According to published reports today is Adam Puharic's last day working for the Department of Homeland Security.
In his wireside announcement of his resignation he states that he's leaving the job because, "this position did provide critics with an opportunity to attack the Republican party and smear our good names". He's right about that.
However, given the coverage his resignation received it is safe to assume that the attacks will not stop. Puharic's employment, or lack thereof, is not the only issue his critics, on both sides of the isle and in the media have with him. He has ensured that he himself will be an issue, at least in the upcoming campaign, if he remains chairman.
Is he giving up the wrong position? I think so.
There are signs that his candidates, both on the county level and legislative level are inclined to think and act for themselves (more on this over the weekend). The candidate who did that last year won the election but was given the boot by Puharic. If, as it appears it might be happening, and the candidates embrace and run on a true reform agenda as opposed to the old "Monmouth County is great, we have a AAA bond rating, and the Republicans did it" status quo campaign, Puharic may find himself at odds with his candidates and irrelevant in the campaigns.
Puharic never had relevance regarding poltical appointments, as the Director has chosen to keep all of that power for himself. The "half a chairman" moniker was not just about the fundraising restrictions on Puharic due to his Federal employment.
Puharic's job with the Feds is a good job. It pays well and offers security. It gives him an opportunity to use his skills and training to make a difference in a critical government function. It may not have the juice or excitement of politics, but it does make a difference and more importantly, enables him to provide for his family. Giving it up for the chairmanship is foolish, and it doesn't serve him, his family or the party.
Puharic was quoted saying his superiors encouraged him to stay on at this job. He should do so, and resign the chairmanship, if it is not too late.
That would be better for him, better for the party, and better for Monmouth County.
Posts
9 comments:
If someone wanted a future in politics, the Fed job he had was not exactly a stepping stone.
If someone wanted a future in politics, the way the chairman's position has been handled is not exactly a stepping stone.
I was once told not to leave a job until I had a new one.
There is something more here than we are being told.
Barry Goldwater said...
There is something more here than we are being told.
Golly gee! You really think so?
What? Am I guilty of pointing out the painfully obvious?
Very painfully.
I think what he means by living off his investments is that he will have to dig into his savings or equity.
I must say you chaps are straying off into unfair territory.
At this point in time how Adam supports himself is really not anyones concern but Adams.
I understand your point TR.
However, Adam made it an issue 1) by taking a job with the Feds while chairman, and 2) in his comments to the press.
Furthermore, how a party chairman earns his or her living is germaine to the debate.
Trading influence for jobs and/appointments is a well established tradition, and not necessarily a good one.
There is no evidencce that Adam has even attempted to trade influence for a job so that comment is out of line.
I think your dislike for Adam, which by the way he has earned, is effecting your usual objectivity.
Also please note the words in my previous post "at this time"
TR,
Thanks for holding my feet to the fire. Perhaps I should have been clearer.
I think a chairman, any chairman's, not just Adam's, employment is germaine. When Fred Neimann was campaigning for chairman he said he would not use the position to enhance his law practice. Did he keep his promise?
In Adam's case, and this is hypothetical, (until there is evidence :-) ) suppose he becomes employed by someone who happens to be a municipal chairman who wants to influence the candidate selection process at the county or legislative level. Or that employer/chairman wants influence over appointments or contracts granted. Or that employer/chairman has an adult child that wants to run for high office.
Obviously, that employer/chairman would have real or perceived undue influence.
I'm not making any accusations. I'm simply stating that the question is valid and the points made are appropriate.
As for my "dislike for Adam", it really is not personal for me. I have disagreements with several of my friends over policy and issues. Anna Little, Jim Purcel, and Tom DeSeno, come to mind. You and I disagree about this issue. Yet we can still respect each other and have a relationship.
That quality of being able to disagree yet have a relationship is missing many political circles, especially in Monmouth County.
Post a Comment