Why is the MD GOP still searching for an Attorney General candidate?


The Maryland Republican Party finds itself without an attorney general candidate on February 21. The filing deadline is February 25 at 9 p.m.

Previously, Richard Douglas had been considering a bid for attorney general as a Republican and ultimately decided not to run. Democrats running include Aisha Braveboy, Jon Cardin, Bill Frick, and Brian Frosh.

As I reported on February 11, Michael Peroutka was planning to run for attorney general. I’ve learned today that Peroutka is definitely not running. I also have confirmed that MD GOP officials are already meeting with other potential candidates to try to find someone before the deadline. Why did Peroutka back out? That’s a good question and I will get to that in a moment. First, let’s look at some background information on the issue.

Electing an attorney general is not solely a recent problem for the MD GOP. The last Republican Attorney General in Maryland was Edward D.E. Rollins who was in office from 1952-1954. Before him, Alexander Armstrong was Attorney General from 1919-1923. Before that, there were two Republican Attorneys General in the 1890s (George Riggs Gaither, Jr. in 1899 and Harry Clabaugh from 1895-1899.) Since 1875, only the above men have been a Republican Attorney General of Maryland.

in 2010, MD GOP Chair Audrey Scott (mentor of current chair Diana Waterman) was unable to find a Republican candidate to face Doug Gansler. This allowed Gansler to raise money that he never spent that year. Some would say that Audrey Scott helped Gansler bankroll his 2014 gubernatorial bid by not finding an opponent. If the Maryland GOP doesn’t find a candidate in the next few days, they could end up helping the Democratic nominee (someone like Jon Cardin or Brian Frosh) bankroll their re-election campaign or run for another office in 2018 in the same fashion.

A Baltimore Sun story back in July discussed the four Democratic candidates who were already running and said this:

No Republicans have publicly declared an intention to run, but state GOP leaders say a few people have privately sought support and will soon step forward.

Todd Eberly of St. Mary’s College also commented on the situation at the time to The Daily Record:

“It speaks to the sorry state of the Republican party in Maryland,” said Todd Eberly, assistant professor of political science at St. Mary’s College of Maryland. “You’re not going to have Doug Gansler … you’ve got an open race, the potential for a divisive Democratic primary.

“If they want anyone to ever take them seriously, they’ve got to win some statewide offices every now and then, which means trying to build a bench instead of running these throwaway challenges.”

The Baltimore Sun reported on Tuesday that state Republican leaders have said a few potential candidates have come forward privately and that someone would soon do so publicly.

Exactly who that candidate might be, however, is a mystery to many.

“I cannot think of who in the world would even be sort of that candidate,” Eberly said.

After this news coverage, Jackie Wellfonder blogged about the situation, since it was a hot topic among Republicans at the time. Wellfonder got the following statement from MD GOP Chair Diana Waterman:

I am actively recruiting an AG candidate, having spoken with several individuals who are still thinking about entering the race. This is a very difficult position to fill. Most qualified candidates are engaged in private practice and either can’t or don’t want to leave it (understandably). I am consulting Central Committee members, attorneys, and elected officials to find a great candidate for the Republican ballot.

Greg Kline responded with a post that included this:

The good assistant professor [Eberly] is right that a lack of a candidate even being discussed does reflect poorly on the MDGOP but he his so wrong about the state party not having a bench or plenty of qualified, potential candidates.  Of course, what the hell would the faculty of St. Mary’s College ever know about Maryland Republicans? They aren’t reported upon in the Huffington Post after all.
But I digress.
On Thursday night, I shared a list of about 150 Maryland Republicans who would be qualified for the post of Attorney General.  As I explained then, I compiled the list in 10 minutes and it is far from comprehensive.  It included such well know names as Kendall Ehrlich, the 2006 AG nominee Scott Rolle, over half a dozen members of the General Assembly, a dozen or so sitting State’s Attorneys and literally scores of active Republican lawyers who hold some elected office, have run for office or are contemplating a run.
So, yes, we have a bench and we have plenty of names.
That is not the problem.
So why don’t we have a candidate or even a public name of someone seriously contemplating an AG run?
Replying to Waterman’s comments, Kline, who ran for Chairman himself against Waterman, says:
Essentially, the chairman is acknowledging there are plenty of potential candidates but the party cannot “close” any of them.
It isn’t the reason the the chairman claims.  Why would a Republican candidate have to leave a private practice? Not to run, of course, though they would have to take time away from it like everything else? If they won? Sure, but does anyone really believe the MDGOP is getting “no’s” because potential candidates are afraid they might win? We should be so lucky and besides that wouldn’t be an issue for a sitting State’s Attorney or really for a member of the legislature.
As someone who got one of these calls, and no not from the Chairman, I can tell you why they are not getting a yes.  Any potential AG candidate knows that they would be on their own running statewide.  The state party is too much focused on creating a list of people to call and too little focused on what they are going to tell the person on the other end of the phone.
As I mentioned on Thursday night, candidate recruitment isn’t about finding candidates, that is candidate scouting.  Candidate recruitment, like recruiting for a college football team, is about selling the experience and making someone want to be a part of something.
This is exactly what the party isn’t doing.
Kline also offered some suggestions:
  1. Get written commitments from every MDGOP elected official (and to the extent possible candidates) to support and, if requested, publicly endorse the party’s AG candidate.  This means using their networks to push social media contacts and encourage donations.  It means welcoming the candidate to all their events and making sure to introduce them to their supporters.
  2. Have a plan in place with every county central committee to coordinate an announcement and again push social media contacts when a candidate is announced.  A potential AG candidate shouldn’t have to spend months going to central committees to introduce themselves and ask local central committees to put the candidate in contact with local activists and clubs.  That should be standing by just waiting for someone to run.
  3. Get commitments from as many sources as possible to support the candidates fundraising efforts.  Host a fundraiser, sign a letter of support, send a letter to their network requesting that they contribute to the candidate.  The MDGOP has no money to give but it is full of members who should be standing by to help with fundraising for any candidate willing to step up to the plate.
  4. Coordinate with new media to maximize exposure of the candidate upon their announcement.  The state party has been doing a better job working with new media.  We obviously would want to talk to any MDGOP AG candidate.  This should be a no brainer.
  5. Have the MDGOP make available at the convenience of the candidate and his or her campaign all training resources.  If we are begging someone to run tell them that we will provide the training for them rather than just let them find their way to an already scheduled training.  This also means the state party makes a commitment to provide all the technical assistance they can.
Putting this together would be difficult and not without challenges but it should be the minimum the party can do to incentivize someone to run statewide and I am sure there are plenty of other things the state party can add to this list.
If the work was done putting it together, finding a candidate would be the easy part. There really is no excuse.

I remember since the summer the issue of an attorney general candidate has remained a hot topic among party insiders and activists. Many Republicans I’ve heard, including at least one Red Maryland contributor, expressed a desire for any candidate at all – the proverbial “warm body” to run. Party officials, especially since Joe Cluster became Executive Director, have been focusing on filling every race with at least one GOP contender. In addition to other reasons given for a lack of candidates, I’ve heard that the 10-year licensed to practice in Maryland requirement has ruled out some of the potential candidates. Before I reported on Michael Peroutka’s plans to run, I had been hearing that Waterman and Joe Cluster had been recruiting him and talking to him about running.

After my piece on Peroutka’s plans to run, I noticed a lot of positive reaction online among party activists and insiders. Maryland Campaign For Liberty activists seemed especially enthusiastic, but the enthusiasm that there actually appeared to be a candidate was not limited to just them. There was also an undercurrent of some who were anti-Peroutka. This mainly consisted of Red Maryland board member Mark Newgent (a friend of mine) and constitutional scholar and author Walter Olson, from New Market, along with others who agreed with them. I also recently heard indications that Peroutka might be getting cold feet before I confirmed he wasn’t running. It would seem that Peroutka decided that he might face the Maryland GOP’s circular firing squad if he filed, even if he didn’t have a primary opponent. Some of the factors Greg Kline discussed about recruiting an AG candidate might have been true for Peroutka as well. However, it was my understanding that Peroutka would be investing a large amount of his own personal fortune into a campaign had he run.I asked Walter Olson for his comments on reports that Peroutka decided not to run. Here’s what he told me:

Michael Anthony Peroutka is a longtime purveyor of eccentric (to be charitable) ideas on the U.S. Constitution, the role of religion in government, and other subjects. He was a third-party candidate in 2004 and just last fall he advised supporters to “disengage themselves from the Republican party and their brand of worthless, Godless, unprincipled conservatism.” (Shouldn’t he take his own advice?) Were he to win a statewide nomination, Democrats would have a field day trying to drag down more electable Maryland Republicans by tying them to his views. A plane with this much baggage should never get off the ground.
Olson is a published author on legal issues and is well-respected on the topics of his expertise. He is not known as someone who is solely a party activist or consultant. In addition to his criticisms of Peroutka,  Mark Newgent, who has openly said in the past he consulted for Change Maryland in 2013 and said online recently he is consulting for the Larry Hogan campaign, was critical of John Lofton. Lofton is a Peroutka associate whose interview of Larry Hogan recently went viral in Maryland GOP circles.I asked Newgent about his online comments that he couldn’t support Peroutka. His response:

I could not in good conscience support Peroutka had he become the Republican nominee for Attorney General.  His Christian reconstructionist beliefs are just as statist as any progressive vision of government.  His notion that government comes from God twists history and the words of our Founders into a bizzaro world philosophy.

I next asked Newgent if all of his criticism was related to Peroutka’s Institute on the Constitution (IOTC.) Newgent’s response:

My criticisms are mostly related to IOTC theory. I will note that I do find it hypocritical that Peroutka who believes that its not government’s role to take care of people, foisted his own step daughter on to the state.

Regarding reports that Maryland GOP leadership, including Diana Waterman and Joe Cluster, recruited Peroutka, Newgent said:

I can’t speak to the recruitment efforts of the MDGOP.  I would hope though that Peroutka was not actively pursued by the chairman or the executive director.  Its one thing to get a warm body on the ballot, but Peroutka on the ballot would in my opinion be a drag up and down the ballot.

I asked Newgent if he was concerned now that the party might not find a candidate for Attorney General before the deadline as well. His response:

Again I can’t speak to the party’s recruiting efforts, though it is disconcerting that less than five days from the deadline, no one has filed.

Newgent’s first answer would seem to go against Kline’s suggestion #1 from this summer that I listed above (getting everyone in the party to support the recruited AG candidate.)  Newgent’s criticism of Peroutka and the IOTC is pretty well explained in his comments. His remarks about Peroutka and his step-daughter relate to events detailed by Van Smith of The City Paper in 2004. At the time, Peroutka’s wife responded to the allegations in that story. I wrote before about allegations of racism that were thrown at Peroutka and the strong response he made to them. Peroutka’s IOTC also employed current controversial Delegate Don Dwyer in the past.

Additionally, Newgent is critical of the MD GOP leadership if they were recruiting Peroutka under a theory of finding a “warm body” to run. This is apparently in direct contradiction to what a Red Maryland contributor said on the air in a previous online radio broadcast.

I would agree with Newgent it is disconcerting that a candidate has not been found yet so close to the deadline. Some might disagree with his other points, however.

I talked to one Republican party insider who talked openly about the recruitment process and about frustrations that many in the party leadership had about the lack of cooperation from others in getting involved in finding a candidate for Attorney General.

This party insider told me:

There is a lot of frustration when people like Mark Newgent and Greg Kline snipe from the sidelines at the people in party leadership who are actually doing the work of recruiting candidates. What have Newgent and Kline done to help recruit candidates for attorney general? Kline is eligible to run himself, why hasn’t he considered running to help the party field a strong candidate?

The party chairman and her executive director have been working to find an attorney general candidate for months. Was Michael Peroutka the best possible candidate? No. However, he was a candidate who was willing to run and willing to spend a substantial amount of his own money on his campaign. Now we have no candidate and may end up without one again this cycle all because a few loudmouths made the perfect the enemy of the good. Michael Peroutka would have been a Republican name on the ballot in November and would have made the Democrat nominee spend money against him. That money will now help whoever that Democrat is in the next election unless a candidate can be found at the last minute.

It’s nice that people who sit on their asses and write blog posts can help attack what would have been a Republican candidate. It would be nicer if they got off their asses and helped with candidate recruitment and actually attacking Democrats. It brings to mind this quote –

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

The other piece of the recruitment efforts of the party relates to Collins Bailey. Bailey, the First Vice Chair of the MD GOP, has apparently been making the effort to recruit candidates. Bailey, who also ran against Diana Waterman and Greg Kline in the last race for chairman, uses his AOL email address (could somebody tell him about MailChimp or Constant Contact?) to blast emails out to his own personal list of people. There is no unsubscribe mechanism in the emails and I’ve heard some people claim they were added without being asked. When Bailey isn’t too busy plagiarizing Brian Griffiths, he sets up conference calls that often conflict with central committee or Republican club meetings and result in people streaming out of those meetings to get on to his calls. It appears that Bailey is using his low tech efforts to pursue his own agenda at the expense of the party’s.

There are at least three sides to every story. I’ve tried to objectively help present as many differing viewpoints regarding the situation of why the Maryland Republican Party does not currently have a candidate for attorney general and why Michael Peroutka bailed out on running. If you piece together all the divergent threads, it would be reasonable to surmise that Peroutka decided to spend his time and money on other concerns after realizing that he would be taking fire from not only Democrats regarding his baggage and his views, but also vocal Republicans who opposed his candidacy.

With the arguments about Peroutka, it would appear that it boils down to the people who would settle for having any candidate on the ballot to challenge and probably lose to the Democrats versus people who don’t want someone they see as fringe. Additionally, there are activists in the GOP who like Peroutka and what he stands for who were excited about his candidacy. I am sure they will add another set of voices that differs from that of the party establishment disagreements detailed above.

The Maryland GOP’s circular firing squad is apparently alive and well and is warmed up for another election year. It is a shame that people in a party that is so completely out of power get into fights about everything from the petty to the major. The party needs to be unified if it wants any chance of success and there are too many people in all factions who don’t seem to want to make this happen. Too many people are content fighting over scraps of bread and being a minor functionary in some level of the party that is lacking any real power.

Is there going to be a sea change in voter attitudes that changes things? Will the party be taken over by what some call the “Liberty” activists that includes the Campaign For Liberty along with other Tea Party groups? Are state parties becoming obsolete, as my friend Jackie Wellfonder asks?

Who do you agree with above? Greg Kline? Mark Newgent? Walter Olson? The party insider who spewed so much nasty vitriol towards others while refusing to go on the record? Or are you of a totally different opinion? Do you think the lack of a candidate for attorney general could be a major blow to Diana Waterman’s chances to continue as party chair?

My personal opinion is that there is plenty of blame to go around. Peroutka apparently won’t change his mind and run so the priority now is to find someone before the deadline. I’m sure there will be consequences in future fights over the direction of the party, but right now the priority for the Republican party needs to be moving foward for this year’s elections. These fights don’t make me want to become active in the Republican party honestly and I’m sure some will jump on me for that, but it’s not the role for me right now.

We shall see what happens in the days remaining for the filing deadline and then the months leading up to the primaries and the general election. I’m not confident that there will be much to celebrate in November for Maryland Republicans except maybe in the legislative and local races.

I’m sure this piece will generate a lot of comment. If you want to be heard on this matter let me know in the comments below and I’ll consider doing a follow-up with reactions to all I’ve laid out above.

Jeff Quinton

Jeff Quinton

Jeff Quinton is an award-winning blogger who has been aggregating and blogging since 1998. He has worked as a reporter, in government, and as a communications professional in Columbia, SC and Washington, DC.

Quinton is a native South Carolinian who has lived in Baltimore since 2006. He is a recent convert to the Catholic Church and is active in the Knights of Columbus. He has been involved in the pro-life movement nationally and locally since 2010.

Quinton is a veteran who served as an intelligence analyst in the Army National Guard. He is also an Eagle Scout.
Jeff Quinton


  1. A very strong piece, but there is one other angle to consider. Most voters aren’t aware of this, but a majority of the county-level State’s Attorney officeholders are Republican, and eight of the 13 ran unopposed last time. (One ran as a Democrat and has changed registration since.)

    So it could be difficult to convince a group who would otherwise serve as the “farm team” to move up – why take a chance on a supposedly unwinnable race when the chances are good that you can hold a county-level position (with good pay and benefits) as long as you want? There were only seven contested races last time and the GOP won five.

    If the GOP doesn’t make a stand in this election, though, they may as well sit the next one out, too, unless Jon Cardin’s uncle decides to retire and he makes AG the political stepping stone.

    Also worth pointing out: the “drop-dead” date on this is really March 3rd. That’s the deadline for committees to fill vacant ballot positions, and it’s a week shorter than in was in 2010. I’m told the state party meets March 1 so they have an agenda item.

  2. Is it possible that Mark Newgent and Greg Kiline knocked out Peroutka because they didn’t like him as well as a means to hurt Diana Waterman’s ability to continue on as MD Republican Chair? I don’t know any of them – all I know is somethings I’ve read by and about the first two and about the second two. I’m just asking is all I’m doing.

  3. The first thing I notice about the criticism of Michael Peroutka by Mr. Olson and Mr. Newgent is that their respective remarks are a rhetorical, drive-by shooting. They cite nothing specific he has ever said and refute nothing he has ever said. For example, Mr. Olson says that Michael Peroutka “is a longtime purveyor of eccentric (to be charitable) ideas on the U.S. Constitution, the role of religion in government…” Really? Such as? Well, such as — nothing. No examples are cited by Mr. Olson of any specific “eccentric” views. Mr. Newgent says re: Michael Peroutka: “His Christian reconstructionist beliefs are just as statist as any progressive vision of government.  His notion that government comes from God twists history and the words of our Founders into a bizzaro world philosophy.”

    So, what are Michael Peroutka’s ideas about the US Constitution and “the role of religion in government?” Well, first, he believes there IS a US Constitution. He believes it is the highest man-made law in our country. He believes it is a document our government officials take an oath about and swear to uphold and obey. Is this an “eccentric” view? Not at all. Next, “the role of religion in government.” Michael Peroutka is not a “religionist.” He is a Bible-believing Christian. Thus, he believes that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Lord of and over all things, including government. He believes all governments must obey God and His Word or we get what we have now — Godless government which is disastrous. Is this an “eccentric” view? Not at all. It is a solidly Biblical view of civil government.

    Finally, a correction re: something Mr. Newgent says. If we had Christian government that obeyed God it would be much smaller and hugely less expensive than the Godless government we have now. Thus, what Michael Peroutka believes is NOT “just as statist as any progressive vision of government.” Such an assertion is embarrassingly ignorant since there would be no Welfare State under Godly government. Under Godly government giving people health care, welfare, education would be a private matter, would be the role of Christians and other voluntary groups just like it was in America for centuries until roughly up to FDR in the 1930s.

    One more correction, please: Mr. Newgent says Michael Peroutka’s “notion that government comes from God twists history and the words of our Founders into a bizzaro world philosophy.” This is false. His notion that government comes from, is ordained by, God comes from the New Testament, Romans 13:1-7 and has been believed and taught by Christians for more than 20 centuries. And in the Declaration of Independence our Founders said our rights come from the “Creator” God and that it is the purpose of government to protect these God-given rights. The truly “bizarro world” is the world that denies what Michael Peroutka believes which is really nothing more than orthodox, Bible-believing Christianity.

    John Lofton
    Director, The God And Government Project
    Institute On The Constitution

    • Still no specifics from Mr. Olson proving ANY “errors.” Disputation is NOT refutation. He seems not to understand that.

      John Lofton
      Director, The God And Government Project
      Institute On The Constitution

  4. It seems to me that both Olson and Newgent support status quo government, and in doing so take the advice of Vladimir Lenin: never debate your adversary on the facts, attack him with invective.

  5. Hi Jeff,
    Ah… I actually have never sat on my ass and have recruited solid GOP candidates to run for office. Most recently, working along with Richard Douglas & Anne McCarthy. Personally, having worked tirelessly for the last 20 years on National, State, & Local races.
    Unfortunately the uninspiring “rite of passage meetings” with the MD GOP Annapolis State Party Leadership have been the most defeating meetings. I have found the vetting process to unprofessional and tough to make excuses to potential candidates who have had to overcome the “trama” after Audrey’s “mission of mercy” tenure. No successful GOP Statewide Candidate or Local Candidate in MD has ever won due to the dysfunctional relationships between the State Party and the Candidate’s Campaign Organization dating back to the “Pelura years”… Jim was a nice guy but should have resigned sooner rather than later from his post as MD GOP Chairman. The MD GOP Executive Leadership waited abit too long to formally hold their “no confidence vote on Chairman Pelura”…
    Funny how we are the “Party of Accountability” but often would prefer to point the finger at others rather than take a long honest look in the mirror. We, MD Republicans sadly have a history of eating our own rather than staying message disciplined and winning the seat at the end of the day. We have proven in the past that it’s not about the money race. It’s about having the right message and the right inspirational candidate with a clear vision but most importantly understanding we need to collectively come together on Election Day to cross the finish line and win. I feel for the current Excutive Director, Joe Cluster. He has a tough job and unfortunately our State Party’s dysfunction does not affectively equip the current job position of Executive Director with the tools to succeed. Poor Joe.
    I know with the right candidate and team, the MD Attorney General’s is a winnable seat in November. However, I place my confidence in the Candidate and their organization verses the MD GOP State Party Leadership to actually pull it off. Sadly though as of February 24th, no one credible has been secured yet by the MD GOP State Party Leadership to complete the 2014 State-wide slate. Why???
    Unbelievable in the current political climate. If the MD GOP Chairperson fails to recruit crediable, electable Republicans to run at least for the top Constitutional Offices in our State by the filing deadline, I hope the MD GOP hold the MD GOP Leadership accountable for not being true Leaders. Hopefully, at the end of the current Chairperson’s tenure, we will at least have enough money in the MD GOP State Party’s bank account be able to buy band-aids for Joe’s war wounds.

  6. EJ,
    Thanks for the comment but had you read the most recent posts (this one was Friday morning) you’d see a candidate filed today.

    Additionally, the comments about people sitting on their asses was not made by me, but a source as I noted.

    • Hi Jeff,
      Yes, I am aware of the timeline of your blog. Sadly, the rumor became an actual factor today. Also, I am aware of the “political insider” as well as their remarks about arse sitting. Apparently, you missed my snarky tone in “credible & electable” remark. No worries.
      Keep up the great reporting despite the current MD GOP State Party Leadership lack of vision to grow our Party of Lincoln in the Free State.

  7. Mark Newgent’s attack on “The God And Government Project” exposes nothing other than his Biblical illiteracy concerning Scripture and his ignorance regarding the history of our country. For much of our earlier history — including while we were still colonies — preachers were invited by elected bodies to appear before them to deliver what were called “Election Sermons.” The purpose of these sermons was the same as the purpose of “The God And Government Project” — to tell elected officials what God requires of them and that civil government is ordained by God (Romans 13:1-7). Thus, the first duty of elected officials is to obey God, to administer His Law.

    In the book “Religion In American History: Interpretive Essays” (Prentice-Hall, 1978), in a chapter titled “The Election Sermons,” A.W. Plumstead tells us that the custom of opening the annual General Court in May with an election sermon was unique to New England. Such sermons were given in Connecticut (1674- 1830), New Hampshire (1784-1831), in Vermont (1777-1834) and the Massachusetts Bay Colony (1634-1884).

    And the “Election Sermon” was more than an address to the individual conscience, we are told: “It was the center of a ritual in which a community gave thanks and took stock. As one contemporary observer put it, it was a time ‘when the heads of our tribes are met together in a solemn assembly to give thanks to the God of heaven for the many great and distinguishing privileges, both civil and religious, which we are favored with; and to ask direction and a blessing from on high, upon all the administrations of government in the land….’”

    In his book “Jerusalem Instructed And Warned” (Boston, 1725), Ebenezer Thayer says if election preachers were to offer thanks for greatness received, they were also to be “watchmen upon Jerusalem’s wall, whose proper business is to descry dangers, and give seasonable notice thereof; to observe the sins of the times, and the awful symptoms of God’s departure.” Colonial preachers had a deep and nervous sense of their role as prophets and “watchmen,” and the election sermon was the high point of this responsibility.

    The subject of one election sermon in 1694 — “The Character Of A Good Ruler” — became the most frequent topic in the “Election Sermon” tradition, accounting for over half of such sermons until 1775. Plumstead says: “The ideal Councilman to be elected (and the ideal Governor whom, they hoped, the King had appointed) must be wise, Godly, just….”

    Well, amen! It is important to be ruled by Godly people because Godly government is a blessing. If we are not ruled by Godly people then we get what we have now, Godless government, which is a disaster in every respect — trillions of dollars of debt; unGodly, unConstitutional wars; millions murdered by abortion and much more that is evil.

    John Lofton, Director
    The God And Government Project