HOW DID WE GET HERE PART II
I think what really started the whole thing was Bill Dowd dumping a certain Freeholder.
That galvanized a very interesting coalition. I would broadly put the members of that coalition into 4 groups. Now I realize that this is a bit of an oversimplification, as there was overlap some people belonging to more then one group but I believe this is broadly correct.
Group 1 believed that the certain Freeholder was a good Freeholder (hard to fathom but true) and that he was being treated unfairly. Group 2 saw the precedent being set by the chairman as a threat to their own position of power. Group 3 saw the demise of the chairman as creating a power vacuum that would allow them upward mobility. Group 4 agreed with the Chairman's assessment of said Freeholder but not his method of execution and saw a change in control as an opportunity to reform how the party did business.
In retrospect it should have been abundantly clear to group 4 that groups 2 and 3 where not going to let group 4 accomplish it's goal.
Group 4 made a deal with the devil and is now in hell as a result. So that was big mistake number one.
Then we Got Fred Nieman. Now I think Fred did some good things. The best of which was opening up the nominating system. Fred also made some errors. I think he should have focused more on bylaws. I know he had campaigns to run but bylaws would not have taken that much effort.
He also made people nervous by doing things like supporting some candidates behind the scenes. He would have been better served by saying, Hey you can vote for who you want but I think this is the best candidate. Also the rule changes and the secrecy around the vote counts made people suspicious. Although I do not think there was anything nefarious going on there.
In short he did not pay enough attention to perception.
Finally Fred was not ready to make a clean break from the old ways of fundraising and rewarding supporters. I think that was because he believed that in the short run that would hurt the party. (but I also recognize that he like most lawyers are a part of that system) He may very well have been correct.
Finally let me say that any one of us could have made these same mistakes.
Things were not perfect but they were improving. Maybe we should have stuck with Fred. Sometimes the devil you know is better then the devil you don't. (just a figure of speech Fred)
Then came Adam. I don't get Adam. He is not a bad person outside of politics.
I think it boils down to inexperience and lack of leadership ability with a touch of arrogance.
I will just say 2 things about his tenure. By attacking the nominating process put in by Fred he has attacked the reformers within the party. Second he has repeated the mistake made by the previous two chairman. No Bylaws.
The bottom line is that a lot of mistakes that have been made. Some of which have been made by the would be reformers of the party.
Next up "How do we get the Hell out of here"
I think what really started the whole thing was Bill Dowd dumping a certain Freeholder.
That galvanized a very interesting coalition. I would broadly put the members of that coalition into 4 groups. Now I realize that this is a bit of an oversimplification, as there was overlap some people belonging to more then one group but I believe this is broadly correct.
Group 1 believed that the certain Freeholder was a good Freeholder (hard to fathom but true) and that he was being treated unfairly. Group 2 saw the precedent being set by the chairman as a threat to their own position of power. Group 3 saw the demise of the chairman as creating a power vacuum that would allow them upward mobility. Group 4 agreed with the Chairman's assessment of said Freeholder but not his method of execution and saw a change in control as an opportunity to reform how the party did business.
In retrospect it should have been abundantly clear to group 4 that groups 2 and 3 where not going to let group 4 accomplish it's goal.
Group 4 made a deal with the devil and is now in hell as a result. So that was big mistake number one.
Then we Got Fred Nieman. Now I think Fred did some good things. The best of which was opening up the nominating system. Fred also made some errors. I think he should have focused more on bylaws. I know he had campaigns to run but bylaws would not have taken that much effort.
He also made people nervous by doing things like supporting some candidates behind the scenes. He would have been better served by saying, Hey you can vote for who you want but I think this is the best candidate. Also the rule changes and the secrecy around the vote counts made people suspicious. Although I do not think there was anything nefarious going on there.
In short he did not pay enough attention to perception.
Finally Fred was not ready to make a clean break from the old ways of fundraising and rewarding supporters. I think that was because he believed that in the short run that would hurt the party. (but I also recognize that he like most lawyers are a part of that system) He may very well have been correct.
Finally let me say that any one of us could have made these same mistakes.
Things were not perfect but they were improving. Maybe we should have stuck with Fred. Sometimes the devil you know is better then the devil you don't. (just a figure of speech Fred)
Then came Adam. I don't get Adam. He is not a bad person outside of politics.
I think it boils down to inexperience and lack of leadership ability with a touch of arrogance.
I will just say 2 things about his tenure. By attacking the nominating process put in by Fred he has attacked the reformers within the party. Second he has repeated the mistake made by the previous two chairman. No Bylaws.
The bottom line is that a lot of mistakes that have been made. Some of which have been made by the would be reformers of the party.
Next up "How do we get the Hell out of here"
posted by Teddy Roosevelt at
11:07 AM
8 Comments:
I tend to agree with your account of how things went but feel that a couple facts need to be pointed out. During Fred Niemann tenure everyone had a vote and a voice, which ultimately was his downfall since people didn't know how to act as grownups, and secondly, more than Dowd, he was a winner. Check the stats on Dowds last couple years and you'll see that more local Republicans were elected in the "Fred Years" than earlier and certainly after. Dowd never had to deal with the corruption story and an angry APP.
Fred rightfully understood that you need to raise money to get people elected and he did that, legally. Just as the Democrats do. His criticism came from people who had one thing to push, thier own agenda. Had they took a moment to understand the ramifications of their criticism they would have realized that what Fred did was legal and necessary.
Shame on those who had either the self-promotion goggles on or could not understand the fruit of thier words.
As for Adam Puharic, while I probably agree he's a nice enough guy outside of politics, he is dishonest and self agrandizing to the point of personal and group destruction.
Very good analysis, TR.
During Fred Niemann tenure everyone had a vote and a voice, which ultimately was his downfall since people didn't know how to act as grownups
That wasn't Fred's downfall.
Both with the conventions and fund raising, Fred's downfall was not being forth right. If he'd put his cards on the table and sold his agenda, rather than trying to manipulate results or hide his agenda, he'd still be chairman and the GOP would still have a 5-0 majority in Freehold. (maybe)
As for Adam Puharic, while I probably agree he's a nice enough guy outside of politics, he is dishonest and self agrandizing to the point of personal and group destruction.
I think all you dead Presidents are way too generous with Adam.
He's not a nice guy. Now that he has some power his true colors are showing.
Fred has Mr. Brendan Tobin as the media consultant, that was a good thing Fred did also.
I think what really started the whole thing was Bill Dowd dumping a certain Freeholder.
While that is a reasonable place to start, it might be useful to look back even further.
If John Bennett had heeded Bill Dowd's call to drop his reelection bid in the wake of his billing controversy, Senator Arnone might be seeking reelection now and the Senate may have been split or Republican all these years. How would life in NJ be different if the Republicans held the Senate?
Looking back even further, when the machine was defeated by Bret Schundler in the 01 primary, Monmouth County was arguably the center of power in the NJ GOP, with Joe Kryillos as State Chair and John Bennett as Senate Co-President. If Franks had gotten the gubernatorial nod, or if Schundler actually had party support....imagine no Governor McGreevey.
One could go back even further to the lack of support that Mike Pappas had in the Monmouth GOP.
Or one could look at another angle, to when the Appolonia's took over the International Truck franchise in Monmouth and started courting the county business or to when Tony Pulugi became the Superintendent of Bridges.
If we had the time and all the information, we could trace "where it all started" to the Garden of Eden and Original Sin. Suffice to say it all started when money, power and ego became paramount to service in the hearts of our leadership.
I can't wait to hear how to get out of this mess!
Art said
"I think all you dead Presidents are way too generous with Adam"
I think Adam has made some Huge mistakes and if what some people have reported is correct he has at times acted in a heavy handed and clumsy manner.
However at this point I am not willing to attribute bad motives to him. At this point I will believe that he believes everything he has done has been for the good of the party.
Of course the road to hell is often paved with good intentions.
So final judgment is reserved at this time.
Tobin all the way!!
Brendan Tobin should consider county chairman, he would do a good job.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home