Interview with Steven Showe, Chairman of the Washington County [MD] Republican Central Committee

 

    Transparency regarding the appointment process for all of the recent Washington County Republican Central Committee (WCRCC) appointments has been a major concern and sometimes heated topic of discussion on social media. So in the spirit of transparency, let me begin by stating:

I wanted to interview Steven Showe, Chairman of the WCRCC, for no other reason than to attempt to clear up the suspicion regarding the integrity of this committee that has been sown into the community via social media and the local newspaper, IMO for either personal attention or to further a political agenda.  I write this as a Conservative political activist and blogger that has nothing personal to gain or to lose by this interview. Although I had been a loyal Republican for 30 years, I now identify strictly as a Conservative. I have no influence in the Washington County Republican Party or the Washington County Republican Central Committee, and I am not even a member of the Washington County Republican Club any longer. In fact, although I still own a  home in Washington County, due to a personal family situation,  I have been "temporarily" living in Baltimore County for nearly two years. I have no personal friendships on the WCRCC. I do have three acquaintances out of the six who voted to fill these positions, having briefly served on one Board with one member and having occasionally attended the same political events as two others. I had no prior connection to Steven Showe. Full disclosure: Even though it has no connection to the WCRCC appointment of Commissioner Spong, which is the appointment that has created the most stir,  I am currently a contracted employee for Delegate William Wivell in a politically benign position as a social media consultant. I also compile data into document form, one day a week working from home.

    I met with Mr. Showe the night of the Republican Club meeting where the Washington County delegation gave their annual legislative update. He was willing to give me all of the time that  I needed and willing to discuss any topic. I found him to be very open and forthright, and his demeanor when asked about his leadership was somewhat humble yet firm.  He answered every question, although some were "off the record." Those particular answers were sometimes disarmingly honest, and in most cases would be to his benefit to share. I simply asked him the questions that many have asked, repeatedly, regarding the process. When not in quotes, his answers have been paraphrased.

1. How transparent is the committee legally obligated to be regarding the appointment process? "Legally, there is nothing written. Transparency is a term that might have multiple meanings. We viewed the process as if we were interviewing somebody for a job. We ran background checks and they were guarded as private." Sometimes privacy trumps transparency.

2. Did the background checks disqualify anyone? "I can't answer that."  Showe went on to say, "We didn't record minutes at our meetings because they weren't regularly-scheduled meetings and because they would have become public, and we had to protect mainly the privacy of the individuals, but also ourselves."

3. Did the committee research and abide strictly to the state constitution? "Definitely. We did not bend to the Appointments Office, we strictly read the Constitution [and sought the advice of lawyers]. We were advised that we may send more than one name, but with the recent concern for how the U.S. Constitution is being ignored and attacked, we decided to strictly follow the state constitution. The Appointments Office in Annapolis requested that we submit more than one name, and so did the Maryland State [Republican] Party.

4. The requests for three names for the Delegate and Commissioner appointments were reported to have come straight from Governor Hogan. Is that true? "I don't think it came from Hogan. It came from the Appointments Office and I don't think that Larry Hogan knew anything about it."

5. Not all applicants were interviewed for Commissioner. Were all applicants for the other positions interviewed? "Yes."

6. What were the criteria for deciding who would be interviewed? "We developed the process for each position as a committee. The process was different for each position. Completely different."

• "As for the position for Senator, we decided to keep it within the delegation and interviewed everyone except Brett Wilson. He declined an interview because he felt that he was elected to represent Hagerstown."
• "For the position of Delegate we decided to interview every applicant."
• "For the commissioner position we thoroughly read every resume, cover letter, form, and essay (Top Three Priorities) submitted by every applicant to decide who we would interview. We interviewed every elected official."

Mr. Spong was not an elected official yet he was interviewed? The rest were interviewed based on their background checks and paperwork.

7. A second interview for one applicant who had applied for the delegate position and then also applied later for the commissioner position was deemed unnecessary. Why? "We had very recently interviewed this person, but if the individual comes to me I will give him more details." [Privacy]

8. Do you think that the committee could have been more considerate towards the applicants, especially in keeping them informed throughout the process? "We notified people as their applications came in. If they sent them by email there could have been those who slipped through the cracks because at first people were sending them directly to me, some to other members of the committee, until we did get a Google number that went to all of us. The applicants could have called to follow up to see if their applications were received. Those who where going to be interviewed were called, and everyone was notified the night that the interview process was over."

So, those who were not going to be interviewed were not told until the interview process was over? "Yes. Large companies [typically] do not call people to tell them that they are not going to be interviewed. That's the way we worked it. Will a company even read your resume? No, [often] they may read the cover letter and you may be disqualified or you may have the job [by the cover letter alone]. We thoroughly read everything that each applicant submitted, but we were not going to inform them that they would not be interviewed until the end of the process."

9. Would you do anything differently regarding the interviewing process? "My main goals were to keep the committee intact and not split like Carroll County, and to protect the privacy of the applicants...so no."

Regarding Mr. Spong's appointment as Commissioner:

10. Was it unanimous? What did the numbers have to be? "No. It only had to be a majority."

11. Was there a 2nd choice? "Yes." Showe stated that it had been narrowed down to four choices, and there was one with the next highest amount of votes. He did not want those names to be published. He believes that the privacy regarding the vote is necessary to keep the committee united. "United we stand. Divided we fall."

12. Why do you think Spong's appointment created more of an outcry for transparency than the other appointments? "That, I don't have a clue because during the public comment phase he was the most strongly supported applicant."

13. How does Spong compare to Wivell (the voters' choice)? Was that important? "Mr. Spong is pretty intelligent and so is Mr. Wivell. Wivell has the financial skills. There was not another Wivell there, except for maybe one." He was referring to the individual with the second highest votes for the appointment.

14. Spong has no record on issues, and has never campaigned or held an office. How do you know he will represent the voters on important local issues, and also be as conservative as Wivell who the voters elected? "At his interview he gave good solid Conservative answers."

15. Do you know where Spong stands on:

• Improving economic conditions? His opening statement showed knowledge of what has already been attempted and what we still need to do. "He was very well-versed."
• Attracting businesses and jobs to the area? "All of them said that there have been a lot of bad decisions made over the years. He said, Hey let's learn by our mistakes."
• Education? "He said there is room to cut the budget for education in the department itself. He would not approve anything to increase the education budget whatsoever unless it was absolutely needed. [I think] that is one budget that is not very transparent. I'd rather not quote [Spong] regarding the BOE. You should ask him directly."
• Possible funding for a new stadium for Hagerstown? "This was a question to all of those who were interviewed. He said no funding. He thought it was better to be located outside of the community and not funded by the county. He said that if they want to have baseball let the fans pay for it."

Mr. Showe stated: "It has been several weeks now since his interview, and I don't have his paperwork in front of me. I think you should interview Mr. Spong on where he stands on the issues. I will give you his number."  I was introduced to Mr. Spong at the meeting that evening, and he agreed to give me an interview, but only if I could meet him in-person. He said that he wanted me "to be able to look him in the eye."

16. Did Spong have an issue that he was most passionate about? "He was well-rounded on every issue. My question to him was: Do you support code rule, home rule, or a commissioner-style of government? He said commissioner-style was best and most efficient. I asked, efficient in what way? He said that it doesn't cost as much. To me that was spot on."

17. Does Spong have something that qualifies him to serve?  For example, Wivell is a CPA and MBA that is passionate about budget issues. Mr. Spong's area of expertise is in education. He was a principal at a local school for 16 years.

18. Should his past affiliation as a Democrat be a concern, especially since he has no public record on issues? Why or why not? "I didn't let it influence my judgment. Ronald Reagan was a Democrat. I can't speak for the other members."

19. Did his connection to Terry Baker influence his appointment? "No, because I didn't even know until two days before [the vote] that he had anything to do with Terry Baker." Showe said that he couldn't speak for the other committee members, but said that he did not see or hear anything that would indicate influence.

20. Is there any truth to the rumor that the "Good Ol' Boys" were pushing for McKinley? "No comment. I will say that he got the most negative comments during the public comment phase."

Mr. Showe let me know that he himself had recently been called a Good Ol’ Boy by someone from the TEA Party.

21. Ryan Miner has said publicly on social media that he has called for your resignation? "Yes."

• Was he the only one? "Yes."
• Did you consider resigning? "No, not for s second." 
• Did any of the other committee members get any personal blowback? Maybe one, but I'm not aware of any specifics.

22. Did you deny Ryan Miner, Ken Buckler [WashCo Chronicle],  the Herald Mail, or any other request for an interview? "No. Ryan Miner did not ask me for an interview. I have never heard of Ken Buckler. I was interviewed by the Herald Mail by telephone about 6 or 7 times...whenever they asked for one. Sometimes I had to tell them that I would get back to them when I knew something. Sometimes they held information from my interviews until they had more information. I only declined to do a video interview with the Herald Mail."
   
    In summary, I normally write opinion pieces, so many would be shocked if I didn't end this post with my own thoughts about the process, the integrity of the committee, the leadership of Mr. Showe, and the appointment of Mr. Spong.  
    Before the interview, I had nothing that would lead me to question the integrity of the committee that was elected by the voters to fulfill this duty or the process that they employed, even when my first choice for delegate was not chosen. I read a lot on social media from some that seemed to want to cast doubt and suspicion on this committee. I approached it with the innocent-until-proven-guilty perspective. After the interview, I remain convinced that the committee fulfilled their duty to the voters with integrity using all available knowledge and a fair process. I do believe that in the future voters will give  more consideration to their votes for this committee having had this experience.
   I believe that as chairman of the committee, Mr. Showe's leadership was strong and honest, with an understanding of the weight of these appointments, but also for the importance of keeping the committee and the party united.
    As for the appointment of Mr. Spong, I think that remains to be seen. I still don't know where he stands on issues. I could and may interview him, but we all know that what is said in an interview is not always a clear picture of how a person will vote. Sometimes the voting official doesn't even know for sure how they will vote until they are sitting in that seat and asked to push that button or raise that hand. I have no reason to believe that he won't serve honorably. I will not speculate that he is a RINO or a Democrat posing as a Republican. I will not speculate that he presented himself as something that he is not.  I just don't know. Nobody can predict or pre-judge. All we can do at this point is wait and see. If there was one single thing that I could do or ask others to do to guarantee that he is a Conservative Republican and will vote accordingly, I think most people know that I would do it. I choose my battles. Just because I can't affect a different outcome at this point does not mean that I will resort to sowing suspicion and strife into the community. But I will be watching...

Obama the Man-Child vs Netanyahu the Statesman

    I read that this will be the first time in the 66-year history of US-Israeli relations that the White House doors will be closed to a visiting Prime Minister of Israel. Although I am pretty sure that Obama has done this before, it has only been this president. It is not because we have never had an administration that was in disagreement with Israel. There have been others. It is because of the temperament and ego of  Barak Hussein Obama and his administration. It is because of his narcissistic influence on a small band of Democrats that this controversy over Netanyahu's visit to Congress has evolved into tabloid-like reporting on The Real Lives of the DC Egos.
    As I listened to Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech at AIPAC today, I could not help but feel that I was listening to a historic speech by a noble leader in love with his country. It is such a contrast to the childish and petulant speeches that we hear from our man-child president who always has an axe to grind, not with our enemies, but with the American people (Republicans, TEA Party, Christians, border agents, governors, policeman, the military, etc.) and with our allies (most prominently Israel).
   Building up to Netanyahu's visit to Congress, Obama and some members of Congress have had non-stop propaganda flooding the MSM voicing their opposition to his speech to Congress. We have been told that the main reason for their objection is Netanyahu's break in protocol...bad manners. To say that this is disingenuous would be a huge understatement. This is coming from an administration that has broken all protocol, dismissing our Constitution as obsolete, ignoring the rulings of judges, and more often than not, entirely bypassing our Legislative Branch of government.
   The second reason given is that Obama and some Democrats feel that this will be providing a "soapbox to attack Obama's efforts to reach a nuclear deal with Iran." This is closer to the truth. Obama has had round-the-clock MSM reporting and promoting of his negotiations with Iran, so why shouldn't Netanyahu, most members of Congress, and the American people have a chance to report and promote the alternative? There are two very different approaches to the nuclear Iran problem:

1. Obama:

• Negotiate with Iran
• Nuclear freeze in Iran for 10 years before they would be allowed to build a nuclear bombs

2. Netanyahu:

• More sanctions against Iran (no negotiations)
• No nuclear Iran, not now not ever.

Most of Congress and the American people agree with Netanyahu, but Obama doesn't give much credence to what Americans think or desire. He is a "citizen of the world". He would prefer "international diplomacy"...and so off he goes on his own, again.
    As I listened to Netanyahu's AIPAC speech, I also noticed a completely different tone to what has been coming out of the White House. From the White House we have been hearing words that indicate ego, like: livid, disrespect, broken protocol, inappropriate, snubs, insinuated, offended, infuriated, undermining, and thumb-in-the-eye. Also from the White House words of egotistic retaliation, like: destructive, snubbing, boycotting, accusing, and threatening. This is all a reflection of the egotistical man-child in charge.
    Netanyahu, in contrast, used words like alliance, support, gratitude, respect, bipartisan, moral obligation, ally, friend, family (of the US), liberty, equality, justice, tolerance, vulnerability (of Israel), and most poignant...survival.
    Netanyahu spoke of his respect and gratitude towards Obama for security cooperation, intelligence sharing, support at the UN, and "much more that I cannot divulge". He even went further and almost scolded Obama's detractors by adding "and so should you". That is gracious dignity. It's been along time since Americans have experienced graciousness and dignity from a leader.
    The Democrats and the MSM accused Netanyahu of inserting himself and Israel into US party politics. Of course, this was followed by an announcement that some Democrats would be boycotting his speech to Congress and an invitation to a Democrat-only meeting. Who really was trying to make this a partisan stunt? Netanyahu dispelled that accusation by first thanking both Democrats and Republicans for their support. He then made it very clear that "support for Israel has always been bipartisan and must always remain bipartisan".
    Netanyahu stated that his one and only reason to speak in front of the US Congress is "to speak up about a potential deal with Iran that could threaten the very survival of Israel." That may be hard for many Americans to believe or understand. We have never had to worry about the survival of our country. He said that he has a moral obligation as the prime minister of Israel to speak up in the face of these dangers while there is still time. Everybody has to understand that, right?
    He said that Iran is the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in the world creating, arming, and dispatching terrorists to five continents, "enveloping the entire world with its tentacles of terrorism." This is what they do now without nuclear capability. Iran has vowed to annihilate Israel, and with a nuclear capability they would have the means to achieve that goal. "WE MUST NOT LET THAT HAPPEN!"
   He spoke of the history of the Jewish people and how they have been passive, persecuted, stateless, defenseless, voiceless, and powerless against enemies that swore to destroy them. "NO MORE! THOSE DAYS ARE OVER! WE WILL DEFEND OURSELVES! He said that today they are no longer silent. "TODAY WE HAVE A VOICE!"  He said, "Tomorrow I plan to use that voice."
    All that remains to be seen is how the man-child and his bullies will respond to this speech. Will they be so loyal to their infantile leader as to not show up at the playground tomorrow? If they continue their petty campaign against Netanyahu's right to speak for the survival of his country...maybe the country and the entire world will surely see him for what he is...finally.
  
 
  
  
   

The New Uniparty in D.C.

     THE PROGRESSIVES FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE HAVE MERGED INTO THE NEW UNIPARTY

    I am sure that I am not alone in my frustration with the "New Uniparty" in D.C., which is made up of narcissists and sycophants from both sides of the aisle (Democrats and Republicans), led by "The Radical" in the White House, Barack Hussein Obama and RINO House leader John Boehner.  These corrupt and self-seeking elected leaders have united against the will of We the People. The Radical devises unconstitutional, often illegal, bills and executive orders and the Chief RINO feigns anger and then caves quickly with very little fight. It is a formula that has been repeated with such regularity and predictability that you have to wonder if Boehner and crew are incompetent or complicit. I think we all know the answer to that by now. If the establishment Republicans have not underhandedly united with the Progressives in the Democratic Party, then they have to be the biggest losers in the history of this country. The Progressive agenda has been forwarded in the last six years with precision and at a mind-blowing rate of success to the horror of those who have been watching. It has not slowed, even with the Republican gains in the last election, as we saw with the blocking of the DHS funding bill meant to halt executive amnesty,  the passing of Net Neutrality, and the appointment of Lynch as US Attorney General. All we have gained is another RINO in charge, Mitch McConnell. He is not on our side. Clearly, he too belongs to the New Uniparty.
      Yet there are still very committed Conservative activists who continue to hold onto the Republican Party. I understand the conflict. I have been a true blue Republican for 30 years, even though they alienated me years ago, and even though they no longer seem to care about the Republican Party Platform, which most represents my principles and beliefs.  I understand too that locally we do not have the same problems as nationally, however, we have seen some of the same shenanigans recently. If you need a refresher on what that platform used to represent, go to https://www.gop.com/platform/.  I personally can no longer support and promote their causes, but I still have not changed my affiliation as of yet. The Republicans in D.C. no longer promote or protect their platform. They don't mention it, they don't fight for it, and in fact have abandoned it along with our Constitution. They are embarrassed by their own platform.
   

REPUBLICANS HAVE UNITED WITH THEIR NATURAL ENEMY AGAINST THE TEA PARTY AND OTHER CONSERVATIVE GROUPS

    Although I have been involved in the TEA Party Movement since 2009, which began as a non-partisan movement based almost entirely on lower taxes, debt and deficits and smaller government,  it is no secret that out of the two parties, the Republican Party most represented TEA Party principles. To my astonishment, establishment Republicans in D.C. have united with their "natural enemy" the Progressives against the TEA Party! They have done this despite the fact that the TEA Party was instrumental in the GOP gaining a majority in the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014, and despite the fact that the TEA Party would be willing to go to the political frontlines for them to support their candidates and defend their platform. So what gives? I've always heard that when something doesn't make sense...follow the money.
   My theory in short includes: a Manchurian candidate (BHO), greed for personal monetary gain, greed for personal power, career politicians (addicted to status, etc.), radicals (nationwide and worldwide) with varying agendas uniting, lobbyist payoffs, corporate money, labor union money, and constituent donations. All of these have created a cesspool on both sides of the aisle, polluting D.C. with the stench of blackmail, payoffs, elitism, cronyism, and several unholy alliances. It is so dark and convoluted that it is difficult for one person to sort it all out.

ONE THING IS CLEAR: CONSERVATIVES DON'T STAND A CHANCE...

   Conservatism is on its way to becoming, if not illegal, extinct. The New Uniparty will go through the motions of the Left submitting bills or supporting executive orders that shut the mouths of Conservatives or strip them of the ability to fight back. They will use accusations of racism, hate speech labels, 1st Amendment "zones", Net Neutrality, and ultimately gun bans to shut us up and render us defenseless. They are stripping us of our American culture and revising our history in an attempt to devalue our Founders, our Constitution, and those who defend them by demonizing, labeling, and regulating us into extinction. They use our college campuses as breeding grounds for Liberal ideology, teaching anti-Capitalism, Atheism (the God of Science), anti-Semitism (Palestinian oppression), anti-Christian (bigotry), and anti-American ideas as if they are pure academic truths. This has been very effective for them, so they realized that they could "fundamentally change America" quicker if they started in elementary school. The Common Core curriculum will brainwash our children sooner and faster, and many will not be able to stop it from infecting their children. Why, because home schooling will come under further attack because Conservative parents will be deemed backward and unfit. They have infinite resources using the Green Agenda and corporate and labor union funds,  as a blank check for just about anything they want to accomplish. One side uses corporate funds and the other labor union funds to promote the New Uniparty.
    Where is the TEA Party and other Conservative Groups? These groups were very visible, and I might add effective, in 2009-2011, and then something began to change. They weren't as visible. We were told that we would do better to spend our time working from within by volunteering our time at the municipal level on up, sitting on boards, running for office, seeking jobs within the system. They are still out there...we just can't see them! I agree and I too began to get involved locally, but important issues would demand the need for a visible presence in D.C., and very few showed up anymore. I am an organizer. It became harder to fill a bus given a month's notice, when before we could fill six with less than a week's notice. I would hear: no time, not my issue, not an important issue, I'm contributing in other ways, I'm tired, and many other excuses that you just did not hear in 2009. The national TEA Party and Conservative groups grew fat and their administrators grew rich. Yet after every battle that we have lost we get emails from these organizations telling us that we have won...we are just not looking at it correctly. This keeps the donations coming in. The TEA Party really was grassroots. So how did a housewife gone CEO (Tea Party Patriots), or something equivalent, wind up making $400,000 a year? I live on just barely-making-it street in comparison, yet they are begging me for money. The argument that bothered me the most was, it is not my issue. Everybody jumped into their own canoe and labeled it whatever is their pet issue, be it Illegal Immigration, Protecting the Constitution, Energy, Fiscal Responsibility, Elections, and many other Conservative issues. We have been all alone in our own canoes paddling like hell and getting nowhere. During election season we can't unite on candidates: not my state, doesn't support my issue, insulted my rock star politician, not my Party, and more. We were no longer united. We were no longer visible. How has that worked out for us?
    Where is the church? How will the New Uniparty affect them? The church has been largely silent, and unfortunately sometimes on the wrong side of an issue, even when it has been against their theology. They either didn't want to get involved, or they wanted to vote for the first black president, or they fell for the media spin, or they preferred the praise of man, or they wanted to belong, or what I believe to be the largest influence...the threat to their tax exempt status. Some would fight to protect that tax exempt status more vigorously than for the right to preach the whole Word of God or our right to religious freedom. Sure more money allows more good works, but the writing is on the wall that soon that status will be tied very tightly to regulations on the church. You will soon have to choose between your Bible and that tax status. This is where you will see the division of the sheep from the goats. Some churches will decide that it is more important to preach the whole Word of God than to maintain that status. Many will not. Some churches will decide that it is more important for the good of our society to have a voice in the social issue debates. Many will not. Churches should be seriously considering which way they will go when the government gives them the ultimatum to submit to government speech laws, or else.

...UNLESS WE ORGANIZE A UNITED CONSERVATIVE SURGE 

   
   So what do we do? How can we fight back against this New Uniparty? I think it is time that we re-unite in a very visual way. Every single Conservative group has to re-unite at a grassroots level. We need to invite the Jewish and Christian communities to join us. We need to pool our resources. We need to show up for one another. We need to rededicate ourselves to saving this nation from complete destruction by putting down all of our differences, defenses, and egos and anything else that comes between us. Do you think that environmental groups understand or care about gay issues? One Liberal group knows nothing about the other except that they are there to fight against a common enemy. That would be us. We need to unite, sometimes on our very lowest common denominator, our common enemy, which is the Liberal Progressives consisting equally of Democrats and Republicans as the New Uniparty. We must re-unite and fight like hell. We need a surge in Conservative troops against our enemy on every front. Will we or have we already lost the war due to friendly fire?  


A reader asked me what a surge would look like. Great question! Remember 9-11-2009? We need this again, but not for just one day...for as long as it takes! 

  

CHAMBER 6TH DISTRICT CANDIDATE FORUM WAS A SNOOZER: WHILE THE COUNTRY IS AFIRE

   

SNOOZER!

     I attended a candidate forum last week that was sponsored by the Hagerstown Chamber of Commerce. The candidates for U.S. Congress for the 6th District were in attendance: Dan Bongino (R), John Delaney (D), and George Gluck (Green Party). I was so excited to see Bongino and Delaney in the same room. I thought that watching an exchange of ideas between these two very intelligent, charismatic, candidates from different sides of the political divide would be an interesting experience. I thought that there would be some in the audience that resented how a Republican representative was gerrymandered out of our area.  I thought with the country, I'd dare say the world, afire the topics would be serious and riveting. Much to my disappointment, this had to be the dullest candidate forum I have ever attended! Before anyone thinks that a room full of business owners is certain to be dull, let me say that I have attended many of the Eggs & Issues events at the Chamber, and I can honestly say that they were never dull, particularly when there has been a political element. For instance, when Lt Governor Anthony Brown was the speaker, just as the campaign season began (wink wink), it was a packed house and the excitement was electrifying (see related link 1). There was a hustle bustle of handshaking and back slapping and the audience was full of expression. At another event where John Delaney was the solo speaker, also at the start the campaign season (wink wink), again it was a packed house and a very energized atmosphere (see related link 2). My favorite event was when the local Delegation was expected to submit to yet another pre-legislative bullying by a roomful of Liberals, and instead they completely took over the discussion and turned it back on the Chamber (see related link 3). Papers were rustling, people were whispering and snickering...I think someone at my table called it a bloodbath. I noticed immediately that this  event was going to be different. It was poorly attended, estimating that about 60 people were seated at tables, and I would guess that some of those people were part of the candidate's team or family members. I didn't see many of the familiar faces of those who normally attend, and the mood in the room was noticeably subdued. There was virtually little to no reaction to anything that was said throughout the entire event. Did they not care? Were they already decided? Maybe they missed Bryan Poffenberger. Even the questions for the candidates did not come from the attendees, being pre-decided by the Chamber, and some were too long with sub-questions. With current events in the news there were much more interesting questions begging to be asked. Dull...damn dull!
   

    We had three candidates in attendance. This was the first that I had seen or heard from Gluck. This is because apparently he decided to run a campaign without money, so that he would qualify for public money, after every one voted for him having never seen or heard of him. Make sense? It made no sense to me, but Gluck seemed like a decent and intelligent candidate and I enjoyed learning more about the Green Party, even though I disagreed more often than not.
    Dan Bongino was passionate about the issues. He presented as honest and straightforward, giving unrehearsed, unedited, and sometimes hard answers to the questions. John Delaney gave rehearsed answers that I have heard from him before, almost word for word. As usual, he continued to try to brand himself as non-partisan. He was asked 8 questions in less than an hour and he used the word non-partisan 14 times.

Delaney brands himself as nonpartisan.

    The three opening statements were so completely different that it would seem that they were not competing for the same office. Bongino asked who we want to be in control of our businesses, our children's education, and our healthcare, stating that government has gotten too big and intrusive. This was the first time that I finally heard a candidate for any office mention the failure of Obamacare, calling it a "disaster", because it put the decision-making process  into the hands of unelected bureaucrats. Delaney's theme was "I am one of you", claiming to know and understand first-hand their (business owners) challenges. He said he will focus on the competitiveness of Washington County, the 6th District, and the U.S. as a whole because if we can't compete we will not be able to create jobs, have a decent standard of living, or grow the economy. He also claimed that he is someone who gets things done by operating in a non-partisan manner. Gluck explained his journey from the Democratic Party into the Green Party, and asked everyone to vote Democrat, but to make sure it is the one with Green Party next to his name.

   
1. What is your vision for Western Maryland, and how should Washington County position itself for economic success, and what's your role in helping achieve this vision? I told you the questions were long! I think they got 90 seconds to answer, which means they talked fast. Delaney talked faster than I could take notes. Gluck, in contrast, took his time to use a lot of words, to say very little. I will paraphrase the answers.
    Bongino stated that the economic development problems in Washington County are the government's fault. The Federal corporate tax rate is too high, State taxes and regulations burdensome, and Obamacare a job killer, all causing a mass exodus out of our state, particularly in Washington County, as we are situated in a tri-state area. He would work to lower the corporate tax rate to 17-20 percent, which is closer to the international average, and then he is sure that people would return to the state. He did not indicate, however, what he would do about Obamacare.
    Delaney said that Washington County had some unique assets, naming the I-81 corridor because it runs between the "super-economy from Boston to Richmond", as it directly affects the logistics distribution and transportation industries in our area. However, I recall at his last visit to the Chamber he stated that we would NOT play a role in the economy of the super-region of Boston to Richmond (see related link 2). He plainly stated that we would never be a hub of any great importance in this region, but that we could build on transportation and logistics, in other words, trucking and warehousing. So he would work to get funding to expand I-81, agreed that the Federal corporate tax was too high (did not promise to push his party to lower it), and referred to his bill called the Partnership to Build America Act (HR 2084). This bill attempts to get people to bring their money back into the U.S. from overseas. For every $1.00 that they "invest" in infrastructure they can bring $4.00 back tax free. You can read about the bill at http://delaney.house.gov/information-on-congressman-delaneys-infrastructure-bill. 
    Gluck said that he would introduce worker co-ops so that people had  more money in their pockets to support businesses.

2.  Will you support funding for the widening of I-81, and how can you secure that money?
    Bongino said the direct answer is yes. He said that we cannot view I-81 in a vacuum, but we must also look at I-270, which he called "The Big Ugly". He said that the traffic backups on I-270 are productivity hours lost and feeding a smog atmosphere. He referred to Delany's bill, the Partnership to Build America's Act (HR 2084), as "The Crony Bank". He said that those companies had already been taxed and that money should go back into the businesses not infrastructure. He said $1T of stimulus money was to be spent on infrastructure and it was wasted because there was no accountability. The money should be pumped back into businesses and user fees paid by those who use the roads should pay to expand them.
    Delaney would make funding for widening I-81 top priority and claimed to have already been working on it. He said that he would work to get Federal and State funding, but he would also take advantage of his bill HR 2084.
    Gluck said that HR 2084 was a way to bring money into the U.S. barely taxed, which had been allowed to go overseas untaxed. He predicted that not much of the money coming back would be used for infrastructure. He did see the importance of I-81 and would support funding it.

3.  Do you think that compromise, consensus, or at least finding common ground on issues is a necessary function of governance, and how will your voice change existing dysfunction of the U.S. Congress?
    Bongino said that he will compromise, but not his core values. He referred to himself as a Conservative Libertarian, which was new to me. He said, " I will not ever vote to raise your taxes under any circumstances. If you want me to compromise on that it will never happen." He said that there were issues that he could compromise on, but the toxic atmosphere and outsiders with political leverage would make it impossible. He said that areas of agreement could be corporate tax, school choice, and revisions to Obamamcare. He knows elected Democrats who would agree to make changes to Obamacare, but it would be political suicide. He said it is time to do what's right and not worry about re-election.
    Delaney repeated two statements from previous forums that he says indicate the spirit that he brings to Congress: 1) The best business deals are those when everyone feels a little bad when they are done, and 2) You don't say bad things about people. You can factually correct them, but work in a constructive manner. He said that he would take really good ideas from the Progressive Movement and good ideas from the Conservative Movement--I wish I could have asked him to name one--and forge them together. He avoids the TEA Party like the Ebola Plague that no one mentioned. He would also like to see election reform so that Independents can run and have better representation in government. He just neutralized Bongino and Gluck.
   Gluck stated that there used to be overlap in the Parties, but that's not true anymore. He said that electing him would force compromise because everyone would take note that the voters are fed up.

4. What is your position on issues around immigration?
    Bongino said that this is very personal to him because his wife is a first generation immigrant from Columbia that came here legally as a child. It cost them a lot of money and time for her to become a citizen. Amnesty is not the solution. They have to follow the rules. He said that "amnesty is not benevolent and not compassionate. It inserts people into a black market economy that doesn't benefit us and doesn't benefit them. He would push for mandatory E-verify and work to secure the borders sooner rather than later.
   Delaney's grandfather was born in England, only had one arm, and came here to work in the factories. His other grandparents were from Ireland. He grew up in NJ with all first generation immigrants. He said that there is a bill in the Senate now that addresses every flaw in the system. He called illegal immigrants undocumented immigrants. He said the bill is stuck over ideology.
    Gluck has a green card! He came here from Prague when he was 16 months old. He said the American dream is not to be a millionaire, but only to be part of the middle class. He supports implementing E-verify and securing the borders. He said that we invited them in to work, so we are obligated to make them citizens.

5. Do you support a path to citizenship for immigrants? [The question did not specify legal or illegal.]
    Bongino said we already have a path to citizenship! We have a legal process to come here legally. He said that this is the only crime where it is discussed in terms of sympathy or compassion for the lawbreakers and not for those who suffer the consequences of it. He knows an Ecuadorian business owner who said that his business was being destroyed by illegals undercutting his business. Ignoring the laws provides incentive for others to break our laws. He asked, "How fair is that to my wife? Do we get our $10,000 refunded and compensated for two years of hard work? I don't agree with Obamacare, but I don't get to ignore it. Why do others get to ignore a law and get rewarded for it?" 
    Delany supports amnesty with the conditions contained in the Senate bill. Criminals should not be offered citizenship. He stated that it is our fault that immigrants are here illegally because we did not enforce our immigration laws or secure our borders. Since it is our fault, we must offer them a pathway to amnesty. They can get in the back of the line for approximately 13 years and go through the process. Deporting 11 million people would be immoral and a bad bottom line for the U.S.
    Gluck agrees with Delaney because he believes we invited the illegals here to work, so we must offer amnesty. However, he thinks that E-verify should be strictly enforced.

6.  What proposals do you have on environmental issues related to business and agriculture? 
    Bongino stated that the agriculture community is vital, yet it is being suffocated by over-regulation at the state level. At least at the Federal level he could be a microphone to affect state policy. He said there should be a hard cost benefit analysis for every EPA regulation, with a sunset provision to reevaluate over time. This should be done without social cost using only hard metrics like capital cost.
    Delaney said that Federal and State level regulations overlap making it hard to do business in Western Maryland, and that farmers have not had a sufficient  voice in Annapolis. He is creating a Western Maryland agenda for the next legislative session in Annapolis. He noted that it is not a part of his job, but he can use the position to shine a spotlight on issues. He too thinks a cost benefit analysis would be useful and would ensure that there are no overlapping regulations.
    Gluck is aware of a farm that uses about 200 solar panels to power the entire farm, and he personally uses it to heat his water and half of his electric. He would encourage more of that and the use of wind farms.

   

7.  What is your opinion on term limits for U.S. Congress?
    Bongino publicly committed to only 3 terms (6 years). After 6 years he has seen that people become tempted with fame and fortune and could sell out to lobbyists. He would support a Constitution amendment.
    Delaney said that when he first ran for Congress he ran on an ethics platform that included term limits for Congress to 6 terms (12 years). He read somewhere that it takes 4 years to become an expert on something, so he believes 12 years would be most efficient and effective.
    Gluck said that we already have term limits in the form of elections. He believes that we need election reform, allowing run-off voting to better enable Independents to be elected.
    

8.  It has been stated that the proliferation of safe districts, which almost guarantees either Democratic or Republican control in each district has effectively eliminated bi-partisan cooperation and has contributed to the gridlock in Washington. What are your views on this issue?
   Bongino said that Delaney's Open Our Democracy Act is ironically an incumbency protection program. He thinks the Republican Party has been destroyed using gerrymandering, and like the Republican Party or not, we need both parties represented. "We can't operate under a one-party monopoly. This region needs a voice, and you don't have one right now. You are being ruled, not governed, and I intend to change that."
    Delaney agrees that it has contributed to the gridlock and referred to his Open Our Democracy Act, which he claims opens up the primaries for everyone to run and for everyone to vote.
    Gluck again said he would like to institute run-off voting. He believes that Delaney's bill will make it virtually impossible for a third-party candidate to get elected.    
                                         

    Bongino's said in his closing statement that he has knocked on thousands of doors and the most common theme was "I'm moving". He said that for sale signs out-number campaign signs and Halloween decorations. You have no voice in this state. There was a time when Marylanders would never leave their homes, but this one-party state is driving you out. "If you want to change that there is only one way to vote."

   Delaney said that two years ago he promised to represent this district and stand up against special interests in Annapolis and work in a bipartisan way to get things done. He said that he has done all of these things and has been honest and transparent. His focus will be on jobs and growing the economy.
    Gluck said that he will sit with the Progressive Caucus. He will be a catalyst for change as the first Green Party member of Congress.
   

    As soon as the meeting ended Delaney quickly ran out the nearest exit, giving no one a chance to speak to him one-on-one.

Bongino hung around to answer questions.

 I too ran for the exit.

Related Links:

1. Democratic Candidate for Governor, Lt Governor Brown, Speaks to the Chamber,  http://tinyurl.com/p7ulcbg

2.  Congressman Delaney: First Impression http://tinyurl.com/p98wsk2

3.  Washington County Delegation Rebukes Chamber of Commerce, http://tinyurl.com/kxnexmb  

4. Herald Mail Editorial, Delaney’s voting record shows strong partisanship,  http://tinyurl.com/q6m672l

5. Hey Delaney: Don't Call Us...We'll Call You! http://tinyurl.com/ol9wbvq


     
   

A SKEPTIC'S OPINION: HOGAN NAILED IT!

     I just watched the Hogan-Brown Gubernatorial Debate sponsored by Baltimore news station WJZ-TV and the Baltimore Sun newspaper. To be honest, I thought that Hogan may choke, being in the bowels of O'Malley-Brown territory. I have not been a fan of Hogan's because I simply did not think he was electable. I didn't think that he could possibly win the voters of Baltimore City, Montgomery County, and Prince George's County, which everyone knows are key to winning this race. Larry Hogan convinced me tonight that he can win this race! 
   Larry Hogan's presentation was flawless. He appeared calm, honest, prepared, confident, and ready to rumble, while never coming off as aggressive or arrogant. He answered all accusations emphatically and without hesitation. He was not phased at all by being in "enemy territory." He is not one of those guys who only feels comfortable talking to a crowd of supporters. 
    While I was impressed with how he presented himself, I was even more impressed with what he had to say and not just how he said it. He answered each question without avoiding any topic, only going off topic once briefly to defend himself against a Brown accusation that was not allowed a rebuttal. 

OPENING STATEMENTS

     It began with Anthony Brown's opening statement where he immediately talked about he and O'Malley's accomplishments ("we've accomplished"). He did not shy away from his connection to the governor and the policies of that administration, mentioning specifically that Maryland is leading the nation in Education and also the states' AAA bond rating. He then quickly veered away from O'Malley saying that he is not looking to the past, but wants rather to talk about the future. He mentioned his military experience and then said that he was "on a different mission." He finished with what seemed to be his mantra for the evening: He will get up every morning and fight for working families and middle class values, claiming that Hogan was for favoring a small group of the wealthy and large corporations. This was repeated word-for-word several times. Hogan was not having it.
     Hogan's opening statement was about why he was running and it basically was a list of what he called "the failures" of the O'Malley-Brown administration. He said that he was fed up with the politicians in Annapolis, stating that he is not a politician, but rather a small business owner. He mentioned the over-40 tax hikes, $10B out of the pockets of working families, the 8,000 businesses that left the state, the high unemployment rate compared to the rest of the country, and the "mass exodus" of people leaving the state to relocate elsewhere with less regulations and taxes. He got my attention. BAM!

1. TAXES: WILL YOU LOWER OR AT LEAST NOT RAISE OR CREATE NEW TAXES?

    Brown said, "Let me be clear [where have we heard that before?], there will be no new taxes." He stated that everything that the administration has done has been to attract businesses. He said that his tax relief will start with the middle class, while he accused Hogan of planning to give $300M in tax giveaways to wealthy corporations. He again stated that he will be fighting for working middle-class families. 

    

    Hogan said, "It sounds good, but it is the opposite of your record of failure." He again pointed to the over-40 tax hikes "crushing the middle class, especially those at the lower end of the scale." He stated that 71percent of Marylanders think taxes are too high. He said, "You did that! Are you going to roll them back?" He accused Brown of giving tax credits only to specific corporations [crony Capitalism]. He reminded Brown that he said he was going to reform taxes in 2007 and did the exact opposite. BAM!

REBUTTAL

   
     Brown's rebuttal was to warn voters not to "go back" to raised college tuition and congested streets, implying that Hogan was somehow responsible for these problems, which he and O'Malley corrected. He then named one success story, Armor All, which he claimed is now second in the world in their industry thanks to he and O'Malley's business policies.  

2. EDUCATION: WHAT DO YOU THINK ARE THE AFFECTS OF RECENT INCREASED SPENDING IN K-12 EDUCATION?

    Hogan conceded that they were doing a "good job" in building schools, but said that they doubled the spending with mixed results. He said we may have the best schools, but we are the lowest in performance, with the performance gap between blacks and whites still too large. He said he would like to push money down to the local level, and to also have the decision-making at the local level. He said that he would put a pause on Common Core, calling it an abject failure. He would push for more charter schools. BAM!

    Brown repeated his ad statement that every child deserves a good education. He said that they have made progress in closing the achievement gap. He asked Hogan what resources he is willing to invest? Brown is promising a free pre-K education for every child. He accused Hogan of opposing that, and also of opposing new school construction, claiming Hogan will cut $450M in construction funding. He warns the voters that Hogan will take them backwards. 

REBUTTAL 

     Hogan said that he is for a pre-K education, but not free, not for everyone. He accused Brown of not telling the truth about this issue in his ads. He said that he is for free pre-K only for those who are 300-percent above poverty level (roughly $75,000 family income) or below. He stated that Brown's plan would not be instituted until 2022, and that he has no viable plan to pay for it. He said that Brown already increased spending by $10M and that we
can not afford it. He said the issue was an election ploy. BAM!

3. TAXES: DO YOU AGREE WITH COMPTROLLER  FRANCHOT WHEN HE STATED THAT MARYLAND HAS HUGE FISCAL CHALLENGES THAT WILL REQUIRE RAISING TAXES. 

    Brown does not agree with Franchot, and again stated that he will not raise taxes. Instead he will give targeted tax credits to small businesses, he will look at spending, vehicle fee management, and Medicaid savings. He accused Hogan of planning to raise property taxes by $300M. 

    Hogan said that everything Brown said in that answer was not true. He said that Brown does not want to talk about almost 8 years of failure including increased spending and increased taxes."You said that during the last election and you raised taxes! He wants a promotion, but doesn't want us to look at his record." BAM!

REBUTTAL

   Brown said that his record will show that he created $40,000 jobs, and through a private-public partnership (P3) created 5,000 jobs at the port. Again, accused Hogan of wanting to cut $450M in school construction and increase the tax base by $300M in property tax. 

4. ENVIRONMENT: WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FEE?

    Hogan said that the Bay is a valued asset and top priority, but he would not blame the farmers or the rain. He stated that no one has looked at management of sediment (43-percent) from the Conowingo Dam. He would look to the Federal government, the EPA, and Army Core of Engineers, along with the states of Pennsylvania and New York to pay their share of the cleanup. He then accused Brown of raiding $460M out of the Open Space Fund along with $1.3B from a trust fund meant for the Bay cleanup. He promised not to raid these trust funds. He said that Marylanders hate the Rain Tax and are disgusted with them for passing it. BAM!

    Brown said that Maryland has a tradition of a "balanced approach" to environmental issues. He said that Hogan shouldn't blame other states, and said that he would work with local governments on these issues and also on reducing new septic systems. 

REBUTTAL

    Hogan said that was nonsense, because Brown robbed the money that they could have used to clean up the bay, and that he blamed it on the recession. He said that Brown did not cut spending, but that he had increased spending and taxes. "You are making things up! We are not recovering." BAM!

5. NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING: WHY HAS THIS RACE BEEN SO NEGATIVE?

   Brown said that his ads are a conversation with the voters. Voters have a right to know where Hogan stands on important issues. He said it is fair to show the contrast in issues. He specifically named SB 281 and said that he opposed the bill in total and each piece of the bill including the banning of "assault weapons," limiting magazine size, background checks, and fingerprinting. He accused Hogan of secretly planning to overturn or not enforce SB 281 and called it dangerous. 

    Hogan said that he will not repeal SB 281. He actually felt that the bill didn't go far enough concerning mental illness and Federal background checks. It is set into law. He said that Brown has been running untrue ads trying to scare the public and as a distraction from his own record. "The ad shows an assault weapon on a playground! It is 100-percent false." He said that Brown keeps referring to Hogan's "long record" when he has no long record. He is not a politician. He also said that abortion is set into law and he does not intend to revisit that issue. He said that Brown ran more untrue ads about abortion meant to scare women into voting for Brown. 

REBUTTAL

    Brown spoke about "extreme gun owners" and again claimed that Hogan plans to not enforce SB 281. He said that Hogan has been a "political operative."

6. IMMIGRATION: DO YOU SUPPORT BRINGING CHILDREN FROM THE BORDER TO OUR STATE?

    Hogan first went off topic to rebut the accusation in Brown's last rebuttal. "I don't have a record. You are using an article from decades ago that was actually about my dad. You should apologize to women for trying to scare them." BAM!
    About immigration, my wife is a first generation immigrant from South Korean. I am obviously welcoming to immigrants, but we are a nation of laws. I actually blame the president and both the Republicans and the Democrats in Congress and the Senate for the situation at the border. BAM!

    Brown said, "I am a first generation American, my parents came here from Jamaica. This is a land of immigrants." He blamed the Republicans in Congress for the situation at the border, but stated that we can't fix that in Maryland. He feels we are obligated to protect the children at the border. He feels that we should reunite them with their family here in the states and return them to their country of origin "eventually, if possible." He said that the Federal government should reimburse us for our foster care services. 

REBUTTAL

    Hogan said that the issue is a humanitarian issue and that we should feed, clothe, house and give them a medical exam. He does not think that we should take more immigrants per capita than other states, especially since they have to be bused hundreds of miles to get them here. 

    
7. SAFETY & CRIME: WHAT CAN YOU DO TO LOWER CRIME?

    Brown said again that he lost a cousin to gun crime and that he supported SB 281. He said that crime is at an all time low, but there is more to do. He said we must not rollback or not enforce SB 281. We need to build on the success of our new gun safety laws. 

    Hogan said that we have some of the toughest gun laws in the country, but we are in the top ten in violent crime. He stated that our number one problem is heroin. It is an epidemic all over the state no matter how small the community. Yet, there has been no action. Hogan would call a state of emergency and address the heroin problem immediately.

REBUTTAL

    Brown claimed that they have driven down crime rates and also recidivism. He said that Hogan just doesn't understand the problem.

8. GERRYMANDERING: WOULD YOU DO SOMETHING TO STOP THE EXCESSIVE GERRYMANDERING OF OUR STATE?

    Hogan said that he is nonpartisan and offered proof by pointing to his organization, Change Maryland, which he claims is half Democrats and Independents. He said that we need to take the redistricting out of the hands of the monopoly Party in Annapolis and let it be handled by a nonpartisan independent commission. 

    Brown said that he agrees with Hogan, however, he blames the extreme Right in Congress for the problem. He thinks it ought to be handled at the Federal level with an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

REBUTTAL

     Hogan said, "You just refuse to take responsibility! Your administration did this and it was the worst in the nation." He agreed that there is dysfunction in DC on both sides of the aisle with rabid partisanship. 

9. BUSINESS: HOW CAN YOU IMPROVE THE BUSINESS CLIMATE IN MARYLAND?

    Brown stated that when he is elected his first strategic act will be to move that goal to position one. He said it is debatable that the state is actually hostile to business, so he doesn't want to discuss it. He would rather talk about successes and then he named  4 or 5 businesses that are expanding. 

    Hogan asked, "Then why haven't you? You have had 8 years to do this." He said that Brown needs to take responsibility for driving 8,000 businesses out of our state. He said he has lost 200,000 jobs, and our unemployment rate is higher than the national average.  He said that we have 3 problems: 1) we are 41st out of 50 in business friendliness, 2) the burdensome regulation environment created by Brown-O'Malley, and 3) we have the fourth highest corporate tax in the country. BAM!

REBUTTAL

     Brown again accused Hogan of planning to give huge tax breaks to large corporations, even some that are out of state. "I support tax relief to small businesses." 

10. WOMEN'S ISSUES: WHAT WILL BE YOUR PRIORITY REGARDING WOMEN'S ISSUES?

    Brown  said that the average person on minimum wage is a 33 year old woman, and she cannot raise a family on it. Raising the minimum wage would help to raise her out of poverty. He said that he led the effort to reduce domestic violence, and that he would find a way to increase education opportunities. 

   Hogan conceded that they did a good job regarding domestic violence. He said that woman are worried about the economy. Women typically do the budgeting. The over-40 tax hikes are crushing them. Raising the minimum wage will do nothing, but there will be drawbacks. The minimum wage was never meant to support a family. "It was meant for kids! If you have a better economy it becomes a non-issue." BAM! He believes in unfettered birth control available over the counter. He will not revisit abortion, and again, states that Brown's ads regarding abortion are nothing but lies.

   In closing, both candidates restated their opening statement. 

    In summary, Hogan won the debate, my vote, and I think the vote of my 80-year-old mother who is Democrat. With the condition of this state, and with the complete dissatisfaction with the tax and spend O'Malley-Brown administration, voters are more open to listen to another perspective. Larry Hogan delivers a message that makes sense with an honesty that can't be denied.  
    I think he needs to iron out where he stands on SB 281 and courageously declare the truth of his intent...whatever that is. Making a firm statement and sticking to it will mean more than a wink and a nod to either side. Somebody is going to  be mad or disappointed. I think he needs to realize that and accept it. This election is about the economy first. His strengths are in fiscal financial policies, so in my opinion, he should stick to those.  I personally am disappointed that he isn't more forthright about gun rights, but I will take the 95 percent that we agree on instead of the maybe 9 percent I might agree on with Brown...just so I can stick it to Hogan for the gun issue. It doesn't make sense and I'm not going to do it. 
    I wonder if anyone noticed that there was no mention, from either side, of the failed ACA website and the huge loss of taxpayer money?

#VoteHogan4Governor 

RELATED POST: 

DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR, LT. GOV. BROWN, SPEAKS TO THE CHAMBER

http://liberatedconservativewoman.blogspot.com/2013/06/democratic-candidate-for-governor-lt.html

  

HEY DELANEY: DON'T CALL US...WE'LL CALL YOU!

As I hung up the phone with Congressman Delaney's campaign manager, Liz Jaff, I realized that after 3 months of telephone conversations and emails attempting to negotiate a date for a public forum with Incumbent Rep. John Delaney and Republican candidate Dan Bongino, I was being told in so many words, Don't call us...we'll call you.

     Many may not know that besides writing this blog,  I am also the president and events organizer for the Hagerstown TEA Party (HTP). I have been attempting to organize a Meet the Candidates forum for candidates running for US Congress in Maryland's District 6. The HTP has hosted several such events in 2012 and also during the 2014 primary season, building a reputation for providing well-organized forums for a fair exchange of ideas among those with widely different opinions. Likewise, this event would be non-partisan, so we would be inviting the Democratic and Republican candidates, along with the two Green Party and unaffiliated candidates. It would be a monitored Q&A forum, with each candidate having equal time to answer the same questions. There is time before and after to mingle with the candidates. This is a public service to our community, providing an opportunity to meet with and learn about the candidates, and unlike other candidate forums in the area...our events are always free of charge. The HTP Board of Directors were particularly excited about the probable interest and attendance for such a rare opportunity for the citizens of Washington County to meet their Congressman in person and to hear first hand where he stands on issues that are important to them. It would be double the value to be able to see him compete with those who also want to represent them. Western Maryland deserves this opportunity!

IF AT FIRST YOU DON'T SUCCEED... 

      It all started the first week in April when I reached out to Congressman Delaney by a contact link on his website, by email, and by sending him a formal invitation via U.S. Mail. I received an email 14 days later from his campaign manager, Liz Jaff, stating that Delaney would not be able to attend. She offered no reason, but did tell me to "feel free to call with any questions." I instead responded to her email asking if there was a scheduling conflict for the tentative date of July 10th. I stated that we had started planning so far in advance (3 months), that we "have enough time for adjustments." She responded by email stating that "May is packed on the official side" (apparently not realizing that all three invitations clearly stated July 10th), but said she should be able to work something out and "would be happy to chat next week." Great! Right?

    
THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT A CANDIDATE REQUESTED SO MUCH INFORMATION BEFORE (MAYBE) AGREEING TO PARTICIPATE

     I waited for the following Monday to call Ms. Jaff. I was eager to set a date because I knew that I wanted as much time as possible to promote this event for a fantastic turnout. I shared with her how our candidate forums are conducted. She asked that I email her a preliminary agenda, the forum rules, and a bio on our moderator, Pieter Bickford. She was reluctant to set a date until she received everything and had time to meet with her team. I told her that I would email it that day and she told me to call back the following week. I emailed everything as soon as we hung up, from my iPhone, in my car.
     I called the following week, and the following week, and the following week.

MEANWHILE .... BAM! BONGINO SAID YES

   The primary season was winding down, and it was looking like Dan Bongino could not lose. I ran into him at another campaign event. We didn't know each other. I think we knew of each other. He did attend our candidate forum in 2012 when he ran against Cardin. Incidentally, Delaney did not participate in our candidate forum that year when he ran against Roscoe Bartlett. So I ran into Bongino, and I asked him about a forum with Delaney. Without a moment of hesitation he said that he would, but that I needed to call his campaign manager to set a date. He gave me the phone number. I called Sharon Strine the next day. I  gave her the tentative date of July 10th, and it was done.

I BEGAN TO WONDER WHAT IT IS THAT TEAM DELANEY FEARED

Is it the TEA Party?

 

    It is possible. I know that the media has done a good job branding the TEA Party as a bunch of wild-eyed, racists with pitchforks. Surely by now those who are as well-informed, well-read, and as educated as the Congressman know that is not the true TEA Party. It certainly isn't the HTP. We have a proven record and a great reputation for being inclusive, fair, and respectful of others. If Delaney had attended our forum in 2012 he would have seen that for himself. At that event we had one lone Democrat that participated. At the other forum that year for U.S. Senate we had four Democrats who participated. They were treated with respect. There was not one heckler. There was not one person out of line for either event, nor were there any at our events this year. We even asked that those in attendance wait to clap at the end of the forum after each closing statement. Our moderator, Pieter Bickford, is a professional and beyond reproach. For someone who makes a real effort to brand himself as a moderate non-partisan politician you would think he would be comfortable with the TEA Party. Nothing to fear here.

Is it me [the blogger]?

 

     I guess it is possible that he saw my blog post entitled Congressman Delaney: First Impression (http://liberatedconservativewoman.blogspot.com/2014/03/congressman-delaney-first-impression.html) and thought he might not be treated fairly. Each of us who belong to the HTP, yes even the board members, are entitled to our individual opinions. I just happen to write about mine. However, when acting as a representative of the HTP it is a different story. We have a mission statement that we must represent. I don't write the opinion of the HTP. If I did I would need to get the approval of the Board of Directors before submitting it to a public forum. So when I wrote about my first impression of Congressman Delaney after attending a $30 breakfast at the Chamber of Commerce, it was just that, my opinion. Considering that Delaney and I are on different sides of most issues, I think that I wrote a fairly positive opinion piece. If you doubt it, read what I wrote about Brown. But even if I had written a scathing opinion piece, it had nothing to do with the HTP and how he would be treated at a HTP-hosted forum. I clearly described our forum rules. Nothing to fear here.

 

 

Does he care about Western Maryland?

 

 

      I think we are getting closer to the truth here. He was willing to travel to Western Maryland to speak at the Chamber of Commerce breakfast at $30 a plate. These events are usually attended by Democrats and Liberal-leaning Republicans. He would never be challenged or have to work for their votes. He knows this is a Conservative area in our Liberal state and that he does not have to work for our votes because he doesn't need them. It doesn't matter to his campaign. He doesn't have much of a vision for our part of the state either. It was here that I heard him plainly state that we would never be a hub of any great importance in this region, but that we could build on transportation and logistics. Our role would be distribution and fulfillment. In other words, trucking and warehousing. That left me feeling a little cold. 

   

Is he afraid for a stand off with Bongino?

 

    Bingo! If he isn't, he should be. Bongino is willing to work for your vote! He doesn't just go where his base is and sing Kum Ba Ya. He is everywhere talking about everything. I don't care where I go I see Bongino. It's like he has clones or a superpower that lets him be in multiple locations at the same time. Then you turn on the radio or the TV and there he is. He is working it! He isn't just doing it to win. You can sense the sincerity a mile away. I've attended many events where I have seen him across a large room talking to a regular Joe about what his concerns are for this country, or his business, or his family. If I was Delaney I'd be leery about talking issues in the same room with Bongino. He knows the issues and can talk about them, any of them, without a seconds notice and do it with intelligence and passion. Delaney is a smart man and he can talk a good game, but he can't fake the sincerity or passion for the individual and for this country. Bongino gets it. He has that gut-level feeling and understanding about what is happening to our country from the top down and  could express it in his sleep in a way that anyone can understand. Yes, there is  something for Delaney to fear here.

    I guess fearing Bongino and not caring about Western Maryland made it easy for Team Delaney to say, Don't call us...we'll call you. I hope that the voters of Western Maryland and all of District 6, who surely will have had the pleasure of meeting Bongino by then, say the same to Delaney in the voting booth.