WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.
I might live in Montco, but Tania and Denny and Mike Morrison live inside city limits.
The city is a broke Democratic Party embarrassment. Give it to New Jersey or back to the English.
Comments, compliments or complaints?
Governor Christie:
Political courage.
That is the description you have earned as Governor. And for good reason.
You have successfully confronted the most powerful special interests in the state, sending a message that there are no sacred cows. In doing so, to the pleasant surprise of millions, the entrenched “business as usual” crowd is finally on the run.
In that regard, I want to discuss what is perhaps the most patronage-laden and inefficient entity in the state — the Delaware River Port Authority.
As you are aware, the contract of Authority Chief Executive John Matheussen expired July 17. While he is still functioning month-to-month as the CEO, his future rests with you.
There has been much coverage devoted to the largesse of the DRPA, specifically the $400 million in “economic development” funds that were spent on everything under the sun — except the bridges — leading to massive debt and rising tolls.
In addition to the misuse of the people’s money, there are a number of other factors to consider when deciding whether Mr. Matheussen’s contract should be renewed by the Board and approved by you.
Following are several examples of John Matheussen’s failed leadership:
1) Permitted Immense Conflicts Of Interest
Without question, Matheussen’s greatest failing is his toleration of the unfettered conflicts of interest that permeate the DRPA Board.
Upon assuming office in 2002, Governor Rendell appointed himself Chairman of the DRPA. One of the major beneficiaries has been his former firm, Ballard Spahr. In the three years preceding Rendell’s election, Ballard received $25,000 in legal fees from the Port Authority, including only $480 in 2001. From 2002 until the 2009, Ballard has received over $2.7 million.
Ballard, its attorneys and associated entities have contributed $1.5 million to Rendell’s campaigns.
Two of the governor’s former top aides, John Estey, his former chief of staff and Adrian King, his former deputy chief of staff, are currently partners at Ballard, and both hold or have held influential positions related to DRPA.
Estey has chaired virtually every Board meeting since 2002, and Mr. King served as the Authority’s Outside Counsel. Mr. Estey and Mr. King are brothers-in-law, and together have contributed over $35,000 to Mr. Rendell’s political coffers.
Former Pennsylvania Treasurer Robin Wiessmann, who had been a Rendell appointee, sits on the DRPA Board. Her husband, Ken Jarin, also a partner at Ballard, served as DRPA Outside Counsel and occasionally chaired board meetings
Incomprehensibly, Matheussen never raised an eyebrow when Estey, King, Jarin, and Wiessmann voted to “accept and receive” Ballard’s legal bills to DRPA, since that action amounted to money going into their law firm’s pocket, and, ultimately their own.
As you know better than most, Governor, the toughest challenge of being a leader is to buck the crowd and do the right thing, no matter how difficult. But instead of illustrating that trait, John Matheussen was an instrumental part of the go-along, get along crowd — to the detriment of all but the insiders
2) The Campaign Finance Report Conflict Of DRPA Executive John Rogale ….
(Read More at Philadelphia Magazine: Comments welcome)
http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2010/07/21/its-time-to-clean-house-at-the-drpa/
Comments, compliments or complaints?
Lisa, Senator Leach writes:
The overwhelming majority of Pennsylvania’s legislators, on both sides of the aisle, are extremely smart, hard-working, completely honest people who are doing their level best to make Pennsylvania a better place.
The notion that legislators are, (except for rare exceptions) corrupt in any way is plain false. And thus any “reforms” based on this notion are ill-grounded.
I think taxpayers deserve the list of stupid, lazy, and dishonest legislators. Leach said they’re there. Don’t their constituents deserve to know who isn’t serving them?
Who is he covering for?
Comments, compliments or complaints?
Our discussion of hard-working, under-appreciated state legislators would be incomplete without acknowledging the tour-de-force column by State Senator Daylin Leach that appeared in many papers late last month. Some highlights:
First, let me concede that bashing the Legislature is effortless. Like any profession, we have our bad apples and it is lazy but easy to generalize their conduct to everyone. Further, because virtually every citizen is unhappy with some of our policy decisions, it’s not difficult for a candidate for governor or other office to glean votes by pandering to those who think that only people who are corrupt or stupid could make the decisions we make.
That said, it is important that the following also be said: The overwhelming majority of Pennsylvania’s legislators, on both sides of the aisle, are extremely smart, hard-working, completely honest people who are doing their level best to make Pennsylvania a better place.
The notion that legislators are, (except for rare exceptions) corrupt in any way is plain false. And thus any “reforms” based on this notion are ill-grounded.
The grand jury spent months investigating the criminal conduct of a few legislators. It is understandable that with this as their focus, they became cynical. They didn’t spend a great deal of time talking to the 99 percent of lawmakers not accused of a crime about what they do. Why would they?
But because the grand jury’s methodology was incomplete given its self-appointed role as the re-inventor of state government, its members’ factual findings were often inaccurate. And given that, the recommendations based upon those findings were, for the most part, ill-conceived.
An example of a sloppy factual assertion is that an “overwhelming majority” of legislators care more about serving themselves than serving their constituents.
There is no support offered for such a mind-reading claim and, after eight years as a legislator, I know it simply isn’t true.
They also say being a Pennsylvania legislator should not qualify as full-time work. Wrong again. Most legislators spend 70 to 80 hours per week, every week, at their jobs and still struggle to keep up.
Inaccurate information leads to poor recommendations. Sure, some of the technical suggestions, such as consolidating House printing offices, might have merit, but their broad policy suggestions would do great harm to our state if implemented.
For example, a part-time Legislature is a terrible idea. We make decisions affecting tens of billions of dollars in complicated policy areas such as transportation, health care, criminal justice and economic development. In some matters, such as abortion, the death penalty and access to medical care, our decisions literally have life and death consequences.
Do you really want people making these decisions who just dropped by on their way to taking a deposition or after their shift at Macy’s? Shouldn’t we demand our legislators actually take the time to read about issues, go to hearings, meet with advocates, tour facilities and do all of things that require a full-time commitment?
So selfless. So tireless. An inspiration to us all.
Comments, compliments or complaints?
Altogether now…. awwwwww…..
One of about every 20 bills introduced in the Legislature winds up as state law, according to state records.
Legislators introduced 4,461 bills in the 2007-08 session, and 213 became law.
The difficulty of getting a bill approved by both chambers is a double-edged sword, analysts say. While the low success rate might mean some good ideas never see the light of day, the process may ensure that enacted bills are comprehensive and fine-tuned, they say.
No matter how well-intentioned the campaign promises of a candidate might be, voters should remember the reality check waiting in Harrisburg, said Christopher Borick, a political science professor at Muhlenberg College in Allentown.
“For some of these (bills), it’s an annual rite,” Borick said.
Last session, Sen. Stewart Greenleaf, R-Montgomery County, introduced the most legislation, with 168 bills and resolutions; Rep. Nick Kotik, D-Coraopolis, introduced the fewest.
“A lot of the things that I contemplate running will never get brought up for vote,” said Kotik, who introduced only one piece of legislation during the last session, according to GovNetPA. “So I just view it as spinning wheels.”
That’s a feature.
Every stupid insidious invasive regulation or law was someone’s “good idea.”
These guys have to pass one bill a year. That’s it. The budget. Just the one. … and they can’t. Again and again and again and again (let’s make it eight in a row late this year).
Instead, they pass things like Milk & Ice Cream Appreciation Week and a Resolution Declaring that Mom and Apple Pie Are Great Things.
The budget.
The clock is ticking.
Comments, compliments or complaints?
Agents executed search warrants at the home and district office of a top Pennsylvania state senator as part of a federal investigation into allegations of illegal activity, an FBI official said Friday.
The search stems from a joint FBI-IRS investigation into Sen. Robert J. Mellow, FBI spokesman Frank Burton Jr. said.
A spokeswoman for Mellow, the Senate Democratic leader from Lackawanna County, said the office were not aware of an investigation before being informed Friday morning prior to agents’ arrival.
“Sen. Mellow is confident that in his 40 years serving northeastern Pennsylvania he’s done nothing wrong,” spokeswoman Lisa Scullin said.
Somewhat related, former Senator Mike Veon got six years for his role in Bonusgate.
Comments, compliments or complaints?
Congressmen Jason Altmire and Tim Murphy have previous engagements. Sen. Bob Casey Jr. and Rep. Mike Doyle are out of town on anniversary trips with their wives. Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato will be campaigning in Philadelphia.
When President Obama and Sen. Arlen Specter land at Pittsburgh International Airport today, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl will receive them by himself.
The rest of the region’s top elected officials declined White House invitations to attend Obama’s speech at Carnegie Mellon University this afternoon, their offices said.
Fun fact. “Joe Sestak” does not appear anywhere in the story.
No telling if he wasn’t invited or wasn’t interested.
Comments, compliments or complaints?
Benefield posts at the Commonwealth Foundation blog:
Yesterday, the Pennsylvania House approved legislation - HB 2399 – to allow the Commonwealth Financing Authority (CFA) to borrow and additional $50 to $100 million for additional “economic development projects.” Two other bills, HB 2394 and HB 2401 would redirect $60 million of CFA funds. All votes were along party lines, with only House Democrats voting for the measures.
Benefield also reminds us that PA spends a whole lot of money on “economic development” (i.e. corporate welfare) and yet we have very little to show for it.
Centrally planned economy struggles — who’da thunk it? Oh, wait.
To follow up on my question from yesterday, “Is our politicians learning?” — the answer is still “no”.
Really, House Dems? Really?!?
Good on the Republicans for opposing this one.
Comments, compliments or complaints?
Why does it seem that every time a politician takes on corruption, his motives are called into question?
We often hear that investigations of this sort are “politically motivated,” but rarely whether or not the charges are true.
Attorney General Tom Corbett is a good example.
Despite great success in rooting out legislative corruption — an investigation known as “Bonusgate,” — Corbett, the GOP gubernatorial candidate, continues to be accused of using his office for political gain.
Unfortunately, too many of the Attorney General’s critics fail to look at the facts before they open up with both barrels.
Bonusgate was not the brainchild of an ambitious man looking to generate headlines for a gubernatorial run, but an investigation dropped into his lap by a newspaper’s investigative reporting.
In fact, Bonusgate was investigated using the evidence as a guide, wherever it happened to lead. At first, that was the Democratic Caucus, where ten felony convictions have been achieved thus far.
Later, it was the Republican Caucus, where a host of GOP insiders have been indicted, including powerful former Speaker John Perzel.
Because of the investigation, Corbett has said he will take neither campaign donations nor endorsements from legislators.
So how alienating an entire legislative body, including members of your own Party who normally contribute over a million dollars to a gubernatorial candidate’s war chest, is politically beneficial, remains a mystery.
But the criticism continues unabated.
Corbett has come under more fire recently, this time for obtaining a grand jury subpoena against Twitter to ascertain the identity of an anonymous blogger who had repeatedly criticized the Bonusgate investigation.
The Attorney General believed that Brett Cott, a convicted Bonusgate defendant, was the mastermind behind the blog. And since Cott was scheduled for sentencing, it was Corbett’s intention to show that Cott lacked remorse for his crimes, and therefore deserved a long prison term.
Was Corbett within his legal right? Certainly.
Was it damaging to his political aspirations? Absolutely. Of this, there can be any doubt.
And that, in a very real sense, is what would make Tom Corbett an effective governor.
*****
A veteran of the political arena, Corbett knew the subpoena would unleash a torrent of negative press only five months before the election. Despite this, he chose to move ahead, and in the process, provided an insight into the type of governor he would be.
The easy road would have been to forget the subpoena. After all, Cott was already convicted, and that’s the only headline he needed to be perceived as successful.
But Corbett, a prosecutor to the end, made the decision to see the case through in the manner he deemed most appropriate —political repercussions be damned.
Whether or not one agrees with the Attorney General’s decision…..
Read the rest at Philadelphia Magazine’s Philly Post:
Comments, compliments or complaints?
Figured I’d link this for those interested in watching as they come in.
Here are the PA-12 Special election results.
Legislative special elections: 20th(Allegheny County), 138th(Northampton), 147th(Montgomery).
Statewide primaries(governor, lt. governor, U.S. Senate).
Republican state committee – may be an interesting write-in in this category 
Comments, compliments or complaints?
Think Before You Vote Today
As millions of Pennsylvanians head to the polls for today’s primary election, experts have noted that the electorate is restless, volatile, and even angry. They attribute this to unpopular spending policies and a backlash over ever-increasing taxes.
With so many people losing jobs, houses and retirement accounts, the level of interest in how the people’s business is conducted has reached record highs.
At the same time, the level of cynicism and mistrust is also off the charts.
Many activists have learned that challenging the establishment is a daunting task, leading some to become frustrated by the entrenched business-as-usual order that prevails.
As a result, there is a growing perception that most candidates are just more of the same, cleverly disguising themselves as reformers and agents of change to appeal to the electorate’s current mood.
And that’s not an unfounded perception.
All the candidates for U.S. Senate and governor have snappy television ads and slick mail pieces, and all promise virtually the same thing: more jobs, lower taxes and a reformed, more accountable government.
But since all of the candidates detailed below are current office holders, they are, by definition, part of the very establishment against which they campaign. So how do people know which ones to trust, and for whom to vote?
Trite as it sounds, people need to do their homework. Being busy at home, work and with children’s activities may be a way of life for many, but it’s simply no excuse to be ignorant.
And corrupt and lazy public officials exist on such voter ignorance.
Too many citizens either don’t vote, especially in primaries, or pull the lever merely because of a TV ad or yard sign.
Given the enormous problems that confront us, it’s time for voters to make better informed decisions.
Granted, there is no such thing as a perfect candidate, but if more than a precious few exercised the three “C’s” — common sense, core values and consistency — our government would be infinitely more efficient, and we might actually have a chance of turning the ship around before it plows into the iceberg.
As an Election Day primer, Freindly Fire cuts through the political spin to look at the not-so-well-known political baggage each candidate brings with him, with the hope that such knowledge will allow readers to make the best, most educated choice for Pennsylvania’s future as they head to the polls.
U.S. Senate
-Thirty-year incumbent U.S. Senator Arlen Specter, who has been defying the odds for much of his career, has to contend with the fallout stemming from his highly-publicized Party switch. The question is whether Democrats will follow the lead of President Obama and Governor Rendell in welcoming Specter into the Party, thankful for his decisive votes over the last year, or whether he will be booted from office because he is viewed as the ultimate political opportunist interested only in prolonging his own career.
Interestingly, Specter’s deciding vote on the stimulus plan — made as a Republican —was done so against the advice of trusted political advisors. Had he gone the safe route and voted with the GOP against the bill, he would have virtually assured himself no primary opponent (as he had also announced his opposition to the union-backed “Card Check” bill). So not only might the opportunism charge not stick, but Specter may, in fact, be rewarded for what he calls his most important vote of conscience.
-Joe Sestak has saturated the airwaves with commercials stating that Specter’s time has come and gone, with fresh blood needed in Washington. Running as an outsider, he has branded himself as an atypical politician. Yet his steadfast refusal to release records concerning his controversial departure as Deputy Chief Of Naval Operations, his paltry pay for campaign workers —while family members make thousands —, and his large number of missed votes have led to questions about his character, judgment, and integrity.
The problem Sestak faces is that, for the most part, people aren’t voting for him; instead, he must rely on “Specter fatigue” — voters coming out against the incumbent. If Sestak is viewed as just another politician, voters will choose the “devil they know.”
Governor (GOP)
-State Representative Sam Rohrer touts himself as a constitutional conservative while campaigning for fiscal responsibility and limited government. Yet on the most important issues to many in the GOP, Rohrer did the opposite of what he now preaches by voting for an unconstitutional payraise as well as hiking his own pension by 50%. And that pension vote is the largest contributing factor to the state’s pension crisis, which is the ticking time bomb awaiting the next governor when state pension payments jump eightfold in the next three years.
-Attorney General Tom Corbett is certainly the most believable candidate who talks about “reforming Harrisburg,” since his legislative corruption probe has netted ten felony convictions, as well as indictments of two former House Speakers — actions once thought unthinkable by many. But he is still dogged by charges from opponents that his investigations, as well as his lawsuit against Obamacare, are politically motivated.
Corbett’s most notable policy issue is his no-new-taxes pledge. While a sound policy, Corbett will be severely tested not to break it as the fiscal crisis grows to almost unmanageable proportions over the next Governor’s term. Such pledges prove popular at election time, but the corollary is unmistakable: break it at your own peril. One only has to look at how much free time President George H.W. Bush had after he uttered — and then broke —one of the most remembered pledges in political history: “Read my lip, no new taxes.”
Governor (Democrats)
Think Before You Vote Today
As millions of Pennsylvanians head to the polls for today’s primary election, experts have noted that the electorate is restless, volatile, and even angry. They attribute this to unpopular spending policies and a backlash over ever-increasing taxes.
With so many people losing jobs, houses and retirement accounts, the level of interest in how the people’s business is conducted has reached record highs.
At the same time, the level of cynicism and mistrust is also off the charts.
Many activists have learned that challenging the establishment is a daunting task, leading some to become frustrated by the entrenched business-as-usual order that prevails.
As a result, there is a growing perception that most candidates are just more of the same, cleverly disguising themselves as reformers and agents of change to appeal to the electorate’s current mood.
And that’s not an unfounded perception.
All the candidates for U.S. Senate and governor have snappy television ads and slick mail pieces, and all promise virtually the same thing: more jobs, lower taxes and a reformed, more accountable government.
But since all of the candidates detailed below are current office holders, they are, by definition, part of the very establishment against which they campaign. So how do people know which ones to trust, and for whom to vote?
Trite as it sounds, people need to do their homework. Being busy at home, work and with children’s activities may be a way of life for many, but it’s simply no excuse to be ignorant.
And corrupt and lazy public officials exist on such voter ignorance.
Too many citizens either don’t vote, especially in primaries, or pull the lever merely because of a TV ad or yard sign.
Given the enormous problems that confront us, it’s time for voters to make better informed decisions.
Granted, there is no such thing as a perfect candidate, but if more than a precious few exercised the three “C’s” — common sense, core values and consistency — our government would be infinitely more efficient, and we might actually have a chance of turning the ship around before it plows into the iceberg.
As an Election Day primer, Freindly Fire cuts through the political spin to look at the not-so-well-known political baggage each candidate brings with him, with the hope that such knowledge will allow readers to make the best, most educated choice for Pennsylvania’s future as they head to the polls.
U.S. Senate
-Thirty-year incumbent U.S. Senator Arlen Specter, who has been defying the odds for much of his career, has to contend with the fallout stemming from his highly-publicized Party switch. The question is whether Democrats will follow the lead of President Obama and Governor Rendell in welcoming Specter into the Party, thankful for his decisive votes over the last year, or whether he will be booted from office because he is viewed as the ultimate political opportunist interested only in prolonging his own career.
Interestingly, Specter’s deciding vote on the stimulus plan — made as a Republican —was done so against the advice of trusted political advisors. Had he gone the safe route and voted with the GOP against the bill, he would have virtually assured himself no primary opponent (as he had also announced his opposition to the union-backed “Card Check” bill). So not only might the opportunism charge not stick, but Specter may, in fact, be rewarded for what he calls his most important vote of conscience.
-Joe Sestak has saturated the airwaves with commercials stating that Specter’s time has come and gone, with fresh blood needed in Washington. Running as an outsider, he has branded himself as an atypical politician. Yet his steadfast refusal to release records concerning his controversial departure as Deputy Chief Of Naval Operations, his paltry pay for campaign workers —while family members make thousands —, and his large number of missed votes have led to questions about his character, judgment, and integrity.
The problem Sestak faces is that, for the most part, people aren’t voting for him; instead, he must rely on “Specter fatigue” — voters coming out against the incumbent. If Sestak is viewed as just another politician, voters will choose the “devil they know.”
Governor (GOP)
-State Representative Sam Rohrer touts himself as a constitutional conservative while campaigning for fiscal responsibility and limited government. Yet on the most important issues to many in the GOP, Rohrer did the opposite of what he now preaches by voting for an unconstitutional payraise as well as hiking his own pension by 50%. And that pension vote is the largest contributing factor to the state’s pension crisis, which is the ticking time bomb awaiting the next governor when state pension payments jump eightfold in the next three years.
-Attorney General Tom Corbett is certainly the most believable candidate who talks about “reforming Harrisburg,” since his legislative corruption probe has netted ten felony convictions, as well as indictments of two former House Speakers — actions once thought unthinkable by many. But he is still dogged by charges from opponents that his investigations, as well as his lawsuit against Obamacare, are politically motivated.
Corbett’s most notable policy issue is his no-new-taxes pledge. While a sound policy, Corbett will be severely tested not to break it as the fiscal crisis grows to almost unmanageable proportions over the next Governor’s term. Such pledges prove popular at election time, but the corollary is unmistakable: break it at your own peril. One only has to look at how much free time President George H.W. Bush had after he uttered — and then broke —one of the most remembered pledges in political history: “Read my lip, no new taxes.”
Governor (Democrats)….
Read the rest at Philly Magazine’s Philly Post….
http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2010/05/18/freindly-fires-voters-guide-to-election-day/
Comments, compliments or complaints?
Gov (Dem) – AMENDED (~11:20am): Wagner in a close one: He’s tapped the anti-Harrisburg bit. I was a little too off-the-cuff with that Wagner forecast. Onorato is killing in the latest Q-poll. I do think Wagner would have made a better general election challenger to Corbett though.
Gov (GOP) – Corbett : Pretty big. I think he gets over 70% of the vote. I’m voting for Corbett, though I really would have liked to have seen him come around on Right-to-Work and a less Harrisburg-centric economic plan.
Senate (Dem) – Sestak in mid-single digits. The “switch” ad can only be described as “devastating”. Watch the media spin: To those in the media who so recently cheered his break from the GOP, Specter will all of a sudden be just another slimy and cynical politician whose number finally came up.
Senate (GOP) – Toomey: I think Alex is slightly optimistic to say he’ll break 90%, but only slightly. Let’s say mid to upper 80s.
Lt Gov (GOP) – Cawley, narrowly: Herding cats is hard. Still planning to vote Johnson. There ARE eight candidates, and there’s a lot of anti-Cawley stuff in my mail from Beiler, so anything could happen.
CD 4, 8, 17, and 19 – No surprises (Buchanan, Fitzpatrick, Argall, and Platts), though I expect the spreads to be interestingly narrow in some cases. A “shot across the bow” to the party.
CD 10 – Madiera in low single digits – Mostly a gut call. He’s been very active online and is pretty on-message. (This would be an upset victory from where I sit.)
CD 12 GOP Primary – Burns in low double digits.
CD 12 Special – Too close to call. There’s a good chance this will be within 1%. The lawyers had better eat their Wheaties.
Breakdown of CD 12 Spec -
(I don’t trust the PPP poll as it was conducted on the weekend, giving a funky sample.)
Pro-Critz argument: The DCCC and SEIU are running every shamelessly dishonest ad they can think of. Unpopular as Democrats in Washington are, so are the Republicans. Burns also had to fight a (senseless) war on two fronts, fending off ridiculous charges that this resembles NY-23 in any way.
Pro-Burns argument: He’s run a heckava campaign. He actually did some high quality polling, got some good advisers, and executed pretty well (aside from a few minor quibbles). Basically, he did most of the stuff Russell should have done in 2008 but didn’t. Folks in the district might have liked “Murtha”, but they’re significantly less high on “the Murtha legacy”. Obamacare is unpopular and Critz won’t vote to repeal it. By most polling measures, independent/swing voters look more like Republicans than they do Democrats this time around, which is a great indicator of which way the undecideds will break. Let’s just hope there are enough of them.
Comments, compliments or complaints?
Chambers Of Commerce Have Sold Their Soul
“The Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce is dedicated to promoting regional economic growth…and advancing business-friendly public policies.”
So says the Mission Statement of Philadelphia’s Chamber of Commerce.
It further states that it is, “dedicated to supporting and encouraging the continued growth” of its members by striving “to influence business-friendly legislation in all levels of government, participate in initiatives to improve education and the community.”
And its Public Policy department is supposed “…to address pro-business legislation directly with the policy-makers who can make a difference.”
Wow.
If only the Chamber put just a small fraction of that mission into reality, maybe Philadelphia wouldn’t be such a dismal place to live and work.
But the city Chamber is not alone in selling out its members.
Last month, the Montgomery County Chamber, in an act that defies belief, issued a “Lifetime Achievement Award” to Governor Ed Rendell at a “Celebration of Excellence” event.
It’s no small point that Rendell, more than anyone, is responsible for the carnage that is Pennsylvania’s economy.
*****
Chambers of Commerce are, and should be, non partisan. They should work with, and support, candidates who advocate pro-business policies. Even more important, they should be vocal —and unified —in opposing those who favor policies contrary to their mission.
Call me crazy, but Ed Rendell fits into the latter category. Of this, there can be no dispute.
Maybe Rendell’s vision has been shaped by the belief that government knows best, and wealth should be redistributed from those who work to those who don’t.
Or maybe it’s because he’s been on the public dole for virtually his entire working life, which certainly gives one a different perspective from those in the private sector creating jobs, meeting payroll, and growing the economy.
Either way, Rendell’s policies should have been opposed at every turn by the Chambers, whose primary responsibility is to fight for a pro-business legislative agenda.
But too many didn’t. And for a Chamber of Commerce, even one sell–out is one too many.
In the Montco Chamber’s case, maybe leader Al Paschall wanted to be liked by Rendell; maybe it was an ego boost to have the Governor know his name.
That’s fine if you’re a regular citizen, but not if you run a Chamber of Commerce.
So how could Rendell, of all people, have earned anAchievement Award?
Difficult to answer, given the governor’s fiscal record. Consider:
Read the rest of Freindly Fire’s column at:
http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2010/05/12/chambers-of-horrors/
Chris Freind is an independent columnist and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com
Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris’ recent bestseller “Catastrophe.”
Freind also serves as a weekly guest commentator on the Philadelphia-area talk radio show, Political Talk (WCHE 1520), and makes numerous other television and radio appearances. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com
Comments, compliments or complaints?
Pennsylvania’s elections this year will be front and center on the national scene, as there are numerous hotly contested congressional races and a U.S. Senate seat up for grabs. But attracting the most attention is the open race for governor.
To cut through the self-serving spin that surrounds elections, Freindly Fire sat down with Pittsburgh-based independent political consultant Michael O’Connell to receive a non-partisan analysis of the gubernatorial primary. O’Connell, who has worked the Pennsylvania political landscape for nearly 25 years, has no personal stake in any of the campaigns.
GOP Race: Corbett Vs. Rohrer
Background
The presumptive Republican nominee in the gubernatorial race is Attorney General Tom Corbett. He has won statewide twice, including 2008, in what was an otherwise horrid year for Republicans. Corbett’s stunning 400,000 vote margin that year — when Barack Obama carried the state by 600,000 — cemented his status as the gubernatorial frontrunner.
Corbett has also made headlines for his successful prosecution of legislative corruption, known as the “Bonusgate” scandal, and more recently when he joined other Attorneys-General in supporting a lawsuit against the national health care law.
That success has contributed to a war chest of $4 million.
As a comparison, his opponent, State Representative Sam Rohrer, has raised $500,000, and had only $15,000 in the bank as of the last reporting period.
Rohrer, an 18 year veteran of the state house, touts himself as a constitutional conservative, while Corbett is anchoring his campaign on fiscal discipline, limited government, and free enterprise.
The Attorney General, endorsed by Republican State Committee, holds a commanding lead in the polls, but the Rohrer campaign believes it can win by mobilizing its grassroots machine. Rohrer is not seeking re-election to the House.
Freindly Fire: Despite the fact that Corbett has consistently campaigned on conservative principles, some Tea Partiers and other conservatives are backing Rohrer because of his conservative credentials. Yet Rohrer voted for the infamous unconstitutional payraise in 2005 — when legislators pocketed the money in that term — and voted to increase his pension by 50%. Do you think some conservatives are giving him a free pass on these issues? Why?
Mike O’Connell:
Here we get to the politics of style versus substance.
For anyone familiar with Harrisburg, the notion that an eighteen-year-legislator, who cast the votes you just mentioned, and who was content to work with House leaders—including former Speaker John Perzel, bravely demonized by many on the Right now that he is no longer in power—is now somehow an outsider and political rebel is just silly.
That’s the substance. The style is different: what the “tea party” movement sees is a graduate of Bob Jones University—which it must be said is a pretty good first step in establishing one to be, or at least to have been at age eighteen, out of the political mainstream—who avers that he is an outsider is taken at face value by those who value outsider-ness . . . and to the degree the movement prides itself on not knowing what state government does, ignoring actual votes cast by a flesh-and-blood legislator is not only convenient but can be a badge of honor.
There is also frankly a measure of cynicism among some of Rohrer’s institutional supporters: a wide array of conservative groups in Harrisburg….
Read the entire analysis at www.FreindlyFirezone.com
Link:
Chris Freind is an independent columnist and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com
Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris’ recent bestseller “Catastrophe.”
Freind also serves as a weekly guest commentator on the Philadelphia-area talk radio show, Political Talk (WCHE 1520), and makes numerous other television and radio appearances. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com
Comments, compliments or complaints?
Sestak and Veterans Groups Wrong To Criticize Specter Ad
“We’re all here because we’re enraged at the fact that someone, anyone in the United States today, would question someone with 31 years of (military) service.”
So said a retired lieutenant general about Arlen Specter’s television ad which stated that Joe Sestak, his opponent in the U.S. Senate Democratic primary, was relieved of duty in the Navy for creating a “poor command climate.”
Other veterans have chimed in with similar criticism of Specter, labeling the Senator and his commercial as “disrespectful” and “unpatriotic,” and adding that it should be off the table to question, let alone criticize, a veteran.
And making the sin mortal, we are told, is that it’s one veteran attacking another.
That line of thinking is not only wrong, but dangerous.
Why should anyone’s record be off limits to scrutiny —veteran or not — especially when that someone is seeking to become a United States Senator?
*****
First of all, allowing anyone’s record to go unchecked is closer to having a dictatorship than a democracy. It goes without saying that our freedom to ask tough questions of our leaders — without fear of retribution — is the cornerstone of a free society.
No one should get a free pass. No one.
If that ever changes, you might as well pack it in.
Secondly, beyond the tenuous code these veterans like to invoke, it becomes clear that they don’t understand, or don’t want to acknowledge, that two plus two always has to equal four.
Translation: they may not like their candidate being attacked, especially by a fellow vet, but the facts in Specter’s ad are just that—facts.
The issue isn’t whether the commercial is “disrespectful,” but whether it’s true.
And in this case, the facts speak for themselves.
Sestak was a three-star admiral who, in 2005, was fired from his post as Deputy Chief of Naval Operations by then-Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Mike Mullen. (Mullen now serves as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff).
Of significant interest is that Admiral Mullen fired Sestak on the very first day Mullen started in his new post.
According to the Navy Times — a reputable source — the reason cited for Sestak’s dismissal was that he created a “poor command climate.” The publication went on to state, “Sestak was then shuffled into lower-profile desk jobs before he retired in January 2006 as a two-star admiral.”
In fact, many press reports quote another admiral familiar with Sestak as calling his leadership style “tyrannical,” and one in which he commanded “…by intimidation and fear.”
So let’s recap:
1) Sestak was a three star admiral.
2) Sestak was fired from his position as Deputy Chief of Naval Operations.
3) Sestak ended up working at lower profile jobs.
4) Sestak retired as a two star admiral — a lesser rank than he held previously held.
It is a reasonable assumption that Mullen was so disturbed by what he saw of Sestak’s command climate that he had no problem demoting Sestak.
So when we read a veteran’s quote stating, “he wasn’t demoted,” it becomes obvious that the issue is more about politics than defending a fellow veteran’s record.
By definition, when an admiral is relieved of command, that’s a demotion.
And by the way, according to news reports, Sestak has never demanded….
Read the rest at Philly Post…comments are encouraged:
Comments, compliments or complaints?
The Rendell Legacy: Pennsylvania’s Fiscal Catastrophe
Let’s give credit where it’s due. Fast Eddie never gives up, no matter how short-sighted his ideas may be.
When we last left our lameduck leader during the 2009 fiscal debacle, which took 101 days to pass a budget, the Governor was doing what Democrats do best — transferring money from the people to government coffers. How? By initiating yet more tax increases on an already overtaxed public.
No surprise there.
At a time when Pennsylvania families are doing the responsible thing — tightening the belt and exercising fiscal restraint — the Governor does the polar opposite. Rendell has proposed a budget increase of 4%, in large part to pay for his pet projects, while incomprehensibly ignoring the fact that revenues are declining.
But given the fact that Rendell hasn’t signed an on-time budget since taking office, why not go 8 for 8?
He pays no attention to the coming pension bomb, in which obligations to state pensions will increase eightfold over the next three years, from $550 million to over $4 billion.
The Governor has apparently ignored the recent court ruling that the $800 million raided from the MCARE fund —money specifically allocated to alleviating high medical malpractice premiums — must now be paid back.
And he conveniently forgets that there won’t be the $2.7 billion in federal stimulus money that we had last year, and that accounting gimmicks won’t work anymore — such as counting the anticipated tolling of Interstate 80 as “revenue.”
(Despite Ed’s vehement objections, the federal government shot down the I-80 tolling plan, so it’s back to the drawing board).
All of which means higher taxes and an expansion of gambling — government at its finest!
But because Rendell believes that government, rather than the people and their employers, knows best, his approach makes perfect sense — at least to him.
And he’s dead right if you believe in: a) spending beyond your means, b) grabbing money and property that isn’t yours…..
Read the rest at Philadelphia’ Magazine’s Philly Post:
http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2010/04/20/how-ed-rendell-wrecked-pennsylvania/
Chris Freind is an independent columnist and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com
Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris’ recent bestseller “Catastrophe.”
Freind also serves as a weekly guest commentator on the Philadelphia-area talk radio show, Political Talk (WCHE 1520), and makes numerous other television and radio appearances. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com
Comments, compliments or complaints?
Attorney General Corbett’s Health Care Lawsuit: No Conflict Of Interest
The idiocy of some people never ceases to amaze.
For the latest example, just look how the political hacks reacted to the recent week of Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett.
First, Corbett’s office was successful in prosecuting former state representative Mike Veon and two others in the Bonusgate scandal, bringing the total number of felony convictions in that corruption investigation to ten. Veon and his cronies were convicted on numerous charges related to using taxpayer money for political campaigns.
Taxpayer money is, in fact, the people’s hard-earned cash that is sent to Harrisburg for the purposes of good government. Using it for anything else, especially campaign activities, is an atrocious breach of the public’s trust.
So sending someone like Veon away with a case of Soap-on-a-Rope should be considered a good thing by all sane and rational Pennsylvanians. Score one for the good guys —-us.
Later in the week, Corbett sued the federal government over the passage of health care legislation.
He didn’t do this as a partisan Republican, attacking a Democratic health care bill.
No, his decision was rooted in something much more basic: his belief that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to usurp the rights of the state, and force citizens to purchase health care — or risk fines and jail.
Wow. Call me crazy, but isn’t that what a state Attorney General is supposed to do — protect the citizens of his state from criminals and unconstitutional laws?
One would think that in these two instances, the political opponents of Tom Corbett could put partisan politics aside and compliment the man for a job well done. After all, the business-as-usual approach to government in Pennsylvania — AKA corruption — suffered a major blow, and our state’s citizens finally have someone fighting for them and their interests.
One would be wrong.
Instead, many Democratic leaders sounded the all-too-trite call that Corbett’s actions were a conflict of interest, since he is the leading Republican candidate for governor. This man, they say, is only pursuing these issues to generate favorable headlines and increase name recognition around the state.
How original.
And stupid.
What the Democrats don’t understand is that the more they call attention to Corbett’s actions, the more they lose. Maybe their arguments make the “political insider crowd” happy, but in the real world, where elections are decided, they could not be more off base.
(For more on whether Bonusgate is a fair investigation or politically motivated, watch the author debate the issue on TV’s Business Matters—
http://www.freindlyfirezone.com/index.php/component/k2/item/34-freind-on-tv-corbetts-bonusgate-investigation-politics-or-fair-prosecution?
*****
I’ll give you one guess who the leading Democrat is calling on Corbett to drop his lawsuit. You got it….Governor Rendell. Our obtuse, and soon to be ex-governor, seems to have nothing better to do than stick his nose where it doesn’t belong.
Read the rest at FreindlyFireZone:
http://www.freindlyfirezone.com/index.php/component/k2/item/35-attorney-general-corbett’s-health-care-lawsuit-no-conflict-of-interest
Chris Freind is an independent columnist and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com
Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris’ recent bestseller “Catastrophe.”
Freind also serves as a weekly guest commentator on the Philadelphia-area talk radio show, Political Talk (WCHE 1520), and makes numerous other television and radio appearances. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com
Comments, compliments or complaints?
Love the deer-caught-in-headlights look:
But they can’t do this to poor Mike Veon, because, you know, he’s for the little guy, he’s a Democrat.
Don’t worry, Mike. Plenty more Democrats will join you in prison soon enough, God willing. Can a Tea Partier please run on a platform of jailing Democrats for deliberately trying to destroy the United States of America? I’d send him or her a large donation.
Comments, compliments or complaints?
Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...
Despite overwhelming opposition by the American people to the federal goverments’ takeover of one-sixth of the US economy, democratic House leadership and the White House are pressing on with their plans to shove Obamacare down the throats of the citizenry. This next week will be one of the most monumental in recent American history as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanual attempt to strong arm members of their own caucus into approving the Senate measure passed late last year by the March 21st deadline set by President Obama last week.
This is it, folks. One last up or down vote to decide the most important issue of this generation. If Obamacare is defeated in the House vote expected to take place on Friday or Saturday, it is dead as a door nail . . . FOREVER.
So, who holds the keys to the kingdom? It is surely not the Republicans. With a 54-seat minority, all they can do is form a united front and pray. It will take 38 democratic defections to defeat socialized medicine once and for all .
Rep. Bart Stupak (D) and his 12-member coalition of democrat congressmen who voted yes to the 2009 House bill, but have vowed to vote no this time without abortion language being removed from the legislation, are definitely important role players on the anti-Obamacare squad albeit they are somewhat over-hyped. Oddly enough, the REAL headline grabbing superstars in this mix are the Pennsylvania House delegation. The votes of this state’s congressmen will be the ultimate deciding factor about whether good hardworking people get to keep their private health insurance or are shepherded into the bureaucratic nightmare that is socialized medicine.
According to the whip count at The Hill, there are currently 34 democratic congressmen that are firm nos, likely nos, or leaning nos, leaving the magic number at 4 to defeat Obamacare. On the list of undecideds are five Pennsylvania democratic congressmen:
Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA4):A western Pa. so-called “centrist”, Altmire voted no in committee and on the floor in 2009, but is considered a buyable vote. If Pelosi gives him enough swag and provides him cover with the Slaughter Rule, Altmire could flip his vote to yes.
Rep. Chris Carney (D-PA10):A Susquehanna County democrat who represents a Republican district, Carney is a member of the vaunted conservative “Blue Dog Coalition”, but unlike his blue dog colleague Rep. Tim Holden (D-PA17), Carney voted yes to Obamacare last year. A big concern with Carney is that he is beholden to the President for his election victory over Don Sherwood in 2006 as Obama raised a considerable amount of funds for Carney’s campaign.
Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA3):A freshman lawmaker, Dahlkemper represents the northwestern portion of the state in an around Erie. In 2008, she rode Obama’s coattails to a win over seven-term incumbent Phil English. Another self styled “conservative”, Dahlkemper too is a member of the Blue Dog Coalition who voted yes on the House floor last year. The leverage with her, though, is that because she represents a very conservative district and will not have Obama on the top of the ticket to carry her, Dahlkemper is fighting for her political life in re-election polls.
Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA14):Doyle represents overwhelmingly democratic Pittsburgh and is in little danger of losing his seat. He voted yes to Obamacare in 2009. However, a switch to no by this guy would be a back breaker for Pelosi.
Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA11):Another self-described “moderate”, Kanjorski also voted yes to the House bill last year. However, he again will be facing Hazelton mayor Lou Barletta, who lost by only 4 points and carried 3 out of the district’s 5 counties in 2008. Like Dahlkemper, Kanjo’s saving grace was Barack Obama being on the ticket. This November, he won’t have that luxury.
In the next few days, these five representatives will be offered everything under the sun by the White House and by the Speaker to buy their vote. However, as we all know, most politicians care only about numero uno first. We can do our part to help beat back socialism again by making it clear to these members of Congress that a vote to pass Obamacare will be the end of their careers. So, I urge all of you out there reading this to send e-mails and letters to their offices, call their staffers, phone in to local talk shows, and show up to rallies to demonstrate your opposition. Let these politicians know with full clarity that if they try to shove communist health care down our throats, they will be run out of town in November.
Comments, compliments or complaints?
President Obama made an in-person push for health care reform in the Philadelphia suburb of Glenside today, but Hotline OnCall’s Reid Wilson notes that some vulnerable Democrats from Pennsylvania were not in attendance for his speech.
Democratic Reps. Patrick Murphy, Chris Carney, and Tim Holden did not attend the event. Meanwhile, Senate primary combatants Arlen Specter and Rep. Joe Sestak were there.
Comments, compliments or complaints?
