http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/chuck-brown-dies-the-godfather-of-go-go-was-75/2012/05/16/gIQAJAfPUU_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/chuck-browns-musical-impact-deep-into-washington-and-beyond/2012/05/16/gIQAUo6zUU_story.html?hpid=z1

For more in-depth background and a reasoned defense of Thorne-Begland’s opposition against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” while he was serving in the Navy, refer to this article. Some critics will argue that they are not against gays, they are just against Thorne-Begland’s actions in the Navy. This argument does not stand up to scrutiny as there have been whistleblowers in the military in the past and these whistleblowers are vital to improving the military.

Conversation excerpted from the Bearing Drift article:

Ann Flan Kirwin May 15, 2012 17:40 pm
…The bigger issue, I think, is that he went on national television to speak out against DADT while he was still in the military. Clearly a violation of their rules of conduct. Not a smart move for someone who wants to be a judge.”

MD Russ May 15, 2012 19:44 pm
Two Air Force F-22 pilots went on “60 Minutes” after complaining to members of Congress that the Air Force wasn’t addressing pilot oxygen problems with the aircraft. Today the SECDEF ordered flight restrictions on the F-22 until the problem is solved. One of those pilots in a Captain in the Virginia Air National Guard stationed at Langley AFB. Would you disqualify him as a future district court judge?

This Delegate I spoke to told me that Delegate Bob Marshall’s grandstanding on this issue to remove Thorne-Begland from the list of judicial nominees on account of him being a “homosexual activist” and legislating from the bench could not come at a politically worse time for Republicans. The entire premise for Marshall leading the charge against Thorne-Begland was that he was gay, not because of some nuanced view about the wisdom of adhering to military procedure. Marshall’s exact words about Thorne-Begland was that he was “an aggressive activist for the pro-homosexual agenda.”

I told the Delegate that if Republicans are going to criticize President Barack Obama’s open support for gay marriage as a political ploy to raise money from progressives, then Republicans are hypocritical to oppose a qualified, openly gay judicial nominee and use the opportunity to advance their own political interests with the hardcore anti-gay constituency. Bob Marshall and other Republicans who voted no will most certainly use this issue in the future to raise a good sum of money from their supporters. The Delegate I spoke to agreed with this statement.

The Delegate stated that Speaker Bill Howell (R-Stafford) hoped for enough Republicans to break party lines to reach the 51 vote threshold to confirm Thorne-Begland. It wasn’t even close and Howell himself did not even vote on this matter. The Delegate mentioned that everyone was thinking about the political consequences of the vote for themselves. Obviously, political consequences were on everyone’s minds especially for the Republicans who abstained or did not even vote at all. Yet, in a vote that requires 51 yeas for passage, an abstention or an absence, for whatever reason (i.e. “It was late.” “I didn’t know what was going on.”), amounts to a vote of nay. Everybody knew this was Bob Marshall’s political power play. I guess it is okay in the minds of Republicans to criticize Obama for voting “present” on tough decisions as an Illinois State Senator while they on the other hand, avoid taking a stand on this matter to gain plausible deniability.

The Republicans who broke ranks and joined the Democrats in a losing effort to confirm Thorne-Begland should be commended for their courage. There were only eight of them in a chamber that has 67 Republicans and 1 independent caucusing with Republicans. Not only did they fall short of the goal, these eight Republicans who broke ranks to support Thorne-Begland and had the courage to stand for justice have put themselves at a political disadvantage within their own party in trying to hold onto their seat or in their prospects for higher office in the future.

Today’s Republican Party has been hijacked by an unhinged, insufferable, angry, irrational, hardcore, extremist conservative base. No Republican in office is safe from threats within the party. Even Republicans with solid conservative voting records risk facing primary challengers if they have the audacity to actually say nice things about Democrats as people.

There are many examples of powerful, well-funded conservative Republicans falling to openly angry conservative Republicans who had fundraising disadvantages in primaries and in lesser known intra-party races across the nation over the past few years. Richard Mourdock’s victory over the conservative, yet genteel, Richard Lugar is the example that is fresh on everybody’s minds. However, the example I will cite is even more pronounced.

Former Congressman Bob Inglis (R-SC) came from a heavily Republican district. South Carolina’s 4th Congressional District included the ultraconservative Bob Jones University and the winner of the GOP primary in that district is assured a seat for life. Never mind that Inglis was as hardcore a conservative as one can get. His lifetime American Conservative Union rating is 93.25%. He made some open-minded statements about climate change, voted for the bailout, and had the decency to respect President Obama as a human being. For that, the GOP activists found him intolerable and Trey Gowdy defeated Bob Inglis in the primary in 2010 by a landslide.

These are the stakes. The eight Republicans who broke ranks and joined the Democrats to support an openly gay judicial nominee who is well qualified for office have exposed themselves to the possibility of a primary challenger, eroded some support and enthusiasm from the right-wing activist base that they need to consolidate in order to win reelection in tough swing districts, and have made any prospect of winning a primary to be a Republican nominee for higher office more difficult.

These eight Republicans set aside their political ambitions in order to vote on principle. This is the principle that in America, a person is deemed fit for a job based on his or her qualifications, accomplishments, potential for success, diligence, and, ultimately, character. Discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, disability, sexual orientation, background, and socioeconomic status is un-American and it is wrong.

The following is a list of the 33 individuals who voted to confirm Thorne-Begland. I reiterate that due to the unhinged, uncompromising extremists who have taken over the Republican Party, these eight Republicans should be commended for doing what is right to advance American values of fairness and equal opportunity instead of doing what is safe to improve their standing and reputation within their own disturbed and deranged Republican Party. The Democrats likewise, should be commended as well.

David B. Albo, R-Fairfax
Kenneth C. Alexander, D-Norfolk
Mamye E. BaCote, D-Newport News
David L. Bulova, D-Fairfax
Betsy B. Carr, D-Richmond
Barbara J. Comstock, R-Fairfax
Rosalyn R. Dance, D-Petersburg
Peter F. Farrell, R-Henrico
Eileen Filler-Corn, D-Fairfax
Charniele L. Herring, D-Alexandria
Patrick A. Hope, D-Arlington
Algie T. Howell, D-Norfolk
Matthew James, D-Portsmouth
Mark L. Keam, D-Fairfax
Terry G. Kilgore, R-Scott
L. Kaye Kory, D-Fairfax
James M. LeMunyon, R-Fairfax
Lynwood W. Lewis Jr., D-Accomack
Alfonso H. Lopez, D-Arlington
G. Manoli Loupassi, R-Richmond
Jennifer L. McClellan, D-Richmond
Delores L. McQuinn, D-Richmond
Joseph D. Morrissey, D-Henrico
Thomas Davis Rust, R-Fairfax
James M. Scott, D-Fairfax
Mark D. Sickles, D-Fairfax
Lionell Spruill Sr., D-Chesapeake
Scott A. Surovell, D-Fairfax
Luke Torian, D-Prince William
David J. Toscano, D-Charlottesville
Jeion A. Ward, D-Hampton
Vivian E. Watts, D-Fairfax
Joseph A. Yost, R-Montgomery

The complete list including nays, abstentions, and non-votes can be found here. In the interest of disclosure, Delegate Barbara Comstock is a former boss and current client of mine. The anonymous Delegate I spoke to several days ago on this matter was definitely not her. I had no influence on this vote whatsoever and no one asked me to write this article to highlight the 33 Democrats and Republicans who came together to stand for justice.

References:

American Conservative Union. (2010). “2010 U.S. House Votes”. Retrieved from http://conservative.org/ratings/ratingsarchive/2010/2010HouseRatings.htm#SC

Kraushaar, Josh. (April 7, 2009). “Inglis faces fight from the right”. Politico. Retrieved from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/20974.html

Schoeneman, Brian. (May 15, 2012). “Vote against openly gay judicial nominee another black eye for Virginia”. Bearing Drift. Retrieved from http://bearingdrift.com/2012/05/15/vote-against-openly-gay-judicial-nominee-another-black-eye-for-virginia/

Times-Dispatch Staff. (May 15, 2012). “House roll-call on Tracy Thorne-Begland”. Richmond Times-Dispatch. Retrieved from http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2012/may/15/house-roll-call-tracy-thorne-begland-ar-1916406/

(* “Lugar,…is a gentleman of the old school,…correctly identifying Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) as a member of the Democratic, rather than “Democrat,” Party. At a time when Republicans routinely insist on denying Democrats that courtesy, hearing the proper usage from a Republican’s lips is a reminder of how unusual it has become.” – Excerpted from Henneberger, Melinda. (April 9, 2012). “Richard Lugar: Too mild to be memorable?” The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dick-lugar-too-mild-to-be-memorable/2012/04/09/gIQASHKL6S_story.html)

While I am disappointed that Lugar expectedly lost based on the first two factors, I totally agree that Lugar should have lost on the third factor. No federal elected official should ever get elected just to never come back to the state. Yet, I can’t fully blame Lugar for his decision to make his permanent home in the DC metropolitan area. As a proud resident of the DMV, I think no other vacation place in the world compares to DC, Maryland, and Virginia!

What I really want to emphasize however in a limited defense of Lugar, is that Congress has become a full-time job. That has made purchasing property in the DC metropolitan area a practical idea for many House and Senate members. Congress should not be a full time job.

The Maryland General Assembly and Virginia General Assembly have part-time legislatures. Nobody expects the Delegates and Senators of the great state of Maryland and the great Commonwealth of Virginia to settle down in Annapolis and Richmond. Why then, do we elect U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators to send them to Washington only to have them never come back?

Most of the federal legislators who still maintain an actual residence in their home states only use it as a weekend residence because they are in Washington for the majority of the year. They burn taxpayer dollars and add to environmental waste by flying home every weekend to remind people that they are still around so that the people will remember that come reelection time. Yet, even during the Congressional recess, some of the Members hang around Washington just to hit the political cocktail circuit to raise money and their own profile for Party favors and future electoral bids.

The glitz and glamour of Washington is intoxicating. As if power alone was not intoxicating enough, Washington is the east coast Hollywood thanks to 24-hour cable news. This is a problem that affects both Democrats and Republicans and it must stop. Making Congress part-time will help in that effort.

That said, even though Lugar submitted to the realities, practicalities, and luxuries of life in Washington, he had no excuse to fall out of touch with Indiana. He acted more like an aloof policy wonk at a think tank than as an approachable public servant attuned to the needs and desires of his constituency. His supporters regard him as a statesman. That, he may be. Lugar has certainly carried himself with class and dignity. However, he is now a statesman about to lose his job.

Lugar’s critics say that Lugar will now get to go home to…Virginia. That is true. Lugar gets to join many of his former colleagues who never went home once they came to Washington like Speaker Bob Livingston (R-Alexandria, VA), Senator Rick Santorum (R-Great Falls, VA), Senator Fred Thompson (R-McLean, VA), Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-McLean, VA), and Senator Peter Fitzgerald (R-McLean, VA).

Keep in mind that I am a proud resident of the DMV, the greatest region in the entire world, so I don’t blame them one bit for wanting to stay. Welcome to DC. We ain’t going nowhere. Lugar might even get a job with a conservative foreign policy think tank which would be right up his alley. His lifestyle and standard of living will not change one bit so no one should feel sorry for him.

I agree that Richard Lugar deserved to lose his Senate seat because he fell out of touch with the state he represented. That is why I have supported Joe Donnelly for U.S. Senate (D-IN) from the beginning, long before the Indiana GOP primary was decided.

Congressman Joe Donnelly, a moderate Democrat who is a member of the Blue Dog Coalition of moderate and conservative Democrats, is the type of leader the U.S. Senate needs and he is also the type of leader the Democratic Party needs. Much has been written about how liberal and moderate voices have been purged from the Republican Party, but very little coverage has been given to the purging of conservative and moderate voices in the Democratic Party at the same rate. The “purification” of both parties has increased polarization in American politics.

Over the past eight years, the number of Blue Dog Democrats holding office have greatly declined at the national level. There was a brief spike in 2006, the year Joe Donnelly was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. That year also produced Congressman Heath Shuler (D-NC) and these newly elected Blue Dogs joined established Blue Dogs like Stephanie Herseth (D-SD), Charlie Melacon (D-LA), Joe Baca (D-CA), and John Tanner (D-TN) to craft responsible budgets, address skyrocketing debt, and foster job creation. These Blue Dogs also tended to lean pro-life, but because they were far removed from the likes of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Tony Perkins who have all damaged the Republican brand on this complicated issue, these Blue Dog Democrats were able to more effectively, thoughtfully, respectfully, and humbly address this issue and craft pragmatic solutions.

Unfortunately, once the Democratic Party gained control of Washington, they swung hard left and left many Blue Dog Democrats stranded. As a result, many Blue Dog Democrats lost their seats in 2010 to Republicans and several prominent Blue Dog Democrats have already announced their retirements in 2012 due to many factors including Republican partisan redistricting designed to pick off moderate Democrats and a Democratic Party that is unenthused about protecting them.

I have a long history of being a Blue Dog Democrat. I am dismayed by the widening divide and polarization that has affected American politics in recent years. Solutions-oriented, pragmatic voices in the middle and even some pragmatists of more left-wing and right-wing persuasion have been forced out of both the Democratic and Republican parties in favor of ideological firebrands who refuse to concede an inch and regard their political opponents as dangerous enemies instead of loyal compatriots of a different school of thought. Often, the rhetoric so stirs the passions of the base that they become blind to the actual reality.

The perfect illustration lies in Rick Santorum. Like Richard Lugar, Santorum was an out of touch politician with residency issues. He moved to Great Falls, VA and never looked back once he settled in the ways of Washington. He was also a “big government conservative” just like Mitt Romney (Not that there is anything wrong with that…I ain’t going to judge.), but he was able to be Romney’s fiercest challenger because he knew how to talk like Rush Limbaugh and inflame the passions of the anti-tax, hardcore conservative base.

The people are not 100% blameless in the problems that affect Washington and the nation either. They are the ones who elect their leaders. Yet, time and again, we see that people vote for officials not based on their accomplishments and potential for success in office, but based on how well they deliver a fiery sermon espousing hard-right conservative or hard-left progressive values on the stump.

That Richard Lugar was President Barack Obama’s “favorite Republican” is not and should not be a bad thing. We cannot solve complicated problems by insulting and antagonizing others and by being repulsive individuals. Sadly, there are many Republicans these days who welcome liberal disapproval of not just their policies, but of who they are because they believe that there must be something wrong with them if the other side likes them. It is as if liberal hatred of them validates their conservative bonafides and liberal approval makes them failures.

Hate is wrong. It is wrong when liberals hate conservatives and vice-versa. It is wrong when in the face of hate, liberals and conservatives use the opportunity to raise money instead of setting a good example for the youth by reaching out and being the better person.

This is why so many people, especially young people, are disengaged and disinterested in government and the political process. People just want to get stuff done regardless of party label and ideology.

So people will not misinterpret me, I strongly believe that there is a place in the political discourse for pure progressive values and for pure conservative values. I support Hillary Clinton and I support Sarah Palin. I have voted for such ideologically pure candidates on the left and the right in the past and may continue to do so if I like the individual.

Progressive voices and conservative voices must also be augmented by voices of more centrist persuasion. I don’t want one-party rule at any level of government. This is a diverse nation and no one individual can fully understand and appreciate what it means to be an American of a different background. We need people of different backgrounds and different ideologies learning from one another and working together for a stronger America.

There is a benefit to having an open marketplace of ideas in society and in government. If the progressive and conservative voices (and even moderate voices, who can be every bit as dogmatic as the left and the right) would actually talk to one another instead of finding new ways to defeat them, we might begin to solve the numerous problems that affect this nation and return to the path of protecting and expanding liberty and restoring decency, honor, and respect.

There is value in ideological diversity in Congress. There is also value in ideological diversity within the political parties themselves. If we want to break the polarization that paralyzes this country, we must be willing to evaluate candidates on a case-by-case basis and elevate leaders who can bring ideological diversity within their own parties to foster cooperation even if it means your own political party loses in the process. Dilute the ideological stranglehold of both parties and you will purify the nation.

I support Joe Donnelly for U.S. Senate because he is the right person for the job and will work with all sides to find solutions.

Discuss. Comments will be strictly monitored to maintain a safe place. Keep it cool regardless of what you believe.

Reference:

Evans, Rachel Held. (May 9, 2012). How to Win a Culture War and Lose a Generation. Retrieved from http://rachelheldevans.com/win-culture-war-lose-generation-amendment-one-north-carolina

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/dems-senate-hopes-dim-massachusetts-race/515136

A special election was held to fill a vacancy on the Leesburg Town Council after then-Councilman Ken Reid defeated then-Supervisor Kelly Burk of the Leesburg District in 2011. Kelly Burk ran for the vacant Town Council seat and defeated Dwight Dopilka who had the backing of the Loudoun County Republican Committee (LCRC). Reid and Burk essentially switched seats.

During the Town and City elections that occurred across the Commonwealth of Virginia on May 1st, there was an election held to elect a new Mayor of Lovettsville. Mayor Elaine Walker was retiring and Vice Mayor Robert Zoldos ran against Councilman Tim Sparbanie, who had the backing of the LCRC, for Mayor. Though Zoldos did not have the LCRC putting boots on the ground for his campaign, he was, by several accounts, a Republican who ran as a non-partisan independent*. This election generated a higher than usual turnout and ended with a victory for Zoldos and his entire slate of Town Council candidates who ran together as a ticket.

* Town and City elections in the Commonwealth of Virginia are non-partisan races, but political parties are allowed to endorse and support candidates just like any other interest group.

The reason why I chose these two particular races in Loudoun County to analyze is because they had two common denominators. First, they were two of the most prominent races with two official candidates on the ballot. The second denominator is that the LCRC was involved in both of these races.

The LCRC is 0-2 this year in targeted races. Other LCRC-backed candidates did not have opposition on the ballot like Mayor Betsy Davis of Middleburg. Is the influence of the LCRC diminishing in 2012 after Republicans swept all but two seats in the county in 2011?

No, it is not.

First, the LCRC has been more focused this year on influencing legislation. The Loudoun County Republican Committee is one of the most vocal anti-Metrorail groups in Loudoun County and dissent is not welcome within its ranks. Opposing voices are ridiculed and not given a fair hearing from the supposed “party of ideas.” I know for a fact that there are very conservative Republicans within the LCRC who strongly support Phase 2 of the Dulles Rail Project, but they are too intimidated by the rabid opponents of rail to speak up and are reluctant to expend their goodwill and political capital to provide a conservative voice in support of rail. Several people in the LCRC have stated publicly that they will field primary challengers against every single Supervisor who votes for rail. As it stands, the Loudoun County Republican Committee is on the cusp of succeeding in the effort to kill Metrorail against the will of the people by putting an inordinate amount of pressure on the all-Republican Loudoun County Board of Supervisors to vote for their wishes and not that of the people.

Second, in the Leesburg Town Council race, Kelly Burk had the benefit of having strong name identification in a Democratic leaning town. She also received the assistance of the Loudoun County Democratic Committee to counter the support the LCRC gave to Dwight Dopilka. Burk was favored to win and she won.

Finally, the one race that could change my answer above from a “no” to a “hard to tell” is the Lovettsville Mayor race. Two Republicans ran against each other.

Bob Zoldos ran as a non-partisan independent with a slate of other candidates for Town Council on the Friends of Lovettsville ticket. The Friends of Lovettsville ticket was a creative, organic, and spirited campaign that expressed itself with a lot of homemade yard signs. Homemade yard signs are not a new idea, but their existence and prevalence do indicate a high level of excitement and personal investment in the campaign by its supporters.

Tim Sparbanie campaigned early within the LCRC for their support since last fall. Many people in the LCRC contributed their time and efforts on Sparbanie’s race, thus greatly increasing turnout for this election. Some thought the outcome was a slam dunk for Sparbanie due to the numbers they had of expected voters. While this race garnered a lot of interest, brought a lot of outside help from the LCRC to Lovettsville, and drove more people to the polls, Sparbanie lost 52%-48%.

Local elections, especially at the Town and City level, can be wildly unpredictable. The smaller the jurisdiction, the crazier it gets. Mayors and Council Members are more immune to the shifting national winds, but are more prone to winning and losing based on silly things like long standing generational family feuds and semi-political beefs. Everybody knows the town drunk, harlot, workaholic, whiz kid, gifted athlete, creep, bum, church lady, cat lady, debutante, beauty queen, and proverbial crazy uncle in these small towns. Nobody can stand each other, yet everybody continues to live together for years going into generations.

Fatigue from the partisanship of the LCRC in a small town, non-partisan race that pitted two Republicans against each other might be a factor tipping the election in Zoldos’ favor. Additionally, unique local issues surrounding economic development, public safety, education, environmental quality, and parks & recreation are also more important that ideological purity in these elections.

I would caution everybody to not read too much into these results. Talks of a Democratic comeback or a Republican decline is premature. Local elections are not always the best predictor for greater regional or national performance.

http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/thu-may-3-2012-lena-dunham

First, is a disclosure. Jay McConville is a client of mine and I was a consultant on his campaign. I know consultants have a tense relationship with political activists and I am okay with that. However, while I pay the bills by being a political consultant (and public relations consultant to other organizations in the entertainment industry), I am also a citizen. I am a hybrid vendor/consultant due to my numerous talents. While I have been a vendor for candidates I don’t particularly care for (I can owe up to that. It is just business.) I have fortunately, with limited exceptions, only been a consultant for candidates I would still support if I was not on staff.

Whenever possible, I want to work for the people I want to work for. Being an enthusiastic supporter of Candidate A, but getting your paycheck cut by Candidate B running against Candidate A does not seem right to me. Working for people I believe in allows me to put my talents that are in demand to work people who I truly want to see succeed. It is a win-win-win situation. First, I put food on the table. Second, I get to work for people I would vote for anyway. Finally, I do what I believe is my civic duty to put good people in leadership.

It does not matter what your political beliefs are. Good government cannot function without good people. As a result, my client roster and former bosses are very diverse and occupy a wide spectrum on the political continuum. My affiliation with a certain candidate does not give off any cues as to how liberal or conservative that candidate is. It only says that I believe this candidate is of great character and integrity and is therefore worthy of my support.

Jay McConville is a good man and he will do a good job. Period.

I played no role in the transition. I have never been asked nor did I ask for a role. I am not at all privy to any matters pertaining to the current FCRC leadership.

Let us move on to the real issue that has sparked a debate online about the direction of the FCRC. People appear to be upset with certain individuals who are on the transition team. Critics see the situation reeking of cronyism, power grabbing, and puppetry.

I am aware that a certain individual on the transition team is not viewed favorably by a segment of the FCRC and people who are privy to the FCRC (I will use FCRC as a general term throughout for people who are involved and privy to its matters. It does not denote paid membership.). In my past conversations with this segment of the FCRC, this segment perceives the individual in question to be an overeager, overambitious young kid who is waiting, planning, and scripting his life for the opportunity to run for public office well in advance. The individual is perceived to desperately want to be a relevant part of the “Establishment” by strategically kissing up to everyone in a position of authority or on the cusp of authority and by dressing and acting like the individual is twenty years older. The perception this individual gives off to this group is enough for this entire group to vote against everyone this individual openly endorses for any office. Several people of this segment have told me point blank that they would not vote for my clients because this individual’s name was on my clients’ endorsement list.

These are the words of the individual’s critics, not mine. I can’t speak for the individual’s quality of work due to my limited interactions with the individual. It doesn’t mean I think it is good or bad. I just won’t vouch for that which I have not seen up close.

Let us flip this around. The segment I am talking about contains, but is not limited to, individuals who are perceived by others to be perpetually angry and extremist in their views. This segment prides itself in being “anti-establishment” and “grassroots”. This segment was activated and inspired by then-Senator Ken Cuccinelli back in the days when individual candidates had to build standalone operations because the FCRC was so unreliable. The funny thing is that this segment was solidly behind John Cook along with the people they deride as “Establishment” and the two groups worked together at a grassroots level to get Cook elected and reelected. It was on this campaign that some of the establishment/anti-establishment beef still seen today at the local level had its roots in early 2009. Other aspects of the feud go back way longer.

These are the words of the critics and their opposition colored by my perceptions.

I have heard of the history between these two camps and I don’t care. One of the many reasons why I am no longer a dues paying member to any political party is because of silly high school beefs like this. Only in American political parties can factions be allowed to thrive antagonistically against one another for decades on end and play nice just for the cameras. If this was a business or a sports team, internal disputes would be handled in an orderly manner and if disagreements still surface, one or both parties would be cut. However, in politics, due to the institutionalized two party system in America, antagonistic factions don’t splinter into separate parties. They co-exist and thrive even as they plot for one another’s destruction within the party. If normal people really knew the amount of high school-ish drama, favoritism, and beefs that are involved among a small core of rabid activists who control the nomination process for public offices, they would revolt.

Does the individual in question come across as a young, square fuddy duddy? Yes. Does the antagonistic segment contain people who really need to smile more and stop blaming Democrats for every misfortune they personally experience or that the nation experiences? Yes. Have both sides contributed their time and talents to the GOP? Yes, countless hours on behalf of the FCRC and many candidates. Do both sides need to hug it out? By all means, yes.

Finally, the FCRC is organizing door knocking campaigns every weekend and staffing the phone banks in the basement every day. I have seen it with my own eyes. Other than aesthetic changes to the facility, it is business as usual.

Mayor Betsy Davis of Middleburg, Mayor Bob Lazaro of Purcellville*, and Mayor Scott Ramsey of Round Hill all ran for reelection unopposed and won.

* Mayor Lazaro defeated a write-in candidate.

Full, unofficial results at the time of this writing are available here.

I’d also like to thank my predecessor, outgoing National Committeewoman Joyce Lyons Tehres, and my worthy opponent, immediate past MD GOP Chairman Audrey Scott, for their loyal decades of service to the party.

Now, the hard part begins. We need to roll up our sleeves as a party and focus on the ultimate goal of building a sustainable two-party system in Maryland. I have enjoyed traveling around the state, working with, and meeting so many people who are energetic and passionate about building the GOP. I love your ideas, and I look forward to our work together. Each of us has a valuable role to play in making the future a bright one for the GOP.

I am looking forward to the time I assume office in August after the Republican National Convention. In the meantime, I’ll keep reaching out to you. Please contact me with your ideas, thoughts, and suggestions at this page. Again, thank you so much, and let’s get to work!

Nicolee Ambrose
RNC Maryland National Committeewoman – Elect
www.nicoleeambrose.com