Blue-haired country club Republican Charles Smelling has made up his mind. He has decided to cast his vote against Dean Browning. So next time someone tells you a vote for Browning is a vote for the Establishment, remember the Blue Blood.Snelling has turned his considerable proboscis (I won't dare use the word "nose") up at Browning's campaign style, in which he's defending himself against attacks from four candidates being sponsored by the party boss.
Here's what Smelling has told his lessers.
"For several weeks this winter I spent almost my entire time trying to make peace and broker a compromise to prevent the campaigns, which I saw coming, in the County Commissioner races. I have to admit that I failed. After that effort, I had decided that I would remain neutral. However, I am, frankly, truly appalled with the campaign that Dean Browning is running. My opinion is that his campaign has been both vicious and untruthful. For this reason, I will not be voting for Dean Browning."
If tough campaigning bothers him, Smelling must have voted for Sam Bennett and John Callahan. I know nobody who campaigns harder, or is more "in your face," than LV Congressman Charlie Dent. And I love it.
As Dent has often said, "There's two ways of running. Hard or unopposed."
Besides, a Morning Call analysis has determined Browning's campaign ads to be truthful while the smears coming from the Gang of Four have been classified as incorrect.
40 comments:
Big tent. I'm an R who drives a truck nights and cuts lawns on weekends. Dean Browning's 16% tax increase is disgusting to me too.
Nice try, Bernie. But, come on. 16% in this economy? I'm trying to hold onto my house since my wife was downsized 20 months ago. No blue blood here, just a shlub getting hammered by politicians like Browning.
You come off like Gracedale goons who generalize and use emotional language, but ignore the financial reality of trying to pay real estate taxes. 16%. 16%. 16%.
Bernie,
This is the truth from the inside. Dean Browning agreed to a last minute deal that would have prevented this ugly primary fight. The slate turned the offer down. So who is to blame? Snelling is insincere at best here.
Scott Armstrong
Snelling is a hypocrite who doesn't tell his readers that he has always supported the Gang of Four. After all, he and Woodman are BFFs. I understand they have regular get togethers where they sit down and look at piles of money.
Scott - you're mostly correct is your statement - The full TRUTH is Snelling and Woodman and Ott tried to orchestrate a deal that would have made Browning a Gang Member and Dave Najarian was going to be kicked out of the gang because Snelling can't stand him. Poor Dave has no idea how much the slate tried to get rid of him.
Hey Bernie the BFF thing is like you and Angle and Stoffa. You guys do the same thing.
"Poor Dave has no idea how much the slate tried to get rid of him."
I understood they double-crossed Andy Roman and threw him under the bridge, too.
Snelling is nothing but a has been. The only time anyone talks to him is to ask for money.
Isn't Woody the guy that Snelling and him had fireside chats talking about how to screw up the county committee.
smelling is a loser.
So is Woody, his wife is OK though.
The smell of desperation is in the air and its name is Browning
Dear All,
We live in troubled times, with a healthy contest of different views of what is best for our country, possible. Our best hope for good solutions depends on rational thought, not emotion, and especially not name calling.
It is certainly indicative of inadequate intelect when you deliberatly miss-spell someone's last name to make it an insult. Too bad for you, not for me.
Miscreants and coprophiliacs will play their games to make heat instead of light. That will be their shame, not those whom they melign.
Charles Darwin Snelling
Should have been malign, not melign. Sorry.
CDS
Mr. Smelling, Your name is spelled to be consistent with the bullshit you tried to pawn off on everyone. You NEVER were neutral. You ALWAYS were a Woodman ally, and basically served as his "second" in your Browning discussions. Basically, sir, you are a liar who tried to pass yourself off as something you are not. Would you prefer that I call you Smelling or liar? In either case, the epithet is totally justified.
And yes, this is a forum for healthy discussion.
Mr. Snelling, Actually, there are a few mis-spelled words in your comments, from "intelect" to "deliberatly" to "melign." I believe you also misapplied "coprophiliac."
By the way, name-calling is name-calling, even when you use 5-syllable words.
I am disappointed at the lack of intellectual honesty.
This is not a "forum for healthy discussion", O'Hare. It never has been. You allow comments from fanatics who agree with you and censor and delete, much like old Joe Stalin, those comments you don't agree with.
The name of your blog should be "Pravda".
You are one of the biggest bullshitters next to Angle in the Lehigh Valley!
Mr Snelling, you told us about your relationship with Wayne several years ago when you "introduced" him to the county committee. We were told by you and Wayne, our committee was broken. I would suggest that the committee was never as broken as it is now. An example, someone who has given as much as Dean is now to be treated as a pariah, a friend, who must be thrown aside for the "new" to take over simply because he had principles. Mr Snelling you sold us out and that will be your legacy. Please retire before you do more damage,
"By their fruits you will know them".
Dr Robert Romancheck
Resigned chair of the Allentown city committee ( Resigned because I couldn't work with the "new", I guess Scott, my replacement, couldn't work with the "new" either because he, also resigned. )
............VOTE FOR DEAN for good government.........
I am thankful that I have friends who are loyal. I'd never want to be in a foxhole next to Smelling. He was a Browning "buddy" when it suited his purposes, but now stabs him in the bank for a right wing religious kook and a duplicitous party boss. All three have one thing in common - they are dishonest.
"he name of your blog should be 'Pravda.' "
Then please go to some other blog and stay off this one. But the reality is that you are full of shit. Sure, I delete anonymous attacks posted by cowards like you, but I've always been open to disagreement. What bothers you is you can't shout me down.
Any R who jacks taxes unnecessarily and becomes the darling of a lefty blogger should be smart enough to understand he has a limited shelf life in a fiscally conservative party. It's understandable that Bernie can't figure this out. Dean should really know better. Snelling should have talked some sense into his buddy. Friends don't let friends raise taxes unnecessarily and think they can still win a Republican primary race. Is this so difficult to understand for people of any colored blood?
Before he even took office, Dean Browning predicted this tax increase unless fellow Comm'rs were willing to join him in making some cuts tat would have been just as unpopular or more, than a 16% tax hike. They balked. When the 2010 budget was adopted, Browning stated that night that there would certainly be a hike the following year.
People like you were nowhere to be found when Browning was looking for support to get some cuts n personnel to reduce or eliminate the tax hike. Instead, you let him be attacked by special interests who did not want their funding cut.
Now, after it's too late, you came out of the woodwork and start talking about real conservatives. Well, excuse me, but lefty or righty does not matter if you are not there to do the work. And that is what happened. Indignition from the right did not come until a few days before the budget was to be adopted.
And Woody seized on it to embarrass Cunningham, not practice good government.
Wah wah wah. I raised taxes in the worst economy since The Great Depression and now my only friends are from the other party! Not very sharp, this Dean Browning character.
Romanchek, you are the worst of hypocrites. You found that impbecile Tony Phillips and ran him as an R. What a joke he and you were. You thought you could be competitive with a fool and a pervert.At least Woodman is trying to shake things up. At least he doesnt try to protect people who use our Party to their own advantage while abandoning principle. You so want to win for your own personal position that you will throw principle under the bus. If we dont stand for something we will fall for anything. Not this time. Four good candidates making an incumbent prove he is still worthy. How awful, what a sin. When did competition become unAmerican.
The personality stuff is mildly interesting, but rank and file voters likely don't know about it and certainly don't give a shit.
It's the 16% stupid. All the Machiavellian bullshit is causing a rather large case of denial. 16%. 16%. 16%.
Get it? This is far less complicated than it's being made out to be. Again, all together: SIXTEEN PERCENT.
Remember, none of the slate of four attended the county budget meetings.
Scott Armstrong
Bernie,
Another point, isn’t it interesting to note that the “reform” slate is ready to throw Dean Browning under the bus for one vote while they accept the endorsement of the Republican conservatives love to hate Charlie Dent.
Scott Armstrong
I see that Joe Hilliard or one of his Tea Party Crew chimed in at 11:16 and 11:25.
@ the remark against Bob Romancheck - nobody said that competition was unAmerican, however, when the party boss hand picks a group to GANG up on a fellow party member - that's an issue. When members of the GANG (sans one - DJ) try to broker a deal that would kick out one of their own (DJ) and bring in this most hated person - all behind the back of one of the GANG members (DJ) - that's a problem. When the party leader and a GANG member meet at a local diner and verbally mock their own party candidates (you need to watch your decibel level - you never know who is listening) that's a problem. When GANG members don't pay taxes in the county they are running in, take jobs from their business overseas in order to make more money, live off the governement dole for 20+ years - and still, apparently, has an appetite to take more money out of the general public's hands that's a problem. I guess you can say, in general, GANGS, GANG LEADERS, and GANG SUPPORTERS are a problem. Just say no to GANGS!
@ your 16% comment - you are exactly the problem. One vote - one in which most other commissioners FAILED to do their job (hiding behind a loophole whcih we all know would have raised taxes anyhow) is not the issue. The full voting record is the issue. The fact that the individual you mock attended every Commission and sub-committee meeting and made some etremely difficult decisions which saved the county a boat load (technical term) of money is the issue. But you'll never get that because you drink the kool aid of the GANG LEADER. Watch yourself with that - I've seen the results of kool aid drinking followers - it never ends well.
16%. 16%. 16%.
One vote with cruel implications for taxpayers struggling to keep their homes in the worst economy since The Great Depression.
The sweetest part of dispatching a tax raiser is listening to the increasingly loud squeals he and his sheep make on their way out the door.
You cannot raise taxes unnecessarily and expect to survive a Republican primary challenge. That Dean can't figure this out speaks to how out of touch he is with non-blueblood voters who don't know or care who this Snelling guy is.
16%. 16%. 16%.
Joe,
Why are the candidates you support running robo call endorsements from Dent? Should not conservatives now question their conservative credentials? One might see this as the one strike that calls into question their true allegiance; in fact, one might think this reveals them as RHINOS. Slate of RHINOS!
How does it feel?
Scott Armstrong
11:16
I love it, Where were you when I sought candidates? A hypocrite, why because I wanted to run a black man? Tony was viable until he made a stupid mistake ( and I might add I was not running his campaign at that time). Also, please tell what I have to gain by supporting Dean? Oh yes, having the best possible candidate representing me as a county commissioner.
By the way, where is Ott's plan to deal with the budget problem. is he and the other members of the gang of 4 promising a tax decrease if elected? What is their plan anyway?
Lastly, I have the guts to sign my name.
Bob Romancheck
REMEMBER TO VOTE FOR PRINCIPLE ON TUESDAY. VOTE FOR DEAN BROWNING.
"Remember, none of the slate of four attended the county budget meetings."
Scott Armstrong
=================================
Scott -
I saw at least three of the four at the October 27th meeting. Bernie has often referred to Scott Ott's remarks at that meeting.
For you to say something so obviously false and so easily refuted is revealing.
Were you at any of the county budget meetings, or are you just speaking (again) about something you know nothing about?
"Remember, none of the slate of four attended the county budget meetings."
Scott Armstrong
=================================
Scott -
I saw at least three of the four at the October 27th meeting. Bernie has often referred to Scott Ott's remarks at that meeting.
For you to say something so obviously false and so easily refuted is revealing.
Were you at any of the county budget meetings, or are you just speaking (again) about something you know nothing about?
"I saw at least three of the four at the October 27th meeting. Bernie has often referred to Scott Ott's remarks at that meeting."
It is certainly true that Ott was at the final budget hearing, when there was a big crowd. It is equally true that Ott and his fellow gang members have been conspicuously absent from other budget hearings, to say nothing of regular B/C meetings. That says something about their real intentions.
Nobody cares about the personalities and backroom intrigue. That shit goes on all the time. People care about either having their taxes jacked, or coveting more of the tax pile for themselves.
16% is really all that matters despite efforts to obfuscate a very basic pocketbook issue. Everyone is overthinking this. It's really not complicated for most voters.
Scott,
I only post under my name. So do not attribute any comments to me.
I rarely read Bernie's blog anymore and I am responding because of a phone call from a person who knows I only post comments under my name.
You avidly support Charlie Dent. And now taxhikers. I oppose any Republican who raises taxes so I will not be voting for Browning and am encouraging as many people as possible to do the same. Who I vote for on Tuesday will be decided by other factors - not who endorsed them or who didn't which is the weakest way to decide how to vote. Dent endorsed Toomey, should I have not voted for Toomey? As usual, your logic is flawed as you scramble to win a debate point.
And "insincere"?! What about your email the day after Browning's vote:
Scott Armstrong’s email from 10/28/10:
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.
(from) Scott Armstrong
Your assessment on October 28th was 100% correct, which is why I will not vote for Dean Browning.
"I rarely read Bernie's blog anymore and I am responding because of a phone call from a person who knows I only post comments under my name."
I wish this were true, but it is a crock, like everything that comes from Hilliard. Within minutes of my post about my ejection from the tea party, he was on this blog with all kinds of justifications.
What I'm waiting for is for Hilliard to actually follow through on any of his claims. I'm still waiting for his "audit" of Lehigh County, promised in February of last year.
And Scott is correct. Dean did fail. He failed in that he expected other LC Comm'rs like Eckert and Dougherty and Roman to do their job. That's an assumption he no longer makes. He worked with the one person who was searching for anyone to help him reduce the budget. That person was Don Cunningham.
Cunningham asked the public for their help at the beginning of '10. Hilliard was not there. It's one thing to stand up and bluster in a meeting about limited government. It is quite another to deal with the hard task of governing.
But there is one person who as willing to work with Cunningham and look past party differences. That person is Dean Browning.
By the way, Mr. Hilliard, I am waiting for a hearing date before rank and file tea party members. My written appeal went out. When's my hearing?
Few know or care about Hilliard, Snelling, Armstrong, Joe Bagodonutz or any of the personalities that are grist for this mill. Nor should they.
The issue at hand is a 16% tax increase that would likely cost any R his or her job. It's the tax increase, stupid. Nobody cares about the details. Nor should they.
“Nobody cares about the details. Nor should they.”
This thinking represents the last refuge of scoundrels. Clearly those who care should be concerned with details. They matter.
Scott Armstrong
Clearly those who care should be concerned with details. They matter.
Scott Armstrong
________________________________
Then try getting the details right for a change.
By the way, when were you wrong about Dean - on October 27th or now?
One small part of the bottom line here that always falls through the cracks is this:
No One Cared about this 16% tax increase. It went off like a tree falling in the woods. Despite Woodman's efforts to drum up an angry rabble, no one cared because it made sense, and we hadn't had one in several years, and this one was small enough to be acceptable.
Adam Smith says that in a stable economy, there is no reason for prices to go up ever. That's nice, but in the world of massive Federal spending driving inflation, that is not the case in actuality.
As much as the Woodman Gang wishes that the electorate cared about this small and necessary increase, they do not. They trust elected leaders like Browning to do what is right and appropriate. True Fiscal restraint is not just a low tax rate at the expense of all else. It's conservative management, long-term thinking, appropriate reserves and a good credit rating.
What the Woodman gang advocates, and wishes others supported, is the same irresponsible, quarterly thinking that took my BSC from $172 to zero. It's ridiculous.
And anyone who would criticize Dean Browning, former party chair and one of the most conservative Republicans in the valley, is either a fool, or doing it for political purposes. Criticizing Mr. Browning for being too liberal, is quite simply ridiculous and doesn't square with the average Republican's view of him.
I also like Scott Ott, who has been around and worked for the party and ran in the last election. Both Mr. Browning and Mr. Ott will get my vote, and I suspect that many republicans feel that way. My prediction is that Dean will be top vote getter and Scott second (or the reverse.)
Post a Comment