PAWaterCooler.com

Friends,

I am pleased to inform you that Philadelphia has been selected to host a monthly Center-Right Coalition meeting, following the hugely-successful model of Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR). We will be one of the few non-state capital cities to have such a gathering.

The kick-off meeting, which I will be hosting, will be Thursday, November 12 at the Union League in Philadelphia, with Mr. Norquist in attendance. Light refreshments will be served at 7:00 AM, with the program going from 7:30 to 9:00. The Union League is located at 140 S. Broad Street, just two blocks south of City Hall.

In Grover’s words, the objective is “to get everybody who is center-right to tell each other what they are doing, to share technology and tactics, and to tell stories” regarding issues facing Pennsylvania and the nation.

One key function, according to ATR, is to facilitate collaborative activities of coalition members, many of whom may have not previously known one another, and foster the potential for mutual cooperation.

The rules are simple: Anyone who so desires may speak for three minutes on current initiatives, answer questions, and pass the microphone to the next speaker.

The only prohibition is whining. It is a positive meeting, one that will unify southeastern Pennsylvania.

Attendees will typically include influential political, business, policy and grassroots leaders.

If anyone who would like several minutes on the agenda, please let me know.

You are encouraged to bring any literature for distribution.

I hope to see you next Thursday.

For future reference, the monthly meetings will be held on the FIRST THURSDAY of each month at the Union League, with the same time format as above.

Feel free to invite colleagues and associates. All meetings are off the record.

Steadfast,

Christopher Freind
“Freindly Fire”
Audaces fortuna iuvat
610-659-0098
christopherfreind@hotmail.com (E before I in Freind)
CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

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

Rep. Joe Wilson called Obama a liar for saying that illegal immigrants will not be covered under ObamaCare. Democrats took serious issue with this claim, and said that Wilson, not Obama, was the liar.

Now Obama has explained how it is that he’s not a liar when he says that illegal immigrants will not be covered: If you just give all of the illegals amnesty, they’ll all be legal citizens, and then you can cover them! Wasn’t that easy?

By the way, I know a certain US Senator from Pennsylvania who will gladly support this plan.

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...

So we’ve all seen the cartoon (and counter-cartoon) about healthcare. Here is a pretty thorough debate between one person posting it, and another refuting it (and posting the counter-cartoon) via facebook, without calling each other names. Who said facebook wasn’t useful?
(If you haven’t seen one or both cartoons, links provided)

Original post:
Mike Lavanga: Humorous but accurate cartoon that helps to dispell some of the myths about Obama’s health care plans:
Daily Kos: State of the Nation
Source: www.dailykos.com
I found this video today, and it does an amazing job of explaining the public plan, and knocking down some of the sillier counter-arguments against it. It might be a bit remedial to some of the experts here, but it’s a great video to forward to others.
August 28 at 2:42am

Comment thread:
Kevin McKay: That’s total crap.
[Lots more, after the jump]
(more…)

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

     It became clear to me recently that our government and those that “Represent” us truly don’t understand what it means to live by American principles. They have just recently passed a law that “encourages” volunteerism among the young and old in America. Since when have you known any American that needed the government to tell them that it was good to volunteer your time and energy to a good cause? I believe the difference that I as an American am seeing in this type of innocuous legislation is the fact that government is now trying to gives us direction, or as they would put it “Encouragement”, as to what type of things I should volunteer on. Isn’t this the opposite of what volunteering means? The dictionary defines a volunteer as “a person who voluntarily offers himself or herself for a service or undertaking” or in the legal context “a person whose actions are not founded on any legal obligation so to act.” So, this sounds like to me that our Legislators have either never picked up a dictionary before in their lives or never truly volunteered for anything that they had no real expectation of anything in return except a feeling of having done good for the sake of being good.

     I never needed to be told to be charitable or give first. Not only do I volunteer for several different charities in my area but I grew up knowing that service for country and my fellow American always came first. When I was making the decision to join the Navy, I talked to my father about it, a veteran of the Army and a 6th generation Hayes to answer his country’s call to serve. He didn’t ask me “What job do you want” or “What branch of service?” but looked me dead in the eye and just asked “Why?” He wanted to know if I really understood what I was getting into. I remembered exactly what I said because it was one of those turning points in a person’s life, an epiphany, and I said “Because I don’t believe that I could ever ask for anything from anyone else unless I was willing to give up something first.” That is when he and I both knew that I really understood to look beyond myself and my own self-serving interests and knew that to be American is to give willingly to your fellow American FIRST before anything else. Americans know this and don’t need government telling us from on high how to live our lives and treat our fellow man.

     In Europe, there is a level of Socialism that is entrenched in every level of government and in just about all facets of the average Europeans life to one extent or another. Well, We Are Americans, Not Europeans. Our Founding Fathers and their fathers before them left Europe specifically because the governments of Europe intruded upon every facet of their lives and tried to tell them what to do, when to do it, and how to do what they told them to do. Most importantly, they were told by those same leaders to Not Ask Questions; just do as they said because it was “The best thing for us.” Sound Familiar anyone? They left for the new world to escape this tyranny and choose their own destinies.

     Well everyone, there’s nowhere else to run to. I may be an American Nobody just like you, but even I can see that this is our home at its time to make a stand. The tyranny of the Old World has found us again and we need to draw a line in the sand and stand firm. “This far and no further!” Some of us have begun to gather our friends together to start talking about what we can do to halt this downward spiral and right our course again and set our country back on its intended course. I just hope enough of us see the path before it becomes too overgrown with weeds and is lost to us.

     Forever.

Email Ian Hayes, Start the discussion or Share This...

I got some feedback from another attendee of the forum I wrote about earlier and thought it warranted an update.

Jonathan Jenkins of Corps Strategies sent me this via email, and I wholeheartedly agree with what he says:

Joe – thanks for reporting on the proceedings of CPAC.  It’s important to allow those who were unable to attend to better understand the arguments being made per issue.

I thought you covered the topic of the Hispanic vote well but I felt the commentator (Nadler) was so unprofessional and irrational that this needed mentioning.

For a moderator to be so angered (to the point of yelling) because a number of attendees still insist we enforce the immigration laws when we speak about immigration reform.  We are a nation of laws and we can ill-afford crimes to knowingly occur because some members of our legislative bodies and media lack moral courage to express what they really think anyway.

Nadler attacked those who spoke about the enforcement side of the article when he was to moderate.

Nadler – it’s not about you cupcake.

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

Impressed as I was with the CPAC opening salvo by John Bolton’s mustache, (accompanied as is usually the case by Amb. John Bolton), by far the most thought provoking event I attended Thursday was “Building the Conservative Hispanic Coalition”.

Barack Obama (and the Left generally) talk about talking about race.  But at CPAC, the Republican party was actually talking about matters of race and ethnicity.

And the whole spectrum of debate took place right before my eyes – the good, the bad, and the ugly.  (There was some yelling.)  Even the good conversation was a little rough around the edges.  The three panelists,(Mario H. Lopez, Hispanic Leadership Fund ; Danny Vargas, Repub Nat’l Hispanic Assembly ; Mario Diaz, Concerned Women for America), were generally constructive.  Unfortunately the moderator Richard Nadler set a provocative tone from the start.
(more…)

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

No really.  That’s the question the Daily News is asking today regarding a skit by the B. Love Strutters featuring Joey Vento of Geno’s Steaks:

Geno’s Steaks owner Joey Vento might make a delicious Philly cheesesteak, but he’s not exactly the poster boy for good taste.

So it’s not surprising that a few people who watched this year’s Mummers Parade took offense to Vento’s starring role in a performance by Comics brigade B. Love Strutters titled “Aliens of an Illegal Kind.”

The skit featured Vento popping out of the top of a float labeled “Gewizno’s Steaks” with a “When ordering, speak English” sign. Vento waved a poster reading, “What?” and tossed fake cheesesteaks into the crowd.

Then an announcer for B. Love Strutters cried out, “Uh-oh, here comes the Border Patrol!” Club members wearing Texas-sized cowboy hats and brandishing wooden rifles pretended to hold back a rioting crowd of “immigrants” from storming the border “fences.” As the immigrants burst forth, they traded in their country’s flag for an American flag, and a Mummer dressed as President-elect Barack Obama handed out Green Cards.

Look, this issue has been beat to death.  As far as I’m concerned, if you don’t like Vento’s sign, go buy your cheesesteak somewhere else.  Of course there are many more people that like Vento’s sign than not.  Personally, I like Vento and think he deserves a lot of credit for standing up to the PC weenies in Philly.  He’s also a huge supporter of law enforcement and donated $40,000 to this year’s Mummers’ Parade.

Also, I’m not a huge fan of the comic brigades.  I’m one of those “string-bands only” people who basically think that the comics are nothing more than a bunch of drunks in wigs and dresses.  However, it’s interesting that they stirred up a little controversy this year. 

By far the most outrageous part of this whole story is the following quote:

“I couldn’t believe what I was watching. Could the Mummers really allow that kind of blatant racism?” said Erica Vanstone, 33, who watched the parade on television at her New Kensington home. “Or, if you don’t consider it racism, clearly it’s a right-wing, conservative political statement. Is that really needed in the Mummers Parade?”

So it’s either blatant racism or a right-wing conservative political statement?  Why do I get the feeling that there is really no distinction between the two for narrow minded liberals like Vanstone?

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

I bought my first six-pack at 12:05 am on my 21st birthday at this place.

The neighborhood has soured a bit since.

[Jose] Moldonaldo-Luzuriaga, who worked in the take-out section of Salute, but was not working the night of the accident, but appeared to be intoxicated when he arrived at the bar. As a result the bartender denied the defendant a drink and gave him a glass of water.

When Maldonaldo-Luzuriaga was spotted drinking a Corona, that a friend had given him, he was escorted out of the bar by William Sullo and Carl Slaton, both employees of the bar.

Upon leaving the bar, Moldonaldo-Luzuriaga got in an argument with patrons outside the bar and got into a white Ford pick-up truck. He drove the truck around the parking lot approximately 3 times, without a license, before stopping his truck approximately 45 feet from the front of Salute Restaurant Bar. The defendant revved the engine and traveled at a high rate of speed over the curb striking Sullo and the bar.

In addition to the obvious homicide charges he is also facing reckless driving charges as well as driving without a license.

The lesson of this story? Jose Moldonaldo-Luzuriaga has been living illegally in this country for at least five years.

Defenders might say “Maybe if he had a license to drive he would not have been so rash and quick to anger.”

If our federal officials cared about the borders and visa holders, Mr Sullo would be alive.

Maldonaldo-Luzuriaga will be prosecuted to the fullest extent. If charged, the Maldonaldo-Luzuruaga will serve his time here, in the United States. Once the defendant completes his sentence it will be up to the authorities as to where he will go.

How about the f back where he came from? What’s he going to do in prison? Study for the citizenship exam?

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

The GOP Can’t Beat Something With Nothing

Give President-elect Obama credit for one thing. His central campaign theme was correct. Time and again, he pounded home the message that the policies of the last eight years have failed.

Most of them did.

The irony is that they were NOT Republican policies. They were spendthrift, traditionally Democratic policies trumpeted by a very wayward Republican Party.

The unfortunate part is that much of the GOP bloodbath was absolutely preventable. But as Voltaire always said, “Common sense is not so common.”

Common sense tells you that you can’t win something with nothing, but that’s been the Republican Party’s unchanged strategy for years.

Only when you look back at your mistakes, and commit to learning from them, can progress be realized. The sheer simplicity of this rule makes it seem obvious, yet it remains a foreign concept to the GOP.

The Republicans controlled the White House and enjoyed substantial majorities in both houses of Congress for six straight years. By calling all the shots, the Party’s fate would live or die on what it – not its opponents – did. The results are apparent:

1)The national debt doubled since 2000, topping $10 trillion. It is now so large that the National Debt Clock in Times Square ran out of numbers earlier this year. Deficits are also at record levels.

2)Claims by many Republicans that Congressman Barney Frank and the “liberal Democrats” are responsible for the economic crisis, especially in regards to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debacle, need a refresher in Civics 101. Only the Congress can appropriate money. Not the President, and not the minority party; just the party in power. Despite Frank’s desire to spend, spend, spend, the Republicans did his bidding, placing its imprimatur on every bloated budget and pork-filled spending bill. And blaming Bill Clinton didn’t sell, either, because the GOP controlled both chambers for six of his eight years in office.

3)The Republicans had no messenger. No one can be upset at John McCain for being the Party nominee, but clearly, he was the default candidate in a very weak field. This highlights one of the GOP’s most glaring weaknesses: no bullpen. There are very few younger Republicans being groomed to take the mantle of the Party. Instead, the “It’s your turn” mentality still runs rampant throughout the Party hierarchy. Instead of choosing the best candidates, the GOP seems to coronate the old guard simply because they have “been around” for a long time. Bob Dole and John McCain are two prime examples. It is nearly impossible to have a message of “reform” and “reinvigorating ideas” resonate when the party leader is a 30-year Beltway insider who never held a private sector job in his career. While Obama’s resume is paper-thin, he had the advantage of playing the outsider against an unpopular incumbent party.

4)Despite all the aforementioned issues, the presidential race could have, and should have, been significantly closer. Many voters still felt uneasy about the President-elect, but pulled the lever for him anyway because they viewed the McCain campaign as “more of the same.” Incomprehensibly, the true Republican message was never articulated.

There was never any love lost between John McCain and George Bush, so why the Republican nominee didn’t differentiate himself from the unpopular president remains a mystery. While campaigning on optimism and hope for the future is important, McCain should have hammered home how he was different from the President. In doing so, he would have energized an irritated base and gained immense credibility with the Independent swing voters who no longer knew what the Republican Party stood for. And since McCain was always known as a fiscal-hawk “maverick,” he would have been convincing.

He could have said that it wouldn’t take him seven years to veto his first bill, seven years to call for domestic drilling, seven years to build a border wall, and seven years —and counting— to make the tax cuts permanent. He could have also highlighted his 2004 statement of “no confidence” in Donald Rumsfeld, and that he repeatedly called on the Bush Administration to listen more closely to America’s military leaders regarding Iraq War planning.

Instead, the campaign changed themes on a regular basis and only at the end drew distinctions from a Republican Party that had gone adrift.

Because the Party lost its identity, and forgot what it was and where it came from, it can now only play defense in an attempt to block Obama Administration policies. That only gets the Party so far. If the GOP ever wants to again be proactive in shaping the hearts and minds of America, it needs to eradicate party hacks and return to its core principles. Only when the Republican Party rediscovers its roots in the mold of Ronald Reagan will it be able to lead America once more.

Chris Freind is a columnist whose home newspaper is The Philadelphia Bulletin. His 300 columns have received thousands of responses from 6 continents, 30 countries and 50 states.
He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Email Chris Freind, Join the other 2 commenters or Share This...

While the leftist lunatics are lauding the leader of the Obama Nation this week, let’s not forget what he said about middle-class, Central Pennsylvanians:

…when small-town Americans lose their jobs they become bitter and “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigration sentiment or anti-trade sentiment.”[1]

The original story is here.

Email Ed Angiolillo, Start the discussion or Share This...

An article in the Times Herald really caught my attention today. It seems that there was a sting operation to round up and arrest illegal aliens in Montgomery County on Tuesday. Some of the illegals were collared working in the public areas of Montgomery County courthouse and at One Montgomery Plaza!

So far, so good, eh? That’s what ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is all about, rounding up and deporting illegals. And it looks like they’re finally doing what they are paid to do…deport undocumented and illegal aliens.

Apparently, “community activists gathered Tuesday in front of St. Patrick’s Church on Dekalb Street to protest last weekend’s round-up of illegal immigrants by Immigration and Customs Enforcement”.

I read on to find

Eugenio H. Villasantes and Roberto Ortiz as well as other union leaders of Local 32BJ SEIU, the union for building janitorial services, were at St. Patrick’s supporting the employees affected by the raid. The union condemned the actions of ICE and the tactics of ABM (the company that employs these undocumented, illegal aliens). Click here to read more.

Condemns the tactics? What is there to condemn? The use of a ruse to catch deadbeat dads, people in violation of parole, etc. has been implemented for years as a tactic for good law enforcement.

In a similar article written by the Times Heralds Margaret Gibbons, Union Vice President Valarie Long states, “Rounding up and deporting hardworking immigrant workers is an inhumane and counterproductive action that does nothing to fix our nation’s broken immigration system,” [...] “These raids, which are completely out of line with our nation’s values and ideals serve only to terrorize workers and create fear in our communities.”

I guess it’s just not “fair” to trick people who willingly break the laws of our land. Not to mention the loss of dues that these illegals paid to line the pockets of the labor unions who represented them. And, what of “our nations values and ideals” is law enforcement “out of line” with? Oh, yeah…unions offering illegal immigrants a lower wage while still collecting union dues from the hapless workers? Give me a break! These people broke the law. Besides, rounding them up is not counterproductive and inhumane. It’s called (once again) “law enforcement”!

The protesters are planning a rally on the courthouse steps on Thursday, at 1:30 p.m., followed by a march to St. Patrick’s Church.

If other municipalities catch on and start doing the same thing, maybe our illegal problem will slowly, but surely go away.

One can only dream that the day will come when we can call a customer service line and not hear “press one for English…”.

(cross posted on Writemarsh!)

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

With the amount of rampant violence and murder from unchecked drug cartels and reported al Qaeda and Hezbollah involvement in Mexico, at some point, should Mexicans rushing across the US border be considered refugees?

Generally, a refugee is a person who has fled his/her country because of fear of persecution. U.S. law incorporated the refugee definition contained in the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Adopted in Geneva in 1951, which defines a refugee as a person who:

“owing to a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

The Refugee Act of 1980 created The Federal Refugee Resettlement Program to provide for the effective resettlement of refugees and to assist them to achieve economic self-sufficiency as quickly as possible after arrival in the United States.

Cash assistance is made available to refugees in such a manner as not to discourage their economic self-sufficiency.

There is a limit of 70,000 refugees granted asylum in the US per year.

In 2007, 48,000 refugees escaped persecution and were granted asylum in the United States.

Top Refugees to the US in 2007 (Source: US Office of Refugee Resettlement):

Burma 9,776
Somalia 6,958
Iran 5,474
USSR 4,583
Burundi 4,525
Thailand 4,059
Cuba 2,923

Other countries sending refugees:

AFGHANISTAN,
ANGOLA,
AUSTRIA,
BENIN,
BURKINA, FASO (UVOLTA),
CAMBODIA,
CAMEROON,
CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC,
CHAD,
CHINA,
COLOMBIA,
CONGO,
COSTA RICA,
DEM.REP.CONGO,
EGYPT,
EQUATORIAL GUINEA,
ERITREA,
ETHIOPIA,
GABON ,
GHANA,
GUINEA,
IRAQ,
IVORY COAST,
JORDAN,
KENYA,
NORTH KOREA,
KUWAIT,
LAOS,
LEBANON,
LIBERIA,
LIBYA,
MALAYSIA,
MAURITANIA,
NEPAL,
NIGERIA,
PAKISTAN-KARACHI,
PHILIPPINES,
RWANDA,
SAUDI ARABIA,
SIERRA LEONE,
SRI LANKA (CEYLON),
SUDAN,
SYRIA,
TANZANIA,
THAILAND,
THE GAMBIA,
TOGO,
TURKEY,
UGANDA,
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES,
VIETNAM,
YEMEN,
YUGOSLAVIA,
ZAMBIA,
ZIMBABWE

I could easily see this being abused and exploited by leftists, and by Mexicans themselves, but is it a legitimate concern?

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

NBC10.com

An eastern Pennsylvania judge known for creative sentencing has ordered three men to learn English or go to jail.

Luzerne County Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. said the men, who faced prison for criminal conspiracy to commit robbery, can remain on parole if they learn to read and write English, earn their GEDs and get full-time jobs.

Olszewski noted that the three men, Luis Reyes, Ricardo Dominguez and Rafael Guzman-Mateo, plus a fourth defendant, Kelvin Reyes-Rosario, all needed translators in court when they pleaded guilty Tuesday.
The four, ranging in age from 17 to 22, were in a group that police said accosted two men on a Wilkes-Barre street in May. The two said they were asked if they had marijuana, told to empty their pockets, struck on the head, threatened with a gun and told to stay off the block.

The judge sentenced the four men to jail terms of four to 24 months. But he gave Reyes, Dominguez and Guzman-Mateo, who already had served at least four months, immediate parole. Reyes-Rosario remains imprisoned on an unrelated drug charge.

Incredibly, no one complained. Yet.

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

State of the Union: More of the Same (as appeared in The Philadelphia Bulletin)

I was lucky enough last Monday to be in the Capitol, watching President Bush deliver his last State of the Union message. Seeing virtually the entire United States government in one room is truly a sight to behold.

This event was remarkable for three reasons.

First, witnessing both parties peacefully coming together, makes one realize just how awe-inspiring America really is. We certainly have our political differences, which are always on display in this town, and yes, the barbs are particularly acrimonious this election year. But that’s where it ends—with words. No matter which Party claims the White House in November, there will be a peaceful transition of power. There always is. In fact, we take this miracle for granted so much, that the only “divisive” part of the evening was the media focus on Barack Obama “snubbing” Hillary Clinton on the House floor (which was not the case at all).

Compare that with Kenya.

That nation had a disputed election in December, and the fighting still rages. Scores have been killed, including numerous children, and hundreds of thousands are displaced. Sadly, there is no end in sight.

The second noteworthy aspect was that the President’s speech lacked any type of “nostalgic” tone. Many news anchors compared Bush’s remarks to the final State of the Union addresses of Presidents Reagan and Clinton, which were much more reflective in nature. Of course, there is one, not-so-insignificant difference. Both Reagan and Clinton were highly popular; George W. Bush is mired with a dismal 30% approval rating. It is pretty tough to be “nostalgic” when most of the country thinks your Administration has been a flop.

That leads us to the third interesting point—the speech itself.

For starters, 90% of his address could be swapped, almost word for word, with any other State of the Union from the last six years. We need to get tough on terrorists, pressure the bad guys like Iran and North Korea, lower taxes, stop wasteful spending (especially “earmarks”), confirm judges and secure the border. Did I miss anything?

After visiting Washington, even for a day, you realize that there are two Americas: the one inside the Beltway, and the rest of the country.

Take the truck driver in Oklahoma, or the health care worker in California, or the inner city teacher. Why do they refuse to believe that government is serious about solving the tough issues? Because they know lip service when they hear it.

They don’t know all the ins and outs of political maneuvering, they can’t recite GDP numbers or trade agreements, and they are lost when it comes to governmental minutiae. But what they have is infinitely more important— the big-picture outlook. The ability to tell right from wrong, and the desire for elected leaders to be true to their word.

But all they get are empty promises.

The border wall has been funded for well over a year, yet only a very small portion is built. Illegals, and terrorists, continue to stream across our border unchecked.

A push to make Bush’s tax cuts permanent—before they expire in 2011— was made. But it didn’t happen when Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress, and it certainly won’t happen now.

We were told that “wasteful pending” must be eliminated, and earmarks, which are the special pork projects of legislators, must be drastically reduced. The best laugh of the night was when the Congress—both parties— actually stood and applauded this point. Yet almost of them will be putting earmarks in the next bill. But wait! Bush told the country that he would be signing an Executive Order the next day directing federal agencies to ignore future earmarks that weren’t voted on by Congress. Two questions come to mind: why wasn’t this directive issued in 2001, and how can Congress appropriate money that it didn’t vote upon?

The back room deals will go on, and spending will continue out of control. How do we know this? Past history. Our President showed us that he didn’t have a “Veto” stamp for seven years.

And now, we are supposed to believe that spending our way out of our economic problems is the ultimate answer. Never mind inflation, never mind that the values of “fiscal restraint” and “personal responsibility” are nowhere to be found, and never mind that Bush’s “solution” is nothing more than a Band-Aid on a gaping wound.

It all sounds good, and for the Washington crowd, that’s all that really matters.

Chris Freind can be contacted at CF@TheBulletin.us

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

One on One With Senator Arlen Specter (as published in The Philadelphia Bulletin)

Freindly Fire recently interviewed U.S. Senator Arlen Specter in his Capitol office. The following is the second in a three part series with the longest serving Senator in the history of Pennsylvania.

FF: One more question on the illegal immigration issue. Philadelphia City Council recently voted down a resolution that would have required the police to check the citizenship status of everyone arrested for a felony. What is your position on this resolution?

AS: I think that people who are are arrested– and who are undocumented— ought to have a determination made on guilt or innocence in a deportation proceeding. I think the check on immigration status ought to be done immediately. The police complain that you can’t threaten to deport people who are undocumented, because (if you do) you won’t have witnesses come forward, which is a valid consideration. But that goes (away) once you have the issue of criminal conduct. I don’t think there is any justification for not asking—when someone is undocumented and has committed a crime.

FF: What is your feeling on the Mexican long haul trucks being able to freely access US highways? There is fierce opposition to this by groups citing the trucks’ less-than-stellar safety record and the fact that they are big polluters.

AS: I think it’s fundamentally a safety issue— there is a lot of evidence (to that effect). Until that is resolved, you have to place limits on it. I co-sponsored the Dorgan/Specter amendment to the Transportation Appropriations bill (prohibiting the Mexican trucks from coming into the U.S. until the issues are resolved. The amendment passed.)

FF: You have been outspoken for the need to protect civil rights while effectively prosecuting the war on terror. Can you comment on what you think is the proper role for eavesdropping, warrantless searches and FISA courts?

AS: It’s important to have adequate, powerful law enforcement—that’s why I took the lead on the Patriot Act. I got it through the Judiciary Committee, I managed it on the floor, and we got it passed. It has a lot of broad power. When it comes to wiretapping, I believe that you have to follow established procedures on showing probable cause to get a warrant. I tried very hard, and finally succeeded, in getting the Terrorist Surveillance Program under my support. The President has a legitimate argument that his constitutional authority, as Commander-in-Chief under Article II, superseded the statute. But that had to have a judicial determination. You don’t have that (power) just because the President says so…that’s up to the Court. There was a legitimate constitutional basis for the President saying he wasn’t bound by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), but you have to go to Court.

I am very critical of the Bush Administration putting that program into effect, and not following the National Security Act which mandates —yes, mandates— that he tell the Intelligence Committee. Or maybe he’d say that his constitutional power overrides that Act, too. He’s never said that, by the way. He’s just ignored the Act. But at least tell the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee—and I’m the Chairman of Judiciary.

There have to be checks and balances in our society. He claims he went to the so-called Gang of Four, the leaders of the House and Senate, but there’s a big controversy as to whether that was done. You have the issue playing out right now—the President wants retroactive immunity for telephone companies. And I’m opposed to it. If you cut off the courts, you don’t have checks and balances. And the Congress has not been effective on checks and balances. We have a big fight with the President on his not producing Karl Rove and Harriet Miers. For Congress to bring a contempt citation is not effective. So my idea is to substitute…the government as the part of “defendant” for the telephone companies. Stand in the shoes of those companies. Governmental immunity is something the telephone companies don’t have, and the government should not have it as to this suit. I don’t think those lawsuits are going to produce any money for anyone, but I would not cut out the courts. It is really perilous….

FF: But a complaint among some in law enforcement is that it takes so long to get a FISA warrant, averaging ninety days. Is there a way to streamline the process?

AS: They can do it. They can get an emergency warrant. They have a period of time after the warrant (is issued) to go to court. So the “emergency” argument doesn’t stand up.

FF: You have traveled extensively throughout the world, in particular to Afghanistan and the Middle East. Some have criticized your meetings with Arab leaders, especially the Syrian President. Do such trips send a mixed message in that the State Department may be saying one thing, but several U.S. Senators are saying another? Should the United States deal with leaders such as Assad, with allegations that he has links to terrorists and is involved in the narcotics trade?

AS: The Congress has constitutional authority on foreign policy matters. We have to confirm our ambassadors. The Senate and the House have very extensive responsibilities on foreign policy. Appropriations, foreign operations subcommittees, foreign aid, ratification of treaties, approval of the defense budget, the state department budget. I think members of Congress have been very helpful over the years. One of my ideas is to have a parliamentary exchange with the Iranians. I have taken the lead in initiating a letter signed by Senators Biden, Dodd, Congressman Lantos, and other Republican and Democrats to have this exchange. And I’ve discussed it with President Bush, who thinks it’s a good idea. He thinks parliamentarian people-to-people contact is good idea.

I’ve participated in a lot of meetings with the Syrians, taking messages…on my last trip, I took a message from the federal government to Assad. So I think the role is a very constructive one. I think that we’re making a big mistake by not having a dialogue with Iran. We had one with North Korea, and it’s produced some significant progress. We think we’re on our way (with them). We made a deal with them; whether they live up to it remains to be seen. Quaddafi, as I frequently say, is the worst terrorist in the history of the world. He blew up Pan Am 103, blew up the discotheque, and now he’s made reparations. I spoken extensively about this…including an article I wrote in The Washington Quarterly that goes into detail about my views in this area, and the successes I’ve had in (having) these conversations…things I’ve accomplished with Assad.

FF: Speaking of Iran, let’s go back to the intense controversy that surrounded President Ahmadinejad when he spoke at Columbia. What are your thoughts— should have been allowed to speak? Why?

AS: I think that America is proof positive of the value of freedom of speech, the marketplace of ideas. The more he talks, the better we look! Oliver Wendell Holmes said, in a famous Supreme Court decision, “Time has upset many fighting faiths”.

FF: Please give your insight on this political peculiarity. The Bush Administration has demonstrated its commitment to Israel through immense aid and friendship, and the United States eliminated a direct threat to that nation by removing Saddam Hussein from power. Bush has also kept intense pressure on Ahmadinejad, given his statements advocating the destruction of Israel. Despite these positions, many American Jewish voters are vehemently opposed to George Bush and the Iraq war. Why is this the case when many of these individuals state that Israel’s security is of paramount importance?

AS: I think that Bush has gotten additional support (because his policies in those areas), but the Jewish voters have a lot of different interests. The domestic programs, such as spending on education and healthcare are very important. Stem cell research is very important. So it’s a lot of issues, balancing a lot of factors.

FF: Let’s shift gears to racial relations. The majority of blacks were Republican, proud to be in the Party of Lincoln, all the way through the 1930’s, yet their alliance with the GOP has shrunk considerably, to the point where George Bush captured only 8% in the 2000 election. However, you have traditionally garnered more support from black voters than most Republicans. What happened to that alliance, and what has to be done to bring them back home to the GOP, since many believe in core Republican values (school choice, tough law enforcement, against same-sex marriage, etc.)?

AS: A critical factor is paying more attention to the inner cities—housing, education, job training. It’s issues. That really is the kernel. And the Republicans haven’t done that (paid attention to those issues). As District Attorney, I had a large portion of my staff who were African-American…you can tell it in the hiring.

FF: In much the same way as black voters, many rank-and-file union members are Republican in beliefs and values, if not registration. Yet the GOP has not been able to effectively connect with either of them—some Republicans even write off those constituencies since they assume they won’t garner many of their votes in the short term. Your thoughts?

AS: There are a lot of Republicans in labor, but overall, I think the Democrats are more sympathetic to the labor issues; they take more of a stand on issues like unemployment compensation and prevailing wage rates. There are some Republicans who do, but I would say the balance is with the Democrats. It comes back again to the theme which runs through a lot of what I have to say, and that’s “issues”.

FF: A follow-up question on labor— the card-check issue (whereby a union could be organized by 50% plus one of employees signing an authorization forms [cards]; this procedure would eliminate secret-ballot elections). Does card-check take away the fundamental right of employees to have a free and fair election?

AS: I voted for cloture to take up the issue because there hasn’t been labor law reform in this country in about thirty years, going back to the seventies. There need to be some major changes with the National Labor Relations (Board). There need to be procedures expedited…cases last as long as five years, or more. I made a very extensive floor statement on the subject, and I did not vote to take away the right for a secret-ballot. I did not do that. My vote was to take up the issue and decide it. I’ve gotten very deeply involved in it…I’ve brought in all the members of the NLRB and talked to them about what’s going on. I’ve written a Law Review article on this. And I’m not finished. Business has a major interest in expediting those elections. The NLRB is essentially dysfunctional because it has abandoned its adjudicatory function and has become very biased. Both ways—Democrats and Republicans. That’s another illustration of what I do… which is to be “issue-oriented”. Before I cast that vote, I called up a lot of people and told them what I was doing and why.

I didn’t rush in there and vote for cloture!

Part Three will discuss Senator Specter’s economic stimulus legislation, the role of the Senate, and his accomplishments.

Chris Freind can be reached at CF@TheBulletin.us

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

One on One With Senator Arlen Specter—from The Philadelphia Bulletin

Above everything else, U.S. Senator Arlen Specter is a survivor. The longest serving Senator in the history of Pennsylvania, he has weathered bruising challenges from both the Right and the Left. A member of the Senate for nearly thirty years, his seniority and clout continue to pay big dividends for the Keystone State. Perhaps even more important than Specter’s political power is his work ethic— he makes it a point to travel to each of Pennsylvania’s sixty seven counties at least once a year. Like him or not, no one outworks Arlen Specter.

Regardless of party affiliation, three decades in any legislative body creates constituencies pledged to defeat the incumbent. While some of Specter’s races have been very close, he’s still standing, one of only two statewide elected Republicans. That’s no easy feat, considering that Pennsylvania hasn’t voted Republican in a presidential election since 1988.

Will the Senator run again in 2010? What does he think happened to the GOP in 2006, and does he see the Republicans’ fortunes turning around? And what does he want to be most remembered for accomplishing?

Freindly Fire recently sat down with Specter to seek answers from the ultimate political survivor:

Freindly Fire: When your current term is up in 2010, you will have served thirty years in the Senate. Do you plan to seek re-election?

Arlen Specter: Yes, I am running again!

FF: Let’s talk about that election. As you know, today is the 35 year anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the court case making abortion legal. Given that a significant percentage of Pennsylvania’s primary voters are Pro-Life, and you are known as a pro-abortion senator, how will you attract these people in particular to vote for you, and the conservative base in general?

AS: I approach all of the issues one at a time, and exercise my best judgment on what is the best public policy for the state, the nation, my constituency…I make individualized judgments. I am personally very much opposed to abortion, but I think it is a matter for the individuals, and for ministers, priests and rabbis, not the government. I think the Barry Goldwater approach —keep the government off of our backs, out of our pocketbooks and out of our bedrooms— is the correct approach. But there are limits. When we dealt with the issue of partial birth abortion, I did not apply a knee-jerk reaction to it. I took a look at it, studied the medical evidence in great detail, and came to agree with Senator Moynihan—who said it was infanticide. And that’s a subject I know something about from when I was D. A. That displeased a lot of people, and it pleased some people, but if you start to count who you’re pleasing and who you’re not, and start to run your office on a poll, you might as well (elect) a poll, because it’s a lot cheaper than paying my salary.

There are a lot of issues that I (am involved in)… which are of value to people in the pro-life movement. Disliking abortion as much as I do, I think the best way to avoid abortion is to avoid having extra-marital sex, especially with teenagers. I have taken the national lead on the abstinence funding. Right now, there is a lot of controversy as to whether abstention-only education is effective. I support Planned Parenthood, which teaches contraception, but I believe that for people who believe in abstention, there ought to be programs for their children. When I came out in favor of stem cell research, I took the lead in putting up $2 billion for embryo adoption.

There are ways of finding areas where I can do things for a diverse constituency. I am consistent with my own conscience.

FF: A follow up question. There are critics who say that the Arlen Specter “cycle” is in full swing again—namely, that you are one of the most liberal senators for the first four years of your term, but then become much more conservative as primary election season rolls around. Is this a conscious political decision? How do you address that charge?

AS: Well, it’s not true. You take Supreme Court Justices Roberts and Alito (being confirmed). My positions were taken without regard to the calendar. I got a lot of credit from the conservative community, and I think that, had I not handled Alito the way I did…with the controversy with Senator Kennedy, he wouldn’t have been confirmed. Go back to (Justices) Thomas and Scalia, Kennedy and O’Connor. Those are all strong pro-life people. I supported O’Connor in 1981, my first year in the Senate. So it’s not a matter of voting one side for four years and then changing…

I have a lot of positions on the conservative side. We voted on a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget a number of times, and every time I voted in favor of it. Same on the line-item veto. Same on the death penalty. I’m Pennsylvania’s major proponent for the death penalty. When it was declared unconstitutional in a case called Furman vs. Georgia in 1972, I led the fight to bring it back—I wrote the statute that brought it back. I supported the Strategic Defense Initiative, President Reagan’s main conservative issue for a strong national defense. Those are just a few issues (about my conservative record).

FF: The presidential campaigns on both sides have been very contentious this year, and neither nominee has been determined. What are your thoughts on the current candidates? Which Republican has the best chance of winning Pennsylvania?

AS: I have not taken a position because the field is so muddled. A few months ago when Rudy Giuliani looked like he was in the thick of it, I asked many pro-life Republicans around the state, “Would you take Giuliani?”, and I found a lot of receptivity because of the great concern about Hillary Clinton. I talked with Giuliani about that, and it seemed to me that he could have attracted a lot of voters in the suburban counties, but I wasn’t about to go for him until I found out the (feelings) of the pro-life community. Right now, I am looking at the whole field. We may have a brokered convention, and if we do, Pennsylvania’s interest may be best served by not having a position right now.

As far as the Democrats, I think they’re going to slug it out to the end…it’s good theater, good television. Their (highly-charged) South Carolina debate made the front page of the New York Times!

FF: 2006 was disastrous for the Republican Party, when it lost control of the House and Senate. Many say 2008 will not be much better. What happened to the GOP—did it lose its way? And what needs to happen to get back on track in this year’s election? Has that catalyst for change occurred?

AS: The party lost because it was afraid to tackle a lot of tough issues, and cast a lot of tough votes. The American people said “You have both houses of Congress and the White House. What good are you if you can’t deliver?” I think our way out of it is to take principled positions, and to try to appeal to the broad mix of Americana. We need to take the issues one at a time and stick to the core principles. A strong national defense is indispensable—that’s a core Republican principle. No tax increases. Tough law enforcement. Within that framework, (we should) try to approach these issues on a non-ideological basis.

And speak candidly! Candor is the most important quality an elected official has—that anybody has.

FF: Pennsylvania was the most Republican state in the country in 1994, in terms of elected officials. Now there are only two statewide elected Republicans, and Republican registrations continue to fall off…how do you reverse that trend, especially in the voter-rich southeastern part of the state, home of 40% of the electorate?

AS: We’re working on that right now. We’re trying to appeal to the voters with candidates— we’ve recruited some pretty good candidates, especially in the southeast. Lt. Colonel Tom Manion (running for Congress in Bucks County) poses a good, sharp distinction to the incumbent, especially talking about concluding (our business) in Iraq as soon as we can but not leaving it in a state of turmoil. Craig Williams in Delaware County is another one…and we may have a candidate in Montgomery County who might give that incumbent a run… if you pick good candidates, that’s a good place to start.

FF: Speaking of Republican party troubles, how would you characterize the situation in Montgomery Country where Commissioner Jim Matthews sided with Democrat Joe Hoeffel to form a power-sharing alliance, even though Matthews’ running mate, Republican Bruce Castor, was the top vote-getter on either side? This seems to be the low point for the county—a county once so powerful that it supplied President Reagan with not one but three cabinet officials.

AS: It’s a personality clash and a failure to observe Ronald Reagan’s “Eleventh Commandment”—don’t speak ill of fellow Republicans. Especially when they’re right down the hall from each other….(laughing)…so that answer was carefully given to be responsive but not speak ill of fellow Republicans!

FF: How would you rate the Bush-Cheyney Administration over the last seven years?

AS: Overall, I would rate it good. I think that the reorganization of the intelligence community—which was a long time in coming—was a good idea, especially putting the CIA and the FBI under one Director. I think that if there had been coordination before, 9/11 may well have been avoided. I think their efforts at democratization, which is a big point on the Bush agenda, is a lofty goal and pretty hard to get. But Afghanistan is a democracy, and I think that, before we’re finished, Iraq will stabilize and has a chance to become a democracy.

I think the Bush tax cuts have helped the economy; right now, we’re in a very rough time, and the President is responding. I think his sitting down with the leaders of the Democratic Congress is good. And I have some legislation being introduced this afternoon on depreciation acceleration (as part of economic stimulus).

Up close, George Bush is a very engaged person. His private persona is very different from his public one; I’ve gotten to know him very well because he’s come to Pennsylvania so much—more than forty times in 2004. He likes to talk—and he listens, too. But the media will shoot hours and hours of footage and focus in on one grammatical mistake…you do that to a professor of English, and you’re going to find grammatical mistakes too! You can make anyone look bad—if that what you set out to do.

There are disappointments….they couldn’t get the social security package together that the President talked about. And I’ve disagreed with the President on not being more willing to have more direct, bilateral talks. I think the success in North Korea is the result of having bilateral talks, and I think it’s not just the United States success’ with (regard to) Muammar Quaddafi (on his about-face)—he was the worst terrorist in the history of the world. He blew up Pan Am 103, blew up the discoteque in Germany where American soldiers were killed—and then he walks back into the family of nations and makes reparations.

FF: Let’s turn to some key issues. Perhaps the biggest hot-button issue this year is illegal immigration, with all its facets: the border wall, amnesty, sanctuary cities, depressed wages and lost jobs, and exponentially higher taxes due to taxpayers paying illegals’ heath care and education. What is your position on illegal immigration, and how do we solve the problem of the 12-20 million already here?

AS: I believe you have to look at all parts of it, but there have to be priorities. The first thing that has to be done is that stopping the flow of illegals. We passed legislation that provides for a 700 mile fence—(near) the metropolitan areas such as San Diego and border towns in Arizona, etc. But the fence alone will not do it. No matter how high you build it, they will climb over it—unless you remove the magnet. And that requires very tough enforcement against employers who knowingly hire illegals. We now have the technology where they can be absolutely sure (who they are hiring); it’s expensive, but we have to do that. That’s point number one. Point number two is that you have to recognize that the immigrant workforce is a good workforce, and there are ways to deal with them without taking away American jobs. For example, advertising. You want a guest worker? Then you would have to advertise, to make a reasonable effort to find someone (an American) for that job in the United States.
The guest worker program brings people in for a limited period of time and then sends them home—they’re not here permanently, and they’re not on the citizenship track.

Then you have the 12-20 million undocumented immigrants—what do you do with them? Attrition will help to some extent—if you cut down on employment (opportunities), some will leave. I think the legislation that was proposed did something it shouldn’t have done—putting illegals in line for citizenship. That led to the cry of amnesty. No matter how much of a fine you (levied), no matter how many years you had to be here, it rewarded people who had violated the law in coming to this country.

The idea which may bring the parties together is to leave out citizenship. If you just eliminated fugitive status for their being undocumented, you could then focus on those who commit crimes while they’re here. The new idea would be to require people to register within a year, or else they would be committing a separate crime. Once we get a handle on which of the undocumented are committing crimes….you can deport those who are here and are charged with crimes, and if you get the people registered, you can put them on the tax rolls and start to collect from them. But the 12-20 million are not going to go away, and they have to be dealt with. According to news reports, you have 140 municipalities which are legislating on this…counties, states, like Arizona, (passing) their own immigration law—you can’t do that.

FF: Let’s follow up on that. From a legal perspective—-it is against federal law to assist and encourage illegal immigrants, yet time after time that’s exactly what state and local governments do (drivers licenses, sanctuary cities, the Governor of North Carolina requiring illegals be allowed in that state’s community college system). Why isn’t the Justice Department investigating these types of activities?

AS: I think the federal government ought to start deportation proceedings against people in detention—and there are a lot of undocumented illegals in detention.. You ought to have hearings to make the determination whether they are guilty or innocent, and you don’t have to wait for them to be tried in criminal courts. Those people ought to be deported. I think you start to run up against a lot of ill will when you start to give preferential treatment to people who are here illegally. That’s where the huge cries come from.

Freindly Fire’s exclusive one-on-one interview with Senator Specter will continue next week, covering issues including national security, the Middle East, race relations and his Senate accomplishments.

Chris Freind can be contacted at CF@TheBulletin.us

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

The Philadelphia Inquirer had an editorial the other day about voter identification requirements.

Kevin Kelly of Northern Liberties dismantles it.

He writes…

The twisted logic and intellectual back flips The Inquirer editorial staff used to rage against the requirement for photo ID at the polls (Photo Identification; The GOP’s ID fraud – 12 Jan) once again betrays its left wing prejudice. It’s difficult to even comprehend the arguments they try to make against a very logical photo ID requirement but let’s give it a shot.

First, they predictably argue that somehow Justice Kennedy (no conservative by any measure) wants to purposely “disenfranchise” (left wing code word) little old ladies, poor people who can’t afford cars, and people who live “miles” from their local voting booths. Not quite sure what being old, poor, or geographically challenged has to do with having a photo ID? But the inevitable conclusion reached by editorial board is it will inevitably “dissuade citizens from voting.” Huh!? The argument doesn’t make any sense but does however, fit nicely with the left wing tactic of painting Republicans as always motivated to screw the old, poor, etc. In this case it doesn’t quite pass the smell test, so the follow on argument is put forth: “Some voters – whether poor, elderly, disabled or (God forbid) nondriving – will not have a driver’s license or similar form of ID to offer at the polls.” My question is; why not? Every poor, elderly, disabled, and nondriving person I know has ID. Where is this alternative universe where poor and old people don’t have any ID to claim their government benefits, receive medication, enter a building, open a bank account, or cash a government check?

Next comes a ridiculous left wing rant against Chief Justice Roberts, gas guzzling SUVs, and a “tug at the heartstrings” story about endless bus rides, hopelessness, and Jim Crow poll taxes forced upon those of us…. without cars?? Presumably these are the same people who forgot their IDs on their miles long journey to the polls (you forgot uphill both ways in the snow by the way). Hmmm….still not buying it as an excuse against photo IDs but then comes the coup de grace. Apparently, (according to the editors….drum roll please) it is a “fact that Democratic voters are more likely to be at a disadvantage under photo ID laws.” Since when are legally registered Democrats less likely to have an ID? Must be that alternative universe again.

The final argument, “there’s no documented outbreak of voter impersonation….to include Al Qaeda agents…..sneaking into the voting booth and writing in Osama bin Laden for president”. Umm….OK, I’ll buy that. But there are 12 million illegal immigrants who would like to vote illegally, however, and should not be allowed to do so.

The fact is, the Inquirer editorial board knows exactly the reason for the voter ID requirement; to prevent illegal aliens from voting in our elections. You just don’t like it. Instead of talking to the readers like we’re 3 year olds, just say it plain and clear instead of hiding behind a string of foolish arguments. Next year is supposed to be one of the worst years on record for the newspaper business according to Goldman Sachs. With idiotic editorials like this, it’s easy to see why.

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

Mayor Michael Nutter: Up Close and Personal

Upon analyzing the candidacy and subsequent victory of incoming Democratic Mayor Michael Nutter, a veteran political observer remarked: “If Michael Nutter lived in Chester County, he’d be a Republican.”

Whether the Mayor takes that as the compliment it was meant to be, it’s fair to say that there is a level of cautious optimism about Philadelphia’s future, a hope not felt since the days of former Mayor Ed Rendell. Back then, Rendell was taking over after the disastrous administration of Wilson Goode, one in which Philadelphia suffered one black eye after another, culminating in international embarrassment when the City incinerated an entire square block during the MOVE crisis. It took several years under Rendell’s tenure, but Philadelphia climbed back from the abyss and experienced a cultural and business renaissance. It was short lived, however, after the Street Administration took the reigns in 1999. Plagued by corruption scandals and bureaucratic incompetence, John Street and an intransigent City Council turned the clock back on all progress the city had achieved. Philadelphia has once again become a national laughingstock

What does Mayor Nutter inherit after the eight years of Mayor Street’s stewardship? A City of Brotherly Love that is anything but brotherly. Philadelphia’s plight once again is a national headline, with the city owning the highest rates of murder, violence and poverty in the nation. Children and police officers are mercilessly gunned down, residents are fleeing, and businesses, facing some of the highest taxes in the nation, are not just moving out, but worse, many will not even consider Philadelphia when they need to expand or relocate.

The challenge to revive Philadelphia is an unenviable and monumental task. Only an extremely strong-willed leader willing to buck the entrenched special interests and pay-to-play business culture will be able to turn America’s fifth-largest city around and once again make it shine.

Is Michael Nutter up to the job? Can he work with City Council to push through business friendly initiatives? Can he find a way to effectively negotiate the four municipal unions’ contracts which expire in just months—and in doing so, can he make the city pension fund solvent? Can he make Philadelphia safe again in the mold of New York City?

Freindly Fire recently sat down with Mayor-elect Nutter to discuss the vision of Philadelphia’s new leader:

FF: At the Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance Annual Meeting, you had promised to name your Cultural Director to a cabinet-level position. Have you made that decision?

MN: We are going to open an Office of Art and Culture. It will be a real office, real people, and real responsibilities to better coordinate art and culture in Philadelphia…to promote it the way it should be. It’s a big business for us here in the city, with 31,000 people whose livelihoods depend on it. But it’s also big in the region, and it’s a way to bring the region together. We need to expand art and culture beyond just the perceived downtown activity. We also want to highlight the various activities in our schools, in our neighborhoods and in other public venues. But, no, I haven’t named anyone to that post yet.

FF: With regard to the Boy Scout-City controversy, is there a way to rectify this issue? (The city has eliminated the $1/year lease provision for the Boy Scouts’ offices in a landmark Philadelphia building, under the rationale that the organization discriminates because it won’t allow homosexual scouts and scout leaders). The Boy Scouts do such a wonderful job with young boys, especially minorities, who would otherwise be out on the streets. This issue plays to the heart of public opinion in that the City seems to care more about persecuting Boy Scouts than it does about its streets awash in blood. What can be done to preserve their good work? Would you reverse this decision?

MN: The optimal solution is for the local Boy Scouts to change their policies so that they are not discriminatory against anyone for any reason whatsoever. Short of that…the other discussion going on is that they should pay full market rate for rent for their property because the government should not subsidize discriminatory practices. So as far as I’m concerned, it’s really one or the other: change your policy, or pay full market rent.

FF: One of Philadelphia most famous businessman, Le Bec Fin’s Georges Perrier, expressed his immense frustration with City Hall when a proposal to ban foie gras arose. His words echo the sentiment of many: “Philadelphia’s school system is in shambles. We have the highest violence and murder rate of any city in the United States—and the highest poverty rate. The city is filthy and dirty. There are homeless and beggars everywhere. Parking is a huge problem. For everything we (the business community) pay in taxes, what do we get for it? Absolutely nothing. Don’t they have anything better to do? Do your job!” Specifically, how will you address the concern that the City focuses on irrelevant issues and refuses to tackle the major problems head-on?

MN: Elected officials, whether in the legislative body or executive branch, don’t write the stories. For every foie gras story, there could also be a story about the efforts to lower business taxes in Philadelphia, efforts to reduce crime, support for public education, ethics laws that have been put into place—I did some of that work when I was in office. There are a million things going on in the city. No disrespect, but the media often times—all the time— decides what goes in the paper, what goes on TV and the radio, and what the current conversation is. I want to change some of the current conversation.

Unfortunately, I couldn’t agree with Georges more about those statistics and the context of what he lays out. What I am seeking to change is the last part of what he said—about not getting anything for their tax dollars. We have to change that. We have to let people know what the are getting for their money, how services are delivered, and how they are going to be improved in my administration. But one of the most important issues here is communication. We have to change the level of communication between City government and the citizens and business community. One of the first rules of the political business I’m in is that you either define yourself, or you get defined by someone else for other circumstances. We have allowed ourselves to be defined by circumstances, other people and perceptions, many of which are not necessarily correct, but left unchallenged, become the fact.

Are there crime problems here in Philadelphia? Absolutely. Are most people involved in them? No. Are the problems and challenges in our education system? Yes. Do most kids go to school everyday? Yes. Are there job issues in the city—do we continue to lose some small amount of population and some jobs? Sure. But are new people opening businesses every day, and are businesses and people moving into the city? Absolutely. I am trying to be an advocate of fair, balanced and accurate reporting of both sides. Better communication out of City Hall, better engagement, and a better relationship with the news media is (an important) part of getting the message out. Of course, we also need to deliver. We owe people a high quality of service. They’re paying their taxes. We owe people a response when they call us—they deserve an answer. That’s why I want a 311 system, to offload some of the calls from 911, but also to have a great tracking system through CityStat to measure what we do and how we do it, and drive performance at the ground level so that people actually know what they’re getting for their tax dollars.

FF: Geno’s steaks owner Joey Vento’s said, virtually word for word, the exact same thing as Perrier, but his beef is the City’s “discrimination” suit regarding a store sign asking patrons to order in English. With all the problems the City faces, what are your thoughts on the merits of this case, and how will you address this kind of issue as Mayor? Did Vento discriminate, and if yes, how so?

MN: I think that the sign sends the absolute wrong message in a city that is trying to encourage a multicultural environment and encourage immigrants to come to Philadelphia. We have conventions and tour activities coming here, and a number of those individuals may not speak English but they would like to order. So if you’re not turning anyone away, what’s the point of the sign in the first place? I think it’s more of a topical issue related to immigration, and views about that, but I think it’s bad for the city. It draws negative attention to Philadelphia, and it makes us look small minded and parochial—for the fifth-largest city in the country, the center of democracy, and (a city of ) tolerance, based on how we got our start with Billy Penn coming here. It’s just one more (example) of giving ourselves a black eye.

FF: But to clarify, while you may not agree with the sign, if Vento didn’t discriminate against anyone, should the case have been brought in the first place by the City’s Human Relations Commission? Does it have merit in a legal sense?

MN: That’s what they do (the Commission). I think that, based on the role and mission of the Human Relations Commission, which is to work on these kinds of issues, it’s appropriate for them to have taken that action and…(the case) should work its way through the system. At some point in time, we’ll all go back to our lives and try to work on really important things, like lowering the crime rate, getting kids in school, creating jobs and cleaning up the corruption in the city.

FF: Let’s talk about the Convention Center. The Convention Center expansion will be built with union labor only. First, do you agree that this is the most effective use of taxpayer dollars? Second, the percentage of blacks in these unions is quite low; their numbers are much higher in the non-union workforce. Doesn’t that conflict with the City’s policies against discrimination, and how can that be tolerated? Does this amount to economic apartheid?

MN: I think the issue with most public projects is that you have to adhere to the prevailing wage standards, and in some instances the non-union companies don’t. The larger issue for me is that most of the projects that get built in Philadelphia, both public and private, are usually done (with) unions. They have a training program, there is a quality of work issue…so what I’m focused on is “how do we get more African-American, Latinos, women and others into the trades in the first place”, and make sure there is not, by happenstance, coincidence or direct effort, any obstacles placed in the way of people who want to participate in the incredible economic opportunities by getting a trade, being able to take care of themselves, and having a life sustaining work opportunity. So diversity in the construction trades, in the workforce, is a prominent issue in the city and very important to me.

FF: Even though there are more blacks in the non-union workforce than unions?

MN: I don’t know that to be the case. I haven’t seen any numbers about African-Americans in the union and non-unions workforce. I think what we can tell from observation on most work-sites is that you will not see a significant number of African-Americans, Latinos, Asians and women, and that has gone on for far too long. It is my goal to change that.

FF: Four municipal union contracts expire this year, just months after you are sworn in as Mayor. Many analysts say how you handle the unions will be a telltale sign of how successful your Administration will be. What are your thoughts as you head into negotiations?

MN: My thoughts are that I am going to have a fair, open, and honest dialogue with all four union leaders, and that I come at this from the perspective that those four leaders and myself have a primary responsibility to negotiate fair and reasonable contracts for our public employees, and those contracts have to be fair and reasonable to the taxpayers who pay the bill. Somewhere in that discussion I think we can reach agreement on making sure that our public employees receive fair wages, stable rates for their health care benefits, and that the full package is affordable to the taxpayers. It’s not easy, but it’s certainly doable if we’re all working in the spirit of cooperation and honesty.

FF: Let’s assume that you reach an impasse in the negotiations. Are you willing to take a strike, and if so, take your case directly to the people?

MN: Let’s assume that we have a fair and reasonable contract negotiation. I’ll worry about what happens six months from now when I get there.

Chris Freind can be contacted at CF@TheBulletin.us

Part Two of Freindly Fire’s exclusive interview with Michael Nutter will discuss the city’s underfunded pension, crime, public education, casinos and waterfront development.

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

A Lament for Tancredo

“There cannot be peace without justice”. So said the Raila Odinga, opposition leader in Kenya. His point has merit, of course, since a quarter million people have been displaced and over 300 killed in fighting that ensued after that nation’s disputed presidential election of December 27.

We will hear the inevitable comparisons to America’s electoral system, in that, no matter what the outcome, there will be a peaceful transition of power. The fiasco in 2000 proved that beyond a doubt.

However, that’s like being valedictorian of summer school.

By comparing ourselves to Kenya and the other third-world nations, it becomes far too easy to gloss over the problems that exist in our electoral process. From cowardly networks like FOX (that is trying to manipulate the outcome by excluding candidates from debates) to small states with immensely disproportionate power (Iowa and New Hampshire), the system is truly rigged to produce a “business as usual” result. The “Establishment” rules the day.

The two biggest casualties? Strong leaders who never sold their soul, and the American people. But while we may never again see a strong leader like Ronald Reagan assume the Presidency, true leaders can nonetheless still have a tremendous impact on the country.

Tancredo’s Impact

Ironically, the man who has had the greatest effect on the 2008 race is no longer running. Tom Tancredo, a Congressman from Colorado, ran hard for the Republican nomination, but ultimately suffered the fate of all those who buck the Establishment—unfair treatment at the hands of networks and party bosses. As a result, unable to compete in the money race, he was forced to drop out of the campaign.

Tancredo’s “mistake”? He was one of the most principled candidates in the race, and pulled no punches on his signature issue: illegal immigration’s devastating effect on America. He forcefully took on the Bush Administration and both political parties for their coddling and encouragement of illegals, and exposed the real reasons why each did so. For the Republicans, it’s payback to their friends (read: donors) in Big Business, who want cheap labor. The Democrats want the votes that the millions of illegals bring, as they are a natural constituency of the D’s.

Where does that leave the vast majority of Americans who agree that a wall should be built and amnesty is a sell-out of the country? Until Tancredo entered the race, the answer was “out of luck.”

All that changed despite the heavy-handed bias against “the Tank”, such as being asked only four questions in a ninety minute debate. Tancredo made the most of his time, and connected with the American people because he possessed the one thing that his colleagues didn’t: credibility. He was a man of conviction who never flip-flopped, and that, more than anything, made him a force to be reckoned with.

In explaining why illegal immigration was the gravest threat to America, Tancredo made people aware of the true scope of the problem. He scolded the business-as-usual crowd in Washington for doing nothing, and showed how illegals were directly responsible for the loss of American jobs, depressed wages, skyrocketing health and education costs, and the destruction of Western culture. He also pounded away at the huge national security threat posed by open borders, and ran a spectacular ad to that effect.

Tancredo may be out, but his impact continues. Under threat of a broadside from Tancredo, every Republican was forced to take a hard-line stand. They might not have completely agreed with the Tank, but the one thing they understood was that any more waffling on this issue would be a death knell. Ducking illegal immigration disappeared virtually overnight. Even Senator John McCain, the biggest proponent of amnesty, changed his tune when confronted by the millions supporting Tancredo’s common sense approach to the problem.

What happens from here? It’s anyone’s guess, but since the candidates are now on record, the eventual nominee would be wise to remember the real reason President Bush the Elder lost re-election in 1992. It’s not because he raised taxes, but much more basic. He went back on his word. After uttering one of the most famous political phrases of all time, “Read my lips, no new taxes”, he then raised them, and that was the ballgame. More than ever before, people are fed up with political two-stepping on the most pressing issues. Credibility counts.

Rumor has it Tancredo may be running for the Senate in Colorado. America could only be so lucky.

Chris Freind can be reached at CF@TheBulletin.us

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

My Fox Philly

A Geno’s Steaks employee who was severely beaten at the restaurant says the controversial “Order in English” sign may have provoked the attack.

Tony Chestnut has severe injuries including a fractured skull, rib, and spine. His collarbone is broken, he has lost hearing in his left ear, and his speech has been affected.

“I don’t know why, but something is deterring my ability to speak the way i would normally speak,” Chestnut said.

I had also heard that Tony Chestnut was defending a female employee before he was beaten. The assailants were two white thugs.

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