My favorite Allentown conservative, Scott Armstrong, reflects on Wayne Woodman's Pyrrhic victory against an incumbent Lehigh County Comm'r who followed his conscience instead of a party boss. "In the May 17th primary election Lehigh County Republican chair Wayne Woodman achieved his goal of “destroying” Republican County commissioner Dean Browning. A great victory? Hardly. Although one shouldn’t doubt that he is very pleased with his own handiwork, wiser heads understand his victory came at a great cost to both the committee and his reputation as a leader. Contrary to the chair’s pronouncements that the committee will be united after this primary the ugly and bitter nature of the campaign ensures the opposite is true. Many committee insiders are appalled by the tactics and smears that were employed in the effort to defeat the party stalwart Mr. Browning. They are also frustrated and disappointed that many of the committee priorities became subordinate to his desire to punish the disobedient Dean. In all this Wayne Woodman has revealed a selfish and vindictive nature. These qualities may serve Wayne well in the business environment he operates in but in a volunteer political organization they are poison. He has yet to learn this lesson and he will when attendance at the meetings continues to dwindle, activists don’t return calls and donations fail to materialize.
"For the moment Wayne may bask in the glory of his triumph; yet, in time he may come to understand this was the wrong fight to engage and that the means of victory were not worth the cost. On the other hand, he may not and that would be bad news for local Republicans."
Scott Armstrong
13 comments:
Yes, according to Mr. Armstrong Republicans should support a tax hiking elected official.
But the day after Dean's vote Scott wrote:
Wayne,
What seems clear is that at minimum Dean, in his leadership position, never developed or presented a strategy for himself and his fellow commissioners to reduce the 16% tax increase. This is perhaps his real failure and caused what he would consider the committee’s intervention. Therefore he can blame no one but himself for the results. Even if he feels his vote was correct he must understand he failed to lead and/or govern effectively.
Scott Armstrong
I 100% agree with Scott's assessment. It was a failure of leadership.
P.S. My earlier comment did not appear on your blog where you referenced your Tea Party issue - you want to remain a member of our organization.
You shall receive a letter regarding your appeal to be reinstated as a member.
We look forward to that process and if you desire to remain a member of the Tea Party organization you will be accorded all the rights under our bylaws and fairness so our membership can make that decision.
We appreciate your enthusiasm and desire to remain a member of our group!
I agree with Armstrong's position.
up, Wayne and Scott did such a great job with the LCRC that members received this note yesterday from LCRC Office Administrator Kim Beitler:
Wow, what to say. Goodbyes are never easy and it's with a heavy heart that I say goodbye to all of you and to this office which has become a home to me for the last four years. I have learned today that today would be my last day with the LCRC and I will miss you all. I have enjoyed working with you and for you! You are all talented and committed individuals and I thank you for all your hard work and dedication. I thank you for supporting me, inspiring me and challenging me. I hope that while I was here I served you all well. Please keep in touch with me because I would love to continue to hear from you. You have all become my friends and extended family. I will be busy in the next few weeks looking for employment so please let me know if you hear of any openings anywhere. I challenge all of you now to stay involved, informed and committed in your communities and this committee. They are both yours to create. God bless my friends! In service and respect, Kim Beitler
And these are the people that now want to run our county budget? Hell they can't eve run the budget for a small committee. God help us all.
Armstrong is right - it was much better when elected officials who governed against the principles of the Party were protected by the local Party.
People angry over Dean's tax hike vote should have been discouraged from running, and we should have served Dean up to Democrat voters the way we did with Jane Ervin after her 70% tax hike. That worked out well, and certainly brought the party success in the years to come as the Republicans' once-mighty edge in Commissioners dwindled to just one vote.
Scott and others need to realize that no politican owns any seat in government - they have to earn it. The primaries are where ideas
are discussed, the direction of the party set, and party principles re-affirmed. Open primaries give all factions of the party a chance to be heard and to make their case to the VOTERS.
Most committee-people, upon honest reflection over the last eight months, know all this. Yes, there will be some who don't have the graciousness of their candidate and will be disgruntled.
But for every one of them, there are at least that many who would have been upset if they hadn't had an opportunity to make their case to the voters. More importantly, for every disgruntled committee person, there are probably 5-10 "regular people" who were drawn into the process to work on a campaign and support their candidate or issue. Even more importantly, the VOTERS were given a choice.
Open primaries, allowing all sides to be heard, and allowing the VOTERS to decide - that's the way a healthy party works. It's been a long time since we've had that, so I can understand why some have difficulty accepting it.
The gang of four has had enough coverage. They will be opposed by good candidates in the fall.
Candidates who by the way had no coverage in the spring and very few chances to speak out.
It is time to end the blackout that existed on these candidates.
The status quo needs to be changed only if the staus quo is the problem ...
With all due respect to Scott Armstrong, I think he is acting with emotion and not thought. Browning did himself in with his large glossies of negative attacks.
The voters had their say. The committee may be divided for a short while, but even if every committee member voted for Browning he still would have lost.
8:21, There was no "blackout" on those candidates. But it makes little sense to discuss candidates who have no opponents when there are others who do.
I do intend to discuss everyone now that both parties have four candidates and there is little doubt in my mind that at least one of the candidates will wish I had continued ignoring them.
Armstrong's approach has been to sit quietly and fling neat little poop balls from time to time. The result? Nothing. Now, he's critical of a group that actually got off their assessing and accomplished something. Defending the status quo and a 16% tax increase is clearly out of touch with public sentiment. Scott's brand of opposition delivered Pawlowski at 72%, and minority business owners losing their livelihoods for a ridiculous hockey arena boondoggle. Thanks for your efforts, Scott. But it's time to try a new approach. Yours hasn't worked a lick. Stop flinging and start supporting the new team. Even Dean has pledged to do that.
these four are almost bigger political sluts then reichley.
all five are the bottom of the republican toilet bowl - a stench beyond the waste treatment plant
South Whitehall Patch is reporting due to clerical errors on election night, Osborne is leading over Najarian by 30 votes
That is right. Osborne pulled it out.
Cassie Feldon:
You are such a sweetheart!
Does that mean that you may not vote for them?
I guess that they will not win without your vote!
You can vote for that wonderful group of Ds they are running against.
Post a Comment