Search This Blog


Friday, May 22, 2015



This has been the question that everyone in Washington County has been asking since the announcement of his choice for appointment as county commissioner by the Washington County Republican Central Committee (WCRCC). This is the first and last time that I will write about a person. I am an activist and political commentator. I do not conduct interviews, and I do not write about people. I write about issues. A few people suggested that I ask for the interview. I did, and I got it. It didn’t turn out like I expected. This article is much longer than most of my other posts, and my opinion changed between the time that I conducted the interview and when I finished writing about it. I will start with a little history for those who have not been following the Washington County Republican appointment brouhaha.


The appointment of Senator Christopher Shank by Governor Hogan as the new executive director of the Governor's Office of Crime Control and Prevention on January 21, 2015, caused a domino effect of open seats in Washington County. The WCRCC was tasked by the Maryland State Constitution to submit names to the governor for the seats of senator, delegate (District 2A,) and county commissioner. The appointments for senator and delegate have been made, and Senator Andrew Serafini and Delegate William J. Wivell have been officially sworn in.  

The appointment for commissioner has also effectively been made except for a few formalities. This is because the Appointments Office had closed for the session before this appointment could be officially completed. I am told that the governor must accept the name submitted by the WCRCC, but that the Senate will vote to accept or deny it when the new session begins in January 2016, and that it is not likely that they will vote to deny. Vincent “Woody” Spong has been sworn in as the acting commissioner until it becomes official at that time.

All of the appointments have been reported to have caused at least some degree of discord between many of those in the Republican Party and the WCRCC, but none like the selection of Woody Spong. The Herald Mail published articles and there were a few articles written on-line that questioned if Commissioner Terry Baker influenced the appointment. There have been social media debates and disagreements, letters have been written to the WCRCC questioning the process, one email was written asking for the resignation of Chairman Showe, and it is rumored that five local Republicans with money and influence even called the governor’s office.  

I first interviewed the Chairman of the WCRCC for his perspective on the process, the outcome, and the public response regarding all of the appointments. That can be read by clicking on the link: Interview with Steven Showe. That article was received by many as informative and even restorative, while others felt that it presented either mistaken or intentional misinformation given either by Showe and/or myself. Clearly there continues to be mistrust and discord in the Party. As for myself, I will begin by repeating in part the disclaimer provided in the Showe article. 


I had no prior connection to Vincent “Woody” Spong before this interview. I am a Conservative activist and blogger. I normally do not conduct interviews or write about people, preferring to write about issues. I have 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, 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. Full disclosure: Even though it has no connection to the WCRCC appointment of Commissioner Spong, I am currently a contracted employee for Delegate William Wivell in a politically benign position as a social media consultant. I also compile data for him into document form, one day a week working from home. I will reserve stating my opinion on Mr. Spong’s appointment until the end of this article. 

All of the information about Woody Spong was taken directly from a 2-hour, face-to-face interview with him. Any contradictions or errors in facts are his own. I began by asking general background information about family, education, and his work history.


    Woody Spong is 71-years old, and has been a lifelong citizen of Washington County. He lived in Williamsport for about 12 years, moving to Hagerstown at age 20 where he has remained.  He is married to Connie Spong. They have one daughter and one granddaughter who is the apple of his eye.     

Education and Work History/Career
    Spong’s first job out of high school was at the Washington County Hospital in the Housekeeping Department. He also worked at Pangborn as a clerk and at the Herald Mail in the Circulation Department before heading off to college at the University of Maryland. He paid for his room, but ran the kitchen at the fraternity house, washing dishes, preparing the menu, and ordering inventory to pay for his board (food, etc.). Tuition was $200, but after teaching for two years the state forgave the tuition. He graduated in 1967 with a degree in Education, and went on to get his Master’s Degree in School Administration at Western Maryland College (now McDaniel College).

    Mr. Spong was a teacher for 10 years and a school principal for 22 years. His last assignment as principal was at Salem Avenue Elementary School for 16 years, which earned the National Blue Ribbon Award of Excellence in 1998. Spong retired from the school system in 1999. After retiring he was the executive director of Leadership Hagerstown for five years, and a hunting guide for the Woodmont Rod & Gun Club for five years.  

    Education has clearly been his passion and career choice, but when I asked him what is passion is he jokingly said that his real passion was “teasing the students.”  Besides education, he has been an avid observer of local politics and active “behind the scenes”. He said that he is well versed on all of the commissioners who have served over decades and the issues that they faced in there time in office.  After retiring he became very active pursuing his hobby in showing his beloved retriever dogs and often served as a field trial judge.  

    There was a lot of concern expressed over Spong having once been a Democrat, and also that he has never campaigned or held an elected office, so I wanted to spend a significant amount of time on this subject.

    Woody Spong first became involved in politics at stuffing envelopes and handing out literature door-to-door for the JFK campaign. He said, “I admired that man, and like most of the people in this country, I was really sad when he was killed. For young people…he was someone who could get you stirred up, and that’s what got me into politics.”

    Spong expressed some frustration that none of the recent articles mentioned that he was the treasurer for Herb McElwee’s unsuccessful campaign for Delegate of District 3A in 1974. He stated that McElwee was a Republican and his next door neighbor. McElwee was the president and owner of Superior Dairy. Spong said that he was  “twisted” on party principles, and that he and McElwee agreed on some things but not everything. He mainly agreed to act as treasurer because “he was a neighbor and he asked him”. However, I did my own research and found that McElwee was actually a Democrat. When I asked Mr. Spong about McElwee, he said that he honestly thought that he was a Republican, but that it didn’t matter to him. He said, “He was a friend. It was a favor.” I will mention this again and with further detail later in my opinion summary.

   Next he served as treasurer for John Salvatore’s campaign for Delegate. Salvatore was a Democrat and his brother-in-law. Salvatore asked him to help him on his campaign. Spong felt that Salvatore, having served as a state’s attorney, was a “law and order guy” and that was important to him at the time more than any other issue. He said, “I liked him, so I did it.”

   Spong voted Republican for years before changing his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican in 2006. He thinks that he first voted Republican in Ronald Reagan’s second campaign for president and then continued to vote straight Republican since that time. He feels that people are saying that he is “not Republican enough” because he has only officially been a Republican for 9 years. He isn’t quite sure how to defend that supposition. He feels that he gets a little more conservative every day. He said, “You know there is a saying that inside every young Democrat there is an old Republican. I see things a lot differently the older that I get.” When asked hypothetically if there was a Conservative scale, from 1 to 10 with 10 being most Conservative, where he would place himself fiscally, he said that he would be a 10. He said, “I believe that this county needs to pay back more than it borrows at this time. My ultimate goal would get us to be pay-as-you-go. That was Bill Wivell’s feeling too.”  When asked where he would rate himself on that scale socially he said, “Socially it would be between 5 and 10 depending on the issue. I try to be good to people.” 

    Many have repeatedly pointed out that he was the president of the teacher’s union for two years, which is typically a Liberal alliance. He pointed out that it was in his 5th & 6th year of his career at age 30. He said, “Apparently after 40 years I still must have the stench of being president.” I think that speaks to the hyperbole being used regarding this position that he held so long ago to try to discredit him as a Conservative.   


Woody Spong denied that he refused anyone an interview. He does regret that he was not prepared to be interviewed the night of the swearing-in ceremony by WHAG TV. It was a special evening with family, friends, and some supporters. He was in the moment and it caught him off guard. He wished he had told the reporter that he would be happy to give them a full interview if they would call him the next day to set up a time. He said, “I couldn’t even remember what I said to the newspaper until I saw it the next day. I wasn’t bushwacked. She [WHAG] was sincerely asking a good question. She just asked me at the wrong time.”   

Spong said that there is only one person who he would not give an interview (an opinion writer with his own website), so I asked him why. He said, “I think he has an agenda. He wants to abuse me. Everybody I know strongly recommends staying away from him. ” This is based on a couple of articles written on his website and the antagonistic emails sent to Chairman Showe about his appointment. Spong read in one of these articles that he had supposedly refused to be interviewed by Jim Miller, the CEO of After Five Productions and the Executive Producer of Antietam Cable Channel 30’s The Flip Side, not once, but twice. Spong denied this stating, “Whether that guy has called or emailed me, I don’t know. I probably have over 200 emails on the office computer. I don’t get on the computer, and not very often I get on Facebook to see what my friends are doing. If it’s not right there I don’t scroll around to find out. Before I became commissioner I had 1300 emails [personal email account] that I hadn’t opened…that had accumulated over my lifetime at the computer.” He went on to say, “The point I am trying to make is that I am not really a social media guy. I try to take care of some of those emails every time that I get on.” I asked if he thought that the emails may be a problem for him.  He answered, “I’ve made up my mind. I’m going in there almost every day to try to take care of them.” I asked if he would go to his Facebook page more often? “Probably not. I don’t want to get hurt.” 

This led me to ask the obvious question as to whether or not he plans to be more accessible to the public. Will you be going to more events, answering phone calls, answering letters and emails? He answered, “As best I can…Yes! Yes, I am going to answer them. I’m not trying to avoid anybody. Other than the WHAG reporter I have not told anyone that I needed more time.  I’ve told Lovelace [Herald Mail] anytime you want to talk to me you call me. I said I know it’s your job. I will do everything I can do to help you.” 

I asked him if he thought that the Herald Mail has been fair to him. He said, I was disappointed in the one [managing editor, Jake Womer] saying that me being a friend of Terry Baker’s means that I will vote for his programs. But on the other hand Terry Baker had the most votes of anybody ever in Washington County. I was disappointed in that because when I ran a school I was my own man and tried to make the school what I thought it could be.  After going to a workshop called Developing a Vision…that changed the way I looked at things. My vision was that Salem Avenue was going to be the best school in the county and we were.” He also was disappointed in Mr. Wormer’s remarks because he attended a Leadership Hagerstown class when Mr. Spong was involved and he said, “I thought he knew me better and thought better of me.”    


Most of the complaints about Mr. Spong’s appointment surround his relationship with Terry Baker. The implication by some was that Commissioner Baker wanted Spong to run so that he would have an ally on the Board [How is this worse than the brother-in-laws?], but the more serious accusation was that he may have influenced the appointment. I approached this in the Interview with Steven Showe, but I wanted to hear from Mr. Spong directly. Also, after I posted the interview with Showe, there was some blowback regarding this claim. One person called to “report” a meeting in a bar between Showe, Baker, and Spong as evidence of collusion. There was no evidence of this meeting, it was told to me off-the-record, and this person had a personal problem with Steve Showe, was personally disappointed with who was not appointed, and had political aspirations of their own. Therefore, I did not give it much credence. I asked Spong about it later in this interview.    

Woody Spong said that he has been friends with Terry Baker for 35 years, long before he served as treasurer for Baker’s campaign for commissioner in 2006. He became friends with Baker in 1980 when he met him while out jogging. They would talk while running, but Baker was a faster runner making it hard to continue a conversation. This led to meeting in Spong’s home for friendly political discussions. According to Mr. Spong, before this appointment they were not the type of friends always on the phone or frequenting one another’s homes. Spong has never been to Baker’s home. They didn’t vacation or spend holidays together. They did go fishing together a couple of times a year.  

Spong said that Baker often called him to let him know what is going on politically and also to ask his advice. Spong recounted when Baker was “really waffling around on Emerald Pointe”. He told Baker, “Terry, you vote no. Don’t you vote for that. The people don’t want it.” Terry was the only vote against it, and Spong said that it was the right vote. 

The following answers are direct quotes. 

Did Commissioner Baker ask you to apply for the position?
Yes. He said you need to run for commissioner. He said you will be the best commissioner there [laughing]. It often came up over the years that I should run for commissioner. 

Did he ask you to do so as an alliance?
No. Why wouldn’t I vote for his programs if he has 26,000 voting for him? For two elections in a row he has been the top vote getter. If I’m going to represent the people I’ve got to look at that. He is a solid Conservative and so am I. I tell you what, Bill Wivell would have voted the same as him also. Wivell and him were an alliance. I bet they would vote together every time. I am not a puppet. We do have like minds.  

Would you vote independently if you and he did not agree?
Sure. We’ve talked about that. We have had that discussion and we understand that will probably happen.  

Can you think of one issue that you might have voted differently than him?
Yes, the recycling fee at the dump. He voted for it.  I would have voted against it.  

Why didn’t you ever run for commissioner?
 I never had the time before I retired, and then after I retired my time was taken up with the dog trials.  

How is that different now?
My dogs aren’t competing anymore due to age and other factors, and I would not be getting a new dog to start over again.  

Did you think that Baker had the pull to get you appointed?
I never thought about that. He told me that he was confident that I would interview the best. 

This lead to a discussion about the reported bar incident: 
    I told Mr. Spong that someone is questioning Steve Showe’s claim that he didn’t know that Spong had any connection to Terry Baker until two days before the vote. They said that is untrue because they report seeing you, Baker, and Showe at the bar together after the March Republican Club meeting where he had stood up and announced that he had applied for the appointment. Spong immediately denied that he was at the bar with Showe, stating “They didn’t see Showe there. It was Jeff Cline and some guy that I don’t know. The seating at the bar was: the unknown guy, Terry, me, and then Jeff Cline.” Spong said he didn’t know who Showe was at the time, but now that he knows, he can state for sure that he was not sitting at the bar with them. I have since asked Showe about this claim and he said that he saw Terry and Jeff sitting at the bar and stopped to say hello as he passed them in the bar, but he did not sit with them. I asked if he and Terry Baker were sitting together at the meeting prior? He said no because Baker arrived late and sat in the back. Someone who is prone to gossip is spreading this “bar meeting” scenario via social media as if there were “many” claiming to have witnessed it. I had one person call me, and as I said early, this person had too much personally invested to be taken seriously when there was no evidence, no one to back it up, and they wanted their identity to be kept anonymous. Only a tabloid would run with that story.  

    Spong went on to say, “I would never question their [the committee’s] integrity. Jim Warner would not let anything like that happen and Steve Showe seems like a good chairperson. I’ve talked to him since and my sense is that he didn’t even vote for me.” His sense would be right. I was told by Showe off-the-record at the time of his interview that he did not vote for Spong. Since then, Showe has told others and it seems to be public knowledge, so I am glad to finally be able to say it. Steve Showe did not vote for Woody Spong. He is defending the decision of the group and taking the heat for the outcome that he did not choose. He didn’t want anyone to know because he wanted to keep the group united and the Party to heal and move on. The vote was 4-2 and Showe and one other person, unknown to me, did not vote for him. So this bar meeting scenario becomes a moot point.  


“I bet besides Bill McKinnley no one knows more about local politics and issues than I do. I am a government geek. I have been since I read Woodward and Bernstein’s book about Nixon’s impeachment. That really hooked me. I pay attention to local politics. I’ve been following the Board of Commissioners and recognize almost everyone of them from 1970 to my time. I’ve been very interested in what they have done, what they have said, and what’s been reported.” 

People have complained that they don't know where Mr. Spong stands on local issues. I know that the Central Committee asked for an essay for his top three priorities. He said that they were education, volunteer fire & emergency medical services (EMS), and economic development. I asked if he had a copy of his essay and he said that he did not. I asked if I could request a copy from the committee and he said that he would have no problem with me getting a copy. However, once the committee forwarded a copy of his essay to him, he refused to let me see it. I asked for it because I thought it may actually help him because his is answers regarding issues were not very comprehensive. He told me that he had given me an interview and that was all that I was going to get. I was stunned by the change in his attitude. “There is too much going on and I don’t want anything else getting out there.” So this is it: 

The following answers are Spong’s direct quotes. 


You were in the education field for many years. Do you see a difference in the challenges facing educators today?
The pressure is much greater on the people [teachers and principals] today than during my time. There is a great deal of pressure not only to perform but to do clerical duties. They have to enter grades on the computer. There is a lot more record keeping and paperwork for teachers. They don’t take anything away. They just pile on. Those people work hard.  

Where do you stand on the BOE having the ability to independently borrow $10M?
I am opposed to it, but it doesn’t matter. Serafini [Annapolis] is the one who will decide. The county commissioners have no power except to voice opposition. We can’t vote on it, but I oppose it.  

Why do you oppose it?
Because paying back that loan: we are going to give them money every year and then they have to find the money out of the money given to them by the county commissioners to pay back the interest on the loan. I think they said it would be less than one percent, but I don’t want any money that is given to the school system by the county commissioners to be used to pay back a debt.  

How about money for the downtown Academic Hub?
They [BOE] have taken $4M out of their reserve fund and allocated that, it hasn’t been used, but it’s earmarked to go downtown to the education hub. They asked the City for $1.5M. My understanding is they’ve asked the County for another $4M, plus a bond for $6M. I can’t seem to find out the expected total cost, but that’s $15M. What is a boutique school anyway? I would like to help the City. I would like to help the BOE. But I can’t. They are like piranhas right now grabbing for dollars.  

Do you oppose the Academic Hub strictly based on finances, or are you concerned that resources meant for “regular” public schools are being given to schools like BISFA and perhaps other specialty schools?
That is a true statement. I feel that’s the way it is going to be. But for the most part it is the money issue. Plus just before I was sworn in, they [BOE] asked to transfer $750,000 at the end of this year, and I don’t know from what account, to the reserve fund. So eventually that will go to the downtown hub. It is just too much too fast. I have no idea what a boutique school is or what they are going to do because they haven’t said [anything definite]. 

The commissioners are paying $4M for the retirement fund at the state of Maryland. That started a year or two ago. We took on that burden, $4M this year and I think it’s supposed to be $5M next year. They kind of forget that when they come and ask for money. It’s like we haven’t given them anything, but I think education has been pretty well taken care of. They do get the largest part of the budget. 

Economic Growth: Do you have a plan for attracting and maintaining businesses and good paying jobs to the county?
I did provide a plan. I think it was a question on the Internet. I had to name top three priorities and what I would do to improve it. My top three priorities were education, volunteer fire & EMS, and economic development. I don’t think I have a copy. My daughter might have a copy because she did the typing. I had ideas. A plan is more complex.  

I would make some changes. Do you ever actually see or hear what is being done in Washington County? I know that they always say that they can’t say but they have a big company coming or something. Do you know why we lost Campbell Soup, or whatever it was, over in West Virginia? They needed 370 contiguous acres and they were told that we didn’t have it. I think we could have came up with it if someone had approached neighboring farmers [and landowners]. I think they should have had someone to do the work to accommodate them. It bothers me that people who are hired to find prospective locations for these big businesses can pick up the Herald Mail and we look like the murder capital of the world. It’s always on the front page. I’m sure they look at the newspaper. I’m sure they look at the workforce. I am sure they look at education. We certainly get a star in education right now. I think we can put things together to train a workforce. I believe if we needed some kind of machinists to qualify that the community college could set one up real quick. We are not going to get scientific companies to come to the county until we get a four-year college. If I was a scientific company I wouldn’t settle in downtown Hagerstown. I’d settle near University Maryland. I would be willing to pay the economic director a percentage of the value of the businesses that they bring in. [There were a few additional ideas offered off-the-record.]  

Do you have any ideas about improving how the county conducts business like bidding for contracts, etc.? Many are concerned that people may be able to profit from decisions made by the Board, such as Board members or friends and/or relatives and/or business associates of Board members.  
I can’t answer that at all. I haven’t been involved yet to know. I will say this, that the short time that I have been involved they have really good people working for them. I haven’t really thought about bids and purchases. I believe there are ethics rules in place. I think in Frederick County a sitting county commissioner cannot get a bid for county projects. I do believe in that.  

Would you support funding a new stadium in Hagerstown?
No, absolutely not. If we had given them money we certainly wouldn’t have had any money to give to the school board.  

How much would you agree should be spent by the county for the current Hagerstown redevelopment plan?
I like that they are doing something and they are doing something different. You know, there is such a thing as in-kind services. This may be off the wall, but why couldn’t our roads department do something for them to help put in the trails? We’d pay salaries and they would pay for materials. We could loan them in-kind services. I’m not interested in giving money, but I would look at something like that.  

I-81 is a big bad bear and isn’t moving very fast. The county doesn’t have the money to get involved in I-81 except maybe to lobby. I don’t have any other thoughts about transportation at this time.          

Volunteer Fire & EMS
I am all for the volunteers. My heart goes out to those people. I don’t know if the Fairplay station should be given back. I didn’t pay too much attention to that at that time. I don’t know the particulars. It’s in courts now and whatever they decide is what we’ll do. But I want to prop the volunteers up. [He offered no details on how he would prop them up.] They are the biggest asset that Washington County has. If they stopped their runs and we didn’t have volunteers…you talk about taxes. They do have a recruiter now. They need some office power like a secretary to follow up with prospective volunteers. I don’t think the county needs more control over the administration of these fire stations. They have enough control. Anymore would be meddling. I don’t know if we should relinquish any control. I am willing to talk about it.          

Do you have any ideas on agriculture?
I don’t have any ideas and I wish I did for the farmers. There is another group of people that my heart goes out to. They are hard workers. I don’t know if they’ve ever asked for anything.
What do you think about Plan Maryland?
I am not familiar with that.  

Thoughts on county taxes?
I am really amazed that the county has been able to hold the line on their taxes for 16 years. I don’t want to be on the Board when they raise them. I fear the time will come when it may be necessary. I will never say never, but my intention going in here is not to raise taxes…and fees are taxes. If I see where we are falling behind on infrastructure, or schools, or fire and police then I may consider a raise in taxes.  

Bond Issuance
Selling bonds is debt. I imagine that is how we finance the debt. I’d be very cautious about voting for new bonds. Seven percent of the budget goes to paying back debt. Supposedly we can go to 10 percent and still be in very good shape. 


I ended the interview by asking Mr. Spong if there was anything that he would like people to know about himself, the process, or about how he will serve. I asked, “Is there anything that you want to say?” He said: 

“I’m not Terry Baker’s lackey, but if I vote with him it doesn’t mean that he is controlling me. I believe we will be of like mind, and I’m filling Bill Wivell’s shoes who would have voted with him. I’m certain they would have voted as a bloc. So don’t look at me that I’m controlled by anybody. Terry would never do that. He is not like that. He is one of the nicest people you will ever meet. Kind, very kind person. He would never tell me what to do. I know that he wouldn’t. He respects me.” 

Spong said that he thinks that the process was legit and fair. He did everything that they asked him to do including an application, an essay, and a cover letter. I asked if Baker helped him to prepare any of those things and he said that he did not. He finished by saying, “I don’t think there is any reason to question the integrity of that group. I was amazed actually with the strength of the people [on the Central Committee]. That comes from the job that I had before. I picked my own teachers and I interviewed people. My sense immediately was the strength in that room. My point being that any observation of them being led or twisted…I don’t think Terry has any power to twist any of those arms.” 


Appointment Process
   The process is determined by the state constitution. The members of the committee are elected unless filling a vacant seat between elections. The members fill that vacancy. The committee is tasked to fill the vacancies of senator, delegate, and commissioner by providing the governor with the name of the person that they have chosen. They are required to give one name, but may give more than one. There is no process spelled out for the committee to follow in order to make that choice. If the citizenry do not like the process they are free to do the work to pass an amendment to the constitution.  

    I maintain that the committee performed their duties as required by the state constitution using all available information and with complete integrity. Mr. Showe clearly did not strong arm anyone to vote for Spong, having himself voted against him. There was another member who did not vote for Spong. I did not interview the other four members who voted for Spong, but there has been nothing or no one to implicate them. 

Appointment of Woody Spong 
    This is the part that I dread. I don’t want to give my opinion about a person, especially one who has not voted or offended my politics in any way because he simply hasn’t even had a chance to do. If he had voted to spend millions of dollars on a new stadium I would be all over him. He hasn’t done a thing to merit criticism, but if he had campaigned for this position he certainly would have been under intense scrutiny by the public, the media, and bloggers like myself. That said, I think the public deserved this interview. They deserve to know where he stands on issues. They deserve to know the person who is representing them. So here goes: 

I personally would not have voted for Woody Spong for this position.
    By all appearances he is a good man, a family man, and he has worked hard all of his life and was an asset to the education of the children of our community. He has lived amongst us (meaning the community, not myself as I am a “transplant”) all of our lives. He is one of us. He knows the people. He knows the history. He knows the culture, and he knows the politics. He is pure Washington County. 

    Regarding his political “journey”, I am not convinced that his involvement politically was inspired by a deep allegiance to the principles of either Party. It appears that his hands-on experience serving as treasurer on at least three campaigns for candidates of both parties was inspired mostly by being a good friend or relative of a candidate. McElwee was a neighbor, Salvatore was his brother-in-law, and Terry Baker was his friend. As he said about McElwee when I pointed out that he was wrong about to which Party he belonged, “It didn’t matter. He was a friend and it was a favor.”  I do believe, however, that at this time he is a conservative man. He may not be able to recite the Republican Party platform, but he truly espouses Conservative principles. I am personally comfortable that he will be a Conservative vote that would be close to how William Wivell would have voted, which is who he is replacing, so in my opinion it is fitting. I think it is time to stop looking for the hidden Democrat tattoo or devil horns and accept that the man is a Conservative.  

    I don’t think that Spong is avoiding the media. I think that he is uncomfortable with the media. He is not accustomed to having their interest. He is not used to people writing and reporting about his every word. He is inexperienced. In addition, he has been maligned by baseless implications. He is not used to having to defend himself in public at an instance notice. Only experienced politicians can handle that circus. He is not an experienced politician. He is just getting started. I do not believe he has anything to hide or any guile towards the media. He just needs some time to get used to the water in the deep end.  

    On the issues, I gave you his answers. I don’t think he has any deeper of a grasp on the facts than the average reader of the Herald Mail. I would have preferred more. That may be all that is needed. I’m all for average Joe-citizen serving their community. I think that anyone can see by those answers that he espouses Conservative principles. I was disappointed that he reneged on his promise to let me see his essay. I think it would have been helpful. 

    I would have voted for a candidate who is more computer savvy. This is a common skill that is becoming crucial if you want to serve as an elected official. You have to be willing and able to at least easily answer an email. Social media may not be as crucial but it is quickly becoming the primary way for politicians to communicate with their constituents.  

    I do not think that Terry Baker had anything to do with his appointment or that he will be an extension of Baker. He is his own man. He is more of a friend and a good guy than a politician, but I believe his vote will belong to him.  

    I do think that Woody Spong is going to have to grow some thicker skin. As any commissioner could probably relate, not everyone is going to agree with his choices. People may question him and they can sometimes do so in a most public and obnoxious manner. You have to be able to take it. You have to be able to respond in a dignified and insightful manner. When I pointed out that he was wrong about the Party that McElwee represented he was downright spooked. The man who had taken the time to let me interview him in his home and invited me to call back with questions, was now skittish and defensive and couldn’t get me off of the phone fast enough. He refused to give me the essay, as if I was going to use it in someway against him, when I was only trying to enhance his presentation on the issues. If he was intimidated by that minor misunderstanding and request…he is in for a huge helping of some very strong coffee.  

    He is a good man. He deserves to be treated with respect. He is not the man that I would have chosen. He was chosen, so I’m over it. I choose my battles, and I’m pretty sure this one is over and everyone has gone home. I will be watching to see how he votes on issues. After all that is what it is all about…issues, issues, issues.




Tuesday, April 28, 2015

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 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...

Monday, March 2, 2015

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.

Thursday, February 26, 2015

The New Uniparty in D.C.


    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  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.

    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.


   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, 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.

   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! This along with some other strategies that I will be writing about in future posts.