Being Generally Unhelpful

From the file of ways to neither win friends nor influence people comes tonight's story out of Howard County.

The Howard County Republican Club is a reasonably large group of Republicans in Howard County that has a large and extensive contact list. Apparently, that was an inviting target for club member John Wafer, who is also a member of the Howard County Republican Central Committee. Wafer, claiming to act on behalf of the entire committee, made a motion at tonight's meeting to compel the Club to hand over their entire contact list over to the Central Committee, claiming that this was "routine" and that "it happens all the time." Club members, being of sound mind, rejected the motion nearly unanimously.

There are a number of related problems that are here:

1. If a Republican Club within the county has a larger and more useful contact list than the County Central Committee, then one of these groups has fallen asleep at the switch; and,
2. If a Republican Central Committee member feels like the Committee is entitled (for lack of a better term) to access to a club's mailing list, it would seem that the aforementioned Central Committee member seems to think they are more important than they really are.

And nowhere that I am aware of "routinely" sees clubs turnover their lists to Central Committees. When I was President of the Anne Arundel YR's, I was never even asked to turn over the list. We information flowed down, we got it out without making a big to-do about it.

Obviously this appears to be an isolated incident, but I hope that all Republican Central Committee members take heed from this. We do not need Central Committee members to stoke ill will with committed, organized Republican Clubs, least of all in an election year. These Central Committee members need to "do no harm" as it were, and avoid taking actions that are generally unhelpful at best or, in this case, generally knuckleheaded.

Playing the Hand Your Dealt

I don't often disagree with Streiff's assessment of local politics, but I don't think his assessment of yesterday's budget hearings does the Republican Caucus justice in this regard.

As soon as President Miller and Speaker Busch called for public hearings and a public airing of Republican ideas; the caucuses were faced with a Hobson's Choice:

• Show up; or,
• Not show up.

Of course, there were consequences to the Caucus picking either choice:

• Show up, and you get the opportunity to air your grievances publicly, in front of citizens and the media. You get the opportunity to show the people and legislative leadership that there are, in fact, real alternatives to the failure of Martin O'Malley and the Democrats to lead on this issue; or,
• Don't show up, and then the story becomes Republicans not wanting to present their ideas on fixing the budget.

Tony O'Donnell, Chris Shank, David Brinkley, EJ Pipkin, Steve Schuh and other Republicans down in Annapolis did the best they could with the hand that they were dealt; in fact, I think that Republican leadership, in actuality, called the bluff of the Democrats. I am not sure that Speaker Busch thought the Republicans had real budget solutions to offer (never mind all of the amendments that O'Donnell, Lowell Stoltzfus, and others have offered over the years).

The fact that Republicans participated in the budget hearing was the best of all possible solutions, particularly when you consider the media hellstorm that would have followed had the Republican caucus balked.

That leads into a different problem; everybody and their brother knew that the Republican budget ideas were not going to get a fair shake in the media. Which leads me to wonder where the hell the Maryland Republican Party has been on this issue. What messages, emails, and talking points have gone out to aggressively push the Republican side of the story?

Frankly, there are two points that need to be said about the State Party media operation;

• One, it seems to comprise short, pithy, not particularly aggressive our meaningful press releases; and,
• Two, it seems to me that we here at Red Maryland seem to have a more aggressive and organized media operation than the State Party does.
  

Republican legislators in Annapolis did what they had to do yesterday; they played the hand that they were dealt.

Now, we have to do our part to grow their numbers this fall....

The Consequences of Failure

We at RedMaryland have taken, of course, a great interest in the appointment process for the vacancy in the House of Delegates in District 3B. And now we see what the consequences of Republicans failure to lead has been.

Governor O'Malley appointed Charles Jenkins to fill the vacancy. And as my friend a colleague Greg Kline noted, Jenkins is on the record as being against tax hikes and for tax increases.

Is it any wonder Governor O'Malley picked Jenkins to fill the vacancy?

And is it any wonder so many average Republicans have no faith in their local Republican Party apparatus?

These are the consequences of failure. Our party needs to pick up the pieces and learn from this mistake....

You Make the Call

Now it's your turn to decided who should be the next Maryland Republican Party Chairman:

Contract Matters

You might have seen this story today regarding State GOP Chairman Jim Pelura's push to create a "Contract with Maryland." Amazingly, this actually create a large problem for the State Party. And I'm not even talking about the fact that Pelura is trying to dictate the legislative agendas of Senate Minority Leader Allan Kittleman and House Minority Leader Tony O'Donnell.

See, the story here is the fact that Pelura has appointed yet another committee to try and develop party policy. Which would be novel if it wasn't for the fact that Pelura has done this multiple times now. Including the appointment of Charles County GOP Chairman Charles Lollar to the much ballyhooed tax commission.

Lollar spoke at the Anne Arundel Republican Central Committee meeting, and the gist of his speech was that the tax commission was basically put officially hold, and that the Lollar Commission decided to move forth and continue meeting and to present its recommendations independently of the state party apparatus. That is what led to the creation of Concerned Citizens for a Better Maryland. And that outfit last week released its......Contract with Maryland.

So, to recap, Jim Pelura is creating a commission to recreate the work done by a former Pelura-created commission that was cast adrift. And both commissions are at odds with legislative leadership over who should be crafting the party's agenda. The State GOP will have two competing, conservative Contracts with Maryland.

I'm so glad that the party is getting its act together.

Maybe the creation of a new committee is not the best idea we can come up with right now. And frankly given the bottom line of our bank accounts these days, shouldn't the state party apparatus take the time to create a finance committee to raise some money for the state party to get us out of this fiscal black hole the party finds itself in?

Dustup

If you haven't noticed, a new an essentially anonymous blog called Maryland Politics Blog has been peddling a story about Queen Anne's County Central Committee Member Andrew Langer and his involvement in Pelurapalooza. The new blog, however, has refused to reprint Langer's response to his alleged involvement in this story. So Andrew asked me to post the response publicly, and here it is, unabridged and unalderated:

From: Andrew Langer
Subject: Re: 15 west st post
To: "Maryland Politics Blog" <marylandpoliticsblog@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, August 1, 2009, 11:33 AM

Dear Sir or Madam:

While it is gratifying to know that my name is generating hits for your website, it is unfortunate that a story so riddled with errors is responsible for them.

I don't know who you are. I don't know your motivations for making such allegations. I can't verify your sources in any way, shape, or form.

What I do know is this. I am not 15WestSt@gmail.com. As was pointed out by someone else, I wasn't even IN the meeting at issue (I was kicked out when the meeting went into executive session).

The e-mail doesn't match my writing style. Please take a look at my blog: http://langrrr.blogspot.com. In it, you'll see a host of examples of how I write. This e-mail you discuss contains no em-dashes, no en-dashes, there's no comma in the first sentence (I'm big on commas). The piece isn't nearly as wordy as I'm prone to writing. It's also not in my writing cadence (yes, I have one).

It's this last point that is most important - you might be thinking that I'd try to mask my writing style. Were I someone who was inclined to write under a pseudonym (more on this in a moment), masking one's writing cadence (which is more about rhythm than style) is incredibly difficult to do. A number of anonymous authors have been unmasked through such analyses.

As for writing under pseudonyms or anonymously, it's not something I do - and I've written about my philosophy of this:

http://langrrr.blogspot.com/2005_09_01_archive.html

"One of the things I look askance at is anonymous or pseudonymous criticism. Now, I know that one of the hallmarks of a free society is the ability of someone to criticize someone else from behind the mask of anonymity. But it always seems that the most ill-thought, most base, bad-intentioned, insulting, and untrue critiques come from those writing anonymously or pseudonymously.

"When I used to write on Usenet, I developed a fan base, as I’ve mentioned (and I use that term facetiously. I do not mean that these people were actual fans of mine). Some of my “fans” indeed did use their real names, but several of them wrote under pseudonyms. More often than not, these pseudonymous posters fell into that category of writing base, insulting, non-germane, and outrageously untrue things."
---end quoted material---

I stand by the things that I write--and do so by attaching my name to them.

What's more, having had friends who have been dinged by this in the press, I have a maxim I stand behind: never put anything in e-mail that you wouldn't want seen in the pages of the Washington Post.

Now, I am, as a rule, incredibly cautious about with whom I place my total political trust--who I give counsel to, who I offer my political analyses to. An e-mail like this, from me, makes no sense.

As to your allegations regarding my motives:

1) That I have, "long been a Pelura supporter, not necessarily because he thinks Jim is doing a good job, but because he sees his own influence directly attached to Jim remaining in office."

On what basis do you make either assertion? Conversations with unnamed individuals? I find it hilarious that one anonymous blogger can claim something based upon conversations which may or may not have occurred.

I don't know what "influence" you think I have. I was honored, and completely surprised, that Jim Pelura appointed me Chairman of this commission. But he did so not because of any fealty that I may have demonstrated to him, but to my professional background and my conduct as an activist within the party.

Understand this--I approach the work as a party official professionally, as I have been taught to do by some tremendous mentors (part and parcel of this is not spreading around anonymous e-mails, for instance). This means dealing with issues seriously, thinking strategically about the party's current status and its future, and approaching the business of the party in a goal-oriented manner.

That this approach has gained me allies across the political spectrum within the party is a testament not to me, but to the wisdom of my teachers. Their lessons have worked - not my ambitions (more on this in a moment).

2) "Mr. Langer views Chris Cavey and Chuck Gast as threats to his own future goals. "

I do? Please enlighten me as to what these future goals are--and just how either Chuck or Chris are threats to them!

If you're going to do serious political journalism, then you might consider actually asking the subject of your story to comment on the allegations you are prepared to make.

This, to me, was the most insulting of the allegations that you were going to make. I don't view people as "threats" - and not out of some arrogant self-image. I view people as allies - and I count Chris Cavey and Chuck Gast among them. They are two party activists who have demonstrated a desire to work hard towards party victory, the greatest determinant of people you can "count on" (an important trait in my book)

People who can't be counted on aren't threats. They're simply unreliable.

Now, there are people who stand opposed to what you might believe in. But they're not "threats" either. They are people with whom you work to try and find common ground (as another mentor of mine taught me, people with whom you are in agreement on 80% of the issues aren't 20% your enemy).

Chris, Chuck, and I share a common goal - party victory. And I don't see either of them as threats to that. If you're talking about something more specific, do elucidate me: Party chairman? Senior officership? Again, I don't see any conflict among the three of us which would give rise to a "threat".

3) "Why would he attack Mike Pappas in the email, well at that time it was thought that Charles Lollar and Mike Pappas would be battling in the 2010 gubernatorial primary."

Considering that I knew on that Saturday morning that Charles wouldn't be running for Governor in 2010, this defies reality.

The reality is that I like and respect Mike Pappas greatly--and, in point of fact, had a conversation with him about his race for Governor just after that

And again, I don't view people as "threats" - Mike Pappas may have been a potential opponent, but he wasn't a "threat". That's a shade of politics that I simply don't play - if you're going to learn anything about me, it's that I don't practice the politics of personal destruction when it comes to inter-party races. I believe it leaves the party damaged. It's counsel I've given time and time again to candidates - part and parcel of my "judo school" of politics beliefs.

If Charles had run for Governor, we would have focused on Martin O'Malley, not Mike Pappas. At the end of the day, especially in such a short window between primary and general election, alienating your opponent and your opponent's supporters is the surest way towards defeat (cf. Maryland's 1st CD, 2008)

That's why I'm concerned. It's not just that I don't write anonymous e-mails. It's not just that the 15WestSt e-mail is so poorly written as to make such an allegation an insult to my writing abiliy. It's that you presume to look into my motivations as a party activist, and because you don't know me at all, you have no idea as to the reality of who I am. And you therefore leave people with this complete misimpression of me.

Who are you do to that? And you don't even have the courtesy to contact me before making such allegations? I mean, you claim to have contacted a number of people who "confirmed" your story, but you didn't even have the wherewithal to contact me, even for a denial?

As I said, as gratifying as it is to know that I can generate hits for your site, it's really too bad that the story couldn't have been more accurate. Or accurate at all.

Sincerely,


Andrew Langer

Inside the MDGOP Exec Board Meeting

I received (and I'm sure others did as well) an anonymous email message from the email account "15westst@gmail.com" regarding yesterday's Maryland Republican Party Executive Board meeting. Since this jives with a lot of the things that I have already heard about yesterday's meeting, I'll repost it here completely unadulterated.

On Saturday the Republican Executive Committee passed a resolution of no confidence in Chairman Pelura by a vote of 20-10.

However there is not any immediate impact of the resolution. Pelura told the meeting he had no intention in resigning.

Under the by-laws, only a full vote of the entire state Central Committee at a convention can remove the Chairman, and a two-thirds vote is required. Counties representing a potential weighted vote of about 50% at a convention opposed the resolution, including Anne Arundel, Caroline, Carroll, Cecil, Charles, Montgomery, Prince George's, St. Mary's, Wicomico and Worcester. The other counties and all the officers voted except Pelura for the resolution. Pelura did not vote.

The Committee rebuked candidate for Governor Mike Pappas on several occasions. Pappas was representing Baltimore County because Chris Cavey votes as First Vice Chair. First Pappas attempted to prevent Pelura from presiding at the meeting as Chairman. This effort was defeated. Later Pappas attempted to close off discussion, although Charles County Chairman Charles Lollar was attempting to be recognized. The Committee voted down the Pappas resolution and Lollar was given a chance to speak.

Repeated criticism was also directed at First Vice Chairman Chris Cavey for his press comments criticizing Pelura. Some members called on him to resign if Pelura remained as Chairman.

Fighting the Wrong Enemy

Well, it looks like we've got another self-made crisis in the Maryland Republican Party, as Jim Pelura fired Justin Ready this morning:

Two staff members of the Maryland Republican Party have left, and the top officers of the GOP said they want the chairman to explain why, or resign.

Chairman James Pelura III asked for Executive Director Justin Ready's resignation Monday morning. Events coordinator April Rose tendered her resignation, according to Chris Cavey, the party's first vice chairman....

...Cavey said the executive committee, made up of 31 of the party's top leaders, met last week.

"There was no inkling of any personnel problems. No inkling of any pending firings. No inkling of anything," Cavey said.

After receiving word of the departures, Cavey said the party's top seven elected officials have asked Pelura to convene an executive committee meeting.

"We have asked for either Jim to account for the action or to resign," Cavey said.

This is getting absolutely ridiculous. The rumors about why Pelura canned Ready are even more ridiculous, but I am trying to corroborate them first. And I agree with Chris Cavey on this: Pelura needs to explain to everybody (not just the Executive Committee, but all Maryland Republicans) as to why Ready needed to go.

It's kind of hard to deal with unseating a failed Governor an defeating spend and tax Democrats when we can't even keep the party apparatus on the same page. Marylanders are ready for change and fresh leadership, and at the moment we're not offering them anything but a circus. And I guarantee you that sideshows like this do not help us raise one dollar, recruit one volunteer, or elect one Republican.

Something has to change....

Steele for a Reason, but let's keep everything under control

I have been very upfront with the fact that I am supporting Michael Steele for RNC Chairman. And not just because he's a Maryland guy, but because I think he brings the best credentials and experience to the ticket.

That's not to say that others would do a bad job, but all of the other candidates give me pause:

• Saul Anuzis is probably leading the way in trying to integrate technology into the campaign infrastructure, and that is something that we need. However, we are conservatives and results to matter, and Michigan was a trainwreck for Republicans in 2008.
• Ken Blackwell has reasonable conservative credentials, despite his Charterite past. But he too has a results problem, getting blown out of the watter in a competitive state in 2006. Not a great year for the GOP, but even Michael Steele performed better in a deeper blue state.
• Katon Dawson is a conservative and has done a good job, but it's a lot different working across a broad purple nation than it is being the Chairman in South Carolina.
• And I still believe that Chip Saltsman is a stalking horse for Mike Huckabee and his social conservative/big government liberal fusion wing of the party.

As I have said before, all of these guys would do well. Just that Steele is above and beyond the most qualified candidate in the race due to his experience and yes his results. But as I noted yesterday, this campaign in certain aspects is getting to look like the Presidential Primaries in that some people are tearing down candidates rather than build cases for their own. I had the chief blogger for Ken Blackwell's 2006 campaign make some comments on my blog yesterday that had more to do with bashing Steele than it did with defending Blackwell.

Regardless of who wins, we as Republicans and activists are going to need to work with our new Chairman. So I think everybody needs to take a step back, breathe, and try not to dish out any more rabbit punches...

Going Both Ways

Supporters of Ken Blackwell's candidacy for RNC Chairman have been critical of the "moderate" positions taken by Michael Steele. But Blackwell supporters forgot about a minor detail in Blackwell's past that could make one question his conservative credentials.

Blackwell was elected to the Cincinnati City Council, and served as the Mayor of Cincinnati from 1979-1981. But he was elected neither as a Republican or as a Democrat to the Council, rather being elected as a member of the Charter Party, a third-party in Cincinnati. And what has the Charter Party stood for in the past? A variety of liberal to "progressive" urban interests, often in cooperation and in concert with Cincinnati Democrats. Their recent work includes supporting a tax increase to prop up the Cincinnati Zoo.

Does any of this make Ken Blackwell ideologically unpure to serve as RNC Chairman? Of course not, and while not my first choice I think he would do a reasonable job. Blackwell has twenty-plus years of conservative credentials since his service as a Charterite. But it makes you wonder if some of Blackwell's supporters (and supporters of other candidates) are using the "conservative credentials" strawman as a wedge issue to gloss over the fact that Steele's experience in party building vastly outweighs that of other candidates in the field...

I don't get it

One of the things that has been most puzzling to me in recent days has been a seeming conservative backlash against Michael Steele as he runs for RNC Chairman. I find it extremely curious that one of the most conservative candidates in the race for Chairman keeps getting beaten up as "not conservative enough."

Richard Falknor launches the latest salvo by trying to portraying the sins of Bob Ehrlich as the sins of Michael Steele:

Steele was a team-playing lieutenant governor in Maryland under Bob Ehrlich, a “centrist” Republican governor who raised taxes, grew spending, approved taxpayer-supported embryonic stem-cell research, and (gratuitously in our view) went out of his way to anger values voices and gun owners. A skilled advocate, Mr. Ehrlich’s chief policy goal was apparently the enactment of slots legislation. Mr. Steele’s special contributions were heading an education task-force that didn’t address parental choice, and trying to advance the Old Line State’s minority-business-enterprise program.

Of course the office of Lieutenant Governor in Maryland barely has enough power to go buy a cup of coffee, much less have meaningful influence in a Governor's Agenda. Michael Steele has been and has always been a conservative, much more so on issues of life, budget, and taxes than virtually anybody who has served in Maryland's Executive Branch in a long time.

Falknor also railed against Steele's support of Wayne Gilchrest in the 1st District Congressional primary, and also had this to say to conclude his remarks:

Mr. Steele’s supporters could make a case along these lines: that their candidate’s undoubted charm and personal attractiveness are paramount for an RNC job; and that asking about taxes, fighting America’s enemies, the culture of life, giving parents some control over schools, and controlling porous borders is simply out of place — whether in supporting Republicans at the polls or in selecting a gifted national voice to weave a new post-partisan, inclusive public narrative necessary for Republicans to start winning again.

Questioning Michael Steele's conservative bonafides is kinda like questioning Tiger Woods' golf game; it's a question that really need not be asked. But what Falknor fails to not that at this stage in time, a candidate's ability to speak to Republican issues and a candidate's ability to organize the Republican Party is of paramount importance for our next Chairman. We need a Chairman who understands the what it is like to have their boots on the ground while also understanding the most basic of conservative principles.

Beyond that, I do not see a candidate who can "out-conservative" for lack of a better term Steele. The candidates are equals at best or, in the case of Huckabee stalking horse Chip Saltsman, worse, on conservative credentials. This Chairmanship election needs to focus on three basic things:

1. Conservative Principles;
2. Organization;
3. Expansion of the Conservative Message.

And nobody can beat Michael Steele on those points. In fact, when you consider that he is taking on the issue of ethics as it relates to our party, he's already doing his part to lead the party in a conservative and respectable manner.

I just don't understand those who question Steele's conservative credentials. It makes you wonder if those questioning his credentials need to have their understanding of conservatism questioned...

Hand Grenades from the Peanut Gallery

Most people realize that I am often critical of the party apparatus, and have gone back and forth and back again on the Chairmanship of Jim Pelura. But one person who is certainly not helping things any is trial lawyer and perpetual quitter Dirk Haire:

"If I were chairman and we suffered the electoral losses that we just suffered and we were completely ineffective in critical party activities like party registration, then I believe it would be my duty to step down and let someone else have a chance to be more effective," said Dirk D. Haire, an Annapolis resident who practices law in Washington....

....And Haire, 41, who briefly tested the waters for a possible run for Anne Arundel County executive in 2006, isn't confident that Pelura can deliver on his pledge to prioritize voter registration in advance of 2010.

"I think Republicans have to honestly ask themselves how it is that somebody who has failed so significantly in this critical area in the past two years can achieve those objectives," he said. "It raises a question of credibility in my mind."

The last person the Republican Party needs to take advice from is Dirk Haire. Haire is a construction lawyer for the the firm of Holland and Knight, a predominately Democratic firm in Washington. Haire is more well known politically for the things he hasn't done than the things that he has done. Last night at the State Convention, somebody best described Dirk Haire as the "subject matter expert on being a quitter":

• In 2002, Haire announced his candidacy for Anne Arundel County Council in the 7th District. He raised $60,000 and then quietly quit from the race with little fanfare, returning his contributions to his contributors.
  
  
• In 2004, with much fanfare, Haire announced that he was running for Anne Arundel County Executive, indicating that he intended to raise a million dollars for the campaign. He quickly raised $250,000. predominantly from out of state developers. In May of 2005, he quit the race due to low polling numbers and endorsed John Leopold, saying that he "couldn't win without using negative tactics" despite using early push polling to promote his candidacy.
  
  
• He briefly was a candidate for State Party Chair in 2006, quickly removing himself from that race for reasons that were never explained.

So basically, with Dirk Haire you get a lot of flash and bang, but not actual results that helps with governance and building the Republican Party; he hasn't even donated to his local Central Committee in four years, for example, and has rarely been seen at Republican events. He shows up on an occasional fundraising host committee or two, but Dirk Haire has never taken an interest in party building or branding, so his criticisms of Pelura and his sudden interest in running for chair in 2010 seem disingenuous, at best. He has no credibility when it comes to these issues, and of course zero interest in perseverance, dedication, or actually finishing what he starts.

Considering that Haire is angling to be elected Party Chairman, take all of his criticisms and comments with a grain of salt....and start taking bets as to when he'll quit this race, too.

John Flynn's Warped World

If this quote is even close to accurate.....:

Before the first vote is cast Tuesday in Maryland's primary, the state's Grand Old Party has already declared its mission accomplished.

Republican Party Executive Director John Flynn said the GOP put more emphasis on staying competitive across Maryland this year, rather than letting Democrats run unopposed in left-leaning districts.

.....then we're in bigger trouble than I thought we were. I almost spit water on my keyboard when I read that because it is so patently absurd that it's ridiculous. I'm not sure what emphasis there is on staying competitive, because we basically have let Democrats run unopposed in at least one left-leaning district.

For an example:

Ron Paul supporter Richard Pryce Matthews, an Orchard Beach Republican, will be challenging four-year Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger of Timonium in the 2nd District race. Mr. Matthews, who has raised no money, is campaigning on a platform of abolishing the Internal Revenue Service and the federal Department of Education as well as ending the war in Iraq and repealing the Patriot Act.

Patently absurd. If the Party recruited this joker, John Flynn should be fired. If we didn't recruit this joker, John Flynn should be fired.

John Flynn's complete failure as Executive Director is getting even harder to put up with, and he should have been replaced months ago with somebody who can actually get the job done. I'm not saying that being Executive Director of the Maryland GOP is all milk and honey, but Flynn is clearly not up to the task...

The GOP Face of the Maryland 2nd

"Leading the charge for Ron Paul in AA County and district two. Please support Ron Paul as much as you can, with dollars and your time. If you are on the fence, let me answer any questions you might have about Ron Paul and his grassroots movement"
- Richard Matthews, The Republican Nominee for Congress in the 2nd Congressional District

Golly, I have never been so proud to live in the 2nd in my entire life.

Three cheers for our Republican leadership to make sure that this is the face of the Maryland Republican Party for 2008!

CD-2, 3 challengers highlight leadership quagmire

2nd Congressional District

• Richard Pryce Matthews (Ron Paul activist)

3rd Congressional District

• Thomas E. "Pinkston" Harris
• Christopher Panasuk
• Paul Spause (2006 Candidate)
• John Stafford (a perennial candidate for various offices)

So the state party has completely struck out on candidate recruitment in the districts in which Republicans could be competitive.

I am so glad that so many are confident in the Republican leadership team that couldn't get the job done on recruiting even one candidate who could reasonably compete in one of the districts. John Flynn really earned his money this year, didn't he? Of course when, as I have heard, he pushed the issue of candidate recruitment off of his plate and tried to put the onus on the County Central Committees, what do you expect?

We seem to have no money and we have no candidates in two competitive districts. At this point, we could save the money we're paying John Flynn and let Marcia Jicka serve as the Executive Director, too. That's a wiser use of the money than continuing to pay John Flynn for a seemingly never-ending succession of failures....