PAWaterCooler.com

 Governor Christie:

Political courage.

That is the description you have earned as Governor.  And for good reason.

You have successfully confronted the most powerful special interests in the state, sending a message that there are no sacred cows. In doing so, to the pleasant surprise of millions, the entrenched “business as usual” crowd is finally on the run.

In that regard, I want to discuss what is perhaps the most patronage-laden and inefficient entity in the state — the Delaware River Port Authority.

As you are aware, the contract of Authority Chief Executive John Matheussen expired July 17. While he is still functioning month-to-month as the CEO, his future rests with you.

There has been much coverage devoted to the largesse of the DRPA, specifically the $400 million in “economic development” funds that were spent on everything under the sun — except the bridges — leading to massive debt and rising tolls.

In addition to the misuse of the people’s money, there are a number of other factors to consider when deciding whether Mr. Matheussen’s contract should be renewed by the Board and approved by you.

Following are several examples of John Matheussen’s failed leadership:

1) Permitted Immense Conflicts Of Interest

Without question, Matheussen’s greatest failing is his toleration of the unfettered conflicts of interest that permeate the DRPA Board.

Upon assuming office in 2002, Governor Rendell appointed himself Chairman of the DRPA. One of the major beneficiaries has been his former firm, Ballard Spahr. In the three years preceding Rendell’s election, Ballard received $25,000 in legal fees from the Port Authority, including only $480 in 2001. From 2002 until the 2009, Ballard has received over $2.7 million.

Ballard, its attorneys and associated entities have contributed $1.5 million to Rendell’s campaigns.

Two of the governor’s former top aides, John Estey, his former chief of staff and Adrian King, his former deputy chief of staff, are currently partners at Ballard, and both hold or have held influential positions related to DRPA.

Estey has chaired virtually every Board meeting since 2002, and Mr. King served as the Authority’s Outside Counsel. Mr. Estey and Mr. King are brothers-in-law, and together have contributed over $35,000 to Mr. Rendell’s political coffers.

Former Pennsylvania Treasurer Robin Wiessmann, who had been a Rendell appointee, sits on the DRPA Board. Her husband, Ken Jarin, also a partner at Ballard, served as DRPA Outside Counsel and occasionally chaired board meetings

Incomprehensibly, Matheussen never raised an eyebrow when Estey, King, Jarin, and Wiessmann voted to “accept and receive” Ballard’s legal bills to DRPA, since that action amounted to money going into their law firm’s pocket, and, ultimately their own.

As you know better than most, Governor, the toughest challenge of being a leader is to buck the crowd and do the right thing, no matter how difficult.  But instead of illustrating that trait, John Matheussen was an instrumental part of the go-along, get along crowd — to the detriment of all but the insiders

2) The Campaign Finance Report Conflict Of DRPA Executive John Rogale ….

(Read More at Philadelphia Magazine: Comments welcome)

http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2010/07/21/its-time-to-clean-house-at-the-drpa/

Email Chris Freind, Start the discussion or Share This...

Lisa, Senator Leach writes:

The overwhelming majority of Pennsylvania’s legislators, on both sides of the aisle, are extremely smart, hard-working, completely honest people who are doing their level best to make Pennsylvania a better place.

The notion that legislators are, (except for rare exceptions) corrupt in any way is plain false. And thus any “reforms” based on this notion are ill-grounded.

I think taxpayers deserve the list of stupid, lazy, and dishonest legislators. Leach said they’re there. Don’t their constituents deserve to know who isn’t serving them?

Who is he covering for?

Email AlexC, Start the discussion or Share This...

Altogether now…. awwwwww…..

One of about every 20 bills introduced in the Legislature winds up as state law, according to state records.

Legislators introduced 4,461 bills in the 2007-08 session, and 213 became law.

The difficulty of getting a bill approved by both chambers is a double-edged sword, analysts say. While the low success rate might mean some good ideas never see the light of day, the process may ensure that enacted bills are comprehensive and fine-tuned, they say.

No matter how well-intentioned the campaign promises of a candidate might be, voters should remember the reality check waiting in Harrisburg, said Christopher Borick, a political science professor at Muhlenberg College in Allentown.

“For some of these (bills), it’s an annual rite,” Borick said.

Last session, Sen. Stewart Greenleaf, R-Montgomery County, introduced the most legislation, with 168 bills and resolutions; Rep. Nick Kotik, D-Coraopolis, introduced the fewest.

“A lot of the things that I contemplate running will never get brought up for vote,” said Kotik, who introduced only one piece of legislation during the last session, according to GovNetPA. “So I just view it as spinning wheels.”

That’s a feature.

Every stupid insidious invasive regulation or law was someone’s “good idea.”

These guys have to pass one bill a year. That’s it. The budget. Just the one. … and they can’t. Again and again and again and again (let’s make it eight in a row late this year).

Instead, they pass things like Milk & Ice Cream Appreciation Week and a Resolution Declaring that Mom and Apple Pie Are Great Things.

The budget.

The clock is ticking.

Email AlexC, Start the discussion or Share This...

Conservative rock star and close friend of the ‘cooler Joe Sterns defeated incumbent Robert Ames for Chairmanship of the Schuylkill County Republican Party on Saturday.

Joe is all of 35 years old and has been a leader in conservative politics for most of that time. Most recently he has served as Executive Director of the Citizens Alliance of PA. He’s a Constitutionalist who believes in individual liberty and personal responsibility. Joe is the type of person we need at the helm of every county party in the state.

Congratulations and good luck!

Remember we knew you when…

Email Fred Mullner, Start the discussion or Share This...

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/

Email Chris Freind, Start the discussion or Share This...

Why does it seem that every time a politician takes on corruption, his motives are called into question?

We often hear that investigations of this sort are “politically motivated,” but rarely whether or not the charges are true.

Attorney General Tom Corbett is a good example.

Despite great success in rooting out legislative corruption — an investigation known as “Bonusgate,” — Corbett, the GOP gubernatorial candidate, continues to be accused of using his office for political gain.

Unfortunately, too many of the Attorney General’s critics fail to look at the facts before they open up with both barrels.

Bonusgate was not the brainchild of an ambitious man looking to generate headlines for a gubernatorial run, but an investigation dropped into his lap by a newspaper’s investigative reporting.

In fact, Bonusgate was investigated using the evidence as a guide, wherever it happened to lead. At first, that was the Democratic Caucus, where ten felony convictions have been achieved thus far.

Later, it was the Republican Caucus, where a host of GOP insiders have been indicted, including powerful former Speaker John Perzel.

Because of the investigation, Corbett has said he will take neither campaign donations nor endorsements from legislators. 

So how alienating an entire legislative body, including members of your own Party who normally contribute over a million dollars to a gubernatorial candidate’s war chest, is politically beneficial, remains a mystery.

But the criticism continues unabated.

Corbett has come under more fire recently, this time for obtaining a grand jury subpoena against Twitter to ascertain the identity of an anonymous blogger who had repeatedly criticized the Bonusgate investigation.

The Attorney General believed that Brett Cott, a convicted Bonusgate defendant, was the mastermind behind the blog.  And since Cott was scheduled for sentencing, it was Corbett’s intention to show that Cott lacked remorse for his crimes, and therefore deserved a long prison term.

Was Corbett within his legal right? Certainly.

Was it damaging to his political aspirations? Absolutely.  Of this, there can be any doubt.

And that, in a very real sense, is what would make Tom Corbett an effective governor.

*****

A veteran of the political arena, Corbett knew the subpoena would unleash a torrent of negative press only five months before the election. Despite this, he chose to move ahead, and in the process, provided an insight into the type of governor he would be.

The easy road would have been to forget the subpoena.  After all, Cott was already convicted, and that’s the only headline he needed to be perceived as successful.

But Corbett, a prosecutor to the end, made the decision to see the case through in the manner he deemed most appropriate —political repercussions be damned.

Whether or not one agrees with the Attorney General’s decision…..

Read the rest at Philadelphia Magazine’s Philly Post:

http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2010/05/25/corbett-shows-his-independence-with-twitter-subpeona/

Email Chris Freind, Start the discussion or Share This...

Figured I’d link this for those interested in watching as they come in.

Here are the PA-12 Special election results.

Legislative special elections: 20th(Allegheny County), 138th(Northampton), 147th(Montgomery).

Statewide primaries(governor, lt. governor, U.S. Senate).

U.S. Congress primaries.

PA Senate primaries.

PA Representative primaries.

Democratic state committee.

Republican state committee – may be an interesting write-in in this category

Email ChrisRenner, Start the discussion or Share This...

Think Before You Vote Today

As millions of Pennsylvanians head to the polls for today’s primary election, experts have noted that the electorate is restless, volatile, and even angry. They attribute this to unpopular spending policies and a backlash over ever-increasing taxes.

With so many people losing jobs, houses and retirement accounts, the level of interest in how the people’s business is conducted has reached record highs.

At the same time, the level of cynicism and mistrust is also off the charts.

Many activists have learned that challenging the establishment is a daunting task, leading some to become frustrated by the entrenched business-as-usual order that prevails.

As a result, there is a growing perception that most candidates are just more of the same, cleverly disguising themselves as reformers and agents of change to appeal to the electorate’s current mood.

And that’s not an unfounded perception.

All the candidates for U.S. Senate and governor have snappy television ads and slick mail pieces, and all promise virtually the same thing: more jobs, lower taxes and a reformed, more accountable government.

But since all of the candidates detailed below are current office holders, they are, by definition, part of the very establishment against which they campaign. So how do people know which ones to trust, and for whom to vote?    

Trite as it sounds, people need to do their homework. Being busy at home, work and with children’s activities may be a way of life for many, but it’s simply no excuse to be ignorant.

And corrupt and lazy public officials exist on such voter ignorance.

Too many citizens either don’t vote, especially in primaries, or pull the lever merely because of a TV ad or yard sign.

Given the enormous problems that confront us, it’s time for voters to make better informed decisions.

Granted, there is no such thing as a perfect candidate, but if more than a precious few exercised the three “C’s” — common sense, core values and consistency — our government would be infinitely more efficient, and we might actually have a chance of turning the ship around before it plows into the iceberg.

As an Election Day primer, Freindly Fire cuts through the political spin to look at the not-so-well-known political baggage each candidate brings with him, with the hope that such knowledge will allow readers to make the best, most educated choice for Pennsylvania’s future as they head to the polls.

U.S. Senate

-Thirty-year incumbent U.S. Senator Arlen Specter, who has been defying the odds for much of his career, has to contend with the fallout stemming from his highly-publicized Party switch. The question is whether Democrats will follow the lead of President Obama and Governor Rendell in welcoming Specter into the Party, thankful for his decisive votes over the last year, or whether he will be booted from office because he is viewed as the ultimate political opportunist interested only in prolonging his own career.

Interestingly, Specter’s deciding vote on the stimulus plan — made as a Republican —was done so against the advice of trusted political advisors.  Had he gone the safe route and voted with the GOP against the bill, he would have virtually assured himself no primary opponent (as he had also announced his opposition to the union-backed “Card Check” bill). So not only might the opportunism charge not stick, but Specter may, in fact, be rewarded for what he calls his most important vote of conscience.

-Joe Sestak has saturated the airwaves with commercials stating that Specter’s time has come and gone, with fresh blood needed in Washington.  Running as an outsider, he has branded himself as an atypical politician.  Yet his steadfast refusal to release records concerning his controversial departure as Deputy Chief Of Naval Operations, his paltry pay for campaign workers —while family members make thousands —, and his large number of missed votes have led to questions about his character, judgment, and integrity. 

The problem Sestak faces is that, for the most part, people aren’t voting for him; instead, he must rely on “Specter fatigue” — voters coming out against the incumbent. If Sestak is viewed as just another politician, voters will choose the “devil they know.”

Governor (GOP)

-State Representative Sam Rohrer touts himself as a constitutional conservative while campaigning for fiscal responsibility and limited government.  Yet on the most important issues to many in the GOP, Rohrer did the opposite of what he now preaches by voting for an unconstitutional payraise as well as hiking his own pension by 50%.  And that pension vote is the largest contributing factor to the state’s pension crisis, which is the ticking time bomb awaiting the next governor when state pension payments jump eightfold in the next three years.

-Attorney General Tom Corbett is certainly the most believable candidate who talks about “reforming Harrisburg,” since his legislative corruption probe has netted ten felony convictions, as well as indictments of two former House Speakers — actions once thought unthinkable by many. But he is still dogged by charges from opponents that his investigations, as well as his lawsuit against Obamacare, are politically motivated.

Corbett’s most notable policy issue is his no-new-taxes pledge. While a sound policy, Corbett will be severely tested not to break it as the fiscal crisis grows to almost unmanageable proportions over the next Governor’s term.  Such pledges prove popular at election time, but the corollary is unmistakable: break it at your own peril.  One only has to look at how much free time President George H.W. Bush had after he uttered — and then broke —one of the most remembered pledges in political history: “Read my lip, no new taxes.”

Governor (Democrats)

Think Before You Vote Today

As millions of Pennsylvanians head to the polls for today’s primary election, experts have noted that the electorate is restless, volatile, and even angry. They attribute this to unpopular spending policies and a backlash over ever-increasing taxes.

With so many people losing jobs, houses and retirement accounts, the level of interest in how the people’s business is conducted has reached record highs.

At the same time, the level of cynicism and mistrust is also off the charts.

Many activists have learned that challenging the establishment is a daunting task, leading some to become frustrated by the entrenched business-as-usual order that prevails.

As a result, there is a growing perception that most candidates are just more of the same, cleverly disguising themselves as reformers and agents of change to appeal to the electorate’s current mood.

And that’s not an unfounded perception.

All the candidates for U.S. Senate and governor have snappy television ads and slick mail pieces, and all promise virtually the same thing: more jobs, lower taxes and a reformed, more accountable government.

But since all of the candidates detailed below are current office holders, they are, by definition, part of the very establishment against which they campaign. So how do people know which ones to trust, and for whom to vote?    

Trite as it sounds, people need to do their homework. Being busy at home, work and with children’s activities may be a way of life for many, but it’s simply no excuse to be ignorant.

And corrupt and lazy public officials exist on such voter ignorance.

Too many citizens either don’t vote, especially in primaries, or pull the lever merely because of a TV ad or yard sign.

Given the enormous problems that confront us, it’s time for voters to make better informed decisions.

Granted, there is no such thing as a perfect candidate, but if more than a precious few exercised the three “C’s” — common sense, core values and consistency — our government would be infinitely more efficient, and we might actually have a chance of turning the ship around before it plows into the iceberg.

As an Election Day primer, Freindly Fire cuts through the political spin to look at the not-so-well-known political baggage each candidate brings with him, with the hope that such knowledge will allow readers to make the best, most educated choice for Pennsylvania’s future as they head to the polls.

U.S. Senate

-Thirty-year incumbent U.S. Senator Arlen Specter, who has been defying the odds for much of his career, has to contend with the fallout stemming from his highly-publicized Party switch. The question is whether Democrats will follow the lead of President Obama and Governor Rendell in welcoming Specter into the Party, thankful for his decisive votes over the last year, or whether he will be booted from office because he is viewed as the ultimate political opportunist interested only in prolonging his own career.

Interestingly, Specter’s deciding vote on the stimulus plan — made as a Republican —was done so against the advice of trusted political advisors.  Had he gone the safe route and voted with the GOP against the bill, he would have virtually assured himself no primary opponent (as he had also announced his opposition to the union-backed “Card Check” bill). So not only might the opportunism charge not stick, but Specter may, in fact, be rewarded for what he calls his most important vote of conscience.

-Joe Sestak has saturated the airwaves with commercials stating that Specter’s time has come and gone, with fresh blood needed in Washington.  Running as an outsider, he has branded himself as an atypical politician.  Yet his steadfast refusal to release records concerning his controversial departure as Deputy Chief Of Naval Operations, his paltry pay for campaign workers —while family members make thousands —, and his large number of missed votes have led to questions about his character, judgment, and integrity. 

The problem Sestak faces is that, for the most part, people aren’t voting for him; instead, he must rely on “Specter fatigue” — voters coming out against the incumbent. If Sestak is viewed as just another politician, voters will choose the “devil they know.”

Governor (GOP)

-State Representative Sam Rohrer touts himself as a constitutional conservative while campaigning for fiscal responsibility and limited government.  Yet on the most important issues to many in the GOP, Rohrer did the opposite of what he now preaches by voting for an unconstitutional payraise as well as hiking his own pension by 50%.  And that pension vote is the largest contributing factor to the state’s pension crisis, which is the ticking time bomb awaiting the next governor when state pension payments jump eightfold in the next three years.

-Attorney General Tom Corbett is certainly the most believable candidate who talks about “reforming Harrisburg,” since his legislative corruption probe has netted ten felony convictions, as well as indictments of two former House Speakers — actions once thought unthinkable by many. But he is still dogged by charges from opponents that his investigations, as well as his lawsuit against Obamacare, are politically motivated.

Corbett’s most notable policy issue is his no-new-taxes pledge. While a sound policy, Corbett will be severely tested not to break it as the fiscal crisis grows to almost unmanageable proportions over the next Governor’s term.  Such pledges prove popular at election time, but the corollary is unmistakable: break it at your own peril.  One only has to look at how much free time President George H.W. Bush had after he uttered — and then broke —one of the most remembered pledges in political history: “Read my lip, no new taxes.”

Governor (Democrats)….

Read the rest at Philly Magazine’s Philly Post….

http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2010/05/18/freindly-fires-voters-guide-to-election-day/

Email Chris Freind, Start the discussion or Share This...

Gov (Dem) – AMENDED (~11:20am): Wagner in a close one: He’s tapped the anti-Harrisburg bit. I was a little too off-the-cuff with that Wagner forecast. Onorato is killing in the latest Q-poll.  I do think Wagner would have made a better general election challenger to Corbett though.

Gov (GOP) – Corbett : Pretty big. I think he gets over 70% of the vote. I’m voting for Corbett, though I really would have liked to have seen him come around on Right-to-Work and a less Harrisburg-centric economic plan.

Senate (Dem) – Sestak in mid-single digits. The “switch” ad can only be described as “devastating”. Watch the media spin: To those in the media who so recently cheered his break from the GOP, Specter will all of a sudden be just another slimy and cynical politician whose number finally came up.

Senate (GOP) – Toomey: I think Alex is slightly optimistic to say he’ll break 90%, but only slightly. Let’s say mid to upper 80s.

Lt Gov (GOP) – Cawley, narrowly: Herding cats is hard. Still planning to vote Johnson. There ARE eight candidates, and there’s a lot of anti-Cawley stuff in my mail from Beiler, so anything could happen.

CD 4, 8, 17, and 19 – No surprises (Buchanan, Fitzpatrick, Argall, and Platts), though I expect the spreads to be interestingly narrow in some cases. A “shot across the bow” to the party.

CD 10 – Madiera in low single digits – Mostly a gut call. He’s been very active online and is pretty on-message. (This would be an upset victory from where I sit.)

CD 12 GOP Primary – Burns in low double digits.

CD 12 Special – Too close to call. There’s a good chance this will be within 1%.  The lawyers had better eat their Wheaties.

Breakdown of CD 12 Spec -

(I don’t trust the PPP poll as it was conducted on the weekend, giving a funky sample.)

Pro-Critz argument: The DCCC and SEIU are running every shamelessly dishonest ad they can think of. Unpopular as Democrats in Washington are, so are the Republicans. Burns also had to fight a (senseless) war on two fronts, fending off ridiculous charges that this resembles NY-23 in any way.

Pro-Burns argument: He’s run a heckava campaign. He actually did some high quality polling, got some good advisers, and executed pretty well (aside from a few minor quibbles). Basically, he did most of the stuff Russell should have done in 2008 but didn’t. Folks in the district might have liked “Murtha”, but they’re significantly less high on “the Murtha legacy”. Obamacare is unpopular and Critz won’t vote to repeal it. By most polling measures, independent/swing voters look more like Republicans than they do Democrats this time around, which is a great indicator of which way the undecideds will break. Let’s just hope there are enough of them.

Email Joe Collins, Start the discussion or Share This...

Since the caucus selection of Tim Burns to be the GOP Special Election candidate, Bill Russell’s advice on voting in that election has been coy and evolving.  At first he said he’d write himself in.  Then he “supported” but did not “endorse” Burns over Critz.  This morning a campaign email explicitly advised voting for Burns in the Special Election while still voting for Russell in the GOP primary.

From the email:

Best Republican Strategy: By voting for Burns in the Special Election and Russell in the Primary, Republicans get the biggest bang for their vote. Here’s why: If Tim Burns wins the Special Election and William Russell wins the Primary, we will have a Republican following a Republican. If Burns loses the Special Election (and currently the polls have him behind by 6-8 points), and Russell wins the Primary, we will send a fresh “winner” against the Democrat in November.

The worst scenario is that Burns loses the Special Election and wins the Primary. In this case the Republicans are sending a “loser” for a rematch in November against the Democrat, Mark Critz.

Of course, I’ve made my opinion about the primary well known, but for those on the other side of that debate, here’s your permission to vote for Burns in the Special.

Screen-capture of the email is below the fold:

(more…)

Email Joe Collins, Join the discussion or Share This...

Pennsylvania’s elections this year will be front and center on the national scene, as there are numerous hotly contested congressional races and a U.S. Senate seat up for grabs. But attracting the most attention is the open race for governor.

To cut through the self-serving spin that surrounds elections, Freindly Fire sat down with Pittsburgh-based independent political consultant Michael O’Connell to receive a non-partisan analysis of the gubernatorial primary. O’Connell, who has worked the Pennsylvania political landscape for nearly 25 years, has no personal stake in any of the campaigns.

GOP Race: Corbett Vs. Rohrer

Background

The presumptive Republican nominee in the gubernatorial race is Attorney General Tom Corbett. He has won statewide twice, including 2008, in what was an otherwise horrid year for Republicans.  Corbett’s stunning 400,000 vote margin that year — when Barack Obama carried the state by 600,000 — cemented his status as the gubernatorial frontrunner.   

Corbett has also made headlines for his successful prosecution of legislative corruption, known as the “Bonusgate” scandal, and more recently when he joined other Attorneys-General in supporting a lawsuit against the national health care law.

That success has contributed to a war chest of $4 million.

As a comparison, his opponent, State Representative Sam Rohrer, has raised $500,000, and had only $15,000 in the bank as of the last reporting period.

Rohrer, an 18 year veteran of the state house, touts himself as a constitutional conservative, while Corbett is anchoring his campaign on fiscal discipline, limited government, and free enterprise.

The Attorney General, endorsed by Republican State Committee, holds a commanding lead in the polls, but the Rohrer campaign believes it can win by mobilizing its grassroots machine. Rohrer is not seeking re-election to the House.

Freindly Fire: Despite the fact that Corbett has consistently campaigned on conservative principles, some Tea Partiers and other conservatives are backing Rohrer because of his conservative credentials. Yet Rohrer voted for the infamous unconstitutional payraise in 2005 — when legislators pocketed the money in that term — and voted to increase his pension by 50%.  Do you think some conservatives are giving him a free pass on these issues? Why?

Mike O’Connell:

Here we get to the politics of style versus substance.

For anyone familiar with Harrisburg, the notion that an eighteen-year-legislator, who cast the votes you just mentioned, and who was content to work with House leaders—including former Speaker John Perzel, bravely demonized by many on the Right now that he is no longer in power—is now somehow an outsider and political rebel is just silly.

That’s the substance.  The style is different:  what the “tea party” movement sees is a graduate of Bob Jones University—which it must be said is a pretty good first step in establishing one to be, or at least to have been at age eighteen, out of the political mainstream—who avers that he is an outsider is taken at face value by those who value outsider-ness . . . and to the degree the movement prides itself on not knowing what state government does, ignoring actual votes cast by a flesh-and-blood legislator is not only convenient but can be a badge of honor.

There is also frankly a measure of cynicism among some of Rohrer’s institutional supporters:  a wide array of conservative groups in Harrisburg….

Read the entire analysis at www.FreindlyFirezone.com

Link:

http://www.freindlyfirezone.com/index.php/component/k2/item/46-cutting-through-the-spin-a-frank-analysis-of-the-governor’s-race

Chris Freind is an independent columnist and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris’ recent bestseller “Catastrophe.”

Freind also serves as a weekly guest commentator on the Philadelphia-area talk radio show, Political Talk (WCHE 1520), and makes numerous other television and radio appearances.  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Email Chris Freind, Join the discussion or Share This...

From yesterday’s editorial page. The key stuff:

Mr. Bucchianeri sees his lack of a government career as a plus and believes he can bring new energy and fresh perspective to the office. While both candidates were well-informed, Mr. Bucchianeri was direct and straightforward in his answers, while Mr. Critz, on controversial topics, was hedged and cautious. Ryan Bucchianeri may be the underdog in this matchup, but he has earned the Post-Gazette endorsement.

On the GOP primary:

Mr. Burns has the backing of party officials in the primary and is advertising heavily to make his candidacy known. Mr. Russell, at last report, raised more money but is waging a less visible campaign. That suggests Tim Burns would make a stronger candidate for the party in the fall, and on that basis he has earned the Post-Gazette endorsement.

I’d add too that Burns was chosen over Russell by almost 2/3 of the GOP conferees from PA-12, all of whom reside in the district.

Cross-posted to my own blog.

Email ChrisRenner, Start the discussion or Share This...

Presented in ballot order from the unofficial Dept. of State list. Poll will close Friday at 4pm.

Email Joe Collins, Join the other 3 commenters or Share This...

It’s no secret that Philadelphia has a long and proud history of political corruption.

Once-powerful state senator Vince Fumo has donned prison orange after being convicted on all 137 counts of political corruption. Former City Treasurer Corey Kemp is doing hard time for fraud, extortion, welfare fraud, and filing false tax returns. And Rick Mariano, former City Councilman, still calls federal prison home after his conviction on honest services fraud.

But fraud and corruption are not just limited to public officials. It’s been a Philly tradition that dead people vote on a regular basis.

While that feat seems to defy the laws of nature — one which would seem impossible to top — we do indeed have a situation that does just that.

Believe it or not, the deceased have retained legal counsel to challenge the petitions of people running for Republican Ward Committee posts.

I’m not sure what’s more fascinating — the deceased figuring out which lawyer to hire, or the attorney brilliant enough to so creatively expand his client base.

And just who is the uber-barrister responsible for this miraculous act?

Michael Meehan, General Counsel and de facto head of the Philadelphia Republican City Committee, who also chairs the powerful five county Southeast Republican Caucus.

*******

Meehan’s powers apparently don’t stop with the dead. He seems to have an incredible talent for communicating with the living in very unorthodox ways, using this unique ability to find clients without ever actually talking to them.

But a look at Philadelphia court records of numerous election law cases last month shows that Michael has not perfected the living-people-telekinesis-thing yet. Seems that for the vast majority of cases, Meehan’s communicative powers were a one-way street.

Turns out, Meehan was not only representing people he had never spoken to, but who had never even met or heard of him — and who had never signed any petition challenging those running for Republican Committee.

You don’t need hypertechnical legalese to call a spade a spade. That kind of action, even by Philadelphia standards, smacks of fraud and deceit.

*******

Here are the facts of this case:

On March 19, Meehan filed 44 petitions challenging candidates for Republican Ward Executive Committee (ward Committeemen), primarily in minority areas of the city. If successful, the challenges would have removed the candidates in question from the ballot. At the hearings, Meehan was accompanied by the Chairman of Republican City Committee, Vito F. Canuso, Jr., also representing some objectors to the candidates.

Why the top two Republican officials in Philadelphia were challenging members of their own Party, including some who were running unopposed to fill vacant Committee slots, is for another column.

READ THE REST, WITH COURT DOCUMENTATION —INCLUDING AFFIDAVITS— at FreindlyFireZone.com:
(Download File just above Freind Bio)

http://www.freindlyfirezone.com/index.php/component/k2/item/38-should-philadelphia-gop-boss-michael-meehan-be-disbarred?

Chris Freind is an independent columnist and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris’ recent bestseller “Catastrophe.”

Freind also serves as a weekly guest commentator on the Philadelphia-area talk radio show, Political Talk (WCHE 1520), and makes numerous other television and radio appearances. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Email Chris Freind, Start the discussion or Share This...

Attorney General Corbett’s Health Care Lawsuit: No Conflict Of Interest

The idiocy of some people never ceases to amaze.

For the latest example, just look how the political hacks reacted to the recent week of Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett.

First, Corbett’s office was successful in prosecuting former state representative Mike Veon and two others in the Bonusgate scandal, bringing the total number of felony convictions in that corruption investigation to ten. Veon and his cronies were convicted on numerous charges related to using taxpayer money for political campaigns.

Taxpayer money is, in fact, the people’s hard-earned cash that is sent to Harrisburg for the purposes of good government. Using it for anything else, especially campaign activities, is an atrocious breach of the public’s trust.

So sending someone like Veon away with a case of Soap-on-a-Rope should be considered a good thing by all sane and rational Pennsylvanians. Score one for the good guys —-us.

Later in the week, Corbett sued the federal government over the passage of health care legislation.
He didn’t do this as a partisan Republican, attacking a Democratic health care bill.

No, his decision was rooted in something much more basic: his belief that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to usurp the rights of the state, and force citizens to purchase health care — or risk fines and jail.

Wow. Call me crazy, but isn’t that what a state Attorney General is supposed to do — protect the citizens of his state from criminals and unconstitutional laws?

One would think that in these two instances, the political opponents of Tom Corbett could put partisan politics aside and compliment the man for a job well done. After all, the business-as-usual approach to government in Pennsylvania — AKA corruption — suffered a major blow, and our state’s citizens finally have someone fighting for them and their interests.

One would be wrong.

Instead, many Democratic leaders sounded the all-too-trite call that Corbett’s actions were a conflict of interest, since he is the leading Republican candidate for governor. This man, they say, is only pursuing these issues to generate favorable headlines and increase name recognition around the state.

How original.

And stupid.

What the Democrats don’t understand is that the more they call attention to Corbett’s actions, the more they lose. Maybe their arguments make the “political insider crowd” happy, but in the real world, where elections are decided, they could not be more off base.

(For more on whether Bonusgate is a fair investigation or politically motivated, watch the author debate the issue on TV’s Business Matters—

http://www.freindlyfirezone.com/index.php/component/k2/item/34-freind-on-tv-corbetts-bonusgate-investigation-politics-or-fair-prosecution?

*****
I’ll give you one guess who the leading Democrat is calling on Corbett to drop his lawsuit. You got it….Governor Rendell. Our obtuse, and soon to be ex-governor, seems to have nothing better to do than stick his nose where it doesn’t belong.

Read the rest at FreindlyFireZone:

http://www.freindlyfirezone.com/index.php/component/k2/item/35-attorney-general-corbett’s-health-care-lawsuit-no-conflict-of-interest

Chris Freind is an independent columnist and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris’ recent bestseller “Catastrophe.”

Freind also serves as a weekly guest commentator on the Philadelphia-area talk radio show, Political Talk (WCHE 1520), and makes numerous other television and radio appearances. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Email Chris Freind, Start the discussion or Share This...

RedState has endorsed Tim Burns in PA-12.  I had been staying officially neutral in that race, wanting to let the voters hash it out, but that scenario isn’t in the cards any more.  For my money, I think Tim Burns is the way to go here.

The idea that Burns’ selection for the special election would turn the district into NY-23 is pretty soundly refuted by RedState and by the ever-sage Bill Pascoe. (Always think twice before disagreeing with Pascoe — the guy knows his stuff.)  Burns is, after all, not a “Dede”, but an actual conservative. From what I can tell, no less so than Russell.

Anybody who was paying attention last cycle should have found Russell’s campaign wanting.  Pascoe sniped at Russell in his blog post (-”But, like much of what passes for the Russell ‘campaign,’ this is poppycock.”), as did several commenters on GrassrootsPA threads (-1-, -2-).

First, he didn’t even make the primary ballot in 2008 due to lack of signatures, and had to launch a write-in effort to make the November ballot. This early stumble probably had something to do with Russell’s contentious break from his first campaign manager just before the petition period.  Russell then brought on Peg Luksik to run the campaign.  Peg’s a great lady, particularly if you need somebody to die in a ditch for the cause, but some of us would rather not die in the ditch.

Yeah, he raised a ton of cash — most of it through the inefficient direct mail process, and much of it from outside the district. Outside money is fine, but inside money is an important psychological commitment mechanism, and pays dividends in votes later on. (This is also a danger for self-funders… pay attention, Mr. Burns.)  The guy who donates $25 to a campaign is going to tell his friends and family to vote for that candidate too — he’s invested in the success of the candidate.  Dollars don’t vote, people do.

As far as I can tell from his FEC reports, there was no polling done by the Russell campaign in the last cycle. (Maybe it’s implied in the consulting fees he reports, but polling is usually its own line item.) If I’m correct, that’s just political malpractice, particularly for a candidate raking in that sort of money and trying to pull off an upset.  And while Russell did manage the closest margin against Murtha any challenger has gotten since Hector was a pup, it was still a 15+ point defeat in a district that McCain won narrowly.

Can Tim Burns do better?  I think there’s a good chance of that.  Russell’s fundraising appeal was that he was a military guy running against John Murtha.  That’s gone now, laid to rest with Murtha, notwithstanding Russell’s continued direct mail campaign against the late Congressman, with mail arriving as late as today (2/27/2010).  Burns has a more well-rounded biography, one that speaks to the need for jobs in the district, and a connection to the district that precedes 2008 (when Russell moved to Johnstown).

Is this to say that Tim Burns is the greatest thing since sliced bread?  No, that has yet to be seen.  But what we have seen is the sort of campaign Russell runs, and I’m not impressed.  To use a Rumsfeldian construction, I’ll go with the “known unknown” of Burns.

(cross-posted)

Email Joe Collins, Start the discussion or Share This...

Policy Blog:

Turns out, many legislators have indeed bought homes in Harrisburg, while continuing to collect per diems for their lodging. The Scranton Times finds that state Reps. Wansacz , Eachus, Peifer, Scavello, and Yudichak (who represent parts of Northeastern PA) all uses per diems to pay their mortgages on homes in Harrisburg.

Does it matter that they used the money to buy a home rather than rent a room in the Hilton? No. But the value of per diems is excessive for taxpayers, especially given the fact lawmakers need not actually spend that money, but could pocket it. I would also note that per diems are not mentioned in the PA Constitution, when it says lawmakers shall receive “salary and mileage…and no other compensation whatever” That would seem to include a new house.

Nate Benefield offers a solution.

A dorm for lawmakers.

I disagree.

Not only would that place be so icky and unsellable, it encourages them to linger in Harrisburg.

They dont need to be in Harrisburg long enough to need buy second homes. They need to go to work, then go the hell home. The more they hang around in Harrisburg they more they are tempted to do something.

… and that something is always with your money, not theirs. QED.

Email AlexC, Start the discussion or Share This...

Answers randomized. Poll is scheduled to close Friday at 4pm. Vote and discuss.

Email Joe Collins, Start the discussion or Share This...

I have talked to enough people to share that Chris Freind’s post may have some truth to it. There is a legitimate grassroots movement afoot to nominate Curt Schroder to the sixth congressional seat at the Chester County GOP Convention tomorrow morning.

Hard to say how large this movement is. But just think of it this way:

Curt was close to securing enough commitments to win the endorsement over a month ago. If just half of those people decide to go ahead and vote for Curt event though he’s still not formally running for this seat, that could split the whole affair into a three-way tie. Depending, of course, on which existing candidate– Welch or Gerlach– experiences more desertion.

Of course, it is also possible that Curt gets nominated from the floor and doesn’t get many votes at all.

But seeing how the chair of the Chester County Republican party decided to send an e-mail just yesterday re-emphasizing his support for Gerlach…well…the necessity of that e-mail certainly wouldn’t comfort me if I was Jim.

Email KarlBucus, Start the discussion or Share This...

FREINDLYFIREZONE.com Link:

http://www.freindlyfirezone.com/index.php/local-news/item/6-explosion-in-the-6th-congressional-district-could-the-implausible-occur?

Is State Rep. Curt Schroder A Dark Horse For The Endorsement?

BY CHRIS FREIND
“FREINDLY FIRE”

Hollywood couldn’t have scripted the drama any better in the GOP’s nomination race for Pennsylvania’s 6th Congressional District.

Try to follow along:

Four-term incumbent Jim Gerlach tells the world — repeatedly — that he would NOT seek re-election, opting instead to jump into the gubernatorial fray.

Based on Gerlach’s word, popular Chester County State Representative Curt Schroder announces he would seek the GOP nomination for the open seat, raising nearly $200,000 in just a few months. Based on political sources close to the race, he was clearly on the path to the Chester County endorsement. (Chesco accounts for a majority of the district, which also includes parts of Montgomery and Berks counties).

But in September of 2009, a wrench is thrown into the mix. After running in another congressional district for half a year, self-funding 33-year old millionaire Steve Welch bows to pressure from Party bosses, quitting his effort in the 7th Congressional District (CD) to make way for former gubernatorial candidate Pat Meehan, long a favorite of the Delco Machine. He then jumps into the 6th CD race, despite the fact that he does not live in that district.

After the New Year, Schroder, Welch, and several lower-tier candidates kick their campaigns into full gear, only to be shell shocked to learn that Jim Gerlach has changed his mind once again, and would be running for Congress after all.

Are you getting all of this?

Rep. Schroder, sensing fundraising difficulties if he chose to oppose the incumbent, begrudgingly dropped out of the race. Welch, with his ample funds, is still vying for the nomination.

So where does the race stand?

It’s anyone’s guess.

Over the last month, several straw polls of Chester County committee people provide a startling picture of the volatility in the Republican ranks. Gerlach received less than 60% of the vote in the first round, and only slightly more the following week. Given that these committee folks are the same ones who will vote to endorse a candidate at their convention this Saturday, Feb. 20th, (where 60% is necessary to earn the endorsement), and they have known the incumbent for well over a decade, many eyebrows have been raised. There is a growing sentiment that perhaps an election is in order — not a coronation.

Both candidates have major political baggage which makes the outcome of both the May primary and November general election far from certain.

Congressman Jim Gerlach

In a typical election year, the power and resources of incumbency trump most challengers, particularly in a primary. But 2010 is shaping up to be an explosive year where anything can happen, and no scenario is off the table.

That said, Gerlach retains the upper hand at this point. His name recognition is vastly superior to that of newcomer Welch, and his brand, for now, is still largely a positive one.

Remember that for the last eight years, Gerlach’s opponents and well-funded special interests have spent a fortune — a conservative estimate is well over $10 million — painting the congressman as a far-right-wing conservative Republican out of touch with the 6th District. Since Pennsylvania’s GOP primary is a closed one, meaning only Republicans can vote in it, that label is not a bad one to have.

Combine that with Gerlach’s proven ability to win general elections in otherwise horrid years for Republicans (2006 and 2008), and it’s hard to argue with conventional wisdom that the incumbent will once again triumph.

But things have changed, and Gerlach is carrying some new negatives which could prove decisive in the primary—and perhaps the general.

For starters, the campaign is broke. Since Gerlach’s warchest was transferred to help fund his failed gubernatorial bid, the congressional campaign had only $5,000 cash on hand as of just a few weeks ago, although staffers claim they have commitments for several hundred thousand dollars.

Against a typical opponent, the lack of funds at this point might not be a huge issue. But against a self-funder like Welch, who has already pumped in over $500,000 of his own fortune and has $650,000 cash on hand — with millions more if he needs it—, the lack of a significant warchest should be disconcerting to Gerlach.

On the issues, Gerlach will have to deal with conservatives’ wrath because of his voting record in a number of hot-button areas. The Congressman voted in favor of TARP (the first major bailout), the Medicare Prescription Drug program, commonly described as one of the largest expansion of welfare benefits in U.S. history, and Cash for Clunkers, while major increases in the deficit and national debt occurred on his watch. And here’s the kicker for many fiscal conservatives: much of this spending took place while Republicans were in charge of the House, Senate and White House.

If Gerlach can be tied into the “Business As Usual” crowd that is “part of the problem,” with voters believing that it shouldn’t just be an anti-Democrat year but an anti-incumbent one, he could be the recipient of a severe voter backlash.

But the one issue above all that could doom Gerlach is his support for Card Check, the bill proposed by labor unions that, among other provisions, would eliminate the secret ballot in union elections. Card Check is such a make-or-break topic for a huge number of Republicans that this issue alone could be enough to topple an incumbent.

According to the AFL-CIO website, Gerlach, along with former GOP colleagues Curt Weldon and Mike Fitzpatrick, all signed on as sponsors of Card Check in 2006. However, the Gerlach campaign denies that he favors Card Check, pointing to his vote in 2007 against the bill.

But in this environment, playing coy and stretching the truth could put an incumbent on the unemployment line very quickly.

The reality is that these three Republicans played games in 2005 and 2006, deciding to take both sides. Figuring that the GOP would be in power for decades (a woefully short-sighted outlook), Gerlach and Company thought that they could appease Big Labor by signing onto a bill that would never see the light of day.

Which was correct, for about another year, until Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats were swept into power.

His 2007 vote against Card Check has done little to mollify conservatives, who continue to think Gerlach’s heart leans toward Labor.

Despite meaningless polls showing Gerlach with a sizable lead over his unknown opponent, the potential of millions being unleashed on the 6th District Republicans in the coming weeks by Steve Welch, combined with many who are still fuming because of Gerlach’s broken word on retiring from Congress and backstabbing Curt Schroder, makes this race not just far from over, but one that hasn’t even begun.

Steve Welch
New to the political scene, Welch comes to the table with the most important weapon in campaigns: money. After selling his successful bio-tech company for a large sum, he decided on a foray into politics as his next professional move.

For six months, he ran unopposed in the 7th District, where Democratic incumbent Joe Sestak is not seeking re-election. Instead, Sestak is challenging Arlen Specter for U.S. Senate. The open seat became quite attractive for Pat Meehan, whose gubernatorial bid never got off the ground.

It’s here that Welch’s baggage began to pile up.

After repeatedly stating that he would remain in the 7th District race, even against a Meehan challenge, Welch yielded to Party pressure and abandoned the race. His decision to change his sights to the 6th District, even though he was not a resident, was viewed by many as a failure in his first real test of independence. Instead of standing by his principles, he caved in to the Delaware and Chester County party bosses.

The carpet-bagger issue was so difficult to overcome that Welch moved into the 6th District several months ago.

And even though the residency issue has been resolved, Welch continues to feel Republican wrath on a number of other issues.

First, he played loose with the truth when he claimed to have raised more than $250,000, when public records showed that number to be only $50,000. It’s one thing to slightly round up fundraising numbers, but such a huge discrepancy rubbed many the wrong way. This was the kind of doublespeak that voters have come to expect from Congress.

(NOTE: In all likelihood, Gerlach did the same thing. After claiming he had raised $1 million in the governor’s race, campaign finance disclosures put that number at a quarter million dollars less.)

Much more detrimental to Welch, though, is his Democratic past —the very recent past. Many GOP activists are having a difficult time reconciling how Welch can be part of the solution for the Republican Party when he:
A) Gave money to Democrat Joe Sestak. And Sestak is no ordinary Democrat, but one of the few who can make Arlen Specter look conservative.
B) Registered as a Democrat in 2006, and remained a D through the 2008 election, switching back to the GOP before running for Congress.
C) Admitted voting for Barack Obama in the 2008 primary election.

Given these facts, it’s a tough sell for Welch to claim he is a “lifelong” Republican.

While money doesn’t solve everything, it keeps one in the game. Whether or not Welch’s funds can alleviate his major negatives remains to be seen.

If he is able to make a strong showing at the nominating convention, and makes Jim Gerlach the issue for why a change is needed, he remains a serious threat to the incumbent.

But the $64,000 question is whether committee people and the Republican voters of the 6th District will:
A) determine that Gerlach is damaged goods and needs to go, and
B) if Steve Welch, with his Democratic ties, is the answer.

For those looking for another option, chew on this possibility:

What if, at this week’s convention, a committee person decides that enough is enough with candidates whose veracity and judgment are seriously flawed, and nominates a candidate with a solid Republican track record? Someone with the credentials and experience necessary to represent the 6th District better than the current field?

What if someone nominates State Representative Curt Schroder?

He may yet have the support of the committee, and could, at the very least, deny the endorsement to Gerlach or Welch.

Crazy? Sure— in most election years. But so was the unthinkable result in Massachusetts with Scott Brown’s victory.

This is 2010. Change is already upon us, and the rising tide may yet turn into a raging tsunami.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist and investigative reporter whose news site, The Artorius News Bureau, is slated to launch in this month. Readers of “Freindly Fire” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. Freind also serves as a weekly guest commentator on a Philadelphia-area talk radio show, WCHE, and makes numerous other television and radio appearances. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Email Chris Freind, Join the other 3 commenters or Share This...