May 23, 2010

Wrapping Up the Primary with a Bow (and moving towards November)

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.


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!


May 21, 2010

Arlen Specter's Perfect Storm

Guest Column by Dr. G. Terry Madonna and Dr. Michael Young

The political world watched almost stupefied as the national melodrama played itself out. The pre-primary polls told the startling story while the astonished pols read the increasingly clear tea leaves: Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania's longest serving U.S. Senator, arguably the state's most skilled and luckiest politician, was losing. And he was losing to an opponent few had heard of just about a month earlier, losing despite substantial advantages in money and party endorsements, losing despite support from the president, the vice president, and the state's governor. Specter was losing despite anything he or anyone else could do to stop it.

Now, in the aftermath of the still shocking Specter defeat, the questions abound. Two in particular seem important to answer: Why did Specter lose? And what does it mean for the state and for the country?

The first question seems easier to answer. Specter simply sailed into the perfect political storm. He was caught in a convergence of forces and factors over which he had minimal control.

Everything went wrong for him: he was running for re-election against a tide of virulent anti-incumbency; he was the quintessential moderate in an era given over to the politics of polarization; he drew a younger, vigorous primary opponent not experienced enough to know he couldn't win; his age and many medical problems appeared to enfeeble him; and his five terms in office weighed him down with too many votes that had angered too many people.

And then there was that party switch, for him the proverbial straw. But even that was beyond his control. Yes, he could have stayed a Republican, but he would have lost that primary too-and decisively as well.

Specter throughout his political career almost has seemed a force of nature. He always found a way to win and always survived whatever challenge was thrown against him. This year, however, the challenges collectively overwhelmed him. Like many incumbents who preceded him, he ran one time too many.

What Specter's loss means is harder to answer. For starters it means that Pennsylvania, once one of the more moderate of the mega states, now features a U.S. Senate contest between two polar opposites on the political spectrum-a Republican at least as conservative as former arch-conservative Senator Rick Santorum and a Democrat as liberal as any nominated in modern times. Neither party has nominated Senate candidates as ideologically opposite since 1994 when Democrats nominated Harris Wofford and Republicans Rick Santorum.

Certainly it's unclear which candidate enters the general election better situated to emerge victorious. Pat Toomey may find Sestak harder to beat than Specter. Sestak does not carry the burden of a long incumbency or a lengthy congressional voting record. Nor does he inherit most of Specter's other lethal liabilities. The admiral turned congressman is also an indefatigable and ruthless campaigner. And despite a nasty primary, state Democrats will quickly endorse and rally around his candidacy.

Nevertheless, Sestak has his work cut out for him. He must run as a Democrat in a state that clocks the president's job performance at new lows, hovering in the mid 30s range. The ravages of the recession and the unpopularity of many features of Obama's agenda, notably energy and healthcare, have made the political environment challenging for Democratic candidates. Moreover, Sestak has never run a general election statewide campaign before. And he's running in a state often unfriendly to rookie statewide candidates. One thing is certain-neither candidate will give any quarter, nor expect any.

Nationally, the stakes are high. With Democrats likely to lose between three and five Senate seats, the Pennsylvania seat looms crucial. Much of Obama's presidency now rides on the outcome of a half dozen Senate contests, including the Pennsylvania race.

Beyond that, Specter's defeat removes another centrist political leader from the American political stage-providing further evidence that the center of American politics is collapsing. Not everyone will be unhappy about that. The advocates of ideological purity have long railed against the politics of compromise and consensus, arguing that accommodation has been the root of the nation's problems.

They might well be correct. Yet for over 200 years the nation has largely done it Specter's way-with compromise, bargaining, and moderation. Common belief has long held that America's complicated federal system of checks and balances functions best in an environment of consensus and moderate politics. Indeed, some believe it only functions in such an environment.

Whether that conventional wisdom remains true, we are about to discover. Specter is now gone. The moderate politics he epitomized seems not far behind.

Copyright © 2010 Terry Madonna and Michael Young

May 18, 2010

Sestak Wins!!! PA Democrats Send Specter Packing

Just caught this Washington Post article reporting that Specter's re-election bid for a 6th term in the U.S. Senate has failed. This is unbelievable. Specter has been a major player in Pennsylvania politics for over two decades now. I'm glad to see that Pennsylvania democratic voters have finally done what Pennsylvania republican voters should have done to Specter a long time ago. Now I know how the munchkins felt after Dorothy landed on the wicked witch of the east in the Wizard Of Oz.
Voters Tuesday picked U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak as the party's nominee and rejected the 80-year-old Specter in his first Democratic campaign.

Specter says he has called Sestak to congratulate him and tell him he thinks it's vital to keep the seat in the Democratic Party.

The vote also was a defeat for President Barack Obama, who supported Specter when he abandoned the Republican Party last year.

Click Here To Read More
Specter's loss is a major loss for the Obama Administration when you consider the political landscape in the U.S. Senate. Specter's loss will keep incumbent colleagues up for re-election this year on edge the remainder of the year. Obama's support of Specter has also damaged the President's credibility with the and Huffington Post crowd who heavily supported Sestak's campaign.

It will be interesting to see how the Pennsylvania Democratic Party machine around the state spins Specter's loss considering all the major party players including Governor Ed Rendell heavily supported Specter. I've said this a lot this during this primary election. If there is one thing that Pennsylvania democrats and republicans agreed on, it is that it was time for Specter to go. Now that is bipartisanship my friends. The problem with Specter was always Specter and today it finally caught up with him.

Also: Republicans try to pin Penn. Senate on President Obama (The Fix, Washington Post)

An Open Letter To The PA Republican Party Establishment

Mr. Asher:

I wanted to send you an email because I'd like to express my sincere discontent with the actions of the PAGOP in the Pennsylvania Gubernatorial Republican Primary. I know that the party has decided to endorse Attorney General Corbett. I don't believe the party should get involved officially with primaries, but being that many of you in the PAGOP are more focused on winning elections and saying we elected a Republican than supporting a conservative and electing somebody who is not only a Republican, but a CONSERVATIVE, I do not find this surprising. Remember, you in the PAGOP decided to fight for Specter over Toomey in 2004. I think anybody who has given any attention to Mr. Specter's actions clearly understands that the PAGOP made the wrong decision in that race.

Secondly, I found it interesting that Chairman Gleason went after Representative Rohrer when he made people aware of Mr. Corbett's position on the Constitution. In an election, a candidate's positions are fair game, and most people would interpret that what Mr .Corbett said was in fact the same argument made by those on the left. Somehow, the belief that our Constitution is moldable to what judges think is an absurdity, and it is a position myself and many other conservatives stand firmly against. Our Constitution should be interpreted based upon what was meant 235 years ago when it was written.

However, that is besides the point, the fact is that Chairman Gleason claimed Mr. Rohrer was in violation of President Reagan's "11th Commandment" by "attacking" Mr. Corbett, yet just the other day I received a nasty mailer, I'll call it trash because that's exactly what it was, sent out by the PAGOP. This ad attacked Mr. Rohrer for supporting the pay raise, yet neglected to point out Mr. Corbett gladly accepted the raise he received from that same bill. The mailer also fails to point out that Mr. Rohrer voted for that bill as a means to bring his property tax relief bill to the floor. Although that didn't happen, Mr. Rohrer stuck to his WORD and voted for the pay raise. I think it is quite obvious the PAGOP misled voters on this subject, and that is why I have also contacted Chairman Gleason's office as to inquire as to why it is A) Ok for the PAGOP to endorse candidates in primaries B) Not okay for those who oppose the party elite in Harrisburg to challenge endorsed candidates on the issues that matter and C) Why it is okay for Chairman Gleason and the rest of the PAGOP to knowingly mistate the facts at hand as well as mislead the primary voters.

I think it is also very important to note that should Mr. Rohrer win in tomorrow's primary, the Democrats will have great fuel in attacking Mr. Rohrer. It will be very easy for the Democratic nominee to pick up a copy of this flyer and point out that this is what the PAGOP has said about Mr. Rohrer.

As usual, you in the party hierarchy have defied to give grassroots primary voters a say in who the candidate will be. You have also increased the tension between conservative grassroots Republicans and the Corbett campaign. I will be supporting Mr. Corbett should he win the GOP primary, as I believe he is more conservative than the entire Democratic pack, but I am still deeply troubled, as a former donor of the PAGOP and a 20 year old conservative Republican, that my state's Republican Party has chosen to put winnability before values.

I look forward to a response from you as well as a justification for the actions taken by you and the rest of the committee. As a Pennsylvania Republican, you are supposed to represent and answer to my concerns, and I therefore hope you will respond to this inquiry. Thank you for reading this, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Jonathan T. Tallman

From PennPatriot: Thank you Jonathan for allowing me to post this letter! Many everyday republicans across this great Commonwealth have the same feelings towards the republican party leadership in this state. It is time that PA republicans demand party leaders that promote our core values instead of the current establishment cronies who focus more on political quid pro quos and protecting the elite.

My PA Primary Election Day Predictions

Democratic Primary Race For US Senate:

(D) Joe Sestak 50.7% (D) Arlen Specter 49.3%

Sestak's campaign ad highlighting Specter's comments after switching parties last year has been the buzz around here for the past three weeks. Sestak has managed to paint Specter as the typical Washington D.C. politician only looking out for himself which is not very promising in a very anti-incumbent political climate. PA will say goodbye to Specter today.

Republican Primary Race For US
Senate :

(R) Pat Toomey 89% (R) Peg Lusik 11%

Love ya Peg!!! Toomey wins easily.

PA 12th Congressional Special Election

(R) Tim Burns 51.2% (D) Mark Critz 48.8%

Tim Burns's connection with the Tea Party puts him over the top in this race. Critz's back and forth on the Health Care Bill cost him as well.

Democratic Primary Race For Governor:

(D) Dan Onorato 37% (D) Jack Wagner 28% (D) Tony Williams 22% (D) Joe Hoeffel 13%

Going up first in advertising really set Onorato apart from a crowded field

Republican Primary Race Governor:

(R) Tom Corbett 77% (R) Sam Rohrer 23%

The Republican Party establishment was too much for Rohrer to overcome in this race. I got to give him a lot of credit for sticking it out and advancing the conservative/Tea Party message here in Pennsylvania.

Also around the world of PA Politics:
  • Long time democratic PA House Leader Bill DeWeese will be defeated by primary challenger Pam Snyder.
  • Longtime State Rep. Rick Geist PA 79th will be challenged by local radio talk show host John McGinnis after a successful Democratic write in campaign today.

May 17, 2010

Round II: A budget battle likely to be worse than last year

Guest Column By Lowman S. Henry

Be prepared for another long, hot summer in Harrisburg as Governor Ed Rendell and lawmakers fight over a new state budget amid a fiscal situation that has gone from bad to worse.

Governor Ed Rendell has made it clear that he isn't going to change his drive for spending every dollar he can before leaving office. Despite the growing gap between revenue projections and actual tax collections, the governor continues to press for higher spending. And, to get what he wants, he is willing to again use the divisive tactics that last year created a 101-day budget crisis.

Already having to deal with a structural $3 billion deficit that was papered over last year by raiding one-time funds and using federal stimulus money, the state's budget picture has darkened considerably in recent weeks. First, the courts ruled the state could not use $800 million in money from the MCare fund to help balance the current fiscal year's budget. On top of that problem, April's revenue collections were off pace putting the state more than $1 billion behind projections. So, the state essentially faces a $5 billion short-fall.

And, once again, the federal government has denied the commonwealth permission to place tolls on Interstate 80. That leaves the governor without funds he had budgeted to pay for road and bridge improvement. So, convening a special session of the General Assembly to deal with the highway funding crisis, Governor Rendell placed before legislators a menu of tax hikes and fee increases from which they could choose. He did this knowing they aren't likely to choose any.

And, as the red ink spreads, the governor continues to propose more spending. Declaring himself to be the "lobbyist" for the state's public school children, he proposed hefty increases in education spending. In a public rebuke, Senate Republicans sent letters to the superintendents of the state's 501 school districts telling them not to expect additional funding this year.

But if Ed Rendell doesn't get his way, well, others will suffer. He is already warning of massive lay-offs. This in an effort to scare state employees into lobbying their legislators for higher taxes, and to instill fear that essential state services will be cut.

The fact is the state is going to have to trim its workforce. Since the recession began nearly two years ago the private sector has shed jobs and become more efficient. That is why unemployment remains stubbornly high while improved earnings have lead to a run up in the stock markets. The state is going to have to do the same thing - judiciously trim jobs to improve productivity.

Rather than seeing this as an opportunity make state government more efficient, Rendell is using the need to cut the workforce as a political club. He won't cut the unproductive jobs; rather he will cut jobs where the elimination of positions will create the greatest public outcry. Then he can fan the outcry into support for higher taxes, which is his ultimate goal.

When former Governor Dick Thornburgh took office the state faced difficult financial times. He cut over 15,000 jobs from the state government's employment rolls. Not only did the commonwealth continue to operate, but it did so more efficiently and got more done with fewer people.

The fact is the state budget cannot be brought into balance without eliminating jobs; and changing compensation packages to reflect trends in the private sector, such as co-pays or higher co-pays for health insurance coverage. Changes will also need to be made to the state pension system.

Rather than approach this in a business-like manner, the governor is once again holding all state employees hostage to the budget crisis with his blanket predictions of massive lay-offs. It is a strategy that is designed to apply maximum political pressure, not address the problem.

And so, with the General Assembly unlikely to pass any broad-based tax hikes in a highly volatile election year, another budget stand-off appears inevitable.

But Ed Rendell doesn't care. He hasn't passed a budget on time during his seven years in office, failing in his core constitutional duty. So what is one more delayed budget if it can add to his legacy of overspending and massive debt? When Ed Rendell leaves office next January, Pennsylvania will essentially be bankrupt. Pity the guy who gets the job next.

Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal. His email address is

May 9, 2010

Sam Rohrer Event: "Breakfast with Sam" May 14th in Mercer County


Dear Mercer Countians for Sam Rohrer,

Sam Rohrer Republican Candidate for Governor to be in Mercer on May 14

EVENT: Breakfast with Sam Rohrer

WHEN: Friday, May 14th 8am-10am
(Doors will open at 7:30AM and Sam will arrive at 8AM)

MERCER (get a map HERE)

WHAT: Hot breakfast will be served. Stop by before work and meet and hear Sam Rohrer.

This event announcement was submitted by the Candidate or by a Candidate representative. The event announcement is being published here as a community service in an effort to give concerned citizens an opportunity to meet the candidates. Candidates and committees are invited to submit announcements to this blog by email to


May 7, 2010

Latest On 'Titlegate'

Yesterday was a busy day.

First there was the two front page-top fold articles in the Milton Standard Journal and the Daily Item about my complaint against 85th District Legislative Candidate Maurice Brubaker. Then the day got interesting.

Newsradio WKOK was reporting the story on their On The Mark talk radio program invited me and Maurice to call in to the show. I was still deciding whether or not to call when Maurice called, so I called in as well. He made some interesting claims. He said there was an error by a campaign staffer early in the campaign. He said he never told anyone verbally that he was a public accountant. Then he said the first time he heard about the problem was yesterday(Wednesday).

That's when they told him I was on the other line and asked if he would be willing to talk to me live - the tone changed; he had to go . . . appointments to keep, you know. So I went on for about 10 minutes and made clear that Maurice was the one perpetuating the myths. I talked about the Republican Spring Fling and the Union Township Meeting which I blogged about previously. With recorded audio proving that Maurice not only did verbally claim to be a public accountant in a public meeting as well as the fact that he knew about the "error" Tuesday night, I think his goose may be cooked.

I found out also that the press release he sent out to correct the "error" also stated that he never said verbally that he was a public accountant. Maurice could have just come clean and apologized, but instead he continues to blame campaign staff, and lie about what he has said. You can listen to the radio exchange here. (right-click and select 'save target as' to save the audio to your computer)

After the radio exchange several radio stations of various types began broadcasting snippets of our comments on the radio during all their local newscasts. I have since emailed copies of the audio and transcript to local media. Who knows what today will bring?

May 6, 2010

85th Legislative Candidate Deceives Again

Today's Daily Item article covers the complaint I filed on Tuesday regarding 85th District Candidate Maurice Brubaker's illegal use of the title "Public Accountant." The title of the article is "Job title error stumps pol -Brubaker puzzled why job title in campaign went unchanged." After a brief description of the complaint, the article explains the nature of Brubaker's puzzlement:

"Brubaker said he did not intentionally try to mislead the public. A campaign volunteer mistakenly listed him as a public accountant on Brubaker's Web site and an early press release repeated the inaccuracy, he said. 'I have never intentionally misled anyone about my status,' Brubaker said. 'If there is any misconception in the public mind, let me be clear. I am a senior accountant, not a public accountant. If I or my campaign caused any confusion otherwise, I apologize. I look forward to using my professional experience as a senior accountant when serving as state representative.' . . . He disputes Allred's claims that he has publicly called himself a public accountant on numerous occasions. "

Well Maurice, let me clear it up for you. Your job title in the campaign went unchanged because it wasn't a mistake by your campaign staff, it wasn't an early error that went unnoticed, it was a deliberate attempt by you to deceive the public. Maurice would like the voters to believe that he has not "publicly called himself a public accountant." That's ironic to me because I personally heard him say that in public meetings on numerous occasions and twice in the last week.

Last Thursday, I attended a Republican Spring Fling at La Primavera in Lewisburg. In attendance were State Representative Russ Fairchild and State Senator Jake Corman, CD10 candidates David Madeira and Malcolm Derk, former candidate Dan Meuser, and all three 85th district candidates along with about 75 others. Each candidate was allotted time at the podium to present to the attendees. During his time, Maurice stated unequivocally before the entire crowd that he has been a Public Accountant in Union County for 15 years.

Ironically, after filing my complaint on Tuesday, I attended the regular monthly Union Township Supervisor's Meeting. Maurice attended along with some members of the public. At the beginning of the meeting, as is customary, we gave Maurice a few minutes to officially introduce himself, state his case for the election and answer any questions. During the question and answer session, the following discourse occurred.

Allred: "Are you a Public Accountant?"
Brubaker: "Yes"
Allred: "I noticed you listed that on your website, but when I do a search at the Department of State website, it doesn't list your name as a Public Accountant."
Brubaker: "It is Public Accountant, Senior Public Accountant. That's all I am."
Allred: "Right, but a Public Accountant is an official . . ."
Brubaker: "No, it's not, no."
Allred: "Well you need to read Pennsylvania Code Title 49 . . ."
Brubaker: *I will."
Allred: " . . . Section 11.7"
Brubaker: "We did . . . We are . . . I appreciate that. We did check it out with the Pennsylvania . . . but we can do that. That's not a problem."
Allred: "Ok. I just think it's a, if you're using that term Public Accountant . . ."
Brubaker: "There's a difference . . ."
Allred: ". . . it's a slam to other professional recognized . . ."
Brubaker: "No, It's been verified, so."
Allred: " Well, I think you need to check the law."
Brubaker: "We'll definitely check that for you, that's not a problem."

So, I've presented my evidence, but Maurice "disputes Allred's claims that he has publicly called himself a public accountant." Maurice wants you to believe that this was an early campaign error perpetuated in print over and over, but never noticed by him. The law is below. You be the judge.

PA Title 49 Section 11.7
11.7. Use of the designation ‘‘public accountant’’ and the abbreviation ‘‘PA.’’
(a) Only the following individuals and entities may use the designation ‘‘public accountant,’’ the abbreviation ‘‘PA,’’ or any other title, designation, words, letters or abbreviation tending to indicate that the user is a public accountant or is composed of public accountants:
(1) An individual who holds a public accountant registration and a current license from the Board.
(2) An individual who holds a certificate of certified public accountant from the Board or who has received written notification from the Board that he is qualified to receive a certificate of certified public accountant.
(3) A qualified association that holds a current license from the Board.
(b) An individual or qualified association engaged in the practice of public accounting may not use the designation ‘‘public accountant,’’ the abbreviation ‘‘PA’’ or any other title, designation, words, letters or abbreviation tending to indicate that the user is a public accountant or composed of public accountants unless the user holds a current license from the Board.
(c) The following are examples of unlawful use under this section:
(1) An individual who is registered by the Board as a public accountant but who does not hold a current license uses a business card bearing the designation ‘‘public accountant.’’ Explanation: The individual shall obtain a current license to use the designation ‘‘public accountant.’’
(2) An individual who is certified by the Board as a CPA but who does not hold a current license signs tax returns that he prepares for clients as ‘‘John Doe, PA.’’ Explanation: The individual shall obtain a current license to use the abbreviation ‘‘PA’’ because the preparation of tax returns while using such an abbreviation constitutes the practice of public accounting.
(d) An individual or entity that violates this section shall be subject to disciplinary action, as appropriate, under sections 9.1, 12, 14 and 16 of the act (63 P. S. § § 9.9a, 9.9c, 9.14 and 9.16).

May 5, 2010

DOS Complaint Filed over Illegal Claims by 85th Candidate Maurice Brubaker

Today I filed an official complaint with the Professional Compliance Office
within the Pennsylvania Department of State. The full complaint and supporting evidence is here.

The complaint focuses on the fact that 85th District Candidate Maurice Brubaker
has repeatedly referred to himself in print and verbally as a "Public
Accountant." Although, Maurice’s father Robert is listed by the Department of
State as a public accountant, Maurice is not listed. Similar to the licensing
required for a Lawyer or Medical Doctor, the state of Pennsylvania has strict
laws (Title 49, Chapter 11.7) forbidding anyone without a license from referring
to themselves as a "Public Accountant" or a "Certified Public Accountant."

Maurice has repeatedly used this designation to overstate his qualifications for
the State House. By listing this falsehood on his website, in campaign speeches
and campaign press releases, he has deceived the local press into repeating it.
It is degrading to true professional engineers, lawyers, medical doctors,
accountants, etc. who have achieved this official license from the state.

I am choosing to publicize this complaint because the Department of State may
take up to 14 days to begin its investigation. By that time, the primary
election will be over and this will be fodder for the Democratic Party. As a
conservative Republican, I believe we need to properly vet our own candidates
and deal with those who are untruthful or unethical. For too long we have been
unwilling to call out our own for their misdeeds and as a result we end up as
part of the corrupt machine that continues to produce poor candidates. As a
Union County Republican Committeeman, it is my responsibility to make sure the
candidates our party lists on the ballot are honest and upright. The voters
deserve candidates they can trust.

I call upon Maurice and his campaign to publicly acknowledge that Maurice is NOT
a "Public Accountant” and to apologize to the voters for overstating his
qualifications and diluting the seriousness of the licensing of professional

May 4, 2010

Butler Tea Party a Success . . . Sour Grapes for Some (and---News Flash--Paul Huber spotted wearing cowboy boots)

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

May 2, 2010

It Can Be Done. History proves fiscally conservative approach to governing works

Guest Column By Lowman S. Henry

During his time in the White House Ronald Reagan kept a small sign on his desk. It read simply: "It can be done." Pennsylvanians are about to elect a new governor. He will be required to deal with a wide range of intractable problems; including a massive budget deficit, widespread corruption, and unmet basic services. The optimism expressed by President Reagan that governing by core conservative principles can and will lead us to prosperity is an outlook our new governor should adopt as he takes office.

The set of circumstances currently confronting we the people of Penn's Woods is not without precedent. Back in 1978, the commonwealth faced a similar set of problems. Corruption was rampant in the administration of then Governor Milton Shapp. State government was bloated, inefficient, and ineffective. Our highways were in disrepair, welfare rolls were bursting at the seams, and political favoritism dictated who got state contracts.

Into office came Pennsylvania's 41st governor, Richard Thornburgh. A former U.S. Attorney, Thornburgh tolerated not even a hint of corruption. The indictment-of-the-day that characterized the Shapp era ended. Thornburgh brought in a new set of managers that eliminated the jobs of thousands of unnecessary employees, professionalized the management of state agencies, and brought the state budget under control. Dick Thornburgh left office as governor with a surplus in the state treasury. Governor Ed Rendell, by contrast, will bequeath a multi-billion structural deficit to his successor.

Speaking recently at the Pennsylvania Leadership Conference, Governor Thornburgh reminded us that conservative governing principles are more than just a bunch of unproven theories: they have worked in practice - and he did it. Conservatives, and Republican candidates who espouse conservative beliefs, should not be dissuaded by the naysayers in their own party and the liberal Democrats who claim the principles of fiscal, bring government back to the basics conservatism will not work.

It can be done. It has been done. It can be done again.

The flip side of the coin is that the activist, bordering on socialist, style of state government practiced by Rendell & company has not, cannot, and will not work. Rendell has literally spent Pennsylvania into bankruptcy. He has hood winked some Republican legislators and occasionally the electorate at large into voting for nice sounding, but fiscally irresponsible borrowing schemes that have bloated our state's debt. Welfare rolls are swollen, contracts are being doled out to political cronies, and our highways and bridges have fallen into an advanced state of disrepair.

And the predictable fiscal disaster has followed. Pennsylvania suffers from a $3 billion structural budget deficit papered over last year with federal stimulus money and the use of one time revenue sources. The courts have declared unconstitutional a transfer of $800 million in MCare funds used to balance this year's budget, aggravating the problem. Revenue collections for the current fiscal year will end up nearly $1 billion under projections.

Still, Rendell continues to propose more spending. This despite the fact the General Assembly - most of whose members are up for re-election this year - has made it abundantly clear it will not raise taxes. This fiscal mess will likely get papered over again this summer, leaving a major headache to the next governor who will also have to deal with a looming pension crisis and massive underfunding of the state's unemployment compensation fund.

It is clear the time has come for Pennsylvania to change course. The profligate spending of Ed Rendell has brought into clear focus the failure of his big spending, big government agenda. This is in stark contrast to the fiscal discipline and conservative governing approach that brought the commonwealth an era of prosperity during the Thornburgh years.

As the campaign for governor unfolds, conservatives need to press the case for a return to fiscally conservative governing principles and use them to undertake a widespread structural change in the way state government does business. The course we are on is unsustainable, and there is only one route out, and that requires taking a sharp right turn.

It can be done.

Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal. His email address is

May 1, 2010

Now Is The Time For Pennsylvania Republicans To Support Sam Rohrer For Governor

Dear Pennsylvania Republicans. I am asking you to consider supporting Sam Rohrer's campaign for Governor. Sam and his family have spent the last four months traveling all over the state energizing those who have attended his campaign stops. Now Sam's campaign desperately needs your help and now is the time to energize the get out the vote effort for Sam. These next couple of weeks are going to be crucial, so tell a friend that Sam's Our Man and to vote on May 18th!!

I truly believe that Sam Rohrer is the right man at the right time for the future of Pennsylvania. Sam is the one true conservative in this race. He is the only candidate Pennsylvanians can trust to not increase our taxes. Sam is also is pushing hard for Harrisburg reform and is committed to cutting spending during these very difficult economic times. Do you really think Tom Corbett with his insider connections and his ties to Harrisburg lobbyists is going to be committed to holding the line on state spending? We all know what the answer is going to be!!

You may have not decided whom you are supporting for Governor, so I will tell you some reasons why I am supporting Sam Rohrer for Governor:
  • As a state lawmaker, Sam has never equivocated from his 100% pro-life position, earning the consistent support of pro-life and pro-family organizations including the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation.
  • As a sponsor of the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment, Sam has opposed all efforts to redefine the institution of marriage including so-called "civil unions" and other legal arrangements he believes undermines family.
  • Sam Rohrer believes the 10th Amendment offers a high wall of protection against the power and reach of the federal government.As a member of the House of Representatives, he authored the 10th Amendment Resolution, calling for aggressive opposition to the size and growth of federal programs, regulations and mandates from Washington D.C.
  • Few state lawmakers have been more vocal than Sam Rohrer in their defense of constitutionally protected gun rights. Consistently backed by the N.R.A. Sam is working to strengthen the right of citizens to use firearms in defense of their own home. As governor, he will not compromise on the 2nd Amendment.
  • Sam Rohrer is the statewide leader in the fight to eliminate and replace school property taxes.
  • Sam Rohrer led the fight in the House against Outcomes Based Education, won new rights for homeschooling families and challenged the ACLU’s position on parental rights.
  • Sam Rohrer has been a vocal opponent of Governor Rendell and the organized gambling lobby in the House of Representatives.
  • As a state lawmaker, Sam Rohrer continues to lead the charge against increasing threats to a citizen’s right to personal privacy.
  • Sam Rohrer has refused to receive donations from groups such as the gambling industry, trial lawyers and other groups who once in office could use their donation as political leverage to keep reform from happening. Because of this Sam will be able to keep his promises of reform. Sam's opponent Tom Corbett is I understand receiving money from such groups for his campaign and although he too is running on a message of reform, he will have his hands tied since he received funds from such groups.
  • I have personally heard Sam Rohrer speak. He is not an ordinary politician. He is a statesman who is honest, genuine and knowlegeable. He has commonsense solutions to the problems facing our state. He truely is the real deal.
If you are still not sure or want to volunteer please take some time and visit Sam Rohrer's website at I hope you will join me in supporting Sam by volunteering your time to help him win this upcoming primary election. Pennsylvania cannot afford another Harrisburg insider like Tom Corbett in the Governor's mansion.