Friday, January 25, 2013

Scott Ott is fooling himself

  .........and unfortunately for far too many Lehigh County voters, he is fooling them too.

      Let us get something straight here. It is true that Scott Ott ONLY lost to Don Cunningham by 862 votes in 2009.  But ESPN has a TV show called "NUMBERS DON'T LIE", and a closer look at voter turnout in 2009 compared to the turnout in 2005 tells a different Story.

   In 2005, Don Cunningham received 33,263 votes to Jane Ervin's 20,721. At that time, there were 200,739 registered voters in Lehigh County. According to Lehigh County's own data, 57,638 citizens cast votes that November, for a turnout of 28.7% The undervote was 3,634, or 1.8%

  In 2009, Don Cunningham received 21,063 votes to Scott Ott's 20,201. In 2009 there were 222,980 registered voters in Lehigh County, with 44,637 participating in Democracy for a turnout of 20.02%
   The undervote of voters who participated but didn't cast ballots in the Executive race was 3433, or just about 1.4%

      A couple of big points to be made here. First, in 2005 Don Cunningham was running against a Republican who had pushed through a 70% property tax increase. This issue motivated voters to the polls. Second, in 2009, nobody gave Ott a chance exactly because Cunningham had done a good job, and people thought his reelection was easily  assured.

     Third, I would like to point out that Scott Ott received 520 fewer votes than Jane Ervin did. If we stay with his logic, then people like him less than Jane Ervin.
    Another thing to remember is that voters were burned out in 2009, after a raucous 2008 year of electioneering, In 2013, I believe the mood of the Country, and yes that belleweather place we call home, the Lehigh Valley, is shifting. Voters are tired of political games being played with every little article just to obstruct one side or the other.

   Mr Ott and his allies on the County Commissioners seem to have decided to forget that the purpose of serving in elected office is to take care of the people's business, and see to the welfare of the entire Community. Their idea of REFORM is to protect the interests of the wealthiest few at the expense of the rest of us. I agree that we have to be fiscally aware and watch our pennies. I agree that we should look at everything to see where we can save money, and I agree that there is always room to improve how government functions.

    But government can't function by unilaterally proposing $5 million dollar cuts without specifics.  A society is only as strong as its' weakest links, and we can't abandon our obligations because some feel that a few recipients don't deserve assistance or might be abusing the program. I will touch on this more in a future post, but most of the human resources money is state and federal pass through cash, and shouldn't be traeted with disdain as the reform crew has shown.

    When one is elected, I believe the person has a responsibility to weigh the best interests of all. Our Government is supposed to be "For the People" not "For the IDEOLOGY" of any political Party.

   We need people in the elected positions of Government who can work to build consensus and find common solutions, not ideologically blind theocrats whose mantra is "Our way or no way."

    Scott Ott is not the leader that Lehigh County needs in the next 4 years. Unfortunately, so far no one has stepped forward to offer an alternative. We won't know for sure until March 12th when the nominating petitions are filed what the answer to that question might be.


  1. Do I get this correct? You think one should not run for office unless he or she believes that he or she can win, otherwise "they are fooling themselves"?

    What happened to running for office to propose an agenda that one's believes in, and let the voters decide? That is the American way!

    Whether you agree with Ott or not, I say one should not be criticized merely for tossing one's hat into the ring. Politics should be like the blogoshpere, the more debate, the merrier! And if you think Ott is fooling the voters, all the more better that the debate should begin!

    Yet you rip him for tossing his hat into the ring! I call you on that! Your post is just deriding. Take him on on the issues. Pass on the analogies to North Korea, I'm talking substance, not BS. You want change? Propose something! I dare say I have . . . often!

    Did you think Dennis Pearson was fooling himself, should not have run for County office (and others) facing his uphill battles or did he add to the debates? Actually, I think you once favored Pearson's entry, citing, his knowledge on "the ins and outs on just about every local issue", your words, not mine.

    No, I will not criticize one's entry in any race. Especially one who nearly beat an incumbent executive and won a county-wide race handily. Besides, your post ignores the all important primary race.

    No, I will wait until the substance is put forth. Then I may debate. Otherwise put something forth. Make a proposal. I can't say doing the same thing over and over again will fix our problems. Let's not rip one for trying, even if you do not agree with him.

    Maybe you should just change your blogname back to what it once was. That would be more correct given the posts here.


  2. NLV-

    Lets agree to disagree. No where in this post did i disparage Mr Ott for throwing his hat in the ring. I have put my self on the field and taken my licks, so I know what it entails.

    It is my opinion that the circumstances of the 2009 are a bit misleading, due to lackluster voter interest on one side in particular. And lets be honest, there are too damn many voters that want to be fooled, and no party has a lock on them, need a cite examples, nationally and locally?

    I also criticize, as is my right, Mr Ott's approach to governing. He has been in office now for just over a year, a year that has been marked by a constant parade of confrontations.
    I'm not denying that sometimes confrontation is a necessary tactic, but doing it solely to score political points is a very short sighted approach that usually causes long term resentment.

    I disagree with the methods while agreeing with what much of what needs to be accomplished. I understand your party chair has dissuaded you from challenging Tom Creighton. That's too bad, that would have made for an interesting race.

  3. I understand your party chair has dissuaded you from challenging Tom Creighton

    Oh my gosh! Your my friend, but do you just make this stuff up? Man, what's in the air over there? I'm not challenging Tom Creighton because I have a life, one that has become more important to me since my injury of two years ago. And no, its not something I discussed with the Party chair, who did not ask me. Besides, I think Tom would have lost ;-)

    You may criticize Ott's approach, but it worked. Three of the proposed five million dollar cut was wrestled from the initial proposed budget, and without any cuts to the line item for personnel, which I believe makes the first time a budget proposed by the executive was amended as result of the County legislature. I recall many times where it was simply approved, en mass, by default. There is no stirring the pot without some confrontation, and yes, sometimes its ugly.

    PS: Glad you're back.

    1. NLV-
      Napalm worked real well in Vietnam as well didn't it? The gand still has to play ball again next year, and now they have disenfranchised Dougherty and Osborne much like Brutus did Caesar. There is a costs to waging political war like this, both among the other Commissioners and the public whose interests is too be served.
      As for my statement about you being dissuaded from running, I had that from three differebt members of your local committee. I don't think they all lied, nor do I think they got together and made it up. I do think it possible they all share the same perception, or were given the same information.
      P.S., I never reveal my sources, and that's why I get such intriguing info. I sit on much of it for a great period of time, seeing if it pans out.
      What I want you to remember is that to a great extent, I agree with your ends, a leaner, more efficient and cost efficient government.
      But the blunt instrument approach is not a good one lomg term. I believe in building Consensus to solve problems, not nasty confrontation.

  4. "They (Republicans) can come along for the ride, but they gotta sit in the back."

    BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, October 26, 2010

  5. First it was North Korea, now its napalm. Quit with the rhetoric and maybe we can have a meaningful debate.


I welcome comments from real people, not robots. (Though I admit that with some extremists who have been programmed, you can't tell)