PAWaterCooler.com

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

Written by Roberta Biros

The Primary Election is now past . . . seemingly long past. The election results are technically still “unofficial”, but we all know what happened. Allow me to summarize briefly . . .

Dahlkemper vs. Marin

In the race for the highly coveted 3rd Congressional District, the top vote getter on the Democrat ticket was Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper. She won her race against a not-so-impressive opponent in Mel Marin. Mrs. Dahlkemper ended up with 73.2% of the vote. Most interesting about this race was that Mel Marin managed to have 26.8% of the voters select his name over the current incumbent, which is symbolic of the number of DEMOCRATS that don’t support “their candidate”.

That means that roughly 27% of Democrats preferred to vote for “anyone but Kathy Dahlkemper”.

Kelly vs. Huber, Grabb, Fisher, Franz, and Moore

On the Republican ticket, six candidates battled it out for the nomination. The “unofficial” winner was Mike Kelly. The stunning statistic in this case is that Kelly managed the win with only 28.2% of the vote. That means that roughly 72% of Republicans preferred to vote for “anyone but Mike Kelly”. In the end, Mike Kelly’s actual vote count was only slightly higher than that of the Democrat candidate, Mel Marin. Hmmmm. Sort of makes you stop and think, doesn’t it?

What does all of this mean?

When the final votes were tallied, 27% of Democrat votes and 72% of Republican votes are up for grabs in November. That is a huge number and it makes the race a difficult one to call.

I’ll be the first one to say that Kathy Dahlkemper has an enormous uphill battle to win re-election for her second term, but it is only fair to say that Mike Kelly isn’t going to have an easy job ahead of him either. This race IS NOT a gimme!

Mike Kelly has a very difficult task ahead of him. The very heated race for the Republican nomination left “the right” fractured. There were six really great candidates, and the supporters of each of those six campaigns were extremely loyal to “their guy” (or “gal”). In the end there are six different camps that need to be united. If Mike Kelly fails to be a “uniter”, he will also fail to beat Kathy Dahlkemper in November.

Mike Kelly’s campaign became a very public and personal battle with Paul Huber (the #2 vote getter). The negative attacks that transpired will be difficult for Huber supporters to shake off. They will NOT be inspired to get out to vote for Mike Kelly in the General Election without a HUGE effort on Mike Kelly’s part.

Grabb, Fisher, Franz, and Moore supporters were also left feeling empty in the end. Each of these four candidates managed to inspire their conservative supporters in their own ways, and those conservatives will find it difficult to get behind Kelly whole-heartedly. Again, without a very serious effort from Mike Kelly to court conservatives, those conservatives might decide to stick with “the enemy that they know” in Kathy Dahlkemper. This is a very dangerous possibility, and if Kelly isn’t considering it he deserves to lose in November.

Mike Kelly needs to motivate disenfranchised conservatives to support him, and he must also entice disgruntled Democrats to choose him over Kathy Dahlkemper. I realize that it is still early, but so far I’ve seen nothing of Mike Kelly . . . I mean nothing . . . like he disappeared off the face of the Earth!

Mike Kelly needs to act quickly or he risks losing the interest of concerned citizens. If things continue on their current path, Kathy Dahlkemper will be our Congresswoman again in November.

As always, just my opinion.

.

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

Written by Roberta Biros

First, I must apologize. I have been out of commission for TOOOOO long. It has taken me far too much time to sit down and write this post, but I do have a good excuse . . . I’ve been sick. As many of you know I caught a bad cold a few weeks ago and I lost my voice (my husband hasn’t complained). I then worked the polls in the rain on Election Day and I made things worse. I’ve been sick in bed and I’m only just now getting back on my feet. I’ve been struggling to catch up.

I’ve got a great deal of material to cover so I might as well get started. Without further adieu . . .

Primary Election: 3rd Congressional District Democrat Ticket

Congresswoman Dahlkemper is up for re-election, and it has been my guess that she will have a real job of it this year. Mrs. Dahlkemper was up against Mel Marin of Erie for the Democrat nomination in the Primary. Mr. Marin has a bit of a questionable background (read more HERE) and he was running with a war chest of less than $2000. Some would say that he didn’t have a chance. Surprisingly enough, however, Mr. Marin received roughly 27% of the Democrat vote in the 3rd Congressional District (30% in Erie).

Why is this information important? Well, it illustrates the number of Democrats that were unable to “hold their nose and vote for Kathy Dahlkemper”. 27% of her constituents went to the poll to vote and refused to vote for her. This could be bad news for Mrs. Dahlkemper in November, but time will tell.

Primary Election: 3rd Congressional District Republican Ticket

As many of you know, I’ve followed the 3rd Congressional Republican race in great detail over the past few months. I knew all of the candidates personally and I was anxious (and nervous) to see the final results. In the end, the grassroots candidates were unable to compete with the big money in the race. Paul Huber and Mike Kelly fought out the race with their bank accounts, and a winner was selected. The top vote getter in the race was Mike Kelly of Butler County.

It had been suggested by many that Mr. Kelly was in the pocket of Republican Party insiders, and that was illustrated on Tuesday night. Mr. Kelly was the top vote getter in the final tally of the District in the field of six great candidates. Mr. Kelly will now face a bigger challenge as he tries to find a way to compete with Congresswoman Dahlkemper in November. Once again, time will tell. We’ll be following this race closely.

Six great candidates, but only one winner.

I’ve never been quite so connected to one race with so many great candidates. I can honestly say that any one of the six Republican candidates that ran in the 3rd Congressional District would have been well deserving of the party nomination. Mr. Kelly was the final choice, but I’d like to congratulate Paul Huber, Steve Fisher, Ed Franz, Clayton Grabb, and (last but not least) Dr. Martha Moore for running amazing races. I was proud to have gotten an opportunity to get to know each and every one of them. I suspect that we will see many of these names again in the not so distant future.

Highlights?

It was a tough election, and I hated to see any of the six candidates “not win” (notice that I did not use the term ‘lose’ as there were no losers in this group). I have to admit that the personal highlight of the evening was one very important statistic. Dr. Martha Moore managed to win her home county of Mercer. Mercer Countians came out in a big way for their hometown Doc and gave her their votes by the bushel full. Dr. Moore took over 2600 votes in Mercer County with her next nearest competition over 1000 votes away. Mercer County came out to support their great Doctor and it was well deserved. After having the opportunity to get to know Dr. Moore, I became a real fan.

I have a great respect for ANYONE that is willing to run for public office, but I especially respect women that are willing to do so. Dr. Moore should serve as a role model to other conservative women out there that are saying “Enough is Enough”. She deserves a special applause all her own. Thank you Dr. Moore.

Moving on Toward the General Election

For those of you that follow Mercer County politics, you already realize that some extra excitement has been going on over the past week or so. I wrote about the extracurricular activity last week HERE and HERE. In a nutshell, here is a “blow by blow” and basic timeline of events.

1. I announced in April that I’d be running as an Independent for State Senate against Bob Robbins.
2. As a 20-year Republican incumbent, Bob Robbins decided that he may very well lose the General Election to an Independent (that’s me), so he began a VERY AGGRESSIVE campaign to get the Democratic nomination as a write in. This decision was made with County Democrats (read “Bob Lark and Associates”) and Mr. Robbins decided to spend TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars on a full-color postcard / robo-call / yard sign campaign.
3. When ‘real’ Democrats realized what Bob Robbins was up to they came up with their own write-in campaign in an effort to beat Bob Robbins on Election Day. Art Allen, a Mercer County Democrat, started his own write-in campaign on the Democrat ticket.
4. When the word got out that a Dem had bravely stepped up to run, Kathy Frederick (a Greenville Democrat) decided to start her own write-in campaign in order to get onto the Democrat ballot against Republican Representative Michele Brooks.
5. In a panic (and in true Robbins fashion), Michele Brooks had to open up her wallet to start her own write-in campaign against Frederick (also including robo calls) for the DEMOCRAT nomination. Ms. Brooks was also forced to get out and work the polls on Election Day (which was a refreshing sight). Michele Brooks actively running as a Democrat . . . “who would have thunk it”.

In summary, Bob Robbins and Michele Brooks decided that they both wanted to be Republicans AND Democrats this year. Demonstrating ALL THAT IS WRONG IN POLITICS, the dynamic duo has illustrated to the 17th and 50th Districts that they ARE just as bad as everyone has been saying. They have demonstrated that they are, in fact, self-serving politicians that are ONLY concerned with getting re-elected.

The votes are not yet counted and the results of the write-in wars are not yet known, but the funniest part of the story is just now beginning to hit the papers. That portion of the story is the part that includes Mercer County Democrat Chairman Bob Lark.

Last year some thought that my public “dust up” with Bob Lark was a fantasy story. It seemed like “make believe” in a fantasy world of Democrats run amuck. They couldn’t believe that the things that I had been claiming could possibly be true. No one man could be so deranged as to do the things that he does. However, this year Bob Lark has illustrated to ALL of Mercer County exactly what I’ve been claiming. He is a representative of the “Mercer County Incumbent Party” I is more concerned with elevating members of the ‘inner circle’ than the promotion of good government.

Two Democrats (Art Allen and Kathy Frederick) stepped up in an attempt to organize a last-minute write-in campaign against career politicians (Robbins of 20 years and Brooks of the first 4 of 20 years). Rather than embrace the brave souls that were willing to step up to run for office, Bob Lark . . . get this . . . I’m not kidding . . . came out and CRITICIZED THEM BOTH.

Why? What reason could he have for criticizing two willing participants in a political challenge? He was angry that they didn’t go through the standard process of getting petitions signed and running in the Primary. What? Are you kidding me? He is joking, right? For those of you that don’t realize it, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I DID LAST YEAR and Bob Lark didn’t like that EITHER.

So why is Mr. Lark so upset? I suggest that Mr. Lark is angry for two reasons. He admits that he was aware of Bob Robbins plan to run as a Democrat, and I think that Mr. Lark WANTED Mr. Robbins to win the nomination. He simply didn’t like that I called him out for being a willing participant (and active recruiter). The second reason that Mr. Lark is angry is that Michele Brooks WAS NOT part of that plan of his. He had made a deal with Bob Robbins (and Company) but he had made no such deal with Michele Brooks. After the write-in battle is over Mr. Lark may find himself having to support a Robbins/Brooks ticket and that simply wasn’t part of his original agreement. Unfortunately, Mr. Lark got more than he bargained for and he isn’t happy about it.

If you sit back and you look at the statements that have been made by both Robbins and Lark you have to just scratch your head. You have to stop and wonder, “what is going on here?”. Common-sense thinkers like me are stopping and saying “something doesn’t smell right”. I would suggest that your nose is not playing tricks on you. There is something seriously wrong here and we should all be wondering ‘why’.

In Closing . . .

It is important that I clear the air regarding Mr. Lark. Last year my race for County Treasurer became a game for Mr. Lark and I refuse to be caught up in it again this year. The 2010 Election for State Senate in the 50th District needs to be a focused race between me (an energetic and dedicated independent candidate with a platform for good government) and Bob Robbins (a 20-year incumbent that is running as a Republican AND Democrat who would sell his soul to the Devil if he thought that it would win him re-election).

I look forward to moving towards November with a focus on the issues and policies . . . and NOT politics.

Let the games begin!

.

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

Written by Roberta Biros

I received a gift in the mail today. As a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA), I received a postcard labeled “Election Alert” (an image is included . . . click to enlarge). This urgent message from the NRA (bright orange to illustrate the “urgency”) stated that Senator Bob Robbins “needs your vote”. It goes on to state “If you are a registered Democrat, please remember to write-in BOB ROBBINS on your ballot.” It further urged again “Be sure to spread the word to your family, friends, and fellow gun owners to write-in BOB ROBBINS on Tuesday, May 18!”

What does this all mean? This means that Senator Bob Robbins, a 20-year incumbent of the Pennsylvania State Senate and a REPUBLICAN is begging Democrats to write him because he needs their nomination in November in order to beat an INDEPENDENT that is running against him. He realizes that he doesn’t have enough support from his own party to beat an unaffiliated challenger and he is begging for help.

The obvious panic that my candidacy has brought upon the Senator and his closest friends is a clear indicator that Bob Robbins knows exactly how much trouble he is in this year. He and his friends are shaken, and their very public reactions have energized my campaign and my supporters. At first my candidacy was just an interesting news story, but it is quickly becoming a very valid threat to a not-so-popular incumbent and career politician.

I’d like to thank Senator Robbins and the National Rifle Association for making my day by reminding me and my supporters that we ARE on the right track.

BLOG POST ADDENDUM

I received some interesting news from my sources, and the post card campaign that I received in the mail is NOT the ONLY effort that Senator Robbins has on the table for garnering Democrat support. Senator Robbins explained at a GOP Committee Meeting last night that he has been in touch with none other than the Mercer County Democrats, Crawford County Democrats, and Lawrence County Democrats in an effort to become one big happy family in his attempt for re-election.

Now I ask you, when do the leaders of the Democrat parties in a Republican Senator’s district go to him to strike a deal? When is another party so desperate as to go to the incumbent of the OPPOSITE party in an effort to get him to come to THEIR side? When has an incumbent of 20 years NEEDED to make deals with those same party leaders in order to hold his seat in office?

Did you all realize that the candidacy of ONE (1) unaffiliated Independent could be such a threat to one man and TWO (2) parties?

This move proves a point that I have been pressing for quite some time. Greedy incumbents, self-serving politicians, and the corrupt parties that control County politics have ONLY ONE (1) GOAL, and that is the support and protection of the “Incumbent Party”. Politics as usual is at work, and lost are the issues of good government, public service, civic duty, and the best interests of the people. These ideals have been replaced with political insiders attempting to control politics, government, and the American way.

I feel sorry for Senator Robbins, Bob Lark, the Mercer County GOP committee and leadership, the Mercer County Democrat committee and leadership, the Crawford County Democrat committee and leadership, and the Lawrence County Democrat committee and leadership for their inability to understand that people are sick and tired of politics as usual and they want a voice in their representation.

Ordinary people don’t want to be bullied by politicians . . . “We the People” don’t want to be bullied anymore!

UPDATE: Senator Bob Robbins continues to shoot himself in the foot

In Bob Robbins’ attempt to win the Democrat nomination as a write-in candidate, he has managed to further alienate voters. In another mailer that was sent out by the Robbins’ campaign, Robbins is pictured with what appears to be an emergency vehicle and an emergency worker. In doing so, Robbins implies that he has the backing and endorsement of firefighters and emergency workers in his district and across Pennsylvania. It seems that Robbins did this without an actual endorsement, however. On the same advertisement it is stated that Robbins is working against a residential property sprinkler mandate. Bob Robbins failed to realize that many emergency workers are FOR that very mandate and his advertisement is misleading (at best) and fraudulent (at worst).

This scan was sent to me by individuals that are angry with Robbins’ misuse of the image, which just goes to show that Robbins has not achieved his goals with this costly mailer.

I’d like to further point out that Robbins and his campaign had to dig deep into the archives to find a photo of him with an emergency worker. A close review of the photo shows that the inspection sticker on the supposed emergency response vehicle is dated 2007. He couldn’t find a recent “photo opportunity” to demonstrate his ties to that particular group.

It is another example of Bob Robbins attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of voters, and it is doing nothing more than demonstrating his panic and fear of losing his re-election bid. Has Bob Robbins managed to shoot himself in BOTH feet?

UPDATE #2: Hold on to your hats . . . ANOTHER write-in candidate is in the works!

I was alerted this afternoon that Bob Robbins is NOT the only individual that is seeking the write-in nomination on the Democrat ticket for Pennsylvania’s 50th Senatorial District. According to the email release below, Art Allen (Robbins opponent in 2006) wants in the race too! Suddenly Democrats are interested in the 50th District? Do you think anyone smells blood?

Dear Fellow Democrat,

About a year ago, I made a very difficult decision. There appeared to be several potential candidates for the 50th State Senate seat, and we all hoped that perhaps someone would be able to build a strong coalition to challenge the long time incumbent, Bob Robbins. So it was with this in mind that I decided to step aside in the primary election.

Now, in 2010, we face an election where a career politician faces no challenger. I personally believe that to be unacceptable.

As many of you know, we were able to mount a very real challenge to this seat in 2006. When all was said and done, the final tally was 41,302 to 35,854.

If you live in the district (all of Mercer and Crawford Counties, as well as parts of Lawrence and Butler Counties) please consider writing me in on the democratic ballot for Senator in the General Assembly on May 18th. With your help, we can again mount a strong challenge to tired politics as usual here in the 50th State Senate
District. Please ask your friends to do the same.

Sincerely and With Deep Thanks,
Art Allen

UPDATE #3: Robbins goes as far as to order Democrat yard signs!

You wouldn’t believe it unless you saw it with your own eyes, right? Well, here it is. A Mercer County Conservatives exclusive . . . a photo of the yard signs that Bob Robbins had printed in order to work his way into the heart (and ballot) of Democrats!

Loyal Republicans who have been donating their hard-earned cash to Bob Robbins and his campaign for YEARS can have comfort knowing that he is using those funds to win over Democrats. Priceless.
.

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

Written by Roberta Biros

The internet is a wonderful thing. It has provided us with an endless database of digital information including articles, photos, and videos that are accessible with great ease. I found a presentation on YouTube the other day and it is fascinating. The piece was produced by Titan Radio News in December of 2008 as a tool to highlight the long and wonderful career of State Senator Bob Robbins. In the interview, you get an opportunity to find out exactly how Senator Robbins found his way into the State Government. I invite you to listen to the interview (or click below) and hear (in Senator Robbin’s own voice) as he admits his “accidental fall into” government after the political re-districting of the area.

Senator Robbins says “you’d rather be lucky than good”

To quote Senator Robbins:

“By the time they got done with drawing the new districts I was setting in the middle of a brand new district that didn’t have a Representative. So, within 6 months I got to run again, basically for a house seat. As it worked out as I tell a lot of people . . . ‘sometimes you’d rather be lucky than good . . . other times is that you’ve got to be in the right place at the right time’.”

Never does Senator Robbins say that he deserved the seat in the House of Representatives because of his dedication to the needs of the people, and he never stated that he was selected because he was the best candidate for the job. Instead, Senator Robbins admits that he was “lucky” and he was “in the right place at the right time”. If it weren’t so sad, it would almost be funny.

The Back Door Politics Continue

The most bothersome part of his statement is that it defines politics of the past in our area. If the “sliding through the back door” approach to public office seems familiar, you know your stuff. In 2006 a similar back door approach allowed Representative Michele Brooks to fall into her spot in the same district (the 17th) when she was selected to replace former State Representative Rod Wilt as the Republican nominee. Again, it was another example of “it was better to be lucky than good”, and Ms. Brooks seemed to be “in the right place at the right time”. It makes you wonder if the trend is as accidental as it appears.

Knowing what we know about “business as usual in area politics” and realizing how the good ol’ boys (and girls) prefer to control “who gets lucky”, it is interesting to think through the thought process of political strategy in our area. Let us use this year as an example as we examine a possibility . . .

Is 2010 another Back Door Deal year?

If the Mercer GOP and their political friends were to use the “better to be lucky than good” strategy again, what sort of conservations would they be having in 2010.

As many of you know, at the beginning of 2010 it looked as though State Senator Robbins and State Representative Brooks would be running unopposed through the General Election in November. Unfortunately for the Senator, an Independent candidate* has stepped up to challenge Senator Robbins and the fate of Representative Brooks is still unknown. The Senator was probably hoping to rebound from his close race of 2006 (where he LOST his home county of Mercer by the way), and was planning on going out on a high note. At the point that he realized that he will now have an opponent, and that opponent will most probably expose all of the ugly truths about the Senator and his past, has the Senator started to consider ways to avoid an ugly loss? Could he be looking for ways to slide out on a “high”? Is it possible that a hand-off is in the works for 2010? Could Senator Robbins be planning to step down (before the dirt from his past begins to resurface) and allow Representative Brooks to step up and access the Senate seat through another backdoor deal?

This past weekend, Representative Brooks was spotted promoting herself at a local TEA Party [read the story HERE] including the distribution of yard signs (of all things), but Senator Robbins was no where to be seen? Who exactly is Representative Brooks running against that she feels a need to distribute yard signs? Why was it so necessary for her to bully her way onto the stage at Saturday’s event? Who is her opponent this year? Is it possible that her opponent is going to be an Independent* that is running for State Senate? Hmmmmm. Wouldn’t that be interesting?

Is it possible that Senator Robbins knows that the political climate in 2010 will make it extremely difficult (if not impossible) for him to win re-election in November. Is he fearful of going down in flames . . . and thus tarnishing his long career forever? Would he prefer to leave on a high note and pass the challenge onto his young enough and smart enough protégé? Is Representative Brooks desperate enough to take on the challenge? Is she willing to take yet another backroom deal in an effort to slide into higher office?

* – For those of you that are not aware of the details, the “Independent Candidate” is me, Roberta Biros, political analyst and editor of Mercer County Conservatives.

Brooks vs. Biros?

I’d love to be a fly on the wall for the conversations that have already transpired in the past several weeks. Time will tell, and I can’t wait to see the results. While “the Independent candidate for State Senate” (Roberta Biros) had no intention of taking on Representative Brooks head on, I know that the same “Independent candidate” has no intention of backing off from the challenge if Ms. Brooks decides to offer it.

If Representative Brooks takes “the deal”, she will again demonstrate that she is not part of the solution . . . but is very clearly part of the problem in area politics. I look forward to accepting that challenge any day of the week.

It would be the perfect opportunity to prove Robbins and Brooks wrong and to demonstrate that some of us believe that “It is better to be good than to be lucky!”.

As always, just my opinion (but if it happens, realize that you heard it here first).

~Mercer County Conservatives

.

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

Written by Roberta Biros

What a weekend! It was an example of political wrangling at its best (and worst). In the end there were winners and there were losers, and I’m here to report what I saw first hand.

NOTE: I recently had a friend say that they appreciate my style of writing because I manage to cut through all the garbage and get to the basics. That is what I’ve attempted to do in this case. There will be those that think I’ve cut away too much, but I’ve only cut out those things that muddied the waters. If you don’t like what is left, I apologize . . . but . . . as always, it’s just my opinion.

Background Information

A Tea Party was organized in Butler PA. The first sign of the event to “regular people” like you and I were signs that popped up in the Butler area advertising the date, time, and location. It was pointed out to me early on, however, that the simple street address that was included on those signs was actually the address for Kelly Chevrolet and Cadillac on Pittsburgh Road in Butler. It seemed fishy . . . it appeared to be a set up . . . it came across as an event ORGANIZED AND FUNDED by Mike Kelly in an effort to hijack the Tea Party movement.

On Friday evening (late) an email message was sent out by the people at the Clayton Grabb campaign. The message stated that “we the undersigned” have decided to boycott the event and hold our own event on the same day and at the same time as a form of protest against the original event (I paraphrased there, but the actual release can be read HERE).

On Saturday, a message was sent out in response by candidate Steve Fisher. Mr. Fisher made it very clear that he never approved the first letter and he did not approve of the boycott. He had every intention of attending both events, but his first priority was to the Tea Party as he had already given his word and commitment to them (again, I paraphrase, but you can read his release HERE).

I published everything. I then promised that I would attend both events in an effort to see for myself EXACTLY what was going on. I did what I said I would do, and now I’m here to summarize everything for all of you.

My Plan

My husband and I made the hour long trip to Butler on Sunday morning. We arrived at the primary event location (Mike Kelly’s car dealership) at about 11am. We made a brief visit across the street for coffee, donuts, news papers, and a rest room brake before making our way to the Mike Kelly parking lot. I approached a group of event participants (who were all wearing “Freedom Patriots” t-shirts). I openly explained who I was and asked if they would be willing to talk to me about the event and the problems that had surfaced during the past few days. They were happy to do so, and I’ll report my findings below.

At about 1PM, my husband and I took a drive to the secondary event at Alameda Park. There were signs leading into the pavilion area. At that time only Clayton Grabb was on hand. I left my husband with a pad, pencil, and camera so that he could cover the start of the second event. I returned to the primary event location (the Kelly lot) with a camera-equipped Blackberry, a pen, and paper. The goal was to cover both events simultaneously, but I would leave the Tea Party (primary event) AS SOON as the presentations were completed. I would then head over to the second location to take part in that event also.

A plan was in place for full coverage of both events. My husband and I went in our separate directions with clear instructions.

An Overview of the Butler Tea Party event at Mike Kelly’s car dealership (and some background information)

This event was a real Tea Party. The organizers planned a great mix of speakers, presenters, and political analysts and politicians. They had booths representing various groups and charitable organizations, and they were focused on offering an informative program. The organizers admitted that this was their FIRST Tea Party, but they were excited to get involved in the process.

When the organizers first made their decision to have a Tea Party, they attempted to rent a park location. At first they were told that the fee would be $250 for the park rental. They explained that after the park found out that the event would be a Tea Party, the price changed to $1000 per hour for a total of $3000 plus insurance. They couldn’t afford a price anywhere close to $3000, and felt that they could not get a large enough venue to handle a crowd that could reach 2000. Mike Kelly stepped in and offered the use of his lot at no charge. The Freedom Patriots group jumped at the offer. Kelly provided a free (and very spacious) venue and he offered the use of his electrical service. The Freedom Patriots were left to organize the event, invite speakers and vendors, and they were also left with other responsibilities like acquiring portable rest rooms. A deal had been struck.

I estimate that between 250 and 400 people were in attendance, which was pretty good considering the day long threat of rain. It was absolutely a REAL TEA PARTY that was attended by REAL TEA PARTIERS. It was not an advertisement for Mike Kelly and it was NOT focused on the race for the 3rd Congressional District. It was a gathering of concerned citizens discussing issues of history and politics. It was proud patriots taking advantage of their freedom to assemble. It was supported by a handful of candidates that showed integrity by supporting the Tea Party movement. In exchanged they were each given five minutes to speak at the end of the event . . . in the wind and rain.

ABOVE: A photo of the crowd at the Tea Party from the far front corner.

BELOW: A tent was provided for the speakers while they waited for an opportunity
to address the crowd. The three congressional candidates that attended
(Steve Fisher, Mike Kelly, and Martha Moore) sat together.

Congratulations to the Freedom Patriots for their success in their very first Tea Party! It was a difficult task, but you did a great job in pulling it all together. I give them credit for providing the hard work, time, and effort, and I congratulate them for keeping their heads held high even after attacks from naysayers and attempts to derail their event.

An Overview of the candidates that spoke at the Tea Party

The list of speakers (in presentation order) was as follows:

Darryl Metcalfe, candidate for Lt. Governor
Steve Fisher, candidate for 3rd Congressional District
Martha Moore, candidate for 3rd Congressional District
Mary Shaff, representative for the campaign for Jean Craig Pepper for Lt. Governor
Mike Kelly, candidate for 3rd Congressional District

Highlights from the speakers?

Daryl Metcalfe wants to create a “new type of Lt. Governor’s office” in that he wants it to become the “Accountability Office”. A great concept that I really liked.

In a particularly classy move, Steve Fisher thanked Mike Kelly for his involvement in the event and thanked him for the use of the Kelly property for the Tea Party. He then explained that the “Tea Party is not about us (the candidates) . . . it is about YOU (the concerned citizens that attend).” It was a comment that struck a chord with attendees, and it was something that sorely needed to be said.

Martha Moore made a point of explaining to the ladies in the crowd that the day “was a bad hair day” and apologized for her appearance which was a result of rain and wind. It made me laugh as I was experiencing the same “bad hair day” as Dr. Moore (but that is clearly why God invented hats). Dr. Moore continues to make me smile.

Jean Craig Pepper’s representative spoke briefly about Craig Pepper’s campaign and attempted to provide the same humorous flair as Craig Pepper herself. It was a brief but interesting presentation.

Mike Kelly closed the event by reminding everyone that attended that the event was supposed to be about the Tea Party. He stressed . . . “let the record show that on Sunday, May 2nd, 2010, a Tea Party was held in Butler Pennsylvania”. It was a brief speech, and he did not “show boat”. He kept his comments short and sweet because WE ALL were suffering from the wind and rain . . . his brevity was appreciated. It was yet another classy move that I witnessed on this day.

An Overview of the Candidate Forum at Alameda Park (and some background information)

At the conclusion of the closing statements by Mike Kelly (about 4pm), I headed for my car. Due to some limitations in parking spaces, I was blocked in. It took me about 5 twists and turns of my vehicle in an effort to “skootch” out of the parking spot, but I managed to exit the parking lot without doing any damage (whew). I quickly made the ~5 mile trip to the secondary location.

The Candidate Forum (the secondary event) was held in Odd Fellows Gazeob in Alameda Park. I tried to be careful not to “squeal tires” while serpentining the parking lot as the event was already well underway. Upon arrival I quickly parked and headed up into the pavilion. I took a seat beside my husband. I quietly asked him how things were going, and he responded “it’s been very heated”.

ABOVE: A photo of the beginning of the event during the mix and mingle session.

BELOW: Another photo of the mix and mingle session from inside the shelter.

According to my husband, the event began with a mix and mingle session. The presentation portion of the event began at about 3pm. I arrived at about 4:15pm and the “forum” portion of the event was still underway. There appeared to be less than 50 people in the pavilion, although it was apparent there were more attendees earlier (as demonstrated by gaps in the parking spaces in the lot). The format was very casual. The three candidates in attendance (Clayton Grabb, Ed Franz, and Paul Huber) stood at one end of the shelter and answered questions in rotation from attendees that were seated at picnic tables in the center of the shelter. There was no specific format for questions or answers. It was very relaxed and unrestricted. Unfortunately, the lack of structure also lead to lack of self-control from some attendees.

Of the <50 people in attendance, it is our estimation that 90+% were friends, family, and firm supporters of either Grabb, Franz, or Huber. The shelter was not filled with “undecided voters that were trying to learn about the candidates”. Instead it was our impression that the crowd was an assembly of very firm supporters of one of the candidates in attendance. The event, therefore, became a catalyst for unfriendly and (at times) unruly banter between attendees and candidates. It amounted to candidates and their respective camps arguing with one another.

That was the case until shortly after my arrival. A few minutes after I got to the event, Dr. Martha Moore’s car entered the parking lot. Dr. Moore, who also attended the primary event, made the trip to the secondary event. As she pulled into the parking lot the criticisms had already begun. As she approached the pavilion, candidate Ed Franz chose to throw some fuel on the fire by “joking” that they should now conclude the event (before Dr. Moore reached the shelter). Upon entry, Dr. Moore was offered the opportunity to speak and her arrival was met with booos and yelling.

I yelled from the back of the pavilion “come on now . . . give her a chance to speak”, but my words were ignored (as I was sort of considered the enemy at this point too). None of the original three candidates (Grabb, Franz, or Huber) stepped forward to stop the nonsense. They let it go.

The line of questioning to Dr. Moore was regarding her decision to attend the first event. They questioned her about the “fake Tea Party” and the “fake Tea Partiers”. At one point (out of frustration), Dr. Moore said “why don’t you ask Roberta . . . she was there”. I felt so bad for the beating that she was taking. It was unfair, but it was not MY place to step in to help her. The individuals who should have helped her stood silent.

At about 4:45, it was announced that time was almost up. It was suggested that the forum again break down into a mix and mingle session so that those in attendance could have the opportunity to talk with Dr. Moore. Again the crowd erupted and an attendee stood up and yelled “if she wanted to talk to us she could have been here before . . .but instead she went to the other event”. More yelling ensued.

I’ve been to a number of political events in the past two years. I can only compare the behavior in this event to ONE. It was a DEMOCRAT event in March of 2009 where a crowd of angry Democrats attempted to shout down a conservative candidate (who also happened to be a Democrat). I wrote briefly about that experience HERE. However, that event didn’t come any where near the hostility that could be felt in the Odd Fellows Gazebo on Sunday afternoon.

I’m sure there will be people that attended the event at Alameda Park that will complain about these comments and they’ll try to say how wonderful the event was. I suppose that if you are on the side that is “throwing stones”, you have a different perspective. I, on the other hand, have NEVER supported beating up on the little guy. It sickens me to see an innocent individual and candidate (like Dr. Martha Moore) verbally attacked while a group of three men (who are also candidates) stood by with their hands in their pockets and watched.

I challenge ANYONE to refute the fact that one of those men/candidates shouldn’t have stepped forward to say “please treat Dr. Moore with respect as she has taken the time to join us today, and we thank her for being here”. They did not, and I lost respect for each and every one of them at that moment. The truth is, they were all still “angry” with Dr. Moore and saw her as the enemy. Why? . . . Because she dared to attend a TEA PARTY.

The Butler Fiasco was caused by one problem compounding another

There were lots of fingers to be pointed if you want to “blame” someone for the problems that occurred on Sunday. The Freedom Patriots did not fully understand the political toes that were being stepped on, and Mike Kelly didn’t make a point of explaining that the choice to use his car lot might appear biased. Mike Kelly took advantage of the situation, and it was a brilliant move on his part. He was able to show that he was charitable and he managed to get his name tied to a potentially high-profile event. If Clayton Grabb, Paul Huber, or Ed Franz could have held an event for 400+ people in their back yards, they would have also jumped at the opportunity (and don’t EVEN try to tell me otherwise).

It was the responsibility of the Tea Party organizers to refuse Kelly’s offer, but they were not politically savvy enough to realize the mistake that they had made. They didn’t see the event as a “forum for the 3rd Congressional Candidates”. They were concerned with holding a Tea Party and they didn’t understand the complicated political undertones that were involved.

Unfortunately, the other candidates (Huber, Moore, and Franz led by Grabb) began a campaign against the TEA PARTY organizers. Rather than doing their homework and taking the time to discuss the problem with the Freedom Patriots, they took it upon themselves to be the judge and jury. They made a VERY BOLD MOVE and took a stand to boycott the Tea Party. Their biggest mistake, however, was in hastily drafting an “official notice” without first crossing their T’s and dotting their I’s. They authored a “we the undersigned” letter without realizing that that type of document is intended to be drafted as a group. Instead, the letter was drafted by a few without getting the sign off of the other candidates for which they were speaking. That is a HUGE error. PERIOD. They “signed” the names of candidates, but did so without their full and explicit written authorization. It was a bold move, but it was a mistake.

Lastly, intelligent people learn from history. So, I’d like to offer a reference to the Nixon years and Watergate . . . “It’s not the crime, it’s the cover up”.

If you make a mistake, just stand up and say “crap, I made a huge mistake”. Don’t compound the original mistake by explaining . . . blaming other people . . . pointing fingers . . . and throwing more people under the bus. Just say “I made a mistake and I apologize for it”.

Winners and Losers?

In the end, there were winners. The biggest winners were the Freedom Patriots who pulled off an excellent Tea Party and I congratulate them. The other winners were Mike Kelly, Steve Fisher, and Dr. Martha Moore, who managed to demonstrate that the people are more important than the candidates. The Tea Party event was not about any of them, and they were happy to take a back seat to the “real” event.

The losers? You know what I’m going to say, and I won’t apologize for it.

The losers were Clayton Grabb, Ed Franz, and Paul Huber. They made the Tea Party event about politics rather than about people gathering to celebrate freedom. They tried to put their own candidacies above the ideals of the Tea Party movement. Most importantly, they made this about anger and fighting. When given the opportunity to stand up and try to calm the waters (by defending Dr. Moore, for instance) they chose to take a back seat and watch.

This was just one event, and it was simply one more opportunity for concerned citizens to compare the candidates that are competing for the Republican nomination for the 3rd Congressional Seat. There is still time for these individuals to stand up to right the wrongs, and there is still time for others to crash and burn. This one day (Sunday, May 2nd) will not decide the election, but it is just another opportunity to see how these candidates work under stress.

The Highlight? Paul Huber’s Boots!

Lastly, I’d like to make reference to my subtitle of this blog post. The header photo is a picture of Paul Huber’s cowboy boots. I’ve always seen Paul dressed like a business man, and I LOVED seeing him dress down a bit for an event. I laughed when I saw it because it was so darn “cool”, and I told him that it would be the headline. There were many witnesses to my promise, and I always keep my promises.

As always, just my opinion.
~Mercer County Conservatives

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

Written by Roberta Biros

It is with mixed emotions that I post this event announcement today. The event is sponsored by the Mercer County GOP and the details are provided below:

EVENT ANNOUNCEMENT

Meet and Greet of Republican Candidates
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Hempfield Station One
6th Avenue
Greenville, PA
7PM – 9PM

First, the event is a wonderful opportunity for the candidates that are facing challengers in the Primary (only three weeks away) to meet, mix, and mingle with the people of Mercer County. I am completely supportive of that concept, and I have attended more than my share of similar events in the past six weeks. I will be attending this event (as I have all of the others in the area) to document who is there and what they have to say. I do this to provide information to the voters of the area so that they are well informed when they go to the polls on May 18th. I also spend the time and effort in covering these events because NO ONE ELSE IN THE PRESS WILL. I write about all of the political activities in the area because we need to STIMILATE INTEREST in this election in order to generate REAL CHANGE in November.

Unfortunately, there are some that believe that this particular Meet and Greet may be hijacked by incumbent politicians in an effort to promote themselves (rather than the candidates that are struggling to win their respective Primaries). The two-hour event should be focused candidates for Governor, Lt. Governor, and Congress (3rd and 4th Districts). IT SHOULD NOT be spent on incumbents that have no opponents in the Primary or (in some cases) no opponents in the General Election.

If Senator Bob Robbins, Representative Michele Brooks, and Representative Dick Stevenson show up with the intention of upstaging the Primary candidates, they should be booted off the stage. (even better, they should be booted OUT OF OFFICE, but I digress)

I urge all of you to attend the event tomorrow night in order to educate yourself about the candidates that are competing in the Primary. I also urge you to watch carefully at “who” is politicking and “who” is there to simply support the conservative candidates that are seeking a place on the ballot in the fall.

I am committed to informing the people of Mercer County, the voters of northwest Pennsyvania, and the taxpayers of Pennsylvania of ALL political activities . . . good and bad. I present information in this forum in an effort to educate and stimulate. You are free to form your own opinion, but I think it is important that you have access to ALL of the details.

A Side Note:

I have a funny feeling that some attempt will be made to prevent me from attending this event. I intend on walking in and documenting the activities just as I have done since mid-March. I “dare them” to attempt to stop me.

.

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

Written by Roberta Biros

Last night I attended another formal debate of the 3rd Congressional District Republican Candidates. The event was sponsored by Allegheny College and was held at Quigley Hall on the Allegheny College Campus. It was another standing-room-only event as it was a rare opportunity for the people of the 3rd Congressional District to determine which candidate can best represent them when we send Kathy Dahlkemper home in November.

All six candidates were in attendance. In order on the stage from left to right were Steve Fisher, Ed Franz, Clayton Grabb, Paul Huber, Mike Kelly, and Martha Moore.

The last formal debate was held a month ago on March 25th in Grove City (read about it HERE). It may have only been 4 weeks ago, but it seems like a lifetime. The last four weeks have been packed with events, get-togethers, meet-n-greets, fundraisers, and tea parties for all six of the Republican candidates . . . and the bloggers that follow them. The grueling schedule is beginning to take its toll on everyone involved, but it hasn’t dampened our determination to push through to November.

At the debate that was held a month ago, we met six candidates that were fresh, unpolished, and unique. Four weeks later, the six candidates are beginning to meld into one and other. The have all had an opportunity to tweak their presentations, and some are actually stealing each others quotes (i.e, I believe it was Ed Franz that stole Martha Moore’s “enough is enough” quote last night and it made me laugh).

I documented the entire evening, but you all know that I’m not one to simply provide a laundry list of the evening’s events. No, I’d prefer to paint you an abstract portrait of the highlights and lowlights of the night.

Highlights?

Anyone that attended last night’s event would agree hands down that the “star” of the evening was Dr. Martha Moore. At the debate in Grove City, Dr. Moore was noticeably nervous and she struggled at times to find the words to properly describe her stand on issues. That was simply not the case last night as Dr. Moore has found a comfortable place in just shooting straight from the hip. “Like what?”, you ask. Allow me to provide a few sound bites:

When discussing why she was running for office, Dr. Moore stated “Because I don’t want to be nauseated every time that I hear the President of the United States speak.”

She made a reference to a patient that recently visited her office who has over $90K in outstanding medical bills. She stated “Call Kathy Dahlkemper (and ask her to pay your bill)”.

When referring to the recent health care reform bill she stated “that stupid bill they passed . . . just stupid”.

The most precious references that Dr. Moore made were during her closing statements where she literally brought down the house. For instance . . . “When I go to Washington, I’m going to say NO a lot. They are going to say that I’m from the party of no’, but I’m the party of ‘STOP THIS’”.

I applaud Martha Moore for offering us “Martha Moore Unplugged” last night. She brought a level of straight talk and humor to an otherwise serious and sometimes lifeless event. I’ve said it before and I’ll take this opportunity to say it again. I really respect Dr. Moore for standing up as a concerned citizen and becoming involved in this race. I still don’t believe that she is necessarily the best choice to become our next Congresswoman, but I appreciate the perspective that she brings to the table. She says the things that many of us are thinking . . . but we’ve never actually said out loud, and because she is a candidate she is able to inject those thoughts directly into the formal debate conversation.

Her participation in last night’s event was “priceless”.

Interesting Notes on Each Candidate

I’d like to point out some interesting statements from each of the candidates presented in the order of the seating arrangement on the stage from left to right.

Steve Fisher

Steve Fisher continues to illustrate that he is the perfect mix of grassroots candidate and qualified representative. He presents himself as a “Statesman” and not a politician. He is polished in all the right places, but he remains human (and appropriately ‘unpolished’) in the way that he connects with the people of this area. He is sincere, honest, and approachable but also projects an unmatched level of confidence and professionalism.

On issues of the budget, Mr. Fisher pointed out that we need to make decisions that are “good for us”. He pointed out that too much attention goes to how our budgetary decisions will affect China and Japan and that we need to concentrate on how those decisions will affect us first.” He suggested that we reestablish an impartial review of the federal government and possible inefficiencies through an investigation similar to the Grace Commission (that was established during the Reagan administration).

In response to issues of our military and his willingness to respond to a strike against the United States, Mr. Fisher first stated that he is concerned “about how thin our military is stretched” and whether they are receiving the support that they need. He also pointed out that we need to “forget political correctness”.

In his closing comments, Mr. Fisher made a great statement worth noting. He said “I am not a politician. I plan on serving a maximum of three terms and coming back to the area to work in the insurance industry . . . if there is an insurance industry to come back to”.

Ed Franz

Ed Franz positions himself as the man who can “represent the average taxpayer in Washington DC”. He pointed out that “inside the beltway politicians have concentrated on healthcare legislation and not the health of this nation”.

Mr. Franz made reference to the “800 lb gorilla in the back of the room”. Some may have thought he was referring to one blogger that was seated in the last row of the auditorium, but he was referring to “the national debt”. Mr. Franz wants to be the voice in the debate that represents the average taxpayer.

Regarding budget deficits, Mr. Franz made his stand clear when he stated “We need to get out of deficit spending. We need to get out of financing bills and legislation that we cannot afford.” It was a short statement, but it hit at the heart of the problem.

In a humorus moment of the evening, Mr. Franz was discussing his thoughts on the strength of the military and his stand on responding to a strike on the US. To quote “If we are attacked we should hunt them down.” He then went on to discuss a reference to a movie . . . “Patton”, and he stated “Wasn’t that the way a war should be fought.” The reference sent chuckles across the crowd.

Clayton Grabb

Clayton Grabb continues to prove that he is the anti-politician. His concerns are not for “the Party” but for “the People”. He started by explaining why he decided to run for office. He stated “I believe our constitution is under attack”. He then went on to explain “I got tired of holding my nose to go and vote in the past. My Republican Party has left us down before. We need someone that will go to DC and stand up for the people and tell it like it is.” It is statements like these that explain why Mr. Grabb is not embraced by the Republican Party, but is, instead, embraced by people who have experienced the same frustrations . . . which are many.

He continued to separate him self from politicians by saying “(we need to elect people to) do the people’s work and then go home . . . we need a citizen legislator that does not want to be there.” (emphasizing that once they get there they get too comfortable)

When it comes to budgetary issues, Mr. Grabb offers common sense solutions to that too. He stated “How about we cut all government hiring. The government is the only sector of our economy that is growing right now. . . . we cannot continue to grow our government . . . the more (people) that depend on government the harder it will be for people like us to get in there and stop it.”

Regarding issues of the military, Mr. Grabb stated “We need to pull the politicians out (of the decision making process) and let the military do what it needs to do. We need to do what is necessary to be the biggest baddest dog on the block.”

Paul Huber

Paul Huber remains firm on his position as the businessman with the experience needed to represent us in Washington DC. In his opening statement his first words were “I’m a life long social and fiscal conservative”. I mention this because it raised a few eyebrows in the crowd as some people have questioned the fact that Mr. Huber only became a Republican last year.

Mr. Huber did, however, manage to present a very conservative stand on fiscal issues including his statement on budgetary issues as “I’m proposing that we go to 2009 levels of spending and that includes legislative salaries as well. It is a step in the right direction that sends the right message to the financial markets and the American people that we are serious about this.” Mr. Huber’s ideas for tackling economic problems are aggressive and bold and I like that.

Regarding job creation in our area, Mr. Huber offered a great explanation of the problem as “government doesn’t create jobs . . . they create an environment where jobs are destroyed or they can create an environment where free enterprise can create jobs”. Mr. Huber continues to offer the prospective of a business person, and he is quite clear on his vision of how that prospective is desperately needed in Washington DC.

Mike Kelly

Mike Kelly also offers the business owner angle, and he is quite direct in his approach. Unlike Huber (who is polished and refined), Mike Kelly offers similar ideas but with an extra “edge”. When explaining “why” he was running he simply stated “because none of us ran before.” He further explained that “We were all responsible people sitting back and didn’t have time to get involved . . . We forfeited our future . . . it is time to get people like ‘us’ into office.”

Regarding the issue of term limits, Mr. Kelly made his stand clear when he stated “people are sitting too long in the same spot and they aren’t held accountable.”

In response to a question regarding budget deficits and the President’s plan to freeze discretionary spending, Mr. Kelly boldly stated “I have a problem listening to anything that Obama says and taking it seriously.” Again in referencing the President he said “We’ve got a 3 yr old running the highest powered locomotive on earth.”

Mr. Kelly’s most important point of the evening was his repeated reference to “it’s the spending, stupid”. He continues to press the common-sense idea that spending needs to be addressed before this nation can move forward on anything. I agree.

Mr. Kelly did attempt to address recent comments that he “comes across as angry”. He explained that people might get that impression because “he is angry”. He explained that he is angry about the problems that we are facing in this country and he is serious about fixing them.

As a side note . . . After the debate I did ask Mr. Kelly that the next time he wants to quote me directly I only ask that he give me a public shout out. This is, of course, a reference to the fact that my written statements regarding Mr. Kelly were the catalyst to the conversations about his “anger”. Mike and I laughed about it and I reassured him that “I think he is just a big teddy bear”.

Martha Moore

Aside from the comments that I’ve already made regarding Dr. Moore, there were other points that did not go unnoticed. Regarding finding solutions to fiscal issues, she stated “don’t look to the Government to fix problems that the Government created”. It isn’t just a great quote . . . it is the truth.

Regarding budgetary issues and a proposed freeze on discretionary spending, Dr. Moore stated “a miniscule part of the budget is what he is freezing . . . then he passes a bill that will cost 2.4 trillion dollars . . . they said 1.4 trillion but they lied.” She then went on to explain “We are going to have to tackle the big items.” As a possible solution, she suggested that “we need to audit the federal government”, and I completely agree.

One key difference between the candidates?

After almost two months of following these candidates from event to event I was surprised last night when an issue surfaced which drew a very definitive line of distinction between them. That issue was regarding campaign financing and specifically the Supreme Court ruling on “Citizens United v. FEC”.

The issue has multiple facets that generated great conversation. The first is an issue regarding the First Amendment and free speech, and the second issue is that of campaign financing and the idea of “deep pockets buying elections”.

All of the candidates were in agreement on the issue of free speech (no shock there), but there were additional comments made by some that highlighted a serious problem regarding political campaigns in general.

Mike Kelly felt that the ruling helped to “even the playing field”. He explained that “corporations shouldn’t be pouring this much money into elections, but when you look at how the Democrats raise money you need to level the playing field.”

In drastic contrast, Steve Fisher was clearly against the concept of corporations funding elections. He stated “We spend far too much on elections already. I don’t think that corporations should be allowed to spend money to buy votes and buy elections.” He further explained “there is big difference between dollars between many candidates, but to take corporate money and throw it in there is unfair”. As a grassroots candidate, Fisher has experienced first had how deep pockets and large bank accounts can make the election process a particularly uneven playing field.

Ed Franz agreed with the Supreme Court ruling but emphasized that “we need to watch what special interests are financing which candidates . . . the voters need to keep an eye (on the process)”.

Clayton Grabb also agreed with the Supreme Court ruling and supported his comments by saying that “corporations ARE you and I”. However, as another grassroots candidate, he was quick to point out that “Campaigns should not cost what they cost!” [I say “Amen” to that.] He further went on to explain exactly how “big money comes in and they buy the Primary”. In closing he reminded everyone that the “grassroots people are the ones that need to be represented”.

Paul Huber agreed with the Supreme Court ruling, and he seemed to have no problem with the concept of corporations funding elections.

This specific debate drew very clear lines for me. 2010 is an election year that offers very stark contrasts. It is a year that pits “deep pockets” against “grassroots Average Joe’s” (as in the race for the 3rd Congressional District). It is a year that battles “endorsed candidates” against “unendorsed candidates” (read an example HERE). It is a year that will put unaffiliated Independents up against 20-year entrenched incumbents (read an example HERE).

In summary, 2010 is the year of David vs. Goliath.

In the race for the 3rd Congressional District, David is represented by Steve Fisher, Ed Franz, Clayton Grabb, and Martha Moore. Goliath is represented by Paul Huber and Mike Kelly. The Primary on May 18th will settle the debate and the battle once and for all.

As always, just my opinion.
~Mercer County Conservatives

.

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

Written by Roberta Biros

Saturday, April 24 was a busy day for concerned citizens in Mercer County. The day kicked off with the Mercer County TEA Party at the courthouse at 10am (read more about the Mercer County TEA Party HERE) and it ended up with a personal visit from Sam Rohrer, candidate for Governor at 4pm. Sam Rohrer is, himself, a fellow Tea Partier, so the tie in between the two events was a brilliant idea and a great way to carry over the energy from one event to the next. Bravo!

The day may have been busy for us but it was especially action packed for candidate Rohrer. He was scheduled to arrive at Brandy Springs Park outside of downtown Mercer shortly after 4pm, but his arrival was delayed due to his extremely cramped schedule. The event organizers had planned for a festive welcome for Mr. Rohrer and event attendees as is illustrated by the ‘welcoming committee” at Brandy Springs Park (see photo below).

Even though our time with Sam was limited, he made the most of it. After a brief introduction, Sam devoted only a short time to his opening remarks. Instead, he preferred to spend his time answering direct questions from attendees. I appreciated the change of focus as it allowed us to discuss the issues that were important to those of us attending rather than hearing a pre-packaged campaign speech. The focus became the constituents and not the candidate. It was very ‘un-politician’ like.

There was time for about five questions to which Mr. Rohrer provided detailed answers. Question topics were nullification, elimination of property taxes, gun rights and the fire arms database, jobs, and sin taxes. I know that Sam Rohrer is a fiscal conservative legislator and I had heard that he was a strict Constitutionalist, but there is no substitute for ‘hearing it from the horses mouth’ and I was not disappointed.

Sam Rohrer provided answers that were absolutely spot-on. His vision for Pennsylvania was clear and unwavering. He made decisive statements like “I will not sign a tax increase bill in order to balance the budget . . . and I will not borrow”. He believes that “the tax dollars that come to Harrisburg are private property”, which supports the idea that taxpayers should control the government and not politicians and special interests.

This was a rare opportunity for Mercer Countians to have direct interaction with a Gubernatorial candidate. Attendance was less than 100, but those that were chose to attend were genuinely interested and concerned about Pennsylvania’s future. There were a few exceptions of course. Mercer County GOP Committee Chairman, Dave King, was on hand to welcome Mr. Rohrer to Mercer County. Dr. King’s attendance was surprising knowing what the GOP establishment thinks of ‘non-endorsed’ candidates. It should be noted that no other Republican state legislators chose to welcome Mr. Rohrer to Mercer County. Senator Robbins, Representative Brooks and Representative Stevenson did not feel that the event was worth their time. Shame on them . . . but do they ever show up to an event where they would be overshadowed?

I had an interesting conversation with Dr. King while we were waiting for the event to begin, and it is worth mentioning. I made a simple statement to Dr. King that “Sam Rohrer is a good guy”. Dr. King felt it necessary to correct me by stating “he is a good REPUBLICAN”. I responded with “no, he is a good CONSERVATIVE . . . not all Republicans are good Conservatives . . . and not all good Conservatives are Republicans”. We then went on to discuss very briefly the problem that not all “conservatives” are embraced by the Republican Party and Dr. King stressed that the problem seemed like an isolated incident involving only ONE individual . . . me. Well, Dr. King, I seem to meet more and more people like me every day. Perhaps Dr. King should have attended the Tea Party earlier in the day where he could have talked to hundreds of people just like me . . . but he did not.

Unfortunately for you, Dr. King, 2010 is the year that conservatives are going to stand up to the GOP establishment and make a statement. Endorsed candidates are no longer a ‘shoe in’, and many of us are seeing endorsements as the ‘kiss of death’ for a candidate as it ties them to the ‘elephant in the room’ . . . the self-serving GOP establishment. It is time that Dr. King wake up and realize that Tea Partiers, Independents, and disgruntled Republicans have become a force to recon with, and if the GOP doesn’t soon recognize that it will eventually go the way of the Dodo bird . . . perhaps sooner than later.

In closing, I’d like to thank Sam Rohrer for taking the time to stop in and visit good ol’ Mercer County. I’d also like to thank the event organizers for taking the time and effort to make certain the Mercer County is not a forgotten county in this election. Sam Rohrer’s interest in our area helps to put us on the map.

.

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

Written by Roberta Biros

The Mercer County TEA Party last year (July 4th) was amazing. The weather was perfect and the crowd was large. Today’s TEA Party on the court house lawn had additional hurdles of threats of rain and chilly temperatures, but attendance was even higher than last year!

Estimates for attendance ranged around 750 (last year’s estimates were about 500). The crowd was polite and orderly yet invigorated and motivated.

There were some folks that obviously didn’t belong, but they were tolerated. I managed to snap a photo of one ‘fake tea partier’ at the event. The event planners had decided that we would highlight fake tea partiers with small signs and we’d attempt to document the intruders with cell phone cameras. The example below was actually a two-for-one special. It exposed the obvious fake tea partier in the center of the photo, but it also exposed the yard sign for another fake tea partier (that was also in attendance) in the bottom left hand corner of the photo. In a single word, “Priceless”.

I’d like to caption the above photo as “where is The Herald when you need them?”

Mark your calendars now, as the next TEA Party in Mercer County is scheduled for July 3rd . . . rain or shine!

.

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

Senator Bob Robbins, Representative Michele Brooks, Representative Mark Longietti, and Representative Dick Stevenson hide and duck from important questions

Written by Roberta Biros

In a recent radio interview it was noted that I have a “big thing” with transparency, and that was no exaggeration. Those that know me also know that I am obsessed with the issue of transparency in government and public service . . . so much so that I am now running my second campaign on that very issue [read HERE].

Yes, this post is long (I know that fellow blogger Fred Mullner groaned when he saw it), but it includes details from research that has been going on for well over a month.

Notes from the Pennsylvania Leadership Conference

Last weekend I attended the annual Pennsylvania Leadership Conference in Harrisburg. The meeting brings together deep thinking conservatives to discuss topics of concern. Each year there are top issues of conversation like the budget and fiscal responsibility and there is always a great deal of conversation about politics and upcoming elections. This year there was one panel discussion that was worth the entire cost of admission . . . Beyond Corruption: Transparency, Accountability & Reform.

The panel was moderated by Chris Freind, Columnist. I scheduled my day around this particular presentation and Mr. Freind’s opening comments did not disappoint. First, Mr. Freind referred to some politicians as the “business as usual crowd” and he made reference to their desire to “hide and duck” tough and probing questions. However, I was most intrigued when Mr. Freind referenced the recent BonusGate scandals involving Vion (and now Orie) [read more HERE]. Mr. Freind pointed out that some political insiders have stated that some of the investigations are “politically motivated”. Mr. Freind stated “The question is not whether it is politically driven . . . the question is ‘is it true’”. The most amazing part about Mr. Friend’s comment is that I spoke the words aloud with him. These are the exact same things that I’ve been saying for quite some time and it was refreshing to hear a panel discussion begin on that note.

The presentation continued on for about an hour and included presentations by Joe Sterns (Citizens Alliance of PA), Curt Schroder (State Representative), Lyndsay O’Herrick (Citizen Activist), and Doug Reichley (State Representative). The details and discussions were too numerous to mention, but the entire conversation was invigorating. I left prepared to push harder for transparency because I knew that I was not alone in my quest.

I left with another specific quote that is worth repeating. This one was from Lyndsay O’Herrick who stated “Corruption is the conscious act of sustaining the status quo at the expense of future generations.” Gosh . . . that’s all really good stuff!

Corruption vs. Transparency in Mercer County: My Investigation

As most of you know, I’ve spent a great deal of time over the past year and a half asking questions of our legislators. Sometimes they answer, and sometimes they don’t. My recent line of questioning of our state lawmakers has left my phone and email empty, but I refuse to let this sleeping dog lie . . . it just isn’t my style. So, allow me to explain what I’ve been up to for the past several weeks as follows:

On Sunday, March 21, 2010, I sent an email message to the taxpayer funded email accounts of our four state legislators (Robbins, Brooks, Longietti, and Stevenson). The email message was titled “”harder” questions regarding the use of your staff”. The email message was a follow up to the earlier message regarding my concerns (and the concerns of others) regarding inappropriate use of legislative staff and resources for campaign activities. In the message I reiterated a number of questions that had been published in The Herald. The questions were very specific and I requested answers in writing by March 31st as a matter of transparency. ALL FOUR FAILED TO RESPOND.

On Monday, April 5, 2010, I sent a letter to the editor of The Herald regarding their lack of response. That letter was published on April 9th.

On Tuesday, April 6, 2010, I contacted all four legislators by fax. This time it was in response to the announced that State Senator Jane Orie was too be indicted on misuse of legislative staff for her sister’s campaign in 2009. As the third ranking Republican in the State Senate (just two notches above Senator Robbins), the news of her indictment hit unpleasantly close to the questions that I had asked each of the legislators. So, I asked the questions again. I stressed that the lack of transparency regarding this issue created a perception of corruption even if no actual corruption exists. I further noted that continued failure to avoid these very direct and specific questions makes many of us wonder what it is that they are trying to hide? ALL FOUR FAILED TO RESPOND.

On Tuesday, April 13, 2010, I contacted all four legislators again by fax. I repeated the same list of questions and noted the following:

On Friday, April 16, 2010, I began calling the offices of our legislators. First on my list was Senator Bob Robbins. I called Senator Robbin’s office and explained that I had sent numerous email messages and faxes to the Senator and had received no response. I was told that I would need to schedule an appointment with the Senator and that process could take 2 to 3 weeks. It was explained to me that Senator Robbins spends 3 days each and every week in Harrisburg and he finds it difficult to find time in his schedule to meet with constituents. I wanted to say “don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining”, but I contained myself and asked that someone call me back to schedule an appointment.

The next call went to the office of Representative Mark Longietti. I explained who I was and why I was calling. After a few minutes on hold I was transferred to Representative Longietti. Representative Longietti stated that he was aware of my attempted communications and that he considers me to be a “media outlet” and he chooses not to correspond with my particular “media outlet”. He stated that he did not wish to contribute to my blog. I asked if my being a taxpayer provided me the right to answers, and Representative Longietti simply repeated his earlier statements. I thanked him for his time. All I can say is “at least he took my call”.

The third call went to the office of Representative Michele Brooks. I received an answering machine and left a detailed message as instructed. I then called again about an hour and a half later. I explained who I was and why I was calling. I was put on hold for several minutes. When the phone was picked up I was told that Representative Brooks was no longer available for the day and that they would giver her my message on Monday. Hmmmm. Interesting.

I did not bother to call Representative Dick Stevenson as I could see that this exercise was becoming a waste of time.

As of today, April 22, 2010, ALL FOUR FAILED TO RESPOND.

The Probing Questions?

Based on the lack of responses, you would think that the questions that I was asking were “way outside the box”. Well, allow me to review them with you here. They came from a list that was presented in an AP article [read HERE]. The questions that I forwarded were regarding campaign policies and the tracking of work by their staff; use of their legislative staff including caucus staff, bonuses, and over-time work; taxpayer paid mailings; and per-diems (and possible double-dipping related to those per-diems).

The questions were not beyond the scope of what should be open topics of conversation . . . unless there is something to hide.

Why are you pressing this issue so hard?

It is apparent that if we leave the “hen house unguarded”, the fox and the rooster will worry about no one but themselves. That is the case with many of those in our current state legislature . . . and we have four examples of that in Mercer County. If WE the taxpayers don’t hold our elected officials accountable, they won’t do it on their own. It is our responsibility to “keep them honest” (which assumes that they were honest in the first place, but I digress).

I had a discussion with a colleague over the weekend and he pointed out how blurry the lines between legislative staff and campaign staff have become. He noted a recent experience where he was approached for campaign purposes by a member of a local legislative staff. His radar went up and he noted “how can you tell if they are on taxpayer time or free time?”. Even if it is after hours, how do our legislators track the time. When we are having a conversation with a legislative employee, how do we know if WE are paying for the conversation or not?

Allow me to explain the problem that exists with a photo. The picture is posted in a public on-line forum at the website of the Mercer County GOP. They display the photo proudly and think nothing of the problems that it might illustrate. First, here is a screen shot of the website (before the details mysteriously disappear):

Here is a close up of the photo in question along with the published caption.

While this photo may not mean much to anyone outside of Mercer County, I’d like to describe why it is so disturbing. The photo is of State Senator Bob Robbins having a conversation with Diane Helbig. It is clear that Diane Helbig is campaigning for Representative Michele Brooks (the blue and fluorescent logo is hard to miss). However, for those of you that aren’t aware of the details, Ms. Helbig is also Representative Michele Brooks “Legislative Assistant” (I hope I got the exact title right . . . it is usually displayed on an ID tag that she wears at official events).

So when you look at the picture, do you wonder . . .

“Is Ms. Helbig discussing State business or campaign business?”

“Is she campaigning or is she filling some official capacity?”

“Is she on unpaid/donated time or is she somehow being compensated by the taxpayers (either directly or through bonuses or extra compensation)?”

“Is Ms. Helbig doing this voluntarily or is she pressured to do this type of work by her employer, Representative Brooks?”

My point in all of this is, why do we even need to ask the questions? Do our legislators not have enough friends and supporters that they must use legislative staff to fill their campaign needs? Can our elected officials not find enough loyal volunteers that they need to take taxpayer-paid employees to parades and fairs? If they are so comfortable with situations like the ones pictured above, what else do they do that might cross the line?

I don’t propose that we babysit our legislators and their staff. Instead, I demand that they change the laws so that these sort of questions are unnecessary. I made a proposal in a previous post and I’d like to repeat it here . . .

The solution is simple. The staff of elected officials should NOT be involved in partisan political activity of any kind. PERIOD. The Hatch Act of 1939 prohibits federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity. This same concept should be implemented at every level of government. Legislative staff (as well as County and Local) should not be permitted to be involved in any political activity (on taxpayer time or on their own time). For more information about his concept, please read the on-line article titled “Politically Uncorrected : IF MEN WERE ANGELS” which is available for on-line review HERE.

In Closing . . .

It is obvious that our legislators don’t want to have this conversation with us (the taxpayers), but is it really their choice?

As always, just my opinion.

~Mercer County Conservatives

.

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

PRESS RELEASE

Ms. Biros, a small business owner, describes herself as a concerned citizen. She has been actively involved in issues of political and legislative activism through her blog, Mercer County Conservatives. Ms. Biros has published her Platform for Good Government on her campaign website at ElectBiros.com. In it she stresses her platform priorities and concerns as public service; transparency and accountability; fiscal responsibility; and limited government.

Ms. Biros stated, “Voters need a choice in every election, and 2010 is more important than ever. Taxpayers have had enough of career politicians who are more concerned with their careers than with the constituents in their district. As a firm supporter of term limits, it is my opinion that it is time for Senator Robbins to move on. Instead, Senator Robbins has concentrated his efforts on voting for pay raises for politicians, protecting cost of living adjustments for lawmakers, and hiding from his constituents and the press. The time has come for taxpayers to stand up to self-serving politicians and let them know that they work for us.”

Ms. Biros stresses that “as a high-ranking leader in the State Senate, Mr. Robbins should be working to correct the problems in Pennsylvania. Instead, Mr. Robbins has only been concerned with bringing ‘pork’ back to the District as a tool for re-election. Unfortunately, ‘pork’ is part of the problem. We need a fiscal conservative in the State Senate that will work to cut spending, decrease the tax burden on individuals and small businesses, and turn the State government around. I am that person. I feel it is my responsibility to offer the voters of the 50th district an independent voice in Harrisburg.”

When asked about the challenges of gaining access to the November ballot, Ms. Biros stated “I’m confident that we will gather far more signatures than are required. We already began the process of gathering signatures and our sampling of constituents has been very positive. Concerned citizens realize that the only way to fix the problem in Harrisburg is to purge the General Assembly of dead weight . . . and Senator Robbins is a perfect example of that dead weight.” She added “we realize that our campaign will meet with immediate challenges from political insiders in the District and we anticipate that our nomination papers will be challenged in August, but we are confident that we will be successful in pushing past the corrupt circle of political incumbents and their legal teams. We are motivated and the people of the 50th district are motivated. We will not be prevented from our right to a fair election. 2010 will be the year that the people of Pennsylvania and the United States of America make a statement and take their country back. A move to fresh ideas and a fresh face in the 50th district will be an important part of that movement.”

Ms. Biros will begin the task of collecting signatures this week and she anticipates that her message, which reaches across all party lines, will resonate with the people of the area during the petition process and well into November.

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

Written by Roberta Biros

I just spent a few very long but glorious days totally consumed in conservative politics and I feel refreshed. I attended the PA Leadership Conference in Harrisburg PA, and I returned home yesterday afternoon buzzing with ideas, energy, and excitement. If you are a conservative political geek (like myself), there is no where that you would rather be on a beautiful spring weekend than the Sheraton Four Points in Harrisburg. You would think that “conservative political geeks” would be hard to find, but that is apparently not the case. There were hundreds of us that showed up for the annual extravaganza.

The conference schedule was impressive, and the list of speakers and panelists was even more so. The list of names was a virtual who’s who of conservative politics. Names like Phyllis Schlafly, Dick Morris, Pat Toomey, and Kellyanne Conway topped the list of over 40 contributors who provided details, guidance, and inspiration during the two-day event.

Highlights?

The highlights of the conference were many, but I’d like to mention a few of the most interesting (from my personal perspective, of course).

Campaign Workshop, Version 2.0

Campaign School returned to the PA Leadership Conference again this year. It was slightly different than last year which provided some fresh material and additional conversation. The workshop is a great experience if you have any intention of running for office, and the standing room only crowd proves that it is a much needed service. I found the experience invaluable last year, and I’m hopeful that the refresher course will help me in the upcoming months as well (more on this soon).

Panel Discussion: State Spending: Going for Broke

As a fiscal conservative I’m always drawn to issues of dollars and cents, and this panel discussion did not disappoint. A very valuable contributor was Kathryn Klaber of Marcellus Shale Coalition. She provided information on an extremely pertinent topic. I offer a “Thumbs Up” for the inclusion of this topic in this year’s agenda.

Panel Discussion: Beyond Corruption: Transparency, Accountability & Reform

As a proponent of Good Government, transparency and accountability are at the top of my list of hot topics. This particular discussion had me taking notes and it will require a blog post of its own in the coming days as it brought up some very important points that are worth sharing.

Lowlights?

There were no lowlights. It was a class act from start to finish.

In Closing . . .

I am officially a “fan” of the PA Leadership Conference (Facebook link). This was only my second year to attend, and I have every intention of marking my calendar for next year. The format of the conference is such that you absorb valuable details and interesting topics, but you also get to share information with others.

The conference offers a networking opportunity unlike any other, and as a serious reformer I feel a responsibility to attend. It is for that reason that I would like to applaud the conservative elected officials that took the time to take part in the conference too. Rep. Curt Schroder, Rep. Doug Reichley, Rep. Mike Turzai, Rep. Todd Rock, Sen. John Eichelberger, and Sen. Jeff Piccola were all speakers or panelists. I also spotted Rep. Rosemary Swanger as an attendee again this year. I applaud these lawmakers for taking the time to mix and mingle with concerned citizens (and political geeks).

At this point in our political history, you are either a part of the problem or you are a part of the solution. The people that took the time to attend the PA Leadership Conference are definitely part of the solution, and I was proud to be a part of it.

As always, just my opinion.
~Mercer Conservatives

BTW . . . I’d like to offer a shout out to my friends (old and new alike) that I was able to catch up with at the conference. I was able to finally meet with some colleagues that I’ve been corresponding with on-line for months, and I was able to gather with fellow bloggers and their friends to form our own “super political geek conference”. It was “all good”.

.

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

Written by Roberta Biros

On March 29th I published the first in a series of several grades for lawmakers. The grading system is called the Mercer Conservatives Index (the Index) and it is a basic grading system designed to compare and rate candidates, elected officials, bills, etc. on a simple scale of fiscal conservatism and public service.

In the first set of grades that were determined, I compared all of the state lawmakers that represent Mercer County. Senator Bob Robbins, Representative Michele Brooks, Representative Dick Stevenson, and Representative Mark Longietti were all graded in 10 categories and final results and grades were published for each.

Below are the results for the State Legislators that represent Mercer County. An individual article was published for each as follows:

Senator Bob Robbins
Representative Michele Brooks
Representative Mark Longietti
Representative Dick Stevenson

The 3rd Congressional District — Candidates and Incumbent

I’ve been busy compiling a comparison for the 2010 race for Congress in the 3rd Congressional District. The race will put current incumbent, Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper against one of 6 Republican challengers. In an effort to provide guidance to my readers, I’ve graded all of the individuals involved in this race. I first graded Mrs. Dahlkemper (read HERE). She received a flat out F. I’ve since compared the 6 Republican candidates that want to challenge Mrs. Dahlkemper in the fall.

The summary results of my analysis are listed below:

Here is an overview of my findings:

#1 Steve Fisher

After analyzing all of the candidates in all categories and tallying the results, my findings show that Steve Fisher was the highest rated candidate in my comparison. The totals for the top three vote getters were very close. Steve Fisher, Clayton Grabb, and Paul Huber rated VERY high in all categories. Steve Fisher ended up at the top of the pile because of his perfect grades in the area of Transparency, Accountability, and Public Service. In my analysis of the candidates, Steve Fisher was the ONLY candidate that responded to my initial query immediately.

My original query went out by email on 3/4/2010 at 1:24pm. At 1:34pm Mr. Fisher emailed me personally to touch base. At 3:07pm on that same day, Mr. Fisher provided full written answers to all of my questions and provided me the OK to publish those responses in my blog. He was thorough, he was expedient, and he was charming in the process. He answered my questions completely and IN WRITING (which is unheard of by most politicians). Most importantly, the answers to his questions made me want him to be my Congressman.

If I were a registered Republican, I would vote for him in the Primary. Unfortunately, as an Independent my vote doesn’t count in the Primary, so I’ll need to wait until November to cast my vote for Steve Fisher.

#2 Clayton Grabb

Clayton Grabb is a very strong candidate and he was #2 in my ranking. He scored lower than Steve Fisher only in the areas of Transparency and Public Service. Clayton Grabb did answer my questions when I asked him personally, and his answers were spot on. He did not, however, respond to my original written query and he never answered in writing. I had no choice but to score Steve Fisher higher due to this significant difference.

Clayton Grabb has many wonderful qualities, and I would be proud to support him against Congresswoman Dahlkemper should he win the Primary in May.

#3 Paul Huber

Paul Huber is a very intelligent and strong candidate. Only 4 points from the top score, Mr. Huber scored well across the board, but he was simply not as transparent and responsive as Steve Fisher. Mr. Huber is extremely smart, but he lacks a scrappy-ness (yes that is made up) that some voters are looking for right now. I fear that Mr. Huber may appear too “low-energy” to some people on a first impression. If you get an opportunity to talk to him personally, he is a great guy, but first impressions mean a lot.

Paul Huber is a strong and qualified candidate, and I would be proud to support him against Congresswoman Dahlkemper should he win the Primary in May.

#4 Mike Kelly

Mike Kelly ended up only a few points off of Paul Huber. While scoring very high in most categories, I am concerned about Kelly’s tough-guy image. He appears too rough and mean at times. I realize that we might need someone like that in Washington DC right now, but I’m not sure that many voters can embrace him. Additionally, Kelly scored lower than Fisher, Grabb, and Huber due to his inability to answer some questions completely. His score of a 3 in Transparency hurt his overall score.

#5 Ed Franz

I really like Ed Franz. He is a nice guy, and I could see sitting down to have a beer with him. The problem is that I don’t drink. Ed’s charm is that he is a blue-collar guy with really good intentions. While I admire his desire to “serve”, I can’t see him as my Congressman. It is my opinion that Ed Franz overshot his mark in this race. He would have been a wonderful pick for State Representative or State Senator, as those positions require that you really be involved with the locals. In a state position, you are involved with more hands-on work with your constituents, and Ed would have been perfect in that arena. He could go into a crowd of folks in Greenville and charm everyone in the room. Unfortunately, Ed didn’t want to go against the grain and challenge the current incumbents from his own party. Senator Robbins and Representative Brooks would have had their hands full with Mr. Franz. Unfortunately, in the race for Congress, Mr. Franz is outmatched by some of his opponents. I’m sorry Ed.

#6 Martha Moore

Dr. Moore seems like a very passionate individual. She is a patriot and she loves Ronald Reagan (so I have to like her). Unfortunately, Martha Moore has way too much competition in this race. If no Republican’s had stepped forward to run against Mrs. Dahlkemper, I think Martha Moore would have had a great chance of beating Kathy in November, but the fact is that there are a number of very qualified candidates to choose from . . . Martha Moore is lost in the dust.

In Closing . . .

I’ve tried to be fair in my anaylsis, and I’ve adapted my numbers in each category as I’ve had additional time to talk to the candidates in more detail. In general, I feel that the race in the 3rd Congressional District is down to three primary candidates. Steve Fisher, Clayton Grabb, and Paul Huber are all very strong candidates. Each one is very different in personality, and each offers a different style that is very appealing. If I can summarize,

Steve Fisher is both friendly and compassionate. He has the ability to summarize information and make decisions quickly and with great ease. He is a quick thinker . . . he is a smart thinker . . . but he is not overly analytical or disconnected from who he is or who he will represent. He is a natural.

Clayton Grabb is very passionate, and his passion is contagious. I’ve used his quotes more than a half-a-dozen times over the past week alone. [I’ll be wear out his “If not me, who? If not now, when?” reference quickly.] His involvement in this race will put the power of the Tea Party to the test, and it will be an interesting experiment.

Paul Huber is the sharpest knife in the drawer. He has proven his analytical abilities and he has demonstrated his commitment to the race. He is somewhat sterile, but this might appeal to some voters. He lacks some of the passion that Fisher and Grabb demonstrate, but he is driven and focused on beating Congresswoman Dahlkemper in November.

As always, just my opinion.
~Mercer Conservatives

.

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

Written by Roberta Biros

Wednesday, April 7, 7PM was the tip off for yet another “Meet the Candidate” night in Sharon. The meeting, which was hosted by the Pennsylvania Patriots in Action, was a gathering of all non-incumbent candidates that are vying for the Congressional Seats in the 3rd and 4th Districts. The event attracted a sizeable crowd that was a virtual “who’s who” in Mercer County politics.

The current office holders, Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper and Congressman Jason Altmire, were not present but they were still the main topics of conversation. Interestly enough, Congresswoman Dahlkemper was represented by a mole in the crowd . . . a member of her staff from the Hermitage office was hiding in the hall (and undoubtedly taking notes). The candidates each took the opportunity to explain why they would be the best choice to replace Dahlkemper and Altmire, and many of the more heated comments were pointed directly toward the incumbents (no shock).

I will outline my observations from the event below. PLEASE understand that I am trying to be as fair and unbiased as is possible, but this is a BLOG. I will offer my own spin on the events of the evening and I will interject my personal opinions and summaries where I see fit. Sorry, but those are the rules.

4th Congressional District

Mary Beth Buchanan and Keith Rothfus were on hand to battle for the Republican nomination for the 4th District against Altmire. I’ve met both candidates once before and I enjoyed another opportunity to hear them speak. I was pleasantly surprised, however, that an Independent candidate, John Vinsick, also surfaced at the event. Vinsick of Aliquippa was a highlight of the evening as he shot from the hip and added a bit of spice to the conversation.

Mary Beth Buchanan is a strong and spirited candidate who carries herself well in the debate style environment. She more than held her own and didn’t back down to some obvious shots that were sent in her direction. She focused on her platform of limited government, pro-life, and pro-2nd Amendment. She is extremely intelligent and very likeable. She makes me wish I was in the 4th Congressional District. For more information about Ms. Buchanan, you can visit her website at MaryBethBuchanan.org.

Keith Rothfus is an analytical individual with great ideas. He is a family man with 6 children who is running on a platform of limited government, lower taxes, repeal of ObamaCare, and traditional family values. Mr. Rothfus offered one of my favorite quotes for the evening when he stated that the first legislation that he would offer would be the “Restoring Edison Light Bulb Act”. He is a common-sense sort of guy with great ideas. For more information about Mr. Rothfus, you can visit his website at http://www.keithpa4.com/.

John Vinsick, the Independent candidate, was a treasure. His campaign slogan of “the will of the people must preside over the will of the politician” explains that his platform is anti-politics and pro-citizen. Mr. Vinsick will have an uphill battle in collecting the 3,731 signatures that will be required to get his name on the ballot, but he is optimistic about the process and he is even more optimistic about his chances in November. While he received some negative comments from hard-core Rs in the crowd (for threatening their Party), Mr. Vinsick hit home with a number of key points that were met with supportive applause. For more information about Mr. Vinsick, you can visit his website at http://www.johnvinsickforcongress.com/.

3rd Congressional District

For the 3rd District, Republican candidates Paul Huber, Steve Fisher, Clayton Grabb, Ed Franz, and Martha Moore were on hand. Mike Kelly was out of town and was not represented. The order of the six-minute presentations was based on a draw from a hat, and the speeches by 3rd and 4th District candidates were mixed together. Up first for the 3rd District was Clayton Grabb.

Clayton Grabb never fails to inspire me when he speaks. He is a conservative who is proud of his Tea Party activities, and his presentations are always geared toward the more “independent thinking” (that’s me). He made a reference that struck a chord with me when he explained his reason for running as “If not me, who? If not now, when?” (NOTE: I’ll be using that quote as my own soon). Mr. Grabb speaks from the heart and is passionate about his country. For more information about Mr. Grabb, you can visit his website at http://www.grabbforcongress.com/.

Ed Franz is “just Ed”. Ed has a blue-collar/guy-next-door quality about him, and the people that support him like for exactly that reason. His platform is based on social conservatism, fiscal conservatism, and pro-life stands. He made a good point when he stated “this election year it’s government versus the taxpayers”. That simple statement summarized all of the political dancing that is going on in a few simple words. Mr. Franz pointed out that he feels that he is the best candidate to beat Dahlkemper in November because of his labor ties to Erie. For more information about Mr. Franz, you can visit his website at http://www.edfranzforcongress.com/.

Paul Huber, a fiscal conservative, took the opportunity to layout his plans for fiscal reform. He made the point that “all of the (government) spending is being put on a credit card”, and he explained his plan for freeing the taxpayers from that problem. He stressed that he was “born and raised on a farm and raised on values of honesty and hard work”. His presentation was analytical, but he manages to deliver his statistics with a personal touch that gives the distinct impression that his concerns are heart-felt. He closed his presentation with a statement that I liked . . . “when people find the courage, they can change anything” (NOTE: I’ll be using that quote as my own soon). For more information about Mr. Huber, you can visit his website at http://www.huberforcongress.com/.

Steve Fisher makes me smile. He is the perfect blend of intellectual, analytical, and personable. He is detail and fact oriented, but he connects with people on a personal level when he speaks. This is even more obvious if you get an opportunity to talk with Steve one-on-one. Mr. Fisher opened his discussion with an explanation of why he was running for Congress. He made reference to a quote “if you don’t want to be a part of the menu, you better take a seat at the table” (NOTE: I’ll be using that quote as my own soon). He went on to explain that his first goal in Congress would be to repeal the Health Care Bill . . . which met with positive feedback from the crowd. His experience in the insurance industry gives him a different perspective on the health care situation and offers a special value that should not be overlooked. For more information about Mr. Fisher, you can visit his website at http://www.stevefisherforcongress.com/.

Martha Moore continues to amaze me. As a country doctor from Stoneboro, she is not the typical candidate. She is outmatched in many ways by her fellow Republicans on the ticket, but she continues to show up . . . she continues to express her patriotism . . . she continues to quote Reagan . . . and she is beginning to gather a following. I had a great seat in the very back of the room and I was able to gauge the reactions of the crowd to each of the speakers. Dr. Moore got lots of nods and “I like her” comments from many of the women in the crowd. She began her comments with a simple quote that explained why she was running for office. She said “three words . . . enough is enough”. She is a concerned patriot that is running for office in an effort to stress the issues that are important to her. I give her credit for her courage and commitment. For more information about Dr. Moore, you can visit her website at http://www.moore4congress.com/.

Mike Kelly was unable to attend the event and there was no spokesperson available to speak on his behalf. For more information about Mr. Kelly, you can visit his website at http://www.mikekellyforcongress.com/.

In Closing . . .

I’d like to extend thanks to the Pennsylvania Patriots in Action for organizing the event. It was informational, but it also gives concerned citizens the opportunity to look into the eyes of the candidates to get a personal perspective of who they are.

I’ve been to several events, and I suppose that might seem unusual to some people. However, it is important to get to know the people that may soon be representing you. I make an effort to go to as many events by elected officials and candidates as possible. I do so to gain an understanding of them, and I do so in an effort to share information with those people that can’t be there themselves. I hope that my brief summaries give you a feel for the individuals, but I also hope that it encourages you to take a look for yourself.

I will begin publishing event announcements (as they are given to me) for all of the candidates listed above. If you are a candidate (or work for a candidate) and you would like your event posted here, email me with the details and I’ll do what I can.

I’ve been waiting to publish my results from the Mercer Conservatives Index regarding the candidates from the 3rd Congressional District. I’ve been continuing to gather information and my final scores have been in flux. I’ve already published my results for Congresswoman Dahlkemper (F) as well as the four state legistlators that represent Mercer County [Senator Robbins (F), Representative Brooks (B), Representative Longietti (C), and Representative Stevenson (D)]. It is my intention to put the finishing touches on my summaries by the end of this coming weekend. Please be patient and keep an eye on this site for the final publication.

As always, just my opinion.
~Mercer Conservatives

.

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