About the only thing that that Monmouth Republicans are united in is that they are longing for the days of Bill Dowd and Fred Neimann. Factions that were working hard against each other last year are shaking their heads in amazement, embarrassment and despair that in a year when we have a potential slate of popular incumbents our candidate selection process has become so controversial. Democrats are smiling with anticipation and amusement.
This morning the Chairman announced that "party leaders" went back to the drawing board last Wednesday to re-work the controversial contract. I suggest that we go back to the drawing board over the whole process.
Many county committee members were unaware of the new candidate selection process until they read of the controversy in the papers, after the deadline to file. Consequently, there may be other candidates who are disenfranchised from the party process and must file for a primary if they want to run.
Let's open it up. Let potential candidates gather a reasonable amount of signatures to get on the convention ballot. Quietly perform background checks and if a problem arises the chairman should address it privately with the candidate. Then let's have a convention.
The chaos and acrimony of last March's convention can be avoided if there is a Convention Chairman or Sergent at Arms without a horse in the race managing the event and balloting.
There is still time to make what is now unworkable work. The candidates' filing deadline is not until April 9th.
President Trump’s Magic Show Begins
5 hours ago
Posts
6 comments:
Calling for the Chairman's resignation is not only divisive, but kind of pathetic in fact. Sometimes in politics you don't get what you want from the leadership. But you try hard to work with the leadership to blend ideas for the best possible outcome, and/or you vote for change in the next election. But these childish personal attacks are counter to what this party stands for. Adam is working to reinstate the ethical foundations some in this party have lost. He is trying to regain the trust of the public. Disagree with his policies? Fine. But attacking him personally and publicly under a pen name that you can hide behind, cowardice.
I'llbe in sunny Aruba the rest of February. Me + some friends leave in 1/2hr for Laguardia. C-YA!
xoxox
Bee and others:
I do not use my pen name to make personal attacks on people. If I were going to do that I assure you I would reveal my name. I post on this blog to engage in discussion about the direction of the Monmouth County GOP while keeping in mind Reagan's 11th commandment. I believe that this blog can actually be a forum for GOP party improvement and not GOP party implosion. Using a pen name is helpful to protect one against assumed biases and allows one to add unconventional constructive ideas. However, I would hope that in this forum pen names would not be used as mandates for vicious attacks. I can find plenty of those on hate sites and AOL. They are often created by immature teenagers and/or racist and anti-semitic peoples.
That said, let us get back to discussing the situation at hand. My question to the readers and host of this site is can we have a discussion about how to better implement the background review without name calling? Let’s get some ideas going. I for one agree with most of the process, though it is of utmost importance that the rules are clear and process fair for all candidates. Is it possible to amend the contract to allow for extra protections for each candidate? And if the candidate cannot pay the fee involved, I understand it is true the County GOP will pick up the tab. Let’s try to nail down a real formula that can be recommended to Adam and see what happens. Maybe a few of us can get together with Seward and come up with some serious and non-loaded questions for Adam that maybe he can answer right here on this blog. Maybe upon Seward’s invitation he could make himself available for a kind of Q&A. However, it would only work in a constructive sense, bashing him on the blog will just ruin the appeal…just a thought.
Let’s try our best to prepare winners using this new primary method in the works because even if you hate it now, Adam isn’t going anywhere before the next election. Let’s figure out how to win in the meantime…together. If you have serious grudges, it is best to keep them somewhat private and within the party so as not to weaken our party or our candidates publicly. Party above person, public service above all. Let’s march to victory together.
Right now the democrats in the county have candidates announced or considered likely to run for county or state office who have: been chastized by the courts; brought up on ethics charges before state panels; and declared bankruptcy. Maybe we are smarter to know these things upfront rather than finding out in September or October. It is our responsibility to weed out those with problems of character or electability. Let Purcell and the democrats make all the noise they want, we should do the right thing.
Silence Dogood said...
I post on this blog to engage in discussion about the direction of the Monmouth County GOP while keeping in mind Reagan's 11th commandment. I believe that this blog can actually be a forum for GOP party improvement and not GOP party implosion.
Thank you. I have tried to use this blog as just that. Your partnership is welcome.
Using a pen name is helpful to protect one against assumed biases and allows one to add unconventional constructive ideas.
Exactly.
My question to the readers and host of this site is can we have a discussion about how to better implement the background review without name calling?
Yes.
I for one agree with most of the process, though it is of utmost importance that the rules are clear and process fair for all candidates.
As I have said before, I have no problem with background checks being perfomed. I think it is a smart practice. I think the money involved is immaterial, but silly in that it looks bad and is a "poll tax" as one lawyer emailed to me. The contract is onerous. If not for this blog making an issue of it it there would probably be no talk of changing it.
My problem arose when the process was first announced and it was clearly designed to target only one incumbent, while at the same time that incumbent was facing a baseless character assassination far more vicious than the material you have been critical of here, Silence. And it was announced that the process would only be for this year.
Adam is working to reinstate the ethical foundations some in this party have lost.
I'm skeptical, but willing to listen.
I really believe that Adam, with the help and consent of Bill Barham, designed this process and participated in the character assassination to get rid of Anna Little. Not because she is unelectable and not because she has dirty laundry that disqualifies her, but because she is who she says she is; An independent thinker who speaks her mind and acts on her principles. Adam and Bill have made there disagreements with Anna personal. Anna has gone out of her way to keep there differences those of policy and/or practice.
If Adam and Bill can come clean and manage to restore their relationship with Anna, then we'd be making progress. Otherwise, she is likely to run without the party's support and that will be extremely costly to the party.
Is it possible to amend the contract to allow for extra protections for each candidate?
In an environment of trust that wouldn't be necessary. Unfortunately and disgracefully, trust has been shattered. Can it be recovered? I don't know.
Since we are now likely to be bound contractually and not based on trust, candidates should have the same protections with their information that employees have with their employers and that borrowers have with their lenders.
Let’s try to nail down a real formula that can be recommended to Adam and see what happens. Maybe a few of us can get together with Seward and come up with some serious and non-loaded questions for Adam that maybe he can answer right here on this blog.
I willing. Everyone is invited to email me questions and suggestions for Adam to billsewardnj@aol.com. I will email Adam the questions and ask him to respond for publication. Silence, if you would like to edit the questions and suggestions before I send them to Adam, I would welcome that too.
Party above person, public service above all.
I with you there.
I'm in for just being an American first. But that's just me. I don't hold party above country, community or family. It doesn't approach the church.
But that's just me. I certainly don't hold party above common sense either. I'm not particularly into Kool Aid anyway, which is why I guess I'm not a Republican.
Post a Comment