Martina White became the city’s second Republican member in the state House on Tuesday night, with a commanding win in a special election for Northeast Philadelphia’s 170th District.
Her victory – by a margin of 14 percent with 97 percent of the vote tallied Tuesday night – prompted Republican celebrations and Democratic recriminations. White defeated Democrat Sarah Del Ricci, who was handpicked for the special election by Lt. Gov. Mike Stack III.
White credited the win – the first pickup by the Republicans of an open General Assembly seat in Philadelphia in 25 years – to the hard work of volunteers, including several unions that endorsed her.
Fun fact, Martina is also 26 years old and overcame a 2 – 1 Democratic registration advantage.
It’s nice to be able to applaud a campaign ad for once.
Kudos to whoever made this ad. The campaign would be wise to give you all their money.
It’s about time our side started pointing out that all the “cuts” to education have resulted in record high funding.
There are so many brilliant aspects to this ad that I don’t want to jinx it by pointing them out.
It appears that Scott Wagner has won a special election for PA Senate as a write-in.
I’d like to preface the rest of this post by confessing that I did not follow this race at all and have spoken to nobody about it. I couldn’t tell you whether Scott Wagner is the devil or the messiah. Thankfully, that determination is irrelevant to my point.
Chiefly, I want to throw a serious red flag over the use of “millionaire” as a pejorative. Our party ran Mitt frakking Romney for President a mere 16 months ago, and somebody with the memory of a horsefly thought it was a good idea to rag on a guy for being a millionaire?!? Do you think we’ll never run any more rich candidates?
These ads strike me as the type of feeble ads Democrats run against Republicans. Running ads like these does nothing but reinforce clichéd Democratic themes about Republicans. You’re cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Look, you want to run ads against a guy, fine. Knock yourselves out. Just have some self-awareness and perspective when you do so.
Having recently railed against the “establishment”, it’s time for a crack at the base.
As I have previously asserted, the base is allergic to compromise. While this idea is widely taken as a given among the establishment and the Left, few take the time to analyze the behavior. The problem is actually a somewhat broader aversion to nuance. Outrage fuels donations, and donations pay the bills, so there’s somewhat of a negative incentive for base-oriented groups to promote nuance. But a lack of nuance can often inhibit constructive conservative policy movement.
A thought experiment: What if Democrats credibly and convincingly offered to cut Federal spending to such a degree that the budget would come into immediate balance, and also could somehow fix the Federal entitlement problem. In exchange, Republicans would agree to a one percent increase in the personal income tax. Do we take the deal?
True, the parameters of the thought experiment are absurd on their face, but for the sake of argument, take it for what it is. We’d be fools not to take this deal, right?
Whoa, now! Once you start to entertain this deal, you’re “for” raising income taxes.
Well, no, you weren’t really “for” it. You were willing to make a concession in order to get a number of other things that you wanted and thought were more significant.
Take a more realistic issue, immigration. The moment a Republican starts having any sort of conversation about immigration reform, he is blasted as being “for” amnesty. (The opponents of immigration reform use the term “amnesty” rather promiscuously, but for the sake of argument, I’ll use it here and not bother about details of what does or does not constitute “amnesty”.)
Understand that, to the Left, some form of amnesty is a sine qua non for any concessions on significant border security improvements, employment e-Verify, or – heaven forbid – voter ID. You don’t even begin to have negotiations about how to deal with millions of illegal immigrants until you lay your amnesty bargaining chip down on the table.
But by reacting violently to this potential offer of amnesty as something we could consider giving up in order to get a better outcome, the base makes this a question of amnesty vs non-amnesty, not a question of what we could possibly get in exchange for amnesty. When we put the focus on what we get in exchange for amnesty, we put the Democrats on the defensive. When we focus on whether to offer amnesty at all, we make ourselves irrelevant, and the status quo reigns.
To be fair, Republican politicians have a history of being cheap dates. I dare say though, it wouldn’t kill us to “show a little leg” on this issue. I’m not “for” amnesty, I’m for using the offer of amnesty as a means of getting more significant concessions from the other side and for (hopefully) putting the issue behind us. If we get a bad offer in return, we walk away and blame the Democrats for not being serious and for keeping people in the shadows unnecessarily.
Unfortunately, nuance requires trust, which is in short supply.
Some weeks ago I was asked my thoughts about the way forward for the conservative movement. I felt a little like I had been asked to provide a proof for Einstein’s general relativity and then handed a napkin and a crayon.
I mentioned the obvious “base-vs-establishment” split, but could not see an obvious way forward. If anything, the divide continues to grow wider. Both sides are at some fault, and I would be hard pressed to say which is more blameworthy. However, the flaws of the base are fairly well known and understood, so I will be focusing more on the “establishment”.
The authority of the “establishment” is predicated on two assumptions. Firstly, that they know what they are doing, and secondly, that the base will get at least some of what they want by deferring at times to the party leadership. This is the essence of the unwritten compact among Republicans.
Both legs of this platform have been thrown into serious question in the last few election cycles. The McCain and Romney campaigns epitomize the failures of the party, both technical and ideological. Our last two standard bearers did not understand the philosophy underlying the conservative movement, and then when pressed had no chance of adequately conveying or defending it. Steve Schmidt should have his proverbial license to campaign revoked. There are many more examples than these, which are merely the most prominent.
The transactional leg of the compact is no less suspect. Pennsylvania Republicans, despite controlling both houses of the legislature and the governor’s mansion, have been unable or unwilling to take even small steps toward privatizing our Soviet-style liquor stores, nor have they been able to mitigate the certain fiscal doom of the looming pension crisis. Federally, Republican leadership recently capitulated on the debt ceiling hike without getting so much as the re-naming of a post office in return. (Please note, I have argued for having fights on appropriation bills and continuing resolutions, not the debt ceiling. Nevertheless, the swift and unconditional surrender was a little unsettling.)
The “establishment” relies on a model of the electorate that assumes voters (1) have consistent policy preferences that (2) are logically consistent and unidimensional and (3) that voters cast their votes according to which party or politician best satisfies these policy preferences. It’s an interesting model, one that has served academics and political practitioners for decades. But like all models — even the useful ones — it is wrong. It also happens to be least applicable where practitioners would most like to apply it — with the “swing”/”centrist” voter. The major problem with this seductively simplistic model is the general and perpetual prescription of retreat on all substantive issues.
The base, understandably irritated with the strategy of perpetual retreat and burned by a few too many failures of the transactional leg of the compact, has become allergic to compromise on any issue. Simply, to the extent that the base ever trusted the establishment, the base doesn’t trust them any more at all.
It doesn’t help matters that the establishment has declared open war against the Tea Party. To be fair, the feeling is often mutual, but party leaders “misunderestimate” the intensity and resolve of the base. Attacking or delegitimizing certain elements of the base/Tea Party (-even deservedly-) does not make the party leadership any more attractive. Democratic pollster Pat Caddell threw up a flag prior to the 2010 elections that America was in a “Pre-Revolutionary” state. Among Republican base voters, this feeling has not subsided. Tens of thousands of Connecticut gun owners have seemingly scoffed at the state requirement to register their weapons. (And why should they, when registration seems to lead to police abuse and eventual confiscation of weapons.) Those Connecticut —Connecticut— gun owners are surely not all tea partiers. And yet, they have shown a clear disregard for state control. This is not how a healthy democracy functions.
The base, much to its detriment, seems not to comprehend that the electorate is against us. Frankly, it is a little incomprehensible to me that Obama was re-elected, and yet here we are. The general electorate was never particularly well-informed or sophisticated, but seems much less so in recent years. Correspondingly, there has been an increase in “liberal” political identification amidst the massive disruption and likely collapse of Obamacare, the biggest liberal project in several generations.
The common ground may be what the base wishes to do, but can’t seem to, and what the establishment may be somewhat better equipped to do, but won’t, and that is to fight the basic linguistic and cultural assumptions that have crept into the swing-voter’s mind. Maybe once in a while somebody should explain the difference between “insurance” and pre-payment for service. Or explain that “access” is not equivalent to “subsidy” (birth control), and lack of subsidy is not equivalent to a “ban” (embryonic stem cell research). When debating Democrats, have our candidates ask, “and then what will happen?”, per Thomas Sowell’s Applied Economics. Explain that the Democrats would rather that the poor were poorer when it comes to “inequality”. And once in a blue moon, explain that the economy is not a zero sum game.
But as things stand now, there’s just no trust to be found for Republican leadership. Until some modicum of trust can be re-established, hostilities will persist.
To say I’m sorely disappointed in a lot of Republican state Senators is putting it mildly.
Almost never should a person attempt a primary challenge on the basis of just one vote, but let’s just say I wouldn’t shed a lot of tears if some of the yes voters happened to lose their primaries.
Apparently some folks haven’t gotten the memo that we’re broke. And I don’t just mean PA, but the whole United States, federal, state, and local – soup to nuts.
As a whole, the legislature needs to man-up. Fix the pension system. Sell the liquor stores. Don’t expand entitlements that are going to bankrupt us sooner rather than later.
It’s a short list. Memorize it.
I don’t know if you’ve read any commentary about the 2012 elections recently–heaven knows it’s hard to find–but from what I can tell, the only chance that Republicans have of ever winning another election for anything anywhere is to immediately run to the left of Debbie Wasserman Schultz on everything.
Let’s all just take some Nyquil and listen.
Conservatives are textbook manic depressives. Remember on November 5 when we were going to win everything–White House, Senate–everything? Then November 7 came and we, reassured by all the pundits on the left and right, became convinced that, conservatism and the Republican Party were so discredited that all elected Republicans should just give up their seats to the nearest Democrat?
Apart from just being insane, that kind of thinking betrays a complete lack of perspective. In 2001, Karl Rove talked about a permanent Republican majority. In 2004 George Bush won 97 of the 100 fastest growing counties in the US. In 2006 and 2008 we had back-to-back Democrat waves which supposedly irrevocably altered American politics. That lasted until 2010 when Republicans picked up 63 seats in the US House and finished election night with 30 governorships. That has all happened in the last 11 years of the 236-year history of the Republic.
Politics is a constant state of ebb and flow. We need to learn our lessons from 2012 (e.g., don’t nominate idiots for the US Senate, even in red states), correct the mistakes we can (e.g., if you nominate an idiot for the US Senate, make him drop out at the soonest possible opportunity using whatever shameless and/or barely-ethical tactics are necessary), and get ready for 2014. Everything else is just navel-gazing, and it’s not productive.
Case in point: if you’re not familiar with Morton Blackwell, he’s a guy you should get to know. He’s been involved in conservative politics longer than many of us have been alive, and he has this to say about the election of 2012.
I had a very exciting time at the Republican National Convention. My conservative allies and I all worked very hard in the presidential election.
When I woke up the day after the election, everything I had worked for appeared to be in ruins. An extreme leftist had been reelected president of the United States.
Some liberal Republicans immediately began to blame newly activated conservatives for the presidential defeat. I knew they were wrong. It was clear to me that these newly active conservatives would be the key to major future victories for conservative principles.
The day was Wednesday, November 4, 1964.
Read the whole thing.
The Governor’s mishandling of the Sandusky investigation may doom the GOP
Ohio, Ohio, Ohio. It’s all about Ohio. Win the Buckeye state — win the White House.
Very true, especially for Mitt Romney, since no Republican has won without it.
But the monumental point is being overlooked.
Ohio is only kingmaker by default. Its 18 electoral votes would not be needed if Romney wins Ohio’s larger neighbor — Pennsylvania and its 20 electors.
That’s not wishful thinking, but eminently achievable. Or at least it was, until two men severely diminished hope for delivering the Keystone State: Jerry Sandusky and Republican Governor Tom Corbett.
Make no mistake. Pennsylvania should have been a lock for the GOP. The fact that it has not voted Republican for president since 1988 is misleading. When there is a solid candidate, Pennsylvania is always in play, where a small vote swing changes the election result (George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004). Conversely, bad candidates lose handily (Bush I in ‘92, Dole in ’96, and McCain in 2008). And remember that Ronald Reagan won it twice, and George H.W. Bush in ’88.
In 1994, it became the most Republican state in the country in terms of elected officials, with the GOP claiming both U.S. Senate seats, the governorship, total control of the state legislature, a majority in its congressional delegation, and two of three statewide row offices.
Fast forward to 2010, when GOP Governor Tom Corbett rode to victory with a massive ten-point margin. Conservative Pat Toomey was elected U.S. Senator, and Republicans gained control of the State House in historic fashion, smashing the Democrats and taking a ten-seat majority. The State Senate remained solidly Republican — as it has for three decades.
So why is it likely that Romney will lose the Pennsylvania Prize?
Enter Corbett and Sandusky.
The most worthless commodities in politics are endorsements. Party leaders endorsing their own is expected, swaying no one. And celebrities choosing sides only makes for good cocktail talk. Romney doesn’t benefit from Clint Eastwood, nor Obama from Bruce Springsteen.
But while endorsements don’t sell, popularity does. And they are distinctively different.
If a leader possesses a bold vision — and the ability to articulate ideas in a common sense, bipartisan way — he will have followers from the entire political spectrum. New Jersey’s Republican Governor Chris Christie is the best example, having achieved monumental victories despite both legislative chambers being heavily Democratic.
While no single Republican could swing Jersey to Romney, that feat should have been in the bag in much more Republican Pennsylvania. If Christie could rack up wins in The People’s Republic of New Jersey, gaining immense popularity, how could Corbett not deliver Pennsylvania?
Because he is an MIA governor.
After the first year of his Administration, when virtually nothing was accomplished, Corbett’s own legislators nicknamed him “Christie-lite.” But after the second year, with an even more startling lack of achievements, the nicknames became unprintable.
We’re not talking about a failed extreme right-wing agenda, but common sense ideas Corbett promised but didn’t come close to delivering, despite holding all the cards.
-Was the nation’s largest state-controlled liquor system dismantled — a move overwhelmingly supported by most Pennsylvanians? Nope. Zero action.
-Was any effort made to 1) solve the state’s massive pension crisis, 2)lower the job-killing, corporate net income tax (second-highest in the nation), or 3) reform the nation’s most hostile legal climate? All drive businesses away, but no action was taken. The can was kicked down the road.
-Did state union workers receive a contract in line with private sector employees? No. Instead, Corbett gave them guaranteed raises, no increases in health care premiums, and eliminated layoffs for economic reasons. At the same time, he raised salaries of his inner circle, aides who apparently couldn’t get by on $135,000.
While his inaction sunk the Governor’s favorable ratings, it was his handling of sexual predator Jerry Sandusky that really put him in the toilet, flushing away whatever attractiveness he had left.
Corbett’s attempt to steal the national limelight at Penn State news conferences by portraying himself as the savior who took down Sandusky rapidly backfired. Instead, his decisions in that case (he was the investigating Attorney General) grew into a firestorm that continues to explode.
No one is buying Corbett’s claims that he didn’t play politics with the Sandusky investigation. A whopping 69 percent of Pennsylvanians don’t view Corbett favorably, making him the nation’s least popular governor. And a miniscule 17 percent think he handled the Sandusky investigation well.
Why? Maybe because:
-It took three years to get Sandusky off the street. Within the law enforcement community, it’s almost unanimous that Sandusky should have been nailed much, much earlier. Ten cases weren’t needed, as Corbett maintains, but only two or three to make an arrest while continuing to build the case.
-Corbett ordered a narcotics agent to lead a whopping team of two to investigate Sandusky, while scores of agents — including child predator units — prosecuted a political corruption case.
Because of Corbett’s colossal inconsistencies, Republican leaders were forced to abruptly end a legislative session, killing a motion requesting a federal investigation of Corbett’s handling of the case.
As a result, Corbett’s numbers have stayed in the basement. The erosion of his popularity, transcending Party lines, stems from the nagging feeling that Corbett placed politics above the protection of innocent children.
The most far-reaching result of the Governor’s failures will be the political earthquake that never was. If Corbett had been just a fraction of Chris Christie, and had run the Sandusky investigation properly, Mitt Romney wins Pennsylvania hands down.
Instead, because of Corbett’s toxicity, Romney was forced to focus on Ohio, which he will likely lose, and with it, the White House.
But that may be the least of Corbett’s troubles. Kathleen Kane is poised to become the first elected Democratic Attorney General in Pennsylvania history. Should that occur, the political embarrassment for Corbett would be immense, since he would be seen as the main contributor to a Kane victory.
If elected, Kane promises an intense review of the Sandusky investigation, with no hesitation to charge anyone —including the Governor — should improprieties be uncovered.
And who thought politics wouldn’t be interesting after this election?
As published in Daily County Daily Times:
Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com
November 5, 2012 at 3:57 pm Comments (0)
Let me second Alex. Yep…looks like he might.
There are a couple interesting tidbits that indicate that this poll might be for real.
The partisan breakdown is D/R/I 48/42/10. D+6 should be about right for PA in 2012. It was D+7 in 2008 and D+3 in 2010. Independents were underrepresented in this sample obviously, but if Romney is ahead with that group, that would mean his lead over Obama is slightly larger. The poll’s internals also say this:
Lee said Romney has made significant gains in the all-important suburbs of Philadelphia, a ring of counties that helped push Obama to victory in 2008.
“Republicans haven’t been able to do that in 20 years,” Lee said. “Romney has made some major inroads.”
Lee said Romney also gained ground in western Pennsylvania, where socially conservative, blue-collar Democrats have turned their backs on Obama.
In order for any Republican to win statewide, they need to do well in both the collar counties of Philly and the Reagan Democrats in the west. The internals seem to confirm that.
I so very badly want this to be true, so I’m not getting my hopes up. That said, November 6 might be a very short night for Mitt Romney.