"Giannell and Carton both said Friday they will consider running for chairman following Oxley's announcement." ---Asbury Park Press 05/13/06
Peter Carton and Jim Giannell. A 3 piece suit and a running suit. Establishment and grass roots. Both well respected throughout the party. A peferct team to lead and heal our party. A team to unite us and lead us to victory.
Get together for lunch or a round of golf gentlemen. Work it out. Who will be Chair? Who will be Vice Chair? Who will be responsible for what will be the easy part, given your different but complimentary talents.
This team can give us a party that is clean, well respected, well funded, well informed on all levels, and united.
Work it out gentlemen. Present us by laws and your team. Please.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
20 comments:
I would lean to Giannell. But having Peter in his corner rather than as an opponent would be a big help.
Jim is a proven grass roots organizer who is not afraid to reach out to the rank & file, which is what is needed after two years of Niemann's bunker mentality and eighteen years of Bill Dowd's benign neglect.
I'm sure JP will weigh in on Carton; just to get a rise out of him how's this: Rob Clifton for chairman, Jim!
Seriously, let's pull together and not become Bergen.
Jim can rally the troops and Peter can raise the money cleanly.
edwin m stanton said:
"mflane should be investigated for her acconting practices in terms of republican committee funds, and how it is that she has been writing out checks to herself, so, she should be taken out of consideration."
As I have said before, this way well be legit and we should be careful about rushing to judgement.
I admit that signing one's own checks doesn't look good, especially in this environment, but that doesn't mean there is anything sinsiter going on.
Enough about Mary Fran already. The questions are legit, but the piling on is getting out of hand.
If Mary Fran were doing anything improper, she's be a moron to disclose it on the ELEC reports for all to see. Mary Fran is far from a moron. She's extremely bright. She also happens to be very generous with her time and expertise.
There will be no further accusations or accusatory questions here unless backed up with hard evidence and documentation.
Mr. Ed
No, now you know that I meant what I said. There will be no more piling on. The questions remain. Cicero has addressed the questions on Abe's blog. If there is new or more pertinent info forthcoming it will be allowed here.
Your small minded deleted post was a direct challenge in order to bait me into your small minded game.
No hypocrisy here. I've stopped piling on before when it doesn't forward the action.
Take me on if you like Eddie. Much better minds than yours have tried and failed. Maybe you will get lucky.
Carton is the king of multiple office holding. And, his adminsitration would probably only be hallmarked by an epic amount of bonding, not to mention an incredible amount of work for Gibbons, DelDeo. His election would create another John Lynch. If that's the goal...go for it. That'll show everyone how honest the GOP is.
Jim is a good choice, but that is only if you want someone honest. I don't know. Maybe folks better think about that one first...not a crook... gonna play a straight game. It may be too much of a shock.
Kaiser Sose said...
"Edwin Stanton was born in Steubenville, Ohio, on 19th December, 1814. ..."
Does it strike anyone else as curious that our modern day incarnation of Edwin appeared here in the blogosphere shortly after I did, then disappeared for a while, his disappearance coinciding with the emergence of "Ronald Reagan's" blogs?
Does anyone else find his reemergence a few days after Fred's ouster was confirmed curious?
Did anyone else notice a prominent name missing on Mr. Ed's list of those who were "allowed to be criticized?"
If "Stanton" is who I think it is, I would love to play poker with the guy. What do you say Ed? Buy in for $7500?
eDwin stANton
That was my theory.
BTW, most of the criticism of DiBella, Niemann, et al was pretty much issue based. (Allright, maybe "Spray-On-Tan" wasn't, but it was too funny to resist.) And most of us were pretty sympathetic to the "chairs that agreed to be part of the municipal pac's, to help fund the county organization" on the theory that they were sold a bill of goods, then hung out to dry. (Refer to Union Beach Paul's comments on that one.)
It seems that most of the criticism from the Niemann DiBella Gallic Broschart gang comes in the form of the ad hominem.
But I guess it's not a Food Circus Supermarket. LOL
And, thanks for the mamories!
I'm not who you think I am Dan.
Just in case you haven't gotten the message...we don't need your help here in Monmouth County, and we don't want it.
Go away like you said you would several times.
You've made your last post on this blog.
Try this one if you like:
http://monmouthrepublicans.blogspot.com/
You have the password
mr. stanton:
i'm on firm ground here, guy, i have not abused the pac thing and have made a point of it. if i had some fun with niemann, i'm not exactly alone. i've presented a lot of facts about fred and dan in many outlets. so, i made a funny? big deal.
i haven't dragged good candidates on either side of the aisle down and don't intend on doing so for sport or whatever else you think i do. i put my name to whatever i write, which is more than i can say for you.
your ranting is mindless at best and at worst it's something akin to whining.
OK, enough of the Stanton induced poison, and my apologies for letting it go as far as it did.
Let's get back to the business at hand...electing our new party leadership.
as the middletown chairman, carton is an invaluable piece of the puzzle. he also wins a lot and that is all important to the gop.
but his way of doing business is eccentric to middletown: double-, triple- and quadruple office holding, perks for appointees and elected folk alike and there is the central focus of bonding to bond that is there. he's used to a bedroom community that will vote republican if you put any candidate in there. battlefield towns will be an enormous problem for him.
he is a despot in his middletown kingdom and that is important for the party because if the center does not hold than the rest of it has more of a problem.
blylaws, though? no...peter carton doesn't go along with bylaws or grassroots anything. he is an old-style boss who is elitist to boot. yeah, he can connect with the top, but he doesn't share power and he doesn't listen to anyone but himself (not even his township commmittee and why would he? he's done nothing but win a long time). but his victories come at a cost i think many republicans and voters would not find pallatable elsewhere. the pet project stuff alone (for the sake of bonding) will be caught quick by app and the rest.
and while the press may give him a "bye" at home, he'll get nailed hard if he tries to spread his "methodology" outside of his borders. this isn't wishful thinking. he's pragmatic and cannot change. but a white knight...hardly.
a strong boss with a reliable town? sure. bring him in and find a way to co-exist? a must. vote him in to the chairmanship and lose the thing, but quite spectacularly.
William, Mr. Stanton seems to have hit a nerve. I am forced to agree with him on this one. Alas as I have followed the debate over the last few months I notice that both factions tend to ignore the ample flaws of those on their "side". Hypocrisy is running rampant through our party (and the blogoshere)
As far as the chairman issue. Either one would work. i like your idea of a team. Their strengths and weaknesses would compliment each other nicely.
A unity government so to speak. Just what the doctor oedered.
TR,
I disagree with you re: hypocrisy and ignoring flaws.
All legitimate questions regarding any office seeker or contributor are welcome here, and those questions are posted here. Answers to allegations are also welcome and posted.
What will not be tolerated is piling on that doesn't add new information or mud slinging done simply for the purpose of character assasination.
I stopped it in the Terence Wall threads and I've stopped it here.
Regarding Mary Fran's reimbursements and/or stipends, it has been posted that they were authorized. No one has offered a post to refute that. Anyone would wants to refute that needs to be able to back it up.
The question of taxes has also been raised and been allowed to remain here. The County GOP should be withholding taxes from employees and issuing W2's. 1099s should be issued to contractors. No accusations have been made, just the question raised, and the question is here for all to read, just as the ELEC reports are on the ELEC site for all to read.
"Stanton's" refute of Abe's assertion that the criticism of Fred, DiBella, et al crowd "was pretty much issue oriented" was also allowed to stand here.
I'm still looking for the hypocrisy.
Perhaps the best example of the honesty of the Monmouth GOP blogosphere (that being this blog and Abe's) is how Abe, Jim Purcell and I have related to each other.
Purcell has done more to promote participation and readership of these blogs than anyone. Abe knows it and I know it. If it is true, as some have written, that Abe and I have become a force in the Monmouth GOP, that we were instrumental in the selection of a Freeholder, the selection of a Freeholder candidate and the demise of a chairman, it couldn't have happened without Purcell.
Yet, both Abe and I took Jim on and were very critical of him over his Clifton piece. We attacked his work and his ideas...not his person. What ensued was a healthy debate. Jim responded in kind. While we disagree, often strongly, we remain civil and respectful, even friendly. That's how mature adults do it.
Back on topic, this thread opened to advance the idea of Peter Carton and Jim Giannell leading our party together. You like the idea, Abe kind of likes the idea. Purcell doesn't like the idea and makes his argument which includes strengths and weaknesses (flaws)of what Carton brings to the table.
That what this blog is about. Healthy debate that forwards to action. It can get heated and passionate, it can get colorful and hopefully it will be funny at times. It won't get ugly if I can help it, and I get to draw the line.
Disagreement for its own sake or for the sake of ego is ridiculous. It makes the criticism contrived.
Constructive criticism, albeit sharp, accomplishes communication.
What Will and Abe have done is create forums where, though nonsesne may start, it can't make the marathon of dialogue. Nonsense and useless rhetoric loses steam and it becomes apparent that an argument is propped up when its held together by only venom, conjecture and "speak no ill" (when all else fails, I suppose).
The business of government and tax money (spent by all in this county) is a serious one. And, though people don't like politics, it is the sewer that runs into our places of government and gives forward leaders. I know that is a harsh metaphor. But as anyone who has read these forums for any period of time will know, the political atmosphere of this county is more than occasionally toxic.
Good and bad people emerge from this process to govern. And yes, I do believe in good and bad people still as do others. It is not the same old shade of gray.
Abe and Will help people to see through the hype into what is real and not real about people. Disagreements happen and causes are espoused or railed against, and that is politics. The lack of dialogue is still political, only not the kind that I hope is ever seen in this country.
Well gentleman I consider myself a neutral in that I do not like the crazies cranks or money grubbers on either side of the fence. From where I sit it seems that a little piling on is allowed on some people and not others.
That being said my charges of hypocrisy were leveled at the many contributors to your blog who see the speck in the eye of the other guy but do not see the log in their own (or their friends) eye.
They will criticize a Nieman but not a Lane or they will criticize a Popkin but not a Gallic.
I guess that is just the way of the world.
If the person who is elected chairman can bring the factions together and still get rid of the really bad seeds he or she will be a miracle maker.
Teddy Roosevelt said:
"From where I sit it seems that a little piling on is allowed on some people and not others."
Fair enough, TR, and guilty as charged.
I readily admit to allowing piling on towards anyone who calls me a terrorist and towards anyone who attempts to undermine the results of a duly held election. Anyone who avails the party funded resources to one candidate over another might also see alittle more piling on than others.
Hypocritical perhaps, but it is my line to draw. :-)
Post a Comment