Bucks County Republicans Are Imploding
Mirriam-Webster dictionary defines “grow” as “to spring up and develop to maturity” and “to increase in size…to expand.”
Unfortunately for the Bucks County Republican machine, the idea of growth seems to be an alien concept.
For evidence of that, just look to the controversy that erupted within the GOP during the May 18 primary election.
*****
Ten grassroots activists looking to rebuild a wayward GOP decided to run for State Committee, the body charged with vetting and endorsing statewide candidates.
The unendorsed slate had little resources, so running against the might of the Bucks Establishment made their prospects of dim, at best.
Nevertheless, they pressed on, making no secret of their disagreements with the Republican leadership, whom they viewed as more interested in patronage and insider deals, rather than articulating Republican issues.
The Establishment, worried that any “insurgent” winner could weaken their political structure, responded by pulling out all stops.
There’s nothing wrong with both sides having a healthy debate, but the rules of fair play should prevail. And in this case, it seems that they did not.
*****
In the early morning hours of Election Day, a court hearing was held to determine if a piece of campaign literature touting the challengers was legal. At issue was whether the disclaimer on the sample ballot was appropriate.
The ruling favored the plaintiffs, who happened to be three endorsed State committee candidates, with a court order prohibiting the distribution of the literature in question.
Over the next several hours, reports poured in that the unendorsed candidates and their supporters were bullied and intimidated, with some threatened that they’d be “hauled off to jail in handcuffs” if they failed to comply.
Unless scores of grassroots activists — many of whom are new to the political process — are outright lying, the powerbrokers behind the Bucks Machine made it abundantly clear that, since they were in charge, they could do anything they pleased.
And their response was akin to shooting a gnat with an atomic cannon.
*****
The judge’s ruling may, or may not, have been the correct one.
In lieu of delving into legal minutiae, suffice it to say that there is enough ambiguity in the law to conclude that this wasn’t an open and shut case.
Whether the disclaimer was worded correctly and whether the Election Code even applies to State Committee candidates remains an open question, since the Department of State does not require campaign filings for those offices.
The answer will only come after that issue is adjudicated.
But that’s hardly the point.
A closer look at the situation reveals some very troubling events and raises questions about the judgment of the Bucks County GOP hierarchy.
Consider:
1) A source told Freindly Fire that the sample ballot was given directly to the Vice Chairwoman of the Bucks GOP, Pat Poprik— a State Committee candidate herself—several weeks prior to the election.
And here’s where things get interesting.
Poprik has been quoted as saying, “”I hope they (the unendorsed candidates) come on board and work with us…I welcome them with open arms as wide as I can spread them.”
But under scrutiny, Ms. Poprik’s genteel attitude seems to disappear.
If she knew a problem existed with the ballot but didn’t alert the activists — some of whom were first informed of the court order by constables — then the rift seems irreparable, with the gulf between both sides larger than the Grand Canyon.
It fails the sniff test to believe that the three plaintiffs, all of whom are closely affiliated with Poprik, would file the suit by themselves without the vice chairwoman’s knowledge.
But to be fair, one of two possibilities exist:
Read the rest at Philadelphia Magazine’s Philly Post:
http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2010/06/08/bucks-countys-republican-trouble/
Comments, compliments or complaints? Email Chris Freind, Start the discussion or
Share This...