PAWaterCooler.com

The American Dream is dead because people and politicians like Jim Matthews have killed it. And now they are taking this opportunity created by their chronic mismanagement and cronyism to try to expand their power base.

What’s the definition of chutzpah again? Oh yes: It’s the kid who murders his parents then begs for mercy on the grounds he’s now an orphan.

Montgomery County under Matthews-Hoeffel is a microcosm of the United States under Obama-Pelosi-Reid. Party affiliation doesn’t matter. It politics as usual ie. a relentless expansion of government power vs. strict constitutionalism.

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

What kind of dire straits does Montgomery County find itself in when a simple sound byte about combining municipality provided services on a county-wide basis renders this quote:

“The next generation down is starting to realize now that the old idea of the American Dream that this generation is better than the last one is dead. Those days are gone. It’s gonna be a struggle out there.”

… and the right guy to manage that decline is Jim Matthews (brother of Chris “Obama leg tingle” Matthews), your candidate in 2011.

The Matthews-Hoeffel administration is seriously considering taxing county residents more because they’ve done such a bang up job of it these past four years. … and they want to hire your cops for you.

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

While I don’t have the time to devote to outlining all of the details of the event, I’d like to focus on a number of highlights . . . from start to finish.

The Start

The debate began with a coin toss. Mike Kelly chose heads and won. It was his option on who would make the first opening statement. Mike said “Ladies first”. It was cute, but many of us laughed out loud. We all know that this is NOT a race that involves any type of chivalry, so the attempt was laughable.

Kathy Dahlkemper’s opening statements outlined her achievements from her first 20 months in office. She mentioned securing Medicare, improving health care for seniors, and attempting to secure Social Security. Kathy also stated that she didn’t like the “direction that our country was going” and she felt that we need to invest in our children and invest in infrastructure and move forward . . . rather than moving back to the near collapse of our economy. For a minute . . . just a minute . . . she sounded like a TEA Partier. Hmmmm.

Mike Kelly’s opening statement started with “I’m not here as a politician”. I laughed out loud. He went on to say that he would be speaking from the heart today because he, too, is concerned. He highlighted his thoughts by saying things like “things are not good” and “the future is not rosey”. He rallied the TEA Partiers in the crowd by saying that it isn’t “We the People” anymore . . . it is “We the Government”. In closing he stated “the beneficiary should be the American people . . . not a Party”. For a minute . . . just a minute . . . he sounded like an Independent. Hmmmmm.

The Middle

The questions started with predetermined questions from AARP including topics like the economy, stabilizing Social Security, Medicare, and the deficit.

The line of questioning then moved to questions that were submitted by attendees of the forum. Those questions ranged from Cap and Trade, farming, education, tort reform, and international relations.

The topics were diverse, but the answers to the questions from both candidates were extremely interesting. Not so much in what they said but how they said it . . . if you know what I mean.

My Scoring

To explain and rate the general conversation, allow me to provide a few examples and score some of the highlights of the debate accordingly:

Kathy Dahlkemper claimed that the problems that we have were there before she was elected . . . Kelly responded by saying “don’t blame Bush”. [+1 for Kelly]

Kathy Dahlkemper stated that Social Security is the only program that never contributed one cent to the national debt and, instead, it is a source to borrow from. She feels that it needs to be protected in a “lock box” . . . which received groans from the crowd (including myself). [-1 for Dahlkemper]

In response to a question regarding the recent cut in Medicare payments by 21%, Mike Kelly blamed health care reform legislation. Kathy Dahlkemper had to explain that Mike obviously didn’t understand the question as the change in Medicare had nothing to do with the recent health care legislation bill that was passed. [+1 Dahlkemper]

Regarding the deficit, Dahlkemper stated that she is a Blue Dog Democrat and believes in fiscal responsibility . . . and we all laughed. [-1 Dahlkemper]

In response to the same question regarding the deficit, Kelly said “We need to hold elected officials accountable to the people . . . not accountable to the Party”. To this I say “Bravo”, and once again Kelly sounds (for just one minute) like an Independent and not a Republican. [+1 Kelly]

In response to Cap and Trade, Kelly didn’t answer the question. [-1 Kelly]
Dahlkemper’s response is that she voted against Cap and Trade [+1 Dahlkemper]

In an interesting twist, Kelly felt it necessary to say that Dahlkemper only voted for Cap and Trade at 5 minutes before midnight after making certain that her Party had the necessary votes to pass it. For this, Mike Kelly loses points as it was an unnecessary jab and it made him look petty

In response to a question regarding helping farmers, Kelly pointed out that a big problem is the death tax. [+1 Kelly]
Dahlkemper, on the other hand, said that the death tax is fair is not problem with a little tax planning. Ugh. Really! Seriously? [-1 Dahlkemper]

Something odd happened during the question regarding tort reform. Dahlkemper stated that tort reform is actually a state issue, but in some strange twist the conversation turned to “Cash for Clunkers”. In the end, Kelly explained that $600,000 in “cash for clunkers” money went through his dealership and was paid TO customers. He stated that he was not a beneficiary of the stimulus money. Kathy Dahlkemper, however, correctly stated that he was a beneficiary of the profits generated from the increased business that came from “cash for clunkers”. Mrs. Dahlkemper clearly won the argument and earned a point. [+1 Dahlkemper]

The End

In the closing comments, Mike Kelly explained that it comes down to “faith and trust”. He stated the “we have lost faith in the people that represent us”. He explained that they don’t vote for us but vote with their party. (once again . . . for just a minute . . . Kelly sounds more like an Independent than a Republican). He explained that this leads to a lack of trust. He said that when he comes home from Washington he wants to say “I voted the way my people told me . . . not my Party”.

For this Mike earns another point in my book [+1 Kelly]

In Dahlkemper’s closing comments, she stated that there are two things that she looks at when she votes. (1) her conscience (2) her constituents. It all sounds nice as a sound bite, but she seemed to offend a huge number of her constituents with her health care vote and it never seemed to bother her conscience a bit. I won’t discount her points for it, but it makes me say “Hmmmmm”.

However, in a horrible display of lack of self control, Mike Kelly made a series of annoyed faces in reaction to many of Dahlkemper’s remarks and markedly so during her closing remarks. I found the move distasteful and I have to discount a point for it [-1 Kelly]

Final Score

In the end, Kelly earned 1 point, and Dahlkemper ended up with 0.

Comments and Suggestions (even though no one asked for them)

Dahlkemper looked good. She looked calm, cool, collected, and confident. She held her own and kept her composure. If she can maintain this, she will do well. When she gets shaken, she makes mistakes. Mike managed to do it to her once during the debate, and the general anger of the crowd seemed to concern her (and rightly so). This could be her weakness.

Mike looked nervous, flushed, angry (something I’ve warned him about on multiple occasions), and (at times) frustrated. He needs to calm down and keep his composure. He needs to be the “loveable teddy bear” that we all like so much, and his alter ego (the “angry football player”) needs to stay tucked away for the next few months. If he can do this he will do VERY well. If not, he will self destruct.

What did I like?

I enjoyed seeing that Dahlkemper made attempts to sound like a fiscal conservative, although actions speak louder than words. So far she has demonstrated that she is only a fiscal conservative in the press . . . but not in real life.

I enjoyed hearing Kelly make numerous statements that it is about “We the People” and NOT the Party, but again . . . actions speak louder than words. Unfortunately, Mike has demonstrated that he is all about “the Party” and he is prepared to march with the GOP (even if it is off the next cliff). Why? Because that is where the money is.

Most of all, I think it is really funny that everyone wants to paint themselves as a “fiscal conservative Independent”. Unfortunately, we all know that there is only ONE of those in this area . . . and SHE is running for State Senate!

Email Roberta Biros, Start the discussion or Share This...

Then (Jan 2008):

Ultimately, my experience and priorities influenced Joe Hoeffel in his decision. Unfortunatley, some people left out of courthouse influence, one with ambition to be MCRC Chairman and others who think they will by your anger, would like you to believe that I caved-in on my budget and my platform to get Joe’s vote. First of all, the county is neither a dime nor a person over budget since reorganizing. For example, Jim Maza and the new Assistant Solicitor, Jeff Albert (Incidentally both Democrat friends of Joe Hoeffel… and Albert’s predecessor never left. ed), joined the staff at less cost than their predecessors. Second, there is no cost to discussing the others team’s ideas, which will all be subject to public scrutiny and my tight-fisted record.

Now:

it would be hard to imagine how the government could continue to function if 750 of its 3,000 workers were given pink slips.

And Matthews agrees wholeheartedly.

“That’s absolutely not an option,” he said.

His extreme one-in-four proposal Tuesday was meant to illustrate the “absurdity of the choices” facing officials this budget cycle.

“You can’t cut a quarter of your prison guards, your registered nurses, you can’t cut aging and adult services,” he said. “We have reached the point of the absurd.”

Having kept property taxes down for nearly a decade, Matthews said he’s reached the inescapable conclusion that next year, tax rates will have to rise if residents want the county to keep the parks, trails and libraries open to the public.

“There is no choice but to raise taxes,” he said. “If there are any alternatives, I want to hear them.”

How much can we get back of the $105 million that was sent to the patronage filled “Economic Development Fund”?

How about trimming the patronage jobs that have been larding up Norristown since January 2008? He cites the savings on Maza & Albert, but went ahead and created a CFO position, increasing that salary by nearly $40,000 over the Finance Director’s.

I’ve got another idea. This one is comes from the “no cost to discussing the other team’s ideas” pile. Two Damsker-Hoeffel campaign promises.

* “Property tax cut in 2008 AND creating a rainy day fund.”

* “Competitive county contract bidding”

Tight-fisted.

More like a open handed slap in the face of the county’s voters.

Email AlexC, Join the other 3 commenters or Share This...

Faced with a budget crisis of his own making (with implicit collaboration /leadership from Joe Hoeffel), Jim Matthews is looking for politically expedient ways to get Montco out the mess and still get re-elected. Peggy Gibbons has the story at The Intelligencer:

“What we are looking for over the next several months is ideas, solid ideas,” said Matthews. “What is not tolerable is second guessing after the fact. That is not helpful to anyone.”

How to pass a tax increase to pay for your cronyism without making it look like you are passing a tax increase to pay for your cronyism? Crony Jim Maza, who makes $90,000 a year in his capacity as a part time county employee, has an idea:

If the county labeled the tax a “public safety” tax, most would not object to paying higher taxes, said Deputy Chief Operating Officer James W. Maza. But when it is listed as just a tax increase for government, most would object “because they think government is a waste,” said Maza.

As usual, Commissioner Bruce Castor is being especially “unhelpful” in solving Matthews’ and Hoeffel’s image problem caused by the budget crisis, caused by they themselves:

While Republicans across the country snapped to attention when the economy collapsed and realized our country could not spend its way to prosperity, and that the times called for austerity, Jim Matthews teamed up with Joe Hoeffel to oversee a massive expansion of our county government spending fueled by borrowed dollars.

Sound familiar? Sounds a lot like the way Barack Obama is running the Federal Government. Flashback to the 1990s, a time I referred to during the 2007 campaign as “Hoeffel I.” We find ourselves in exactly the same place we were when Hoeffel was commissioner before: broke. You see, in the 1990s, Hoeffel pushed the sham “bipartisan” government against the wishes of the voters and the result was a disaster. In fact, when Jim Matthews announced his run for Commissioner in 1999, he said he was running to oust the “traitor” who aligned himself with Democrat Hoeffel to bring the county to the brink of financial ruin. Ironic, isn’t it? In 2007, I said we couldn’t afford “Hoeffel I” and we can’t afford “Hoeffel II.” Well, thanks to Jim Matthews, we got “Hoeffel II.” And the results, predictably, were the same. Some say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Welcome to the asylum.

My guess is that a new “public safety tax,” will indeed be coming to your Montgomery County household soon.

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

Believe it or not, I understand and sympathize Chairman Jim Matthews’ reasoning here, which basically amounts to this: If Montco funds prenatal care for the uninsured—most of which are illegal aliens—they will end up saving the hospitals money, since the cost of of a complicated birth can be triple that of a normal birth. Prenatal care can head off most of those complications.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I’m not going to bash Matthews, or the rest of the commissioners, for their stance on this issue; instead I’d like to take this opportunity to point out the very real economic consequences of illegal immigration. Times Herald:

In recent years, Norristown area hospitals have been inundated with Latina women, many of whom have no medical insurance. This year, Montgomery Hospital is projected to deliver more than 1,000 babies, though that number could climb higher, according to local officials. Births skyrocketed this year at the Norristown medical center after Mercy Suburban Hospital in East Norriton closed its obstetrics department.

Why did Mercy Suburban close it’s Obstetrics department?

On average, Montgomery Hospital loses $2,500 for every baby born there and could rack up a total of $16 million in uncompensated care in 2010, according to a hospital official in June.

The statistics on illegal births are elusive and can only be estimated, but those estimates are staggering:

“There’s been anecdotal discussions that nationally right now, as high as 15 percent of all births in the United States are from undocumented mothers, and it is bankrupting out hospitals,” Matthews said.

An estimated 340,000 of the 4.3 million babies born in the United States in 2008 were the offspring of “unauthorized immigrants,” according to a new analysis of Census Bureau data by the Pew Hispanic Center released in August.

The figures are based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s March 2009 Current Population Survey, augmented with the Pew Hispanic Center’s analysis of the demographic characteristics of the illegal immigrant population in the U.S.

The analysis finds that nearly four in five, or 79 percent, of the 5.1 million children under the age of 18 of unauthorized immigrants were born in this country and therefore are U.S. citizens. In total, 4 million U.S.-born children of unauthorized immigrant parents lived in this country in 2009 alongside 1.1 million foreign-born children of unauthorized immigrant parents.

Accurate estimates of how many Hispanic people live in the Norristown area are elusive, though recent estimates are between 10,000 and 20,000. And though the Norristown medical center is burdened with increasing numbers of uninsured mothers in its obstetrics program, the hospital claims it does not gather data on birth mothers’ immigration status.

“We have births running eight to 12 on a daily basis in Montgomery County in Montgomery Hospital,” Matthews said. “Two weeks ago, there was 13 one day, and the previous Thursday nine or 10, and there’s no (insurance) money.”

Anyone who says that opposition to illegal immigration is rooted solely in bigotry should read this article as many times as it takes to have it sink in. Uninsured illegals are not only bankrupting our hospitals, but they are driving up the cost of insurance for the responsible members of society who are here legally and are insured, since health care providers need to make up the lost revenue somehow. It is federal law that anyone who shows up in a hospital emergency room cannot be turned away from care, yet we are supposed to believe that rising healthcare costs are the fault of greedy insurance companies.

Perhaps if illegal immigrants were denied free healthcare, they wouldn’t be so quick to come to this country. Yet denying healthcare to anyone in need would be inhumane and go against our basic American altruistic spirit. So what is the answer? The Montco Commissioners are stuck between a rock and a hard place, opting instead for the lesser of two evils in order to minimize the economic impact to taxpayers.

Yet our federal government, the very organization that is specifically charged with protecting and enforcing our borders, chooses to ignore this crisis, demonize those who want it addressed, and instead, expand into the healthcare business precisely because of a “crisis” that it helps to create by ignoring and abetting illegal immigration. 

This, not bigotry, is the reason that there is a movement afoot to amend the 14th amendment. 

Email LisaMossie, Join the other 3 commenters or Share This...

Hmm.

The http://patrickmurphyforcongress.com/index.asp website doesn’t use the word “Democrat” on it. Murphy even refers to being a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, (the group formerly known as the Blue Dog Democrats.)

Forgetful or embarrassed?

Side note, I saw a billboard a couple of times around Wildwood NJ this past week. It was two names (who I naturally forgot) next to the GOP elephant. Bigger than life. No idea what office even, but two guys, proud to identify as Republicans.

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

And so closes the saga….

No criminal charges will be filed against a suburban Philadelphia school district that secretly snapped tens of thousands of webcam photographs and screen shots on laptops issued to students.

The FBI and federal prosecutors announced Tuesday they could not prove any criminal wrongdoing by Lower Merion School District employees.

“We have not found evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone involved had criminal intent,” U.S. Attorney Zane D. Memeger said in a statement.

The FBI investigated the wealthy district for possible wiretap violations after a student’s civil lawsuit exposed the issue. Lower Merion High School student Blake Robbins alleged the district photographed him 400 times in a 15-day period last fall, sometimes as he slept in his bedroom or was half-dressed.

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

PRESS RELEASE
MERCER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

Independent State Senate candidate Roberta Biros received verification from the Pennsylvania Department of State this afternoon that the nomination papers that she filed on Thursday, July 29, have gone unchallenged. According to Pennsylvania election law, all challenges to nomination papers were to be filed with the Department of State no later than 5 pm on Monday, August 9. As a result, her name will appear as an independent candidate for State Senate in Pennsylvania’s 50th District on the November 2nd General Election ballot.

To mark the closing of the nomination process, Mrs. Biros today proudly introduced the members of her campaign committee, Citizens to Elect Roberta Biros for State Senate.

Dr. Martha Moore of Sandy Lake serves as Committee Treasurer.

“Dr. Moore is a former CPA and a well-respected medical professional,” Mrs.Biros said. “As the primary administrator of the committee, Dr. Moore is the lead for all campaign and committee activities. I am thrilled to have someone of her reputation and character working with me.”

Mrs. Biros selected Joe Zentis of Hermitage to be her Committee Chairman.

“Mr. Zentis brings a high level of energy and creative thinking to the team,” Mrs. Biros said. “He is a well-known writer, author, and entrepreneur, and his level of commitment to my Platform of Good Government is unmatched. Mr. Zentis will be involved in campaign strategy, planning, and team building.”

As a hands-on candidate, Roberta will be working shoulder-to-shoulder with Dr. Moore, Mr. Zentis, and her entire team of volunteers during her campaign for State Senate in Pennsylvania’s 50th District. If you are interested in joining Roberta’s campaign team, please contact the campaign committee by email at biros4senate@gmail.com or access the campaign website at http://www.electbiros.com/ for additional information.

.

Email Roberta Biros, Start the discussion or Share This...

David Dolby, a local man who was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, has died at the age of 64.  The Mercury has the story:

David C. Dolby, a Medal of Honor recipient and a fixture at local veteran events in recent years, died Friday morning in Spirit Lake, Idaho. He was 64.

Dolby, who lived in Royersford, was in Idaho for a veterans’ gathering, according to friends.

The announcement of his death was made by the Congressional Medal of Honor Society. The cause was not announced. Services are pending and burial is pla in Arlington National Cemetery is planned.

The Medal of Honor is the nation’s highest military award for valor. Dolby’s actions in Vietnam saving the lives of his fellow soldiers on May 21, 1966, led to the honor.

Two weeks ago, Dolby had joined those speaking about the disrepair of the Medal of Honor Grove at the Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge. The nonprofit foundation has suffered financial setbacks and regular maintenance of the 52-acre memorial was suspended. Various groups are coming together to repair the grove this fall.

“Dolby was concerned the grove was not being maintained in a way that would reflect the cause of freedom … the grove demonstrated,” said state Sen. Andrew E. Dinniman, D-19th of West Whiteland. “He was very proud. He took me to the Pennsylvania site to his tree.”

The grove reserves a plot for each state to commemorate its honorees with a tree and plaque. Many of the trees have died, and plaques were uprooted.

Dinniman said Dolby liked to come to the grove. “He said he could think, a place of peace for him,” the senator said

Area veterans groups made a point of seeking out and including Dolby in their meetings and events in recent years.

Veterans and friends contacted Saturday said Dolby had been devoted to his wife. They had no childrern. She died about 10 years ago. Since then, he had been living in virtual seclusion in Barto, a town north of Pottstown, until friends helped him move to an apartment in Royersford.

Dolby also had given up driving and was having difficulty getting around, his friends said. He turned up at a memorial event, and when others learned of his identity, an effort was made to include him in the community.

He became a fixture at the head table of various veterans’ dinners and memorial services. Last November, for example, he was grand marshal at West Chester Veterans Day parade, and he was grand marshal at the Memorial Day Parade this year in Doylestown.

A Norristown native, Dolby was in a platoon of the 1st Cavalry Division during an attack as six of its members were killed instantly and others were wounded. In four hours of combat, he retrieved wounded men, stopped the enemy attack, reorganized his platoon and kept them covered during a counterattack. He was credited with saving the lives of many of his fellow soldiers while leaving himself continually in an exposed position, contributing to the overall success of the Army assault.

In all, Dolby served five tours in Vietnam.

President Lyndon B. Johnson presented the medal to Dolby during a ceremony on Sept. 28, 1968.

The Medal of Honor Society said there are 87 surviving Medal of Honor recipients.

Dolby was an Oaks local and my husband, who grew up in Oaks, has vivid memories of the parade held to welcome him home. I had the distinct honor of meeting and sharing a dinner table with Mr. Dolby at a private party a few years ago. It was one of the more memorable meetings of my life.

A true hero and a fascinating individual. May he rest in peace.

UPDATE:
Don Seeley has an excellent tribute in the Mercury here.

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

Roberta Biros, Independent Candidate for State Senate, officially filed her nomination papers in the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth today, July 29, 2010.

Roberta personally delivered the nomination papers that qualify her as a candidate for State Senate in Pennsylvania’s 50th District this afternoon. According to the election standards of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Roberta was required to gather 827 signatures from registered voters in the 50th District (including Mercer, Crawford, and portions of Butler and Lawrence Counties) in order for her name to appear as an Unaffiliated Independent candidate in the November election.

Roberta Biros’ opponent in November is long-time Republican Senator Bob Robbins, who will be running as the nominee on both the Democrat and Republican tickets this year.

Roberta Biros is challenging Mr. Robbins on a platform of Good Government. She believes that Pennsylvania needs to decrease the size and cost of government and decrease spending. Roberta supports (and has agreed to in writing) the initiatives of EmpowerPA.org including term limits, support of a part-time legislature, and pension and tax reforms. Roberta has signed a “Declination of State Pension” pledge where she states that, if elected, she will decline enrollment in the State Employees’ Retirement System (SERS). She has also accepted the “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” where she officially opposes increases in State spending and taxes. In her effort towards full transparency and accountability, Roberta’s Platform for Good Government is available through here website at http://www.electbiros.com/.

Email Roberta Biros, Start the discussion or Share This...

As long as a 2-1 vote carries the day in Montgomery County, it should come as no surprise to anyone that Montgomery County’s perpetual supplier of health care consulting services, CBIZ, has won the day again, this time securing a sweetheart deal that kicks back $10 to the consultant for every $75 fee per employee paid to IBC. With 3,000 county employees, you do the math.

Now I know what you are thinking: What exactly is it that a healthcare consultant does and why is one needed to manage a health care plan that the county has been on for years and why is the pay so lucrative? All good questions. Let’s turn to the Times Herald’s Keith Phucas for answers:

The Times Herald previously reported that since 2006, CBIZ officials have contributed a total of $24,463 to Matthew’s political campaign coffers, according to campaign finance reports.

During the 2007 commissioners race, company executives gave the Damsker-Hoeffel campaign $12,500.

On Feb. 12, 2008, CBIZ senior executive F. Bruce Walter gave Matthews, by then the commissioners chairman, a $1,000 campaign donation. Three months later, Walter gave $200 to Hoeffel’s campaign, according to 2008 campaign records.

I’m sure they do, you know, actual healthcare consulting stuff, too. Whatever that is.

So those of you with long memories may be saying to yourselves, “Don’t I recal that CBIZ is the company that was less than forthcoming about how they obtained those contracts and how much they were paid for the same? Wasn’t there something about producing Requests For Proposals (RFP) and complying with some Hoeffel-sponsored ordinance?” Well, you would be right. If you want to refresh your memory, you can look here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

So surely, you’re thinking, after all that fuss and stonewalling and charging for copies just a few short months ago, CBIZ must have finally produced the RFPs in question. That after the scrutiny of the press on a situation that had every appearance of Commissioners Hoeffel and Matthews engaging in pay to play, surely those aforementioned commissioners would not have the chutzpah to grant a two-year contract to CBIZ again without them complying with the original RFP request?

Errr….actually, no.

Not to worry, though. They submitted an RFP this time:

Recently, an RFP went out for a health insurance consultant, and five companies, including CBIZ, responded.

Explaining the evaluation process at Wednesday’s commissioners meeting, by G. Fred DiBona III, of DiBona Associates, admitted when questioned by Castor that he knew the firms by name that he helped county officials rank. As well, DiBona said Matthews recently hired him to assist human resources and commissioner staffers in the evaluations.

Hold up. Wait. Fred DiWHO the third? Who’s he?

He’s the consultant that was used to pick the consultant.

[DiBona] is a former employee of one of the vendors that submitted a proposal.

Castor echoed his past criticism about being kept out of the loop about professional services contractor selections.

“One of the things I thought we agreed on (in the new ordinance) was the three commissioners would get to vote on these contracts,” he said, referring to DiBona’s consultant work. “I didn’t know we were bringing you on.”

Matthews explained DiBona Associates met an exception in Ordinance 10-3 because he would not be paid more than $7,500 for his services.

DiBona also conceded the process that picked CBIZ was a “subjective determination,” and that evaluating consultant companies was not something he ordinarily does.

“It’s not a regular part of my business,” he said.

Not a regular part of his business? Well that’s a relief. At least he’s qualified to earn that $7500 fee.

So what does this all mean for the County? Bruce Castor (the “1″ vote in the perpetual “2-1″ voting pattern of the Montgomery County Commissioners) and Joe Hoeffel sum it up thusly:

The selection process was tipped in favor of CBIZ given that “The guy who is paying (DiBona) is CBIZ’s guy,” Castor said, referring to Matthews.

Hoeffel suggested possible bias was reflected in CBIZ’s high score for “Confidence of County HR/Finance Team with Vendor Capabilities,” perhaps because the company is the only health insurance consultant most of the staff had ever dealt with.

“The county staff likes CBIZ, and I think it helped (the firm),” Hoeffel said later.

And CBIZ will save the county money over the two-year $576,000 contract, by cutting the per-employee monthly rate by $2. Castor deemed it ironic that only now the consultant was revealing dollar figures for its services, something it has refused to do since December. He concluded current pricing makes the county contract worth more than $700,000 to the consultant for the same time period.

“Now you know why CBIZ didn’t want to tell us (how much it was paid),” Castor said following the meeting. “Because it looks like they’re getting a commission of $360,000 each year after contributing to the campaigns of Matthews and Hoeffel.”

Yup. Sounds like CBIZness as usual to me.

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

The Times Herald is running a three part series on immigration; part two, called “Living in the Shadows” by Jenny DeHuff, ran in Sunday’s edition, and this morning, editor Stan Huskey ran a column on it.

Ms. DeHuff’s piece attempts to paint a sympathetic picture of a woman and her child in abject poverty:

In an exclusive interview with The Times Herald, Arias, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, offered this reporter an expose, in an effort to clarify some points, offer her side of the story, and help Americans understand why she dodges immigration.

The last straw came on a hot summer day, more than decade ago, when Arias was living in Mexico City with several family members. Crowded in a small house with her mother, Arias was struggling to make a living for herself and her young daughter, “Jessica,” now 19.

A fruit truck drove through Arias’ neighborhood selling whole watermelons and watermelon slices, at five pesos a pop. Thirsty and hungry, her nine-year old pleaded for a morsel. After rummaging in the house for coins, Arias came up empty, not being able to afford even a slice of watermelon for her daughter. She realized something had to change.

It was not long after that Arias packed up her daughter and headed north toward the border.

She walked for eight hours with minimal food and water until she crossed the border, where a truck awaited her and brought her to the southern states.

Inquisitiveness is apparently not a trait of this reporter, since DeHuff never asks “Imelda” how it was that she found herself in such abject poverty with a child. Throughout the story, there is never a mention of a husband or father, but while the focus of this vignette was “Imelda’s” daughter, (indeed that was the only one she took north with her) her “children”–plural—are mentioned throughout.

Besides a general unwillingness to assimilate into American culture (and it’s worth noting here that “Imelda” has been in this country for TEN YEARS), hard work has been replaced by a bit of an entitlement mentality. “Imelda’s” daughter, “Jessica” feels no shame in calling attention to the hardship of having to pay the higher non-resident tuition for college. It seems never to occur to her that taxpaying citizens, of which her mother is not a member, subsidize the cost of Montgomery County Community College. We are just supposed to feel bad for her and sympathize with her struggle to “make a better life for herself.”

“Imelda” herself has the temerity to gripe about employers treating her like an “animal,” yet it never seems to occur to her that if she was here legally, she wouldn’t have to work for people who exploit her. If she spoke English, her chances of finding a better job would be improved. And if “Imelda” gets deported, we are now supposed to worry about the fate of her children, when clearly, “Imelda” herself gave no thought whatsoever to the consequences of breaking our laws when she came here.

While I can forgive DeHuff’s piece as a the consummation of a dewey-eyed cub reporter’s dream of a meaningful crusade on the side of social justice, Stan Huskey has been around long enough to know better. His piece started out fairly enough; Huskey states:

How many Native Americans do you know?

Not many, if any at all, right?

So why all the outcry over illegal immigrants?

I’ll tell you why, it’s the “illegal” part.

I don’t think many people have a problem with people who come here legally to make a better life for themselves or their family.

It’s the next sentence where he makes his mistake:

And yet, legal or illegal, when it comes to the Hispanic population, some people tend to lump them all together as one big problem for our country.

Straw man thus set up, Mr. Huskey climbs aboard his high horse and proceeds to lecture:

What Arizona and every other state in the nation should be doing is requiring employers to ask for documentation on every person they hire. We do it here at the paper, so why doesn’t everyone? You probably already know the answer — it’s because the people hiring illegal immigrants know they’re hiring illegal immigrants. They know it and they don’t want to change a thing because they’re getting good, cheap labor.

So why don’t we want them here?

Could it be because they don’t look, talk and act like us? Could it be because of the color of their skin?

I’m going to go with D, all of the above.

Look, folks, we have to figure out the illegal part. That’s all.

Hispanics have as much right to be here as everyone else. The illegal portion of the population is doing what darn near every one of us would do if we were faced with the same fate as “Imelda,” and rightfully so.

Are you folks really concerned about the law, Mr. Huskey appears to be asking, or are you just exhibiting antipathy towards those who look different than you while you cling to your guns and religion?

Funny since the election of the first post racial president, it seems that dissent can never be about the rule of law or the constititution, it always has to be about some deep seated, unacknowldeged fear of someone whose skin color is a few shades darker than yours. Or to put it another way, if you don’t like the way things are going, shut up, RACIST!

It seems to me that anyone who makes a statement claiming that the vast majority of illegal immigrants just want to come here, work hard and make a better life for themselves is just as guilty of making sweeping, stereotypical generalizations as someone who says all illegal immigrants steal jobs from Americans, services from taxpayers, and set up brothels and drug rings in our cities.

Lord knows we can find plenty of both types of immigrants on the streets of Norristown.  Sometimes in the same illegal immigrant.

Huskey has a bit of a point about the employers who hire illegals, but at best I would say that’s a symbiotic relationship in that both parties are getting something out of it by breaking the law.  In my mind, both parties should be punished.

To prove we’re all just uncompassionate racists, Huskey then doubles down on the race card by playing the moral equivalence card:

Native Americans are the only people who have absolute authority for being in this country, and there are very few left because the people who illegally immigrated to this country about 400 years ago nearly committed genocide on the race. And they probably did so because they didn’t look, talk and act like them. The color of their skin was off, too.

Hmmm. Sounds like someone really internalized Dances with Wolves.

Regardless of how the first settlers came here, right now, this is a nation of laws; it’s complete hogwash to say that only Native Americans have an absolute claim to this land. Exactly how far back in time should we go to redraw the world’s borders? Should all the European nations claim “natives only” on their lands and send their immigrants packing? Pick a date, someone, please, and let us know when only aboriginals can lay claim to the land they currently occupy. Then you be the first to turn over your deed.

Native Americans did not build this country or its great infrastructure as it exists today; it is the product of many people of many different backgrounds; a country that had not been “invaded” by the white man would look very different than the United States of today. Perhaps it would be better, perhaps it would be worse, but it’s worth remembering that there is a reason that people want to come to the United States of America, and it’s not because the Native Americans were here first. It has much more to do with the opportunities and freedom created by founding fathers.

I’ll leave the white-guilt and self flagellation to others; I cannot change my country’s history, and while there are events in our past for which this country should be less than proud, on the whole, America is the shining beacon of freedom and opportunity to the world; indeed, that is why so many want to come here.

Legal immigrants of the past were proud to call this country home and proud to call themselves Americans. That is not the case today with so many hyphenated Americans who seem to be more concerned with where they came from than where they are going. Legal immigrants of the past assimilated into our culture and learned our language. They yearned to rise above the ghettos and were not afraid to work toward building a better life for themselves and their progeny.

But from the tone of Ms. DeHuff’s piece, we are supposed to feel sorry for “Imelda’s” plight, which, we are led to believe, has been thrust upon her through circumstances wholly beyond her control. And Mr. Huskey insists that “only a heartless, soulless animal” would not feel compassion” for “Imelda.”

Is it too much to ask people like “Imelda” to take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions? Is it too much to expect that if they want to avail themselves of the vast opportunities and freedom that this country has to offer that they agree to obey the first principles of our country: our laws?

Mr. Huskey’s piece, like Ms. DeHuff’s piece the day before, is deliberately designed to silence opposition to illegal immigration by painting the opponents of illegal immigration as racist, as prejudiced against ALL immigrants simply because these people are “different” from us.

They are different from us, Mr. Huskey.

We obey the law.

Email LisaMossie, Join the other 2 commenters or Share This...

For the first time in his ‘reign’ as Governor, Ed Rendell has a budget that passed through the State House and Senate before the June 30th deadline. Congratulations Governor Rendell! Congratulations, too, to the 37 Senators and 177 Representatives that signed on to that “pile of garbage” that they called a State Budget.

Why is it a pile of garbage? . . . Because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Our legislature is REQUIRED BY LAW to pass a balanced budget. The budget that passed the House and Senate yesterday is balanced on federal funds that don’t yet exist and a tax on the extraction of Marcellus Shale natural gas that has yet to be passed. In essence, “the budget stands for nothing” . . . which is appropriate since that is also the case with many of our legislators.

Who is to blame?

The opportunity to STOP the budget was in the Republican controlled Senate. The budget bill passed the State Senate by a vote of 37 to 13. There were only 13 Senators that did the right thing by voting NO to this example of fiscal irresponsibility. What about the Senate leadership? Here are their votes . . . for the record.

REPUBLICANS

YES – Joseph B. Scarnati III (President of the Senate)
YES – Dominic Pileggi (Majority Floor Leader)
YES – Michael Waugh (Majority Caucus Chair)
YES – Robert Robbins (Majority Caucus Secretary)
YES – Jake Corman (Majority Appropriations Committee Chair)
YES – Patrick M. Browne (Majority Caucus Administrator)
YES – Edwin Erickson (Majority Policy Committee Chair)

DEMOCRATS

YES – Roberta Mellow (Minority Floor Leader)
YES – Michael O’Pake (Minority Whip)
YES – Vincent Hughes (Minority Caucus Chair)
YES – Sean Logan (Minority Caucus Secretary)
YES – Jay Costa (Minority Appropriations Committee Chair)
YES – Christine Tartaglione (Minority Caucus Administrator)
YES – Richard Kasunic (Minority Policy Committee Chair)

THIS PROVES that the Senate leadership MUST change . . . one way or another!

The budget bill passed the State House by a vote of 117 to 84. This is not a shock seeing that the House is controlled by Rendell Democrats. What is shocking in this number, however, is that 16 Republicans voted WITH the Rendell Democrats in order to achieve a supermajority which was required to waive a rule requiring 24 hours’ notice before a bill is voted.

If you would like to see how your Senators and Representatives voted, please refer to the voting records below:

June 30 Budget Vote in Senate is HERE
June 30 Budget Vote in House is HERE

What about Northwest PA?

MOST of the legislators from our region in Northwest Pennsylvania agree with my views on the budget, and MOST of them voted against the budget bill yesterday. Specifically . . .

Mercer County Legislators

Representative Michele Brooks (R) – NO
Representative Dick Stevenson (R) – NO
Representative Mark Longietti (D) – YES
Senator Bob Robbins (R) – YES

Crawford County Legislators

Representative John Evans (R) – NO
Representative Brad Roae (R) – NO
Representative Michele Brooks (R) – NO
Senator Bob Robbins (R) – YES

Republican Representatives (and Conservatives) Michele Brooks, Dick Stevenson, John Evans, and Brad Roae all did the RIGHT thing and voted NO to the budget.

Rendell Democrats Bob Robbins and Representative Mark Longietti voted YES to the budget. Representative Mark Longietti did what his caucus told him to do . . . in the end he supported his Governor and his Caucus (right or wrong). Republican Senator Bob Robbins PROVED his allegiance to the Democrats that WROTE HIM IN in the Primary (all 800 of them) and he also supported his fellow Democrat Governor and his new Caucus.

As a Republican LEADER in the Senate, Bob Robbins should be ashamed of himself. Even more important, his CONSTITUENTS should be angry with him. It shows that he was more concerned with getting rid of the “budget problem” in an election year that he was with standing on principles of good government and fiscal responsibility.

In press releases that were sent out last night, Bob Robbins fellow legislators from this area made their thoughts about the budget clear . . .

Representative Michele Brooks stated:

“Although this budget was passed on time – as it should be – it falls short to earn my support. I have many serious concerns about funding allocations and the source of hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue.”

“Many of us have concerns regarding whether this budget is constitutionally balanced as it relies heavily on $850 million in funding from the federal government, which has not yet been approved by Congress and there are some doubts whether it will be approved. It also has a structural deficit of approximately $3 billion.”

Representative Brad Roae stated:

“State budgets are about priorities,” Roae said. “This budget sets the wrong priorities for Pennsyvlania.”

“This budget literally spends money the state doesn’t have,” Roae said. “This budget is based on the hope of a federal bailout for the state. If the federal government runs up the deficit to pay for this bailout, taxpayers will be paying for it for years to come.”

“This budget doesn’t reflect my priorities and it certainly doesn’t reflect the wishes
of the people I represent,” Roae said. “We needed to reduce spending due to the recession, but the cuts in this budget weren’t applied fairly. This budget sets up huge tax increases or painful spending cuts for next year. I simply could not support a budget that is this irresponsible.”

According to these statements, it seems to me that the conservative legislators that represent our area need help to fight for fiscal responsibility in Harrisburg . . . and they are not getting that from their own Senator. Hmmmmmm.

Where do I stand on the subject?

Anyone that voted FOR this budget made a conscious effort to pull the wool over the eyes of taxpayers. This is not a VALID budget . . . no matter how you look at it.

It is the responsibility of our legislators to make certain that the state government does not spend beyond its means. If we don’t have the money, we ought not to be spending it. Federal dollars that simply aren’t there should not be considered in the calculations, and tax revenues from Marcellus Shale should NOT be considered in the equations either. IF the tax on Marcellus Shale extraction is pushed through (in October), it will be the worst fiscal decision in Pennsylvania . . . ever!

If I were the Senator in Pennsylvania’s 50th District, I would have voted NO to yesterday’s budget. I would have continued to vote NO until the budget was actually balanced on REAL numbers. More importantly, I would have been pushing for these changes back in February and March . . . when budget negotiations SHOULD have been taking place. Waiting until the 11th hour so that they can push through the equivalent of a legislative joke is shameful.

I usually sign off by stating “as alway, just my opinion”. Today it is important that I sign off by stating the following:

This is not just my opinion. It is my official statement.

Roberta Biros
Editor, Mercer County Conservatives

Email Roberta Biros, Join the other 2 commenters or Share This...

I recently had the pleasure of viewing this film at the Ambler Theater during an event hosted by candidate for Montgomery County Commissioner, Jill Govberg. If you happen to be in town on July 2, the Philadelphia Underground Film Festival (”PUFF”) is hosting a free outdoor screening at 8 pm. The film will be released on DVD in July.

Whether you are an art lover, a Philadelphian, or just someone who believe in the basic right of private property, if you have an opportunity to see the documentary, The Art of the Steal, don’t miss it.

You don’t have to be a connoisseur of impressionist paintings to appreciate The Art of the Steal. The film a fascinating look at the single greatest assembly of impressionist works created by a private collector and how that collection was eventually appropriated by the very parties that Dr. Barnes specifically wanted to deny. Led by carnival barker Ed Rendell, who never met a Pennsylvania resource he couldn’t find a way to exploit to generate new “revenue sources” for his bloated government, and aided by a host of Philadelphia establishment charities, the Barnes collection is now due to be moved to an annex of the Philadelphia Art Museum on the Ben Franklin Parkway, against the express wishes of it’s owner, Dr. Albert Barnes.

The harshest criticism I heave read against the film is that it is too “biased,” in that it only presents the point of view of Barnes and his disciples. To that, I can only say, of course it is, and it is meant to be: The title of the film gives the filmakers’ point of view away. Since one of the key foundations in the story of the “stealing” of the Barnes is the Annenberg Foundation, and since the Annenbergs famously owned the Philadelphia Inquirer for years, I’d say that the other side of this story has already been well represented.

Though the film has been critically acclaimed, there are some detractors. Typical of the criticism of the film is the Washington Post’s review:

The success of the small documentary, which is circulating among an engaged, literate audience that might be considered the Pew’s ideal demographic (people interested in the arts, history and larger social issues), points to a missing platform in public life: a place where the slash-and-burn documentary can be answered, fact-checked and subjected to dispassionate evaluation. Newspapers, which are in decline and strapped to cover even blockbuster films, aren’t up to the job.

Awww. Poor newspapers. No resources to answer the “slash and burn” documentary.

It is not only a misrepresentation to categorize this film in the same category as a Michael Moore “slash and burn” product, it’s insulting. Moore is famous for creating situations in which his subjects are manipulated into responding a certain way; he then creatively edits those snippets of footage to back up his point of view, manipulating his audience. I don’t recall anyone on the left lamenting the lack of “fact checking” Fahrenheit 911 despite the almost two hours of complete misinformation. The Art of the Steal, by contrast, has none of this kind of gimmicky manipulative stuntwork; instead, the filmakers use interviews, newspaper accounts and news footage to build their case. Many people on the “other side” of this debate, including Governor Rendell, were willingly interviewed for this film because they see absolutely nothing wrong with breaking the Barnes Foundations Indenture of Trust for what, in their view, is the greater good.

Additionally, WaPo reviewer Phillip Kennicott glosses over the fact that the battle for the Barnes is not some recent phenomemon. This is a fight that has been going on for decades; indeed since Barnes first hosted a showing of his collection at the Philadelphia Institute of Art back in the early 1900’s and his collection was soundly ridiculed by Philadelphia’s Art establishment, including Phildelphia Inquirer owner Walter Annenberg. It was not until a few years after this first showing that the value of French Impressionism was truly appreciated. And that is when the onslaught to appropriate Barnes’ collection for the “public” began in earnest.

Those who would move the Barnes state their case by claiming that the Barnes Foundation is inaccessible and should not be “kept under wraps,” that it’s collection should be viewed by as many people as possible, that Barnes’ arrangement of the pieces is “unprofessional” and “distracting.” (Yet Henri Matisse, whose work is displayed at the Barnes Foundation, called the Barnes the only sane place to view art in the world.) They say that the Foundation has been drained of money and cannot sustain itself, and while this is true, the film argues, convincingly in my opionion, that no real significant effort has been made to raise funds to keep the Barnes intact in Merion.

Montgomery County filed suit to keep the Barnes in Merion; Judge Stanley Ott ruled against them. Rather than appeal the ruling, which would have been expected, the Montgomery County Commissioners voter 2 to 1 to NOT appeal. It will come as no surprise to regular readers of this space that Commissioner Bruce Castor was the lone voice in support of the Barnes remaining in Merion.

Given the politically powerful and monied interests that have conspired to move the Barnes Foundation to Philadelphia, the courage of the filmakers, the interviewees, and the Friends of the Barnes to present their side of this American tragedy cannot be understated.

To read more about the Barnes Foundation, please see Lance Esplund’s excellent article in the May 31, 2010 Weekly Standard, “No Museum Left Behind.” And prepare to be outraged.

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

Yesterday I received an email message from the Mike Kelly campaign. It was an abrupt little message providing contact information for the “new” campaign team (the old contacts were all fired . . . dismissed . . . let go . . . kicked to the curb). The message also provided instructions for publicizing Mike’s latest “letter to the editor”. There was no courteous “hi there” from Mike or his new campaign people . . . just instructions and marching orders.

Here is Mike’s letter in its entirety:

Editor:

Now that the dust has settled, I wanted to write and acknowledge the voters, volunteers, and ther candidates who played a role in the 3rd Congressional district’s Primary Election. As you ll know, it was a hotly contested battle for the Republican nomination and I am both humbled and flattered to be moving forward on the General Election ballot. My wife Vicky and I want to thank the other candidates for a spirited campaign, the voters who participated, our tremendous volunteers for all their hard work, and the media outlets for recognizing the importance of the race and giving the candidates the opportunity to share his and her views on the issues that families in western Pennsylvania care most about.

The other five candidates in the Primary deserve our respect and admiration. They are all patriots who have a deep concern for our country’s future and they showed their passion by coming forward and getting their names on the ballot. They, like me, worked tirelessly for months to earn the support of voters in all of the district’s seven counties. Because of them, I am a better candidate and, it is my hope, that we are a stronger party. To those of you who supported someone other than me during the Primary, I plan on making a similar effort to earn your support moving forward.
What we have learned throughout this process is that there is far more that unites us than separates us.

While I will work tirelessly to unite the Republican Party, our message is an inclusive one that I hope will appeal to people regardless of party affiliation. You don’t have to be a Republican or Democrat to oppose deficit spending. You don’t have to be a Republican or a Democrat to support policies and initiatives that will lower our unemployment rate in western Pennsylvania. You don’t have to be a Republican or Democrat to say “no” to additional Wall Street bailouts and nationalized health care. These are quality-of-life issues that should be party-blind and I will campaign accordingly by reaching-out to like-minded Democrats and Independents throughout the district. This election isn’t about party or geography. Instead, it’s about the direction of our country. It’s about how the policies of this administration and congress have adversely affected western Pennsylvania.

Between now and November I look forward to visiting your communities, hearing your concerns, and building relationships in all seven of the counties that make up our Congressional district. I have a lot of work to do and can assure you that I am up to the task. Together, I am confident that we can get western Pennsylvania, and our country, back on the right track.

Thank you,
Mike Kelly
Republican Candidate for Congress

Now, for my response to Mike’s letter:

First, the email that I received wasn’t even the slightest bit friendly or polite. It was strictly instructions. It was an interesting way to try to get the press onto the Kelly bandwagon . . . reverse psychology of some type I suppose. “Good luck with that”, Mike.

Second, I find it funny that Mike Kelly decided to contact and thank the other five candidates in the race through a letter to the editor. Sort of odd, don’t you think? It would seem that a personal call from Mike would be more appropriate, but I guess that isn’t Mike’s style either. It seems to imply that Mike doesn’t consider the other five (5) candidates OR their supporters to be very important. Again I say, “good luck with that”.

Third, Mike states that he is not trying to unite conservatives, but instead is attempting to unite Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. It would be a great move if I believed it, but it sounds like the words of a politician . . . not a leader or public servant.

He states “it isn’t about party or geography”, but I’d like to disagree. Mike’s priorities should VERY MUCH be about GEOGRAPHY. Since the Primary, Mike has been everywhere BUT northwestern Pennsylvania. In true RINO fashion, Mike’s attention has been spent in Washington DC . . . with no interest in healing the wounds in the 3rd Congressional District that were left after the Primary. Mike is a “DC Guy” now I suppose, but I would warn that he ought not to count those chickens too prematurely (if you know what I mean).

Mike Kelly’s new image as a Phil English Republican is not going to fair well with Republicans, Democrats, or Independents in our cozy little corner of Northwestern Pennsylvania. In case Mike was unaware, Phil English LOST because voters in the 3rd Congressional District were tired of big spending, selfish politicians. I wouldn’t be so quick to harness my horse to the “Phil English” wagon, but that is a choice that Mike needs to make. After all, this election is Mike’s to lose. The only person that might advise Mike Kelly to tie himself to Phil English would be none other than “Phil English” himself, but surely Mike Kelly is smarter than that . . . right?

In closing I say to Mike Kelly and his new team . . . “Good luck with that”.

As always, just my opinion.
~Roberta Biros, Editor of Mercer County Conservatives

.

Email Roberta Biros, Join the discussion or Share This...

Every dark cloud, right???

Groen, who is also a member of the Pennsylvania Democratic State Committee, has led the Montgomery County Democratic Committee since 1994.

Despite a 33,000 voter registration advantage in the county, political observers say Democratic candidates are facing tough elections this year.

But Groen reminded the audience of recent Democratic successes: Winning five county row offices and electing a judge to the county bench. But Groen’s ultimate goal is to elect a Democrat district attorney.

Allow me to clarify, “despite increasing voter registration advantage since those five row office wins to 33,000, Marcel Groen’s Montco Dems only elected one judge out of seven candidates.”

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

Written by Roberta Biros

For nearly two years I’ve been THE author for Mercer County Conservatives. For those of you that read my writings on a regular basis, you realize that I’m a frustrated conservative that is aggravated by corrupt political leaders in our northwest corner of Pennsylvania. The Mercer County GOP is lead by career politicians who are only concerned with their pensions, perks, and unlimited shopping sprees to Sam’s Club (with campaign donations none-the-less). They protect their positions of power in the way that a mama bear protects her cub . . . but they don’t care much about the big picture (i.e., good government).

If you spend a little time observing politics in our fine county, you find that the greed and corruption is not one-sided. The leaders of the Mercer County GOP and the Mercer County Democrats are so closely tied that they are indistinguishable from one another. How can such a relationship ever achieve conservative representation for our area? Good question.

This year, political pundits have been focused on our NW corner of PA. The high-profile race for a Republican nominee in the 3rd Congressional District (who will eventually run against Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper in November) has brought a much-needed spotlight to our area. We were blessed with six interesting candidates in the race, and conservatives were energized by the prospect of having a candidate that they could really get behind. Unfortunately, in the end, the campaign became more about money and mud slinging than conservative issues. The best and most qualified candidates were left in the shadows while the two candidates with the most money battled it out in nasty TV commercials and glossy mailers.

Like many of my fellow conservatives in the area, I was left disappointed on election night when none of my favorite horses in the race ended up in the winner’s circle. While I’m still determined to see Kathy Dahlkemper unseated in November, some of my conservative friends have walked away angry and kicking the dirt. As observers, we all suffer from various levels of disappointment, but what about the candidates who dedicated themselves to the fight for good government?

It is my pleasure to present to you today an article from the newest contributor to Mercer County Conservatives, Dr. Martha Moore. Dr. Moore is a conservative woman who tossed her hat into the ring for the 3rd Congressional race in early 2010. She had a slow start, but she began to pickup speed and got very comfortable in the race by mid-April. Unfortunately, she peaked too late to get sufficient support across the 3rd District. She did, however, win Mercer County handily (a small victory for conservatives in the area). She was not the overall highest vote getter in the District, but she managed to build a following of dedicated fans during her short race (yes, I became an official member of the Dr. Moore fan club by early May). Now that the Primary is behind us, Dr. Moore has agreed to share her thoughts about the race, as well her opinions regarding politics in general. Dr. Moore shares her opinions about how we might get back on the right track toward conservative representation. Enjoy!

Hindsight is 20/20 by Dr. Martha Moore

Hindsight is 20/20. Now that my mind has cleared after the primary election and have reviewed the results, I have realized that we conservative candidates shot ourselves in the foot. If you add up the votes for Steve, Clayton and me it totals over 18,000 votes and we would have a conservative candidate to go against “Nancy” Dahlkemper. Maybe if the three of us had played rock, scissors, paper and those not winning agreed to combine efforts, resources and staffs with the winner, we would have sailed easily to victory! But hindsight is . . .

Instead, we have a RINO, who has given money to democratic opponents of conservative candidates. On the night of the election I called to congratulate Mike Kelly and offered to help and later left a message again offering to help his campaign. I have heard nothing. Abraham Lincoln said to keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Mike should have contacted each of us and offered each one a position in his campaign. Since I heard nothing from Mike, I have now committed to another campaign for the fall. Rumor is he has gone to Phil English for help. Nothing against Phil but Phil lost to Dahlkemper and while may have been a conservative in 1994, he long ago became too political to serve the constituents of the 3rd district and now is what, a lobbyist! Don’t get me wrong, I will vote for Mike Kelly, but he is at risk of having many of the conservatives stay home and therefore risks losing to Dahlkemper. And that unfortunately, is not good for the United States.

Now, a comment on running negative campaigns. Nobody seems to like them but they, unfortunately, often work. I had many people tell me how disgusted they were with the Kelly/Huber fight. But they were the top two vote getters. Almost 30,000 voters were not disgusted enough. Obama ran a very negative campaign against Bush and McCain refused to say anything negative about Obama and in the end had no chance. I am not saying we should run negative campaigns, but as long as the voters reward those who do, we who don’t want to run negatively will not have much of a chance.

Being new in politics, I am learning something new just about every day. One thing I have learned through this primary process is that the Mercer County GOP is quite dysfunctional. It seems to me that many are more interested in what is best for them and not what is best for the county, the districts and the country. I definitely got the feeling from the entrenched, that I had not “earned the right” to run for congress. Yet with almost no help from the GOP, I was able to impressively win the county. And that was with two other candidates getting a lot of help from the Mercer GOP.

The political parties are meaning less and less these days. We, conservatives, must stay together and stand together. So after much investigation and inquiry, I have signed on with Roberta Biros to help her defeat the long entrenched Robbins duo. Bob Robbins has equalized the playing field by running his write-in campaign as a democrat. Not to mention spending/wasting a lot of money in the process. Remember, the political parties have become meaningless. We definitely must look at the person, who they are and what they stand for, in this and every race. Tough times are ahead. WAKE UP conservatives, the status quo is not sustainable. We must not go with the flow. I discussed negative campaigns in a previous paragraph and I imagine we have seen nothing yet! This will be nasty, nasty, nasty. But Roberta and her husband have proven that they can take it with a smile on their faces. Now we conservatives must stand up and support other conservatives and invite others to join us. When we stand together arm in arm the opposition will have less power. We don’t want to have to learn from hindsight again, do we? So come join the fight.

.

Email Roberta Biros, 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...

Brian O’Connor thinks so, based on this Trib article. I’d tend to agree, given Obama’s reverse Midas touch this year.

WTAE has semi-objective reporting on the presidential visit.

Cross-posted to Renner’s Here.

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