Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Having Incumbents Screen is Bad for Party Unity and a Recipe for Defeat

As the candidate selection season enters full swing, the Monmouth County GOP is at a critical juncture, and faces a choice that is unprecedented in recent times.

For the first time in years, ever in my limited memory, we have two incumbent Freeholders up for re-election whose previous nominations were contested. The wounds of both of those contests, like the wounds from Operation Bid Rig, are not quite healed.

Rob Clifton was given the party line over incumbent Ed Stominski in 2004, by Chairman Bill Dowd, Senator Joe Kryillos, and a few others in Judith Stanley-Coleman's living room. While Rob defeated Ed in a contentious primary, his selection lead to the ouster of Chairman Bill Dowd, after 18 years of successful service. We have been in chaos ever since. Yet, we have won 8 of 9 contested county seats in three general elections.

Last year, Anna Little won a hotly contested race for the appointment to fill the seat Amy Handlin's seat when Handlin resigned after her election to the General Assembly. Little has been an active and controversial Freeholder, the likes of which we have rarely seen from a new comer. To the delight of her supporters and the consternation of "the establishment," she has ruffled more than a few feathers by refusing and returning what she considered to be tainted campaign contributions and with her vote not to reappoint Malcolm Carton as County Counsel. In a year when an angry electorate crisscrossed columns with their ballots, Little was elected to complete her term.

Clifton and Little both "defied marching orders" when they voted against the reappointment of Malcolm Carton. Anna defied two different Chairmen when she returned PAC money. Clifton also returned PAC money, though not during his own campaign.

Not unexpectedly, there are powerful people in our party, some of whom are on the screening committee, who want to replace Clifton, Little or both on the ballot.

Little has been subject to a baseless character assassination. There has been a whisper campaign about Clifton's electability, given our losses in Aberdeen and Matawan over the train station controversy, with some in the party discretely seeking candidates to oppose him at the convention or in a primary.

Now, both of them are conspicuous by their absence from the screening committee. If either of them are denied the opportunity to be voted up or down by the county committee convention , it will look like retribution for their independent actions and the return to the ways of the backroom deal which lead to Dowd's demise as Chairman. Their respective supporters in the party will be angry and act accordingly.

The Asbury Park Press and the Democrats will have a field day. In their endorsement of Democrats Barbara McMorrow and Greg Gibadlo last November, The Asbury Park Press said:

"This time last year, the two Republican candidates for the five-member, all-GOP Monmouth County freeholder board portrayed themselves as reformers — on ethics, on spending and on the pay-to-pay politics that have long characterized county government. We questioned their sincerity — with good reason, as it has turned out. Both Freeholder Director William Barham and Freeholder Lillian Burry have established their credentials as business-as-usual Republicans, most dramatically demonstrated by their vote to rehire longtime county counsel Malcolm Carton — the personification of patronage, taxpayer waste and abuse, and the arrogance that often afflicts entrenched officials.

Now, two other Republicans, incumbent Anna Little and Manalapan Committeeman Andrew Lucas, are seeking seats on the board in Tuesday's election, saying they are part of a new breed of Republicans, separate and apart from the old guard. We're dubious.



If either Clifton or Little are denied the party nomination without an opportunity to present themselves to the rank and file at a convention, I can imagine an Asbury Park Press editorial that starts like this:

This time last year we said that, "The best hope for badly needed reform is political opposition — something the Republican board hasn't had for nearly two decades." This is true now more than ever, as the Republican Party, in a backroom deal not approved by the County Committee has effectively fired the only two Republican Freeholders who were are part of a new breed of Republicans, most dramatically demonstrated by their vote not to rehire longtime county counsel Malcolm Carton — the personification of patronage, taxpayer waste and abuse, and the arrogance that often afflicts entrenched officials.

Can Dick and Jane be anything more than puppets for the old guard?
Would they dare vote differently than the Freeholder Director or Deputy Director, after what happened to their predecessors? ...


I can't imagine how my friend Abe would argue with that one.

I have no problem with incumbents being challenged. But let those challenges be part of a democratic, "representational" process, not an "executive" fait compli.

Personally, I think Clifton and Little would be a lock for victory in November if they each declined to screen and ran in a primary. They would win the primary easily, and be free of the constraints of the "old guard." The Asbury Park Press would love it, and the Democrats would have to run against Rob and Anna's records, which are pretty good, instead of running against the "old guard."

The only thing that could stop them is the "old guard" withholding all their support, or worse throwing their support to the Democrats, like what happened when Brett Schundler was nominated in a primary to run against Jim McGreevey for Governor. Sure, the old guard was counting on McGreevey being a disaster and the old guard coming back to power after a four year hiatus. How did that work out? How have your tax bills been since then? Anyone remember who the State Party Chairman and Executive Director were then?

No, the best way to select our candidates for Freeholder, is to let the elected County Committee members decide. Let them choose between the incumbents, and any challengers the screening committee deems qualified, if we must have a screening committee.

What do you think? Let Chairman Adam Puharic know. His email address is info@MonmouthRepublican.org. His phone number is 732.431.6664. Or you can just post a comment here.

Either way, don't be negative or cast dispersions. This is not personal. It's for the good of the party and for the good of the citizens of Monmouth County. Really.

2 comments:

Honest Abe said...

"Clifton also return PAC money, though not during his own campaign."

Ironically, Bill Barham received the same amount from the same PAC, and, unlike Clifton, did not return it. Nonetheless he is included on the steering committee.

"...it will look like retribution for their independent actions..."

Look like? Mr. Secretary, you're being kind here!

"I can't imagine how my friend Abe would argue with that one."

If the Press had an editorial written like that, I wouldn't argue with it at all. While many of their articles and editorials have been factually challenged and even blatantly partisan, there's no point in handing them ammunition by being wrong.

"I have no problem with incumbents being challenged. But let those challenges be part of a democratic, "representational" process, not an "executive" fait compli."

Very true. That was Bill Dowd's downfall. For too long, incumbents were not challenged. In fact, Harry Larrison himself could be a case in point. Failing health had forced him off of his game. Arguably, Dowd was even correct in replacing Stominski. But challenges or replacements should have included a broad representation of the party, not an elite clique meeting in a mansion.

"The Asbury Park Press would love it..."

Hopefully. It would certainly put them to the test. While they can be spot-on, some of their reporting and editorializing positively defies logic. Take the freeholder endorsement and the article on the county vehicles, for example.

"...like what happened when Brett Schundler was nominated in a primary to run against Jim McGreevey for Governor."

Or when the Rep. Mike Pappas was nominated in the '96 primary over John Bennett. The old guard worked against him, hoping that Bennett would come back in 1998. While Pappas won in '96, he lost reelection. Result: Democratic Rep. Rush Holt. Entrenched.

"Anyone remember who the State Party Chairman and Executive Director were then?"

Uhhh, that would be Joe Kyrillos and Brian Nelson.

"No, the best way to select our candidates for Freeholder, is to let the elected County Committee members decide. Let them choose between the incumbents, and any challengers the screening committee deems qualified, if we must have a screening committee."

I agree.
Mr. Secretary, this is a great post. It should be an op-ed piece in the newspaper. Required reading for all Republicans.

Anonymous said...

An incumbent screening committee might actually not be a bad idea. Although most incumbents will probably skate through the screening process, there are particular instances where it may very well be necessary to question an incumbent’s ability to serve, like with health issues for example, in a way the county committee might not be able to ask.

Some candidates that may no longer be fit to serve from a health perspective may be running through the county committee because they have an untouchable name and impeccable reputation, even though their time has passed and their health is in serious decline. And instead of breeding the next generation of Monmouth County Leaders, they end up passing away in office and internal strife and chaos in the party in picking anew candidate is the result. The screening committee might be in a better position to speak truth to power in helping an aging leader decide if running for another re-election is really the right thing to do for the party, themselves and for the citizens of Monmouth County.

The screening committee may have some potential hiccups or problems, but before we judge it to be right or wrong, let us look at all the angles of the subject. The party deserves it, the candidates deserve it, and most importantly, the voters of Monmouth County deserve it. Let’s give it a fair shake. Not a sermon, just a thought.