrats, said Senator Jennings.

Delegate Tony O’Donnell contended Democrats “dropped the ball big time.” It was a wonderful thing to behold, he continued, especially because Democrats couldn’t count on gaming bill votes from Republicans in the House.

O’Donnell urged us to “make (the Democrats) pay a very high political price” and called 2012 a “great opportunity to change the dynamic in this state.”

After Chair Alex Mooney essentially repeated his statements from the night before, we received the National Committeewoman’s report from an emotional Joyce Lyons Terhes, who reflected on her enjoyment of almost 30 years of working with the Maryland Republican Party – not that she was really going anywhere. She had simply followed through on her vow to serve just two terms as National Committeewoman and would take on new challenges.

And she’d lost none of her passion at the stump, telling us “we are going to get rid of Barack Obama.” If Maryland can do it, she said, so can the rest of the nation.

Louis Pope called Joyce a “friend, mentor, (and) shining example” in opening his National Committeeman report. The RNC is in “good shape,” said Pope, and he asserted his belief “we are technologically ahead of the Democrats.”

In somewhat of a pitch for re-election, he also informed us that his job is to “bring resources to Maryland.” Regarding this fall’s campaign, he hoped the media underestimates Mitt Romney.

Our final morning speaker was a bit of a surprise, but Congressman Andy Harris told us that “any time out of Washington is good” to him. Warning us that “the end is not on sight on this recession,” Harris opined that “all the issues are on our side” this election.

Delving into the energy issue, Harris blasted the idea of subsidizing wind energy, saying it’s not viable without subsidies. On the other hand, “we can be energy independent in 12 years if this President would have a real energy policy.”

“We have got to take America back,” said Andy.

Nor was he sparing criticism of state government. Harris predicted that once Martin O’Malley is through with his last term, people will be “ready for a new day…Marylanders will be sick and tired of what’s happening in Annapolis by 2014,” Harris concluded.

We began working on bylaw changes at this point, and completed two of the four proposed by voice vote – with a few scattered opposition shouts – before breaking for lunch. The MDGOP now officially has a Bylaws Committee to take care of a year-old oversight and allowed proxies to come from anywhere in a county rather than having to be in the same legislative district as the absent member.

The master of ceremonies for our luncheon was Frederick County commissioner and talk radio host Blaine Young. In his opening remarks, he contended “I don’t think the economy is getting any better” and gave us a quick rundown of how he got to where he is as a former Democrat.

He then presided over our annual awards, with the following winners:

• Charles Carroll Award (Republican Man of the Year): Neil Parrott
• Belva Lockwood Award (Republican Woman of the Year): Ella Ennis
• William Paca Award (Republican Youth of the Year): Matt Proud
• Aris Allen Award (Voter Registration): St. Mary’s County
• Samuel Chase Award (Outstanding County): Howard County

Our keynote speaker was Dan Bongino, who Young glowingly referred to as a man whose word has value.

Bongino began by noting that the concepts of “establishment” and “anti-establishment” are “all buzzwords.”

“If you want labels, join the Democrats,” said Dan, “We believe in ideas (and) labels only serve to divide us.” And division was part of the Obama strategy because “they’re devoid of ideas,” Bongino said. For our part, “we won the battle of ideas long ago,” Bongino stated.

A lot of Dan’s remarks spoke about the perception of fairness. We needed to embrace that debate, he believed, and while we should “respect the political genius” of Martin O’Malley and Barack Obama, Bongino was passionate about the educational system. He thought his daughter’s (public) school was great, but those kids in inner-city Baltimore and Prince George’s County deserve a shot as well. They are our kids, too, said Bongino.

Dan also criticized educational priorities. “Forget about environmental literacy – let’s be literate first,” he stated. Teachers are working in a “flawed system,” said Dan. Democrats “sold kids out to special interests long ago.”

In the end, though, Bongino believed “our state is worth saving.”

“It’s our fight…against an ideology which will destroy the very fabric of the country,” concluded Dan.

We also heard from several of the eight Congressional candidates.

Andy Harris believed the state wanted him to be the “last Republican standing.”

Eric Knowles, who’s running against John Sarbanes, made a good accounting of himself. The bartender believed he may be the least wealthy person running but made the case “I want to get this by the sweat of my labor.” We are part of the three percent who fight the battles, said Eric.

Faith Loudon noted her 4:1 registration disadvantage but was “figuring on an army of 76,000 Republicans” come November. “We are in a war.”

Similarly, Tony O’Donnell noted “we have a big challenge ahead of us…but it can be done.” Steny Hoyer is not invincible, in part because he’s no different than Nancy Pelosi.

Once lunch was done, we came back for the afternoon session and the two key votes. First, though, we had to wrap up business on the proposed bylaw changes. One dealing with proxies was remanded to the newly-formed Bylaws Committee after a contentious amendment to the proposal was introduced, and the other, which added conviction of a felony to the list of reasons for dismissal from a Central Committee, passed without objection.

I am quite aware, though, that this is the part you were waiting for.

The procedure for nomination and election of both the National Committeewoman and National Committeeman is as follows: a brief nominating speech, followed by two seconding speeches (about a minute per), and then remarks from the nominee.

Personally, I thought the nominating and first seconding speech by Ambrose’s supporters were a little bit weak and not really as well-received as they should have been. Dave Parker’s wrapup seconding remarks were nicely pointed, giving respect to Audrey’s role in the party but stressing it was time for a change.

I didn’t take a lot of notes for the remarks because I was sitting on pins and needles, but Nicolee hit on the themes of her campaign in terms of building the party.

The same order of presentation was set for Audrey Scott, and she had some heavy hitters on her side. Outgoing NCW Joyce Lyons Terhes introduced her, and state Party Treasurer Chris Rosenthal provided the initial seconding speech.

But it was the final one that riled the crowd up, when the very young man giving it made the remark that we should not “send a girl to do a woman’s job.” I didn’t hear the next 10 to 15 seconds of his speech over the boos and catcalls that remark provided. In truth, that probably lost Audrey a few votes.

And one thing I noticed about Audrey’s speech was that she finally claimed to have only raised a million dollars, which is relatively close to the truth. Audrey backed off her $2.5 million claim – wonder why?

(Honestly, if she didn’t feel the heat that the questioning of her financial claim provided, don’t you think she’d have continued to state the $1.5 million and $1 million Victory 2010 figures?)

Finally, it was time to vote. When Heather Olsen asked me my gut feeling I thought it would be inside 60-40 but wasn’t sure the vote would go the right way. Perhaps it was based on the loud, boisterous group of Audrey supporters right behind me. But once the voting began I started feeling better.

I’ll list the counties each contestant won:

• Ambrose: Anne Arundel, Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Carroll, Dorchester, Frederick (unanimous), Montgomery, Washington (unanimous), Wicomico, Worcester. We in Wicomico voted 6-3 for Nicolee.
• Scott: Calvert, Caroline (unanimous), Cecil, Charles, Garrett, Howard, Kent, Queen Anne’s (unanimous), Somerset, St. Mary’s (unanimous), Talbot (unanimous).

The vote was evenly split in Allegany, Harford, and Prince George’s. So Ambrose generally won the center of the state, the western section, and the lower Eastern Shore while Scott heavily carried the upper Eastern Shore and southern Maryland. This can be somewhat explained by Scott residing on the upper Shore and the influence of Terhes on southern Maryland. On the other hand, many of Nicolee’s candidate endorsements came from those who live in the areas she won.

In fact, Scott led in terms of actual votes cast (as opposed to the weighted system we use) until the last two counties reported – they were Baltimore County (won by Ambrose 21-7) and Montgomery (Ambrose 32-15.) In terms of votes cast, Ambrose won 143-123 with a couple abstentions and that translates to a 286-247 total under our system.

I’m going to come back to the Ambrose-Scott race, but I also wanted to report that Louis Pope won re-election handily in a far less controversial nomination and election process. By my tally Pope won the body count 225 to 45, so the weighted vote was probably just as overwhelming. Scott Shaffer only carried his home county of Anne Arundel and Worcester County, while tying in Harford County.

I think Shaffer’s biggest mistake was not getting out and campaigning around the state. We never saw him in our county, and although I disagreed with him on a couple key issues I think what did him in was not knowing the time and money investment which seems to be required to win this contest.

Similarly, those who put a lot more time and effort into winning Delegate and Alternate Delegate seats (or had plenty of name recognition) tended to prevail. In the Delegate race, nine of the ten on the so-called “Maryland for Romney Unity Slate” prevailed, as did six of the ten Alternates. But the one Unity Slate Delegate shut out: Lawrence Scott, son of Audrey Scott. It’s been a tough month for that family. State Delegate Michael Smigiel from the Eastern Shore got in instead. Non-slate Alternates who made it: O.P. Ditch, Jerry Walker, Deborah Rey, and James Calderwood placed fifth, eighth, ninth, and tenth, respectively. Aside from Calderwood, the other three all approached me to seek my vote so they aggressively pressed the flesh and won. (I voted for two of the three who took a few moments to ask.)

I know I’ve gone a long way already on the Ambrose-Scott race over the last couple months, but I want to share something I said to Nicolee – it’s not exact, but paraphrased. I told her that now I expect her not to fudge financial figures or disparage candidates over the next four years or she can expect me to come after her. In fact, Nicolee has an ambitious agenda that I would accept no less than for her to carry out.

Believe it or not, I don’t embrace change just for change’s sake. When you have nothing, though, you have nothing to lose. Despite Audrey Scott’s best efforts in 2010, we got no statewide offices, simply returned to where we were four years earlier insofar as the House of Delegates goes, and lost seats in the State Senate. Yes, the party did better financially but it didn’t do the job where it counts and that’s putting Republicans in the seats of power on a state-level basis.

Instead, we on the local level stepped up our game – without a lot of state help – and elected Republicans to perhaps be the farm team for future runs. But while Audrey counted on the past to give her the NCW position, there are some of us who wished to “progress forward,” as the snazzy Ambrose signs read.

It’s my fervent hope, though, that we channel the passion we placed into the NCW race in a different direction: to take the fight to the Democrats. Now I think we’ve sent the message that youth (like the young political consultant Kristin Shields of Purple Elephant Politics pictured below) will finally be served.

But the Ambrose win, guided by my friend and occasional partner in crime Heather Olsen, was not the only reason I left Solomons Island with a smile on my face and perhaps a joyful tear in my eye from the emotion of the day.

In the midst of all the hubbub of electing national convention Delegates, a process which took an absurdly long time because of a county which shall remain nameless, I approached my County Chair with a request, one that he granted. And since he was not elected as a Delegate to the National Convention, I put into place the next best thing.

When the counties of our Congressional district got together to nominate an elector from the First District, four names were placed into nomination and three gave speeches. Unbeknownst to me – although I realized later he had a previous engagement – the fourth person had left the premises.

Yet the man I nominated won. I’m pleased to tell you that it was the least honor I could give him, but our County Chair Dave Parker will be the Republican elector from the First District. I was told he won in a landslide, and he was as shocked as anyone when I called him with the news. It’s just more incentive to carry Maryland for Mitt Romney, just so he can enjoy the honor of being an elector.

Now THAT is how a convention should go!

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.

This comes from a letter to Central Committee members, with two pages being a general letter and a third page entitled “My Response.” I’ll have additional comments at the conclusion, which will come after Audrey’s note commences on the other side of the jump.

Dear Central Committee Members,

I expect I have talked to you in person or by phone sometime during the last three months. I have crisscrossed the State a dozen times since January when I accepted the call to be a candidate for the National Committeewoman.

Never did I imagine the negative attacks, character assassinations and outright lies about me, my efforts or my accomplishments by my opponent Ms. Ambrose and her supporters.

The tone of this race saddens me and I hope is not indicative of the next generation of Republican activists. It is certainly fair to compare records, point out differences, discuss accomplishments and hold up endorsements. But the “win at any cost” tone this race has taken on is not productive or helpful to the Maryland Republican Party. In fact it is hurtful and destructive.

Nevertheless, I refuse to be bullied out of this race by a few mean spirited naysayer’s. (sic) You might remember, I was the only Republican elected official in Prince George’s County for eight years. I know how to take a punch.

My opponent’s supporters have said that they are waiting for me to join them in the mud and go negative. I will not. It is not my style nor how I do business. Instead, I will offer you a comparison of the issues Ms. Ambrose and I have been discussing on the campaign trail.

My opponent is campaigning on two issues:

1. Change the Republican party to allow Independents to vote in the Primary, and
2. Do a better job with grassroots; communications and building a farm team.

First, I disagree with allowing Independents to vote in Republican Primaries. Much like we saw in the past Presidential primary season, there were dramatically different results in States that had “open” primaries and those with “Republican only” primaries. While it is true, you get more Independents voting, it is equally true you will get different results.

I chose to be a Republican (and not a Democrat and not an Independent) because I believe in the Republican principles. I want my Party and its leadership to exhibit those same principles. I believe it weakens our Party as a whole when we try to be all things to all people.

I was a Deputy Assistant Secretary for President Ronald Reagan. I attended cabinet meetings at the White House. I witnessed firsthand Ronald Reagan’s leadership and still get goose bumps when I think of the time he told Gorbachev “tear down this wall.” We as Republicans (and we as Americans) should stand proud on our beliefs. I have no interest in watering down our Republican beliefs … and that is exactly what will happen if we go to “open” primaries.

Second, my opponent advocates “doing a better job with grassroots, communications and building a farm team.” These are good goals that I share as well. Unfortunately, Ms. Ambrose offers no specifics on what she would do and instead points out that the MDGOP during my tenure as Chairman of the MDGOP had “no” success on any of these fronts.

During my tenure, due to our candidate recruitment, candidate training, voter identification and get-out-the-vote effort, we had a net gain of 47 elected Republicans throughout the State. In contrast, four years earlier, we had a net loss. Furthermore, the newly elected Republican Delegates in Annapolis have already made their mark by stopping a number of bad bills.

In addition, during my tenure as Chairman, we saw a net gain in membership among the grassroots both in participation at clubs and in paid memberships to the MDGOP.

Finally, I was able to raise enough money to pay for a full time communications director. This was a priority for me as I understand the importance of being able to communicate our message to supporters as well as engaging in PR for the Party and our elected officials.

What Ms. Ambrose has left off her list is what the job of a National Committeewoman actually requires:

1. The role of the National Committeewoman is to represent the State at the national level and compete for resources from the RNC with the other 49 States in a very competitive environment. The National Committeewoman must be confident, have a strong convincing voice, be respected and trusted by her peers.
2. Attend RNC Board meeting and subcommittee meetings. There is no RNC reimbursement and this costs upwards of $25,000 a year and countless days out of town. It is critical to attend these meetings and the dinners and banquets because this is where relationships are made and cemented and where the “deals are made” that will benefit the Maryland Republican Party as well as the Nation.
3. Engage in fundraising. During my career in Maryland, I have raised millions of dollars hosting events for Republican Candidates as well as the millions of dollars while I was Chairman of the Maryland GOP. Just last year, after I was no longer Chairman of the Maryland GOP, I hosted a Fundraiser at my house that raised $14,000 for the GOP. The fact is I am a known and recognized fundraiser with a successful track record.

In closing, I commend Ms. Ambrose for throwing her hat into the ring. However, National Committeewoman is not a job you learn on the fly. It is a position that should be filled by a person with the time, discretionary money, fundraising contacts, national political experience and contacts and a proven successful record.

There are a number of highly qualified women who fit this description in Maryland, such as Joyce Terhes, Ellen Sauerbrey, Ruth Umbel, Patt Parker, Catie James, Mary Kane, Katja Bullock, Nancy Jacobs, Addie Eckardt, Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio, Helen Bentley, Marjorie Holt, Diana Waterman, and Kelly Schulz. Most of these amazing women recruited me to run and all have endorsed my candidacy.

I hope you find this letter and my comments helpful to your decision on who you will choose to be your next National Committeewoman. I have done my best to answer the questions and accusations on the table, defend my record and explain the differences between myself and Ms. Ambrose.

Thank you for your service to the Maryland GOP. I respectfully ask for your vote at the MDGOP convention this Saturday in Solomon’s Island.

Audrey Scott

**********

The second part is Audrey’s rebuttal to some of the items brought up here and in other venues.

**********

My Response

Ms. Ambrose and her supporters have publicly made the following accusations. They are made with half truths and remind me of the old statement “the sky is blue, the grass is green so 1 plus 1 equals 3.” Mixing a few truths with a lie does not make the lie true.

For those of you who are interested, I would like to set the record straight. If you have any questions at all about any of my statements or facts, please do not hesitate to call me at (redacted).

Thank you,

Audrey

Attorney General Ballot

I reject Ms. Ambrose’s accusations that I kept Jim Shalleck off the Republican ballot in 2010. When he did not file by the deadline, I organized an effort to have MDGOP, under the rules adopted by the Board of Elections and the MDGOP, appoint Mr. Shalleck to the ballot. This effort failed when there was not a unanimous vote by the Executive Committee. I voted yes.

Rule 11

I reject Ms. Ambrose’s accusations that the Rule 11 designation was for the direct benefit of Bob Ehrlich. Rather it was to set up 7 voter identification offices throughout the State to identify Independents and Conservative Democrats for the GENERAL ELECTION. No money flowed to Bob Ehrlich because of Rule 11. Furthermore, Bob Ehrlich donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to voter identification efforts. All candidates for the General Election had use of these offices and it is the major reason we had so many winning candidates. By the way, this is the primary reason why Andy Harris captured a Democrat Congressional seat in the 1st District.

Party Finances

I reject Ms. Ambrose’s accusations that I misrepresented the debt or the amount of money raised by the Maryland GOP during my time as Chairman. The party was in debt by $250,000 and we raised $1.5 million plus another $1 million from the RNC for the Victory effort. MDGOP Treasurer Chris Rosenthal is available to verify these numbers.

Primary

I reject Ms. Ambrose’s accusations that I should not have involved myself in the 6th Congressional District Primary. I was asked to help recruit a candidate since Roscoe Bartlett was retiring and because the newly drawn district was effectively an open seat. When Congressman Bartlett did not retire, I and about two dozen Republican elected officials, had already endorsed David Brinkley. I did not go back on my word. When the primary was over, I openly and publicly declared my support for Congressman Bartlett.

**********

Okay, I have given Audrey about 1500 words to state her case. But there are still a lot of holes and unanswered questions.

First of all, though, I have been attempting to use Audrey’s record as a point of comparison. And while I have my disagreements with Nicolee Ambrose as well, there are a number of glaring faults which Audrey has either not addressed or where she tried to pass off misinformation. If pointing these out is a “negative attack,” then I stand guilty. As I said in a comment someplace the other day I’d much rather be kicking the collective asses of the seven Democratic dwarfs who are on the state ballot, yet I can’t just let this valuable position become a gold watch retirement gift when it can be utilized for so much more.

I will say that I agree with Audrey that unaffiliated voters shouldn’t vote in the GOP primary. But what Audrey didn’t tell you is that it the idea would be to bring the open primary discussion up at a future convention and let the party decide – a concept apparently foreign to Audrey given how Rule 11 was invoked just days after our party met in Ocean City in 2010. But I am glad to see Audrey coming around on the idea of principles, since she’s well known for her “party over everything” statement.

And perhaps it was that “party over everything” spirit making Audrey take credit for the 2010 Republican gains in Maryland. But I contend that she was the beneficiary of this little movement called the TEA Party and we could have done even better without the perception the Maryland GOP was already in the tank for a number of establishment candidates.

On the other hand, Nicolee Ambrose helped to build that farm team by cultivating a number of Young Republican chapters around the state – I believe the Lower Shore chapter was one of those. I myself have a YR background so I know a little bit about how difficult it is at times to motivate younger people to get involved; obviously she’s better at it than I was. (I can do a little name dropping, though: if you read down among the YR officers backing Nicolee, you’ll notice the name Michael Harlow. I served under him as Secretary of the Toledo Metro YR club around 1998. He then moved to the Cincinnati area and became involved nationally.)

Yet the part of the initial letter that floored me was the long diatribe about how to serve as a National Committeewoman, because it’s simply an extension of the line I was given by one of her supporters that Nicolee Ambrose can’t serve because she’s a single mom and has a family. It seems to me that heading up a national organization is pretty good training for this, and quite frankly this is the same type of argument Democrats used to disparage Sarah Palin. I think Nicolee is quite intelligent enough to know what she was getting into, since surely she knows a few RNC members.

Now it’s time to address Audrey’s responses to the points not brought up by Nicolee (at least not originally) but instead by a number of thoughtful Republicans around the state who believe the party should move forward and see this as an opportunity to do just that.

First of all, I read the Jim Shalleck letter (replicated here), and the message I got from it is that Audrey knows where the bodies are buried. But even if she doesn’t know who quashed the Executive Committee meeting, Audrey still could have easily sent out notice shortly after the filing deadline passed and not run afoul of the waiver requirement – but she chose not to for some reason. If she had sent out the notice immediately upon the initial contact from Shalleck, they could have met before the deadline with a couple days to spare. Opportunity missed, and a black eye for the state party to make them look ineffective and weak.

Now about Rule 11. Even if you accept Audrey’s premise that it wasn’t for Bob Ehrlich’s benefit, let’s review two facts:

1. The featured luncheon speaker at the Spring 2010 MDGOP Convention was Bob Ehrlich. While Brian Murphy was in the room, he was not allowed to say his piece.
2. At that same convention the Rule 11 question was not brought up. This top-down management style is the surest way to turn off activists the party needs to thrive in the future. If the subject had come to a vote I predict it would have passed overwhelmingly over my objection. But at least the MDGOP would have a leg to stand on because they  made the effort to get a buy-in from local leaders.

I also dispute Audrey’s contention about the Victory Centers winning Andy Harris his seat. Harris would have won the First Congressional seat, Victory Centers or not, because no one was happy with Frank Kratovil and the district acted like the R+13 district it was in a non-presidential year.

And now we get to party finances, and guess what? I did speak with Chris Rosenthal. And I resent the implication I lied about the fundraising, because the numbers don’t show what she claims.

But apparently she’s counting on most of the couple hundred voters involved taking her word for it when the facts fly in her face. Not all of those voting read this website; it’s their loss but I can’t force anyone to come here.

And last but not least, the Sixth District primary. Listen, Audrey can support whoever she wants to and a lot of people were surprised that Roscoe Bartlett didn’t retire. But to call him “unelectable?” I guarantee that will show up someplace in John Delaney’s campaign. I’m glad she’s backing him now, but the damage has been done – and Roscoe is one of many Republican officeholders endorsing Nicolee Ambrose.

Oh, and about those endorsements. While Audrey has a formidable list of endorsements on her site, it’s worth noting that several 2010 statewide candidates (who worked with Audrey while she was Chair) have endorsed Nicolee Ambrose: Eric Wargotz and William Campbell are behind her; not unexpectedly so is Brian Murphy. In addition, several of the 2010 crop of Delegates is in her corner as well: Neil Parrott, Michael Hough, and John Cluster were elected two years ago while Audrey was Chair but are endorsing Nicolee.

As I have said on previous occasions, we face a choice of whether to move the party forward or stay in place. It took me awhile to make a decision, and I could have let Rule 11 go by the wayside. But when Audrey showed up at a rally which supported raising the gasoline tax, I began to wonder about the message she was sending. Add to that the “unelectable” Bartlett fiasco and the questionable fundraising claims, and you get a situation where our judgment as a whole would come into question if Audrey Scott was rewarded with a National Committeewoman post.

I’m all for thanking Audrey Scott for her years of service to the Maryland Republican Party. But I think she’s already had a roast, so we don’t need to give her this office too.

After handling the normal mundane business at hand, Bob began his remarks by making light of the fact he “made the paper and Grapevine all in one week.” As he’d mentioned before, the last year-plus on County Council had been challenging and interesting at the same time, and he praised fellow Council member Gail Bartkovich for her help on picking through the budget. In fact, this Council edition has a “great dynamic,” assessed Culver.

They had been presented two budgets for FY2013: one billed by County Executive Rick Pollitt as the “doomsday” budget had around $7 million in cuts in case the state’s maintenance of effort rules would apply with no new revenue, while the other “relief” budget restored those cuts and instead grew the Board of Education by 2 percent. Culver correctly pegged these budgets, particularly the “doomsday” edition, as an “end run to remove the revenue cap” with the assistance of Delegate Norm “14 Million Dollar” Conway. (Note I made up the name for him, not Bob.) Bob also saw the income tax increase county payers will endure (from 3.1% to 3.2%) as “political blackmail” made necessary by state mandates.

And while state leaders dithered over the Prince George’s County casinos that Senate President Mike Miller wants vs. the revenue enhancements Martin O’Malley desires, we in Wicomico County are still saddled with a lot of bad legislation. Take the new residential sprinkler law which will add between $7,000 and $20,000 to the cost of a new home for example. Or consider the septic bill, which affects farmers because their property values and available credit decrease.

Moreover, the budget only works by withdrawing from the rainy day fund, of which only about $12.2 million is currently not otherwise spoken for. There is “no chance in hell” we can afford a $14 million hit, said Bob, although “we could have made $7 million.” But when the county has lost $800 million in assessed value since 2010, things get more difficult. And while new county administrator Wayne Strasburg is a “breath of fresh air,” Wayne also believes we need at least a 7 cent per $100 increase in the property tax for each of the next three years, said Culver.

In addition, Bob believed we dodged a bullet for now with the failure of the teacher pension shift that the counties lobbied against. But it was only a matter of time before that shoe dropped and Culver thought we should begin planning for that eventuality now.

When asked about the fate of the elected school board, Bob was blunt: “Mr. (Rudy) Cane killed it.” Bob was told in no uncertain terms it would not advance while Rudy was chair of the county delegation.

At this point Delegate Charles Otto got into the conversation, blasting the maintenance of effort bill as a “ridiculous, unconstitutional thing.” The only thing we’d have a special session for, continued Otto, would be to raise $500 million in taxes.

Hearing the grumbling that there wasn’t much we could do about the situation, Cathy Keim begged to differ. She pointed out that Election Integrity Maryland was training poll watchers, which we would need in various areas of the state. We could also work on the petition and referendum she was collecting signatures for.

That was echoed by Central Committee member John Palmer, who also announced that the signatures being collected were also being made into a handy database of conservative and right-leaning Marylanders which could be useful for future efforts. Regarding our County Council, Palmer assessed it as “six Republicans (with) three acting like Republicans.”

County Council member Joe Holloway chimed in that the Bennett Middle vote “decided the fate” of the 7 cent property tax increase. By voting to spend that additional money, the Council was left with no choice but to max out to the revenue cap this time around.

As it turned out, Culver was the catalyst for a wide-ranging discussion of solutions ranging from activism to prayer, as we were reminded by one observer that National Prayer Day comes a week from Thursday. “God is judging our nation,” she warned. We need “more prayer warriors.”

After engaging in a mea culpa for an error he made in his most recent Daily Times column, Dave Parker mentioned the state budget in his Central Committee report; he marveled that “uncontrollable Republicans” were being blamed for the non-passage of the budget Martin O’Malley would have preferred. O’Malley left out the inconvenient truth that Democrats in Annapolis can pass whatever they please without a single GOP vote. Martin O’Malley “wants to be Obama,” Parker believed.

But Dave was disturbed by one earmark which was passed, despite the fact he’ll receive some tangible benefit. The state wrote itself $135 million more debt so Norm Conway could brag about bringing a new library to Salisbury University. (Gee, it should be under construction just in time for Conway’s re-election campaign, you think?)

Longtime political campaign organizer Bonnie Luna announced she was at it again, as she will soon begin the local Mitt Romney campaign with a kickoff organizational meeting sometime next month. Dan Bongino also has a local coordinator in rising young political operative Shawn Jester.

But I wanted to wrap up with one final travesty in an evening that seemed to be permeated with doom and gloom for some reason.

After a number of years of trying, the Wicomico County Republican Club finally set up a scholarship to be given to a high school senior who qualifies in several different areas, including (naturally) being a registered Republican. It’s not a huge scholarship by any means, but $500 can be a help to a young student. (I know it would have helped me thirty years ago when I began college.)

We found out today that the Wicomico County Board of Education would not list it in their list of scholarships, for the stated reason that the recipient has to be a registered Republican. Now there are other stipends which are restricted for other various reasons, such as the applicant has to be a minority, female, pursue a particular career major, or even be a wrestler, but apparently those sorts of restrictions are just fine. This tends to follow the same logic which would allow a non-believer to head up a Christian school group. But the good news is the scholarship will soon be on the Delmarva Education Foundation website, which is a relief for a conservative student (including homeschooled) who would like to avoid the federal student loan scam if at all possible.

So the meeting wasn’t all bad. Hopefully in a couple months we’ll get to meet our recipient; perhaps he or she can attend our next meeting on June 25. Since the fourth Monday in May is Memorial Day we will skip May and have our next confab in June.

As State Party Chair, I retired a $250,000 debt in the first 5 months of my term and raised over $1.5M, in addition to obtaining another $1M from the RNC for the Victory Campaign.

After getting a chance to speak with party treasurer Chris Rosenthal, I can say that Audrey is somewhat right, but also somewhat wrong.

While I didn’t believe Audrey erased a $250,000 debt because I didn’t think we were that far in the hole, Rosenthal told me he thought the amount paid back was somewhere between $200,000 and $250,000. There was also someone else I trust who said the same thing, so I can give her credit for that one.

As for the $1.5 million claim, I found out I misread the financial report for 2010. After some guidance on how the numbers were compiled I found out the $482,482 number I originally used was a net number. After reviewing how the numbers were presented with Chris I learned how to figure out the gross number, so when I added the 2010 numbers up (excluding Victory 2010 revenue, which I’ll get to in a bit) I came up with a gross number of $764,168. It’s closer to $1.5 million but even if you figured she raised a sizable sum in the final month of 2009 when she became Chair, Audrey’s still somewhat shy of the amount she’s claimed.

But we couldn’t come up with $1 million of RNC money. The Victory 2010 revenue was $347,265 in the 2010 MDGOP report, and unless the RNC was fronting a lot of staff salaries and equipment we agreed that $1 million figure was probably an exaggeration. And remember, the FEC Victory 2010 numbers were like this:

I looked at both the RNC reports and the MDGOP reports to make sure everything checked out…the total cash that went from the RNC to MDGOP was $246,900.

In addition, there was $45,779.82 in salaries paid directly by the RNC between January and June (2010), and $63,525 in in-kind equipment (computers, voip phones, routers, printers, etc). The grand total, including inkinds, was $356,204.82.

I was told that some of the MDGOP staff was being paid by the national party, which may be explained in the paragraph above. But that $1 million in Victory Fund money seems like somewhat of an embellishment on Audrey’s part as well, and remember she’s claiming this comes in addition to the $1.5 million. So she’s holding herself personally responsible for $2.5 million raised when I’m barely finding $1 million for 2010.

I will grant, however, that looking at the partial 2011 numbers and comparing them to the same time period in 2010 makes Audrey look like a better fundraiser. Yet there is the caveat of Audrey running the state party during an election year while Alex Mooney was handling things in an off-cycle year.

On the other hand, I also contacted Nicolee Ambrose for a little bit of information on a fundraiser she had recently made happen, with Congressman Allen West. She didn’t raise a huge, six-figure amount by any means but there have been years our Red, White, and Blue Dinner barely made six figures, too. But $8,000 or $9,000 means roughly 80 to 90 people showed up for the event, and if she can pull off four to six events like this a year that would be a tidy sum for a National Committeewoman to contribute.

Moreover, this was the sort of fundraiser which could be easily replicated around the state given Nicolee’s Rolodex of connections she’s gained during her time as YR Chairman so I’m not worried about fundraising with Nicolee as National Committeewoman. I believe she will pull her weight to help the Maryland GOP.

It’s worth mentioning that we have been comparing apples and oranges here. The Chair gets to take credit for any money raised under his or her purview, whether directly through his or her efforts or not. Using those fundraising numbers from the year Audrey Scott was Chair as evidence of superior ability to be National Committeewoman is a little bit misleading, but misdirection has been a hallmark of this campaign.

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.

I got the invitation from Robert Broadus, who will be a speaker at the Take Back Maryland Rally on Saturday in Federalsburg. It’s organized by a group I was heretofore unfamiliar with called the League of the South, and I’ll get to them in a little bit.

First of all, the topics seem quite interesting: during the three-hour Saturday afternoon event, Broadus will speak on “Defending Marriage in the Old Line State,” State Senator Rich Colburn talks about “A 51st State: Partitioning ‘Red’ Maryland from ‘Blue’ Maryland,” and David Whitney of the Institute of the Constitution pondering “Is the 14th Amendment Legal?” All seem like intriguing topics worth listening to, particularly since they don’t seem to come from an orthodox point of view in Maryland.

The sponsoring organization bills itself as maintaining the spirit of the Confederacy, noting ”We seek to advance the cultural, social, economic, and political well-being and independence of the Southern people by all honourable means.” Obviously this brings up the familiar images of the rebel flag, white-hooded Ku Klux Klan members, and separate but equal facilities. And of course we’ve already fought one War Between the States that their side lost.

Still, if you ignore the racial portion of the equation (as Broadus is apparently doing, since he is a black man) there are some aspects of Southern life which could stand a revival. A couple in particular are the restoration of state’s rights and the Southern emphasis on family and community – the definition of which comes from achieving the greater good through local, privately-based efforts rather than a government program. Taken in that context, the selection of speakers makes a lot of sense.

Without question, this will be the kind of event that liberals fall over themselves condemning because they see almost everything through a lens of perceived racism. But the League of the South contends (and I think to a significant extent rightfully so) that southern Maryland, the Eastern Shore, and lower Delaware are bastions of the old South trapped inside northern states; on the other hand portions of Confederate states like Florida and Texas are no longer “southern” as they define it because of Yankee and Latino influences.

And while there isn’t a shooting war going on between the blue and the gray, there’s no denying we have a cultural and social war going on between the principles being stood for by the League of the South and ideologically similar, socially conservative and even libertarian groups versus those promulgated by their perception of government policy and the influence of Hollywood and the mainstream media.

Just witness the GOP Presidential primary schedule – Mitt Romney didn’t win any states in the Deep South except Florida, and Florida was won only because Romney carried the urban areas. The northern tier of the state and panhandle was Gingrich country, as was Newt’s adopted home state of Georgia and South Carolina. Rick Santorum carried Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Tennessee during his Presidential bid.

They didn’t call the South the Bible Belt for nothing, and over the last many decades it’s been Hollywood’s task to sell the idea of Southerners as white trash while government enforces policies which many evangelicals in the South disagree with. Yet Southerners are proportionally more likely to fight and die for their country.

But I guarantee that some of those who read this article are going to shake their head and think to themselves that these speakers are making a mistake appearing before such a group, one which believes the South should rise again and eventually secede from the rest of the Union. I have news for them: we already live in a polarized and divided nation, made so because it benefits certain people and groups at the expense of the rest of us. We don’t have to agree with everything the League of the South says, but we should give it the respect due any other group of citizens who have a political or social view to express. A country which allows both the hatred of Fred Phelps and the perversion of the Folsom Street Fair (just Google both, I’m not linking) definitely should make room for a group advocating a return to the better points of tradition.