Nov 8, 2013

The Blame Game

Much as already been written about the Muller/Ott race. Although I don't profess more insight than my fellow bloggers, I don't have their hate of Ott/Woodman, and therefore perhaps a more objective viewpoint. First of all, at less than 48/52, it was a close race. Although I keep reading about the money wasted by Woodman, in reality, Muller/Fleck spent an extraordinary sum. In addition to endless oversize flyers, they canvassed Allentown with hundreds of workers for two days. Those couple thousand votes probably cost $25 each. Some pundits feel that Woodman erred in not fielding Allentown candidates, to help bring out the Republican base in the city. I spent three minutes and interviewed that entire base, they did vote. The Allentown Republicans fielded excellent candidates in recent elections, to no avail. Due to the white flight out of Allentown, the closest suburbs, such as South Whitehall, now have a more Democratic composition than in years prior. Finally, lets not underestimate the power of negative advertising in politics. While Muller sent out one negative flyer after another, Ott did not respond in kind. Scott Ott took pride in running a positive campaign. He's a much nicer guy than me.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mike I don't hate Woodman or Ott - but I definitely do not trust them.

You'd commented several times that you didn't think they had any hidden agenda. I'd suggest you're incorrect - their agenda was Ott to a larger (state/federal) platform with Woodman as the puppetmaster, wielding power from behind the scenes. This has come crashing down - losing to a weak opponent like Muller is bad, even in an off year.

I'm conservative, but they're too radical for me and I'm glad they lost.

The Banker

Anonymous said...

Banker -

Your comments about Woodman are interesting, particularly since he has recently been criticized by some for being too moderate as evidenced by his continued support for Dent.

Maybe Woodman's where he should be for a party chair - a believer that competition results in a better product (in both the free market and in primaries) and vigorously supporting his party's candidates (shocking, isn't it).

It seems too many want to believe a false narrative put out by the Democrats. I'm sure they would love to have Woodman gone. One race aside (that was still very close), he has a strong track record of winning.

Anonymous said...

I am sorry that Ott lost, but I agree with "The Banker's" 9:10am assessment about Woodman and Ott. I have had this opinion for quite some time now....PJF

michael molovinsky said...

what i find interesting is how everybody links the republican candidates with woodman, party chairman. they don't do that with the democratic chairman, many of whom don't even know his name. why is that, just because he's wealthy? this is a rhetorical question, for which i will not be posting answers.

Anonymous said...

Mike I understand you won't print answers, but here it is anyway - Woodman paid for Ott's entire campaign! If any Democrat operated the same way, I'd call them on it too.

As an example, I've commented often on Pawlowski whoring himself out to Marcel Groen and the Unions.

It's no different. Ott is bought/paid for by Woodman just as Pawlowski is bought/paid for.

The Banker

michael molovinsky said...

banker@12:14, i'm not motivated to do the research, and i don't doubt that woodman was the major contributor, but i suspect that ott also received numerous other contributions. as to pawlowski, i should point out that i never accused him of pay to play, and have actually defended him against such charges. somebody commented at o'hare's blog, claiming that he knows exactly what woodman and ott expected from each other. i doubt that the anonymous person ever spoke to either of them. i have spoken with both of them, and heard no such confession.