Aug 7, 2017

What Now For Allentown


With Ray O'Connell entering the mayoral race as a write-in,  the dynamics of the contest change. Some students of the local political scene think that the anti-Pawlowski vote will be divided up between O'Connell and Hyman,  giving Pawlowski a plurality election eve.

Certainly,  O'Connell's entrance can only take votes away from Hyman.  While some Republicans complain that he is only one of them by opportunity, that accusation may actually be a plus in Democratic Allentown.  So far,  I haven't seen Hyman defend his recent Republican registration.

Although Allentown would certainly be better off with either O'Connell or Hyman, I'm refraining from any predictions, with one exception.  Regardless of who wins,  Allentown has been lessened because Pawlowski won the primary.  The fact that about 28% of the votes cast in the Democratic Primary were for someone with compromised integrity, doesn't bode well for Allentown's future.  These supporters will continue their own agenda, regardless of who wins in November.  Future politicians will have to pander to this element, who are more concerned with entitlements than ethics.

11 comments:

george schaller said...

MM, gnat is just a bed bug breeding mice and roach importer and a circus carnival stick for a bigger problem and agenda driven design upon the entire area beoned just Allentown pa!

Pray for the populus that is the good part of the make-up of the entire area as they are the ones that become victims and statistics of a bad government on the local venue.

Scott Armstrong said...

Mike,

The Pawlowski vote will be motivated to get to the polls this November for a variety of reasons. Ed has nailed himself to a cross and his follows will show up, others will support Ed because it works for them.
Will Nat or Ray have this sort of energy behind their campaigns? The only reason people will vote for either is because they aren't Ed. Of course we are told Ray is a well known and beloved figure in the city. Is that true? Ray's people are now labeling Nat as a slumlord. That's nice, sure you know how that feels Mike. Nat told the WPCA the other night that he would show any of his building to them at their request anytime.
With Ray in the race Ed doesn't need to attack Nat, Ray is doing that for him. Ed's prayers have been answered and he is on easy street.
Let me close with this one reminder, in his announcement last week Ray said, "I don't care if the pie is divided more ways, I'm running for Ray O'Connell, Ray O'Connell for mayor." It was cringe worthy. This is the sort of faux pas rookies make. But when many wiser heads hoping to rid the city of Ed asked him not to enter the race he blew them off. One has to therefore wonder if that quote wasn't from the heart.

ironpigpen said...

In my opinion, Barack Hussein Obama certainly succeeded in 'fundamentally transforming' this country in terms encouraging & fostering an unmistakable culture of "let me get some (more entitlements)".

michael molovinsky said...

george@8:09, this is the last comment from you that i will host on this blog. your comments are too repetitive. i only leave it up as a springboard to announce some guidelines for comments from others.

it is public knowledge that hyman is a landlord in allentown. ( as a disclaimer so am I) there are those who generally disparage against landlords, and indiscriminately use assorted derogatory terms for such. for example pawlowski and allentown never started an auto repair garage of shame public ridicule as they did with landlords. i believe that as a landlord hyman has a familiarity with allentown's housing situation, and its ramifications on the city. i see his background as a plus.

michael molovinsky said...

rolf@8:48, talking about repetitive, no comment from you that ever again contains the words Barack Hussein Obama will be hosted on this blog.

ironpigpen said...

So, in other words, you disagree with my assessment of what eight years long under the previous administration has done to transform the culture. Which is fine, of course. But, in my opinion, although the previous administration certainly did not invent entitlements, they certainly did a whole lot to make the handout mentality a hell of a lot more 'cooler' than it ever used to be. I offer He Who Shall Not Be Named Phones as Exhibit A. And "a pleasant evening" all the same.

R.O.

TRENT HALL said...

There probably is no single item more falsely believed by the alt right Faux News crowd, other than maybe that of the "death panels" nonsense, than the issue of "free phones." The idea of subsidizing phone service for rural areas was originally proposed by Republican red state Governors (just like "RommeyCare/ObamaCare" was a Republican idea of everybody having skinny in the healthcare game via the individual mandate)because the major carriers, for their bottom (i.e., profit line, bypassed rural areas or only offered inferior service. So, by offering subsidizing rates, similar in concept to the funds offered insurance companies to participate in the Medicaid exchanges, the carriers were induced to tower up/wire up and extend cellular service in those areas. Right wingnuts, like the Reagan "welfare queens" nonsense, seized on this as proclaiming that Obama was passing out free phones to blacks & browns while forcing real (i.e., white) Americans to pay through the nose. Actually, rural schools are the real beneficiaries, as the subsidized rates afforded school districts the ability to add internet connected computers & the relevant tech training students will need for the workplace of today/tomorrow.

Republicans in Congress want to eliminate these subsidizes and demagog accordingly against them as part of their effort to scrape Net Neutrality so as to permit certain carriers to charge more for some services and provide less for others. But, just like the battle between Red State Governors who want to maintain Medicaid exchanges and not deprive thousands in their states of healthcare and their state Republican Congressional members who are beholden to special interests and in protected gerrymandered seats who don't have to worry about a state wide race (and/or the population centers of the major cities in their state) and thus are voting to curb Medicaid and eliminate it, likewise the competing interests of other carriers & the tech industry to preserve Net Neutrality will be fought out in Congress.

michael molovinsky said...

rolf@6:12 and trent@11:12, i have no interest in these off topic comments on your opinions of national policy. all such future comments will be deleted.

Mike Baker said...

Laughable.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
michael molovinsky said...

unknown@11:58, i have deleted your comment because with such an accusation a reply would not be out of order, and the whole subject is off topic to the post. your readership is appreciated, hope you understand