Response to an interested observer

Expanding her comment to my post about former MDGOP Chair hopeful Andrew Langer’s endorsement of Mary Kane, Right Coast blogger Julie Brewington almost laments about my “almost lament(ing)” the news.

While I know Julie has the best interests of conservatism in mind there are a couple items for which I need to take her to task. I suppose she can plead ignorance because there’s information I’m privy to as one inside the MDGOP as opposed to her outside position. Certainly I would be in a similar situation if the discussion came up about the local TEA Parties or the Wicomico County AFP circa late 2009.

Let’s begin with the Chambers Compact. Originally the brainchild of a group of Red Maryland editors led by Mark Newgent, it was revised and expanded by Langer. While I’ve had my disagreements with the remainder of the Red Maryland group in the past and had to set them straight a time or two, I think they have their hearts in the right place.

When you read the document it calls for, among other things, a leader “skilled at (grassroots) organization” and holding the “career politicians and statists” in Annapolis accountable. I see neither of these aspects in Mary Kane, not to mention that the party was already led once by her husband John, a hand-picked acolyte of then-Governor Bob Ehrlich. Talk about top-down leadership!

I also knew that Langer has been active in the MDGOP for some time, but applauded his efforts to reach out (or, as Julie seems to believe, co-opt) the TEA Party movement. Obviously since I happen to be on the Central Committee as is Julie’s former AFP cohort Joe Collins, we’re all trying to bring the two parties together. Simply put, we believe their political home should be the Republican Party! If that is Julie’s definition of co-opting, well, it is what it is.

But I’m also among those who also believe that many of those things the TEA Party stands for (things the GOP tended to drift away from over the last decade) should become part of the Republican platform. Not all “establishment” politicians are bad and some have decided to bring about change as they can within the system.

For these and other reasons, yes, I was surprised that Langer departed from his stated positions. I know he disgusted several of his potential supporters, including me – as I said, you could’ve knocked me over with a feather. Perhaps Julie’s seen that side of him but I thought he would be more of a man of his word.

As Andrew has, I’ve also spoken at some length to Mary Kane. We had a sometimes-spirited discussion but it wasn’t enough to convince me to give her my initial support. Simply put, I think there are at least two and possibly three others in the race who would do a better job. My observation is based on the past history of the Kane family being in charge of the party and things she has said in both the phone conversation and in writing.

So, yes, color me surprised. Obviously it makes sense that Jim Rutledge would endorse one of his former campaign workers for the post but this one came out of left field – I would have expected Andrew to go in another direction.

Author: Michael

It's me from my laptop computer.

6 thoughts on “Response to an interested observer”

  1. no way man, if you run and win man, your a sellout man, you suck man, you become part of the establishment man, you do anything man, and I’ll tear you down man, power to people man, Republicans suck man, democrats suck too man, but I’ll chew up the first thing I see man, whatevers closest to me man, go third party man, yeah thats the ticket man, no lesser of two evils man, Im like a libertarian man, I have a plan man, you just have to elect me man, but then I’ll be a sellout too man, cant do that man, so I’m gonna saboatage myself man, than I’ll have my moral authority man, but how come they’re taking Rush off the radio man, sure they elected progressives man, because I’m third party man, but why are they breaking all the glass down town man, oh no man, I think were in trouble man…

  2. Michael, let me just say that my reaction was based on the twitch in my left elbow more than anything else. Through the school of hard knocks, I’ve sort of gained a sixth sense in the political arena and the intentions of those involved. This is what I was responding to with Langer. Judging by your other comments, I was not alone. I have come to understand that politics makes strange bed fellows. Many are in it for a variety of reasons. Many of those reasons are self serving, unfortunately. It wasn’t a jab at you and OK fine…..I have to admit here I’m going more on instinct rather than any specific facts about Langer. I mentioned my lack of shock of his endorsement of Kane because simply it didn’t surprise me. I base this mainly off of my interaction with Andrew, and perhaps witnessing some of the high jackling of the Tea party for specific GOP establishment candidate gains here locally in the state. I understand that you are looking for some “common ground” among central committees and the GOP in general but I’d like to just suggest that a vote for conservative values and party principles, if they aren’t embodied in whomever may be elected chair, that a vast amount of votes for a conservative constitutionalists could have a sway in MDGOP party politics.

Comments are closed.