East Norriton’s own NY-23 November 8 2009
If there was one message from election day 2009 that seemed to resonate, it is the struggle for the soul of the Republican Party between old guard GOP cronyism and Conservatives. The movement began with the purging of Arlen Specter, but there is still much work to be done. That struggle was vividly illustrated in NY-23 in the race between Scozzofava, a liberal RINO and Hoffman, a non-district resident and conservative. Both parties are paying very close attention to this phenomenon (and the Dems, at their peril, focus exclusively on NY-23 and ignore the implications of the NJ and VA gubernatorial races. But it’s all good.) I see the defeat of Hoffman was not so much a defeat for conservatism, but as a defeat for the entrenched business-as-usual GOP, as the Democrat won that office simply because of an unfocused local party.
The struggle seems to be with the GOP old guard, those entrenched Republicans in politics for sake of preserving the power base to which they have become accustomed. The old guard is getting in the way of newcomers, many of whom are true conservatives and threaten the old boy network; they are dedicated only to keeping themselves and their cronies in power despite the wishes of their constituencies. And they will go to great lengths to maintain that power, including campaigning for the opposition. Scozzofava was not the only Republican who undermined her own party this year.
In this year’s East Norriton supervisor’s race, we had our own old guard Republicans in conflict with a party outsider. Republican Barry Papiernak ran a clean, positive campaign for supervisor based on opposition to the controversial Einstein Hospital construction project impending at the old Woody’s Golf Course site. Mr. Papiernak spent $3,400 on his entire campaign. He was defeated by a mere 14 votes by a pair of Democratic Philadelphia lawyers who spent over $30,000 on their campaign for supervisor.
Let that sink in for a moment: $30,000. On a local supervisor’s campaign.
Who are these guys? See here. And this is Dainoff’s father.
It’s important to remember that these Philadelphia Lawyers only won by 14 votes. And they only got that far because the East Norriton Republican committee was actively campaigning against Mr. Papiernak. The following flyers were mailed out to East Norriton households and were handed out at several polling places by local Republican Committee members.
Shenanigans characterized this campaign, which included, among other things, lawn sign shenanigans and Lewis McQuirns, the incumbent candidate Papiernak defeated in the primary, placing blue tape over Papiernak’s name at a polling location, and Republican committee members and supervisors actively overheard vocally campaigning for “the two Kevins.”
Here is the a nice snapshot of the Old Guard in action: the East Norriton Board of Supervisors:
“I’m not going to let you speak”…..?? Really? No wonder they are so desperate to remain in power.
Further adding to the intrigue, in a head scratching piece appearing in today’s Norristown Times Herald, Carl Rotenberg praises the “old fashioned campaigning” that won the election for these two Philadelphia Lawyers.
Old-fashioned, door-to-door campaigning, a dedicated group of volunteers and a well-financed campaign chest helped get two Democrats elected to the traditionally all-Republican Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.
Democrat John Zurzola topped the East Norriton field with 1,291 votes and running mate Harris Dainoff received 1,271 votes. The two lawyers, who practice in separate Philadelphia law firms, beat Republican Barry Papiernik, who received 1,257 votes; Republican Kevin McDevitt, who received 1,216 votes and Independent candidate Kevin Dyson, who received 455 votes.
Clearly, the tone of this article is “Rah! Rah! Democrats are making inroads into Republican territory! Pay no attention to other elections which may reflect Dear Leader’s sagging approval ratings!” But what puzzles me is that all of the information cited above is out there for public consumption. In fact, the Times Herald has received all of this information in great detail. Yet, this is the piece it runs as a follow up to the election.
Is the Times Herald in such great financial shape that it can afford to ignore a legitimate news story, about which it has detailed information, in favor of a fluff piece on the victory of a couple of Philadelphia Lawyers who outspent their opponent by 10 to 1?
Is that the real story here? I think not.
Possibly Related...
Comments, compliments or complaints?