Doing the 3rd Congressional District Math: Mike Kelly vs. Kathy Dahlkemper

Written by Roberta Biros

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

Dahlkemper vs. Marin

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

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

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

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

What does all of this mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As always, just my opinion.

.

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

3rd Congressional Candidates Debate the Issues Again: Who will be the one to send Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper packing?

Written by Roberta Biros

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

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

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

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

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

Highlights?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting Notes on Each Candidate

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

Steve Fisher

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

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

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

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

Ed Franz

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

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

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

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

Clayton Grabb

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

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

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

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

Paul Huber

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

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

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

Mike Kelly

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

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

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

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

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

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

Martha Moore

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

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

One key difference between the candidates?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As always, just my opinion.
~Mercer County Conservatives

.

Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper faces petition challenge

Written by Roberta Biros

The details are still coming in, but it seems that Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper has yet another hurdle to pass in order to simply get her name on the Democrat ballot for the Primary. March 16th was the last day for challenges to be filed against nomination petitions for the 2010 Primary Election. The Pennsylvania Voting and Elections site provides the complete list of challenges HERE.

Based on the published list, Mrs. Dahlkemper’s petitions for the Democrat nomination are being challenged by Mel Marin, who happens to be Mrs. Dahlkemper’s Democrat opponent on that same ballot. According to a story published at PAIndependent.com, “There is a hearing scheduled for March 24, said Mr. Boyle, at which time Mr. Marin (or any objector) will appear in court to present the challenge. But, Mr. Boyle also said “Sometimes objections are withdrawn, and sometimes because of an objection the candidate withdraws, so that’s always a possibility.”

Read the full story at PAIndependent.com HERE .

My guess is that the basis of this challenge is simple political wrangling. It does prove, however, that candidate Mel Marin is determined to make a bold statement in his challenge of Mrs. Dahlkemper. For that Mr. Marin receives points for "spunk" in my book.

I'll admit that I know very little about Mel Marin, and very little is available through on-line research. Mr. Marin does have a campaign website [HERE], but it is not particularly robust. The little bit that I do know came from an article in The Herald last week [read the full story HERE]. In that story by Matt Snyder, The Herald reported the following:

Marin made news in Mercer County last fall for filing a federal discrimination lawsuit against the city of Sharon for allegedly refusing to sell him condemned properties for $10 each because he is Serbian.

Marin’s campaign Web site blames corrupt judges and bankers for home foreclosures, claims health care professionals push the elderly into hospice care so they will die faster, and suggests that gays use parades and clowns to seduce young people.

The Herald story was interesting, but some of the statements could be considered interpretations by Matt Snyder. Rather than relying on the snippets from The Herald alone, I would suggest that readers explore Mr. Marin's website in order to learn more about the candidate.

We will need to wait another week to find out how the petition challenge pans out. During that time we might also find out exactly where Congresswoman Dahlkemper stands on Health Care Reform. In other words, her political future may very well be determined in the next seven days . . . one way or another.

.

2010 Petitions are IN: A Political Summary

Written by Roberta Biros

Tuesday, March 9th was the last day to file nomination petitions in Pennsylvania. Individuals wishing to run as a major party candidate needed to gather a pre-determined number of signatures in order for their names to appear on the Primary Ballot in May for their respective parties. There are several state-wide and regional races of note, and the candidates in those races are numerous. All of the petitions that were filed are listed HERE for your review.

U.S. Senator

In the race for US Senator, three Democrats will fight for Arlen Specter’s seat.

SPECTER, ARLEN
SESTAK, JOE
VODVARKA, JOSEPH

In the Republican race for US Senator, two Republicans will battle it out for the opportunity to take Arlen Specter’s seat.

TOOMEY, PAT
LUKSIK, PEG

Details:

The candidates in the race for US Senator were required to gather 2000 signatures on their petitions, and they needed to submit a $200.00 filing fee for the privilege of running for office.

My Comments:

We are all looking forward to seeing Arlen Specter lose. At this point it is a matter of whether he loses in the Primary or in the General Election. I wish I had a preference, but I do not. Anytime will be a good time to see Arlen Specter retire.

Pennsylvania Governor

In the race for Governor, four Democrats are taking on the challenge to fill Ed Rendell’s very capable shoes (that was a joke, of course).

WAGNER, JACK
ONORATO, DAN
HOEFFEL, JOSEPH
WILLIAMS, ANTHONY HARDY

On the Republican side, there are two options for the Republican Gubernatorial candidate.

CORBETT, TOM
ROHRER, SAMUEL

Details:

The candidates that wished to run for the office of Governor of Pennsylvania were required to gather 2000 signatures and pay a $200.00 filing fee. The 2000 signatures needed to include at least 100 signatures from each of at least 10 counties.

My Comments:

I have favorites from both the Republican and Democrat tickets in this race. For the Democrats, I have a special respect and admiration for Jack Wagner. I like Jack and I feel that he would make a fine Governor. In the Republican column, I am a fan of Sam Rohrer. In 2009, I published my own “Directory of Fiscally Conservative PA Legislators”. The list was based on the participation of the legislators in specific fiscally conservative events. Representative Rohrer faired very well in my unscientific poll, and, therefore, tops my list of preferred candidates.

Representative in Congress, 3rd District

To focus more closely on the Northwest Region of Pennsylvania, I’d like to discuss the race for Representative in Congress in the 3rd District.

On the Democrat ticket, current incumbent, Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper has an opponent.

DAHLKEMPER, KATHY
MARIN, MEL

On the Republican ticket, six candidates have stepped up to send Mrs. Dahlkemper back home to Erie.

FRANZ, ED
KELLY, MIKE
HUBER, PAUL
GRABB, CLAYTON
FISHER, STEVEN
MOORE, MARTHA

Details:

Candidates running for the much coveted position of Representative in Congress needed to collect 1000 signatures and pay a $150.00 filing fee.

My Comments:

First, I’m very excited to see that Mrs. Dahlkemper has a Democrat opponent. I wish Mel Marin the best of luck.

The field of six Republicans is interesting. I’m impressed by two of the Republican candidates. Steven Fisher seems very intelligent and hard-working. I had a brief email conversation with him last week regarding the recent problems within Mrs. Dahlkemper’s office (read the full story HERE, and I will publish details regarding Mr. Fisher’s comments within the next week). Mr. Fisher was quick to personally respond to my query, and I respect that in any one that is seeking a position in public service. I’ve also had the pleasure of meeting with candidate Ed Franz. Mr. Franz was kind enough to devote time to a personal discussion with me at a meet and greet earlier this week. Mr. Franz is also a hard worker, and he seems to have the best interests of the people of the 3rd District in the correct perspective. Candidates Kelly, Huber, Grabb, and Moore have not responded to my personal queries. I, therefore, cannot offer a positive testimonial regarding their ability to serve the people of my congressional district.

2010 Election in Mercer County decided by Petitions

As a resident and concerned citizen of Mercer County, I always attempt to focus on the races that directly impact our local area. Unfortunately, it appears that ALL of the races for Senator and Representatives in the General Assembly have already been determined.

Senator in the General Assembly, 50th

Incumbent Senator Bob Robbins (R) was simply required to receive 500 signatures and pay a $100 filing fee to guarantee is re-election. At this point it appears that he will have NO opponent. The Mercer County Incumbent Party wins this election by a landslide (based on 500 signatures and $100).

Representative in the General Assembly, 7th

Incumbent Representative Mark Longietti (D) was simply required to receive 300 signatures and pay a $100 filing fee to guarantee re-election. At this point it appears that he will have NO opponent. The Mercer County Incumbent Party wins this election by a landslide (based on 300 signatures and $100).

Representative in the General Assembly, 8th

Incumbent Representative Dick Stevenson (R) was simply required to receive 300 signatures and pay a $100 filing fee to guarantee re-election. At this point it appears that he will have NO opponent. The Mercer County Incumbent Party wins this election by a landslide (based on 300 signatures and $100).

Are you seeing the trend here? Well, it wouldn’t be complete unless . . . yes . . .

Representative in the General Assembly, 17th

Incumbent Representative Michele Brooks (R) was simply required to receive 300 signatures and pay a $100 filing fee to guarantee re-election. At this point it appears that he will have NO opponent. The Mercer County Incumbent Party wins this election by a landslide (based on 300 signatures and $100).

But does it stop there? Oh Gosh NO.

Member of the Democrat State Committee (43rd)

Mark Longietti (State Rep.) and Liz Fair (Mercer County Prothonotary) will again both run against no other candidates for the two seats. 100 signatures each and a $25 filing fee allows the two of them to walk into the positions unopposed. The Mercer County Incumbent Party wins this election by a landslide.

Member of the Republican State Committee (43rd)

Cindy Robbins (wife of State Senator, and chairwoman of the Mercer County Incumbent Party), Walter Richardson (husband of Mercer County Treasurer, and husband of the co-chairwoman of the Mercer County Incumbent Party), and Scott Boyd (newcomer and Tea Party organizer) will all run together with no other challengers for the three seats. 100 signatures each and a $25 filing fee allows the three of them to walk into the positions unopposed. The Mercer County Incumbent Party wins two seats and will do everything that they can to discourage all activity by Scott Boyd.

My Comments:

Once again, no one in Mercer County (with the exception of Scott Boyd) wants to step up to challenge the Mercer County Incumbent Party. Democrats are watching the backs of Republicans, and Republicans are watching the backs of Democrats. In the end, the incumbents run unopposed and everything remains business as usual in Mercer County.

I would be remiss if I did not point out that it is NOT TOO LATE to challenge the incumbents. If you have the nerve, it is possible to run against Senator Bob Robbins and Representatives Stevenson, Longietti, and Brooks. “How?”, you ask.

Third party, minority party candidates, and non-affiliated candidates can run for ANY of these offices. To do so, interested parties need to file nomination papers by early August. Until that time, interested candidates would need to begin gathering signatures in the quantities required by the State. That number is calculated by determining “2% of the largest entire vote cast for an elected candidate at the last election within the district”. Those numbers are computed below:

To run against State Senator Bob Robbins, third party candidates must gather 826 signatures in 6 months (41,302 x .02).

To run against Representative Mark Longietti, third party candidates must gather 519 signatures in 6 months (25,941 x .02).

To run against Representative Dick Stevenson, third party candidates must gather 488 signatures in 6 months (24,389 x .02).

To run against Representative Michele Brooks, third party candidates must gather 337 signatures in 6 months (16,844 x .02).

Races of Note from a Conservative Perspective

As I referenced earlier in this article, in 2009 I published my own “Directory of Fiscally Conservative PA Legislators”. The list was based on the participation of the legislators in specific fiscally conservative events. The full list can be viewed HERE.

I decided to take a look at the list to see how our conservative legislators are doing in their respective races this year. Of the legislators that are on the list, the following are considered the MOST FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE by my rankings. I’ve also noted the status of their political races this year:

Bradley Roae (6th) – running unopposed in November

Daryl Metcalfe (12th)* -- will have a Democrat opponent in November, but Rep. Metcalfe is also running for the office of Lt. Governor

Michele Brooks (17th)* -- running unopposed in November

Mike Turzai (28th)* -- will have a Democrat opponent in November.

Thomas Creighton (37th)* -- will have a Republican opponent in the Primary.

Scott Hutchinson (64th)* -- running unopposed in November

Kathy Rapp (65th)* -- running unopposed in November

Jerry Stern (80th)* -- running unopposed in November

Rob Kauffman (89th) – running unopposed in November

Todd Rock (90th) ) – running unopposed in November

Dan Moul (91st)* )* -- will have a Democrat opponent in November.

Stanley Saylor (94th)* -- will have a Democrat opponent in November.

Rosemarie Swanger (102nd) -- will have a Republican opponent in the Primary.

Karen Boback (117th) -- will have a Democrat opponent in November.

Samuel Rohrer (128th) – running for the office of Governor of Pennsylvania.

Jim Cox (129th) – running unopposed in November

Paul Clymer (145th) -- will have a Democrat opponent in November.

Bob Mensch (147th) – running for the office of State Senator.

Curt Schroder (155th)* -- will have a Democrat opponent in November.

* - an asterisk designates that the individual received my highest rating for fiscal conservative legislators in 2009.

In Closing

So, there you have it . . . a summary of the interesting races in 2010 as of today, Wednesday, March 10, 2010. As we all know, however, the dynamics of these races could change on a dime in the coming days, weeks, and months.

I’ve always made it clear that I support fiscally conservative candidates. The list above is a summary of “who needs your help” this year. I intend on offering my assistance to any fiscally conservative candidate that is willing to accept my help (regardless of the location of their voting district).

I’ve also made my thoughts regarding the importance of running for public office very clear. Competition and opposition during an election is healthy. It draws attention to the importance of elected office, and it forces our elected officials to defend their territory. I give credit to all of the candidates that have taken the step to run in 2010, and I encourage concerned citizens to get involved in the process. If ANYONE in Mercer County is interested in running as a third party candidate for any of the legislative positions outlined above, feel free to contact me at roberta.in.mercer@gmail.com. I am willing to offer assistance, guidance, and support in your endeavor.


.

Now is the time, Sam is the man, and we are the people!

An 18-year veteran of the PA House of Representatives from Berks County, Honorable Sam Rohrer is above all else, a Christian whose pro-family agenda is capturing great attention, and loads of support among grassroots activists, and many many constitutional conservatives across the state.

A constitutional conservative himself, Sam has spent the last six years attempting to eliminate property taxes altogether, and has garnered the support and endorsement of Pennsylvania Tax Payer's Coalition. Sam's view is that we should not have to pay rent to the Government for property we've purchased in good faith. We are essentially buying our home three and four times over. Sam has fought tirelessly against this, and as Governor, he will make it right.

When it comes to education, Sam believes the ultimate responsibility for our children's education lies with the parent--not Government. One has only to take a look at how our students stack up against other nations, and other states, and it becomes clear Government has not done such a great job.

Sam will seek to bring about educational choice for parents. I had a teacher friend of mine, now a principal, scoff at Sam's educational policy. Despite that my friend is a democrat, he is extremely interested in Sam and the majority of his principles. We talked about Sam's proposal, and he realized that Sam is talking about choice for parents (providing a set of tools), but that what this creates is competition. Competition is good for everything and everyone who truly wants the best. It raises the bar on standards, and no teacher or administrator that takes his or her position to heart need worry in time of higher standards and competition. On the other hand, those that are merely putting in time until pension day kicks in may experience slight anxiety with Sam as Governor.

Sam is unequivocally pro-life, and is truly a man of honor and integrity--well-worth our support. He will bring about the fiscal responsibility our state, which is currently dreadfully insolvent, has lacked for so long. Sam knows we cannot afford more taxes. Sam will cut Government spending instead, by carefully inspecting every state program including welfare and ask simple questions like "what was your original mission and have you strayed from it?" "Do we need this program and this many employees?" "Are we wasting money on this program?" "Where are necessary employees wasting money?" Where our current Governor punts these issues away, Sam will face them head on.

Sam is first and foremost a sound, decent man, who really "gets it." He gets that government has grown large, and arrogant toward us. He knows that with the relationship so severely fractured and abused, politicians must move forward with great care as there is no room for even the slightest breach of trust. Sam will not spend his four years seeking re-election. That's not what he's about. He's passionate, and when elected, Sam will use every second of the time available to him focused on righting what is so wrong in our good state. He is integrity through and through.

Never before has the movement on the ground been so active. Sam has created quite a stir. The GOP, however, has sought to silence the Sam Rohrer movement, and forge ahead with their machine politics.

They would have us believe that Corbett's name recognition is the only chance we have of defeating the democrats in the general election. But the fact is when the underdog, a much lesser known defeats the Attorney General (a self-titled moderate republican) because of a silly little grassroots movement, he'll have plenty of name recognition, publicity and momentum to take with him to the election.

If Scott Brown were running against Corbett, after the attention he gained recently, my money says Scott Brown would have the name recognition and the momentum to defeat Corbett. It was the people of Mass. that elected Scott Brown. Not the machine.

Likewise, we the people believe we have the power to rise above the political machine when we assemble on the ground for what is right and good. Tom Corbett belongs to the machine that supports and endorses him. Sam Rohrer belongs to the people. He owes nothing to the machine. Now is the time, Sam is the man, and we are the people!

Endorsement

Why endorse? These are the answers I got from the State Committee and the County chairmen:
If we do not endorse, why bother having a state committee?
I worked hard, and deserve to choose the candidate.
These committee folks were elected by the local citizens.
The citizens of the Commonwealth are not smart enough to make the decision. We need to help them.

True, we did elect them. True, in the past, we were too trusting, allowing them to give us such foxes as Gov Spendell and Sen Specter.

I think we could have done better if we had randomly chosen from the phone book. The Republican/Democrat habit of endorsement has given us the mess we are in. If you like the way your elected employees are running the government, vote for another candidate endorsed by the Republocrat Machine.

If not, look at the Rohrer for Governor, and Luksik for Senator. Two God fearing leaders who have been fighting the Machine (in both the Democrat and Republican flavors) for the last two decades.

You own a business, called government. Your children need you to manage it. If you lack understanding, ask God to lead you, and visit the www.pfa-pa.org web site.

John Murtha's Republican Opponent, Bill Russell, Issues Statement On Congressman's Death

Monday, February 8, 2010

On behalf of Kasia and our entire family, I want to express our deepest sympathy on the passing of Congressman John Murtha. Today’s news will be met with profound sadness by the hundreds of thousands of constituents he served in Johnstown and throughout the 12th Congressional District.

To Joyce, their children and grandchildren, we extend our heartfelt respect as you honor Mr. Murtha’s memory and reflect on his legacy in the upcoming days and months.

Sincerely,

Bill Russell
Lt. Colonel USAR (ret)

http://www.russellbrigade.com/

Scott Brown Wins!!! Scott Brown Wins!!! Massachusetts Voters Say No To Obama Agenda

Oh My God!!! The Associated Press just projected Scott Brown as the winner of the Massachusetts special Senatorial election for the seat held by Ted Kennedy for over 30 years.

Perhaps the worst political blunder in history, today's election results will send shock waves throughout country.

The Tea Baggers of Massachusetts managed to start yet another historic revolution by turning their backs on a big government, establishment liberal candidate like Martha Coakley.

It doesn't look pretty folks for the Democrats. The Brown potential victory has turned into the second Boston Massacre. I'm surprised Obama doesn't send warships into Boston harbor to squelch the revolt.

In the end the energy and excitement for Scott Brown the Republican candidate was just too much to overcome. Martha Coakley may have been a bad candidate but Brown nationalized the election. He made the race a referendum on health care. It was a winner for Brown and a loser for the Democratic Party.

It will be interesting to see how the Democratic Party elites and pundits spin this one.

Full AP Article: GOP's Brown wins Mass. Senate seat in epic upset
(Contra Costa Times)

Peg Luksik: The Best Candidate Running for the U.S. Senate!

Peg Luksik showed why she is the best candidate running for the U.S. Senate when she gave an impressive speech before the Blair County Republican Women and guests Thursday, January 14th at the Duncansville Hoss's.

She is running a campaign in the Republican primary against Pat Toomey. It is clear why Peg far exceeds the low expectations of her critics when you hear her speak. She is a dynamic speaker, very knowledgeable about the current issues at hand. Peg speaks with a clear and passionate social and fiscal conservative viewpoint that is extremely refreshing particularly because she speaks with a candor that is not very common among politicians these days.

Peg is prolife and "believes in the sanctity of every human life from conception until natural death" (source:www.pegluksik.com/issues). She also "opposes any health care "reform" that results in rationed care for seniors, the disabled and any other group of citizens" (Source:www.pegluksik.com/issues). For more info about Peg Luksik and her views please check her website at http://www.pegluksik.com/.

When you vote in this primary, don't count Peg Luksik out just because people think she can't win. Peg has an uncanny way of proving the critics and pundits wrong by making impressive showings just as she did when in the 1990 governor's race she won 46% of the vote in the Republican Primary spending $45,000 on her campaign. Peg can win this primary and also the general election if everybody votes for who is the best candidate and not the one predicted to be the winner.

Gerlach's Decision More About The GOP Party Establishment Than Money

I wasn't too surprised when I read the news that US Rep, Jim Gerlach, R 6th District announced that he was no longer running for Governor in 2010. Come to think of it, was Gerlach ever really running for Governor in the first place? For someone who announced their candidacy relatively early, we never seen much of Gerlach out campaigning or even trying to make an effort to increase those low name recognition numbers.

I don't think that Gerlach ever really had the support of the GOP party establishment. These are the same party insiders who have been drooling all over State Attorney General, Tom Corbett, for two years now. Plus the State Committee doesn't like open debate in a primary election. So they choose to decide the nomination behind closed doors in meetings like the one that occurred over the weekend.

Republican State Committee members from Central Pennsylvania met behind closed doors at a Harrisburg hotel Saturday and took a straw vote that was overwhelmingly in Corbett's favor. Party spokesman Mike Barley said Corbett won 88 votes and his only competitor, state Rep. Sam Rohrer of Berks County, won 16.

I think Gerlach waited it out until right before Central Pennsylvania members of the State Committee met this passed weekend. The party establishment probably told Gerlach that he wasn't even close and it was Corbett's nomination.

Party big wigs probably took Gerlach aside and told him to "focus on the fights he can win." Once Gerlach got his marching orders he decided to stop his candidacy for Governor and then announce his re-election bid for the 6th Congressional District.

Like I said, Gerlach's decision was more about party politics than it was the money issue which he cited as the reason he dropped out.

For me personally, I am not sold on Tom Corbett. But member of the State Committee have a lot of faith in him. Sounds like what happened two years ago when they supported Lynn Swann. What a colossal failure that was.

I for one am going to take a hard look at State Representative, Sam Rohrer's candidacy. He is a great guy. If you ever seen him on TV you know right away that he is very passionate about Pennsylvania. I like his values and his solutions regarding property taxes and getting the economy of this state out of the backroom deal era of Rendell.

Also: Gerlach's decisions renew GOP hopes for Pa. (Philadelphia Inquirer)

Backroom Deals Cast A Dark Shadow Over Democrat Health Care Reform Efforts

Like many Americans I have grown tired of all the Health Care Reform talk in Washington D.C. these days. I just feel like the debate has been reduced to the background noise on a TV or radio. Yes, I am already preparing for the passage of some kind of reform. I know that my own health care premium will go up and that my income taxes will increase soon after.

This entire Congressional debate over Health Care Reform simply shows the American people how out of touch the Democratic Leadership in Washington D.C. really is. While we are worrying about whether or not we have a job and how to pay the next bill, they are focusing on how to gain more control over our lives by taking over the Health Care industry in this country.

Although I think there is nothing we can do at this point to stop things, I have to say that the following backroom deals giving handouts to states whose Democratic Senators were hesitant to vote for the the Reid bill really must piss people off.

The Following Are The Deals Given Out By The Democratic Leadership in the Senate:

Sen. Nelson wasn't the only senator to be bought off by Majority Leader Reid. More than a dozen other states received special goodies, including:

* Louisiana-$300 million in additional Medicaid funding

* Vermont-2.2% FMAP increase for 6 years for Vermont Medicaid program
-$600 million in additional Medicaid funding (CBO)

* Massachusetts-0.5% FMAP increase for 3 years for their entire program
-$500 million in additional Medicaid funding (CBO)

* Hawaii-Restores DSH funding eliminated in the past to expand Medicaid eligibility

* Michigan-Adjusts payments to hospitals according to local wage levels, which when adjusted aids Michigan Exemption for non-profit insurers in the state from large excise tax

* Connecticut-$100 million earmark for construction of a University of Connecticut hospital

* Montana-Medicare coverage for individuals exposed to environmental health hazards in or around the geographic area of Libby, Mont., subject to an emergency declaration as of 6/17/09

* South Dakota , North Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana
Adds 1% hospital wage index
Adds 1% practice index for physicians to cover geographic cost differences

All of this backroom dealing has shifted a greater % of the tax burden to people from other states. This is just shameful in my mind. We can no longer put up with this anymore. I say vote them all out in 2010. Just walk in the booth and pull the anti-incumbent lever.

Second Fiddle: It does matter who is Pennsylvania's next lieutenant governor

Guest Column By Lowman S. Henry

Dramatic developments in races for the United States Senate and Pennsylvania Governor have dominated coverage of the 2010 elections in Penn's Woods. But, a third statewide office will be on the ballot this year and it has drawn an unusually large field of contenders.

The job is that of Pennsylvania Lieutenant Governor. And it is apparently a plum assignment. The lieutenant governor is paid $161,000 per year and full state benefits. He or she gets a mansion with a pool at Ft. Indiantown Gap in Lebanon County, full state police protection, an ornate office in the center of the capitol and all the trappings of a top statewide official.

In exchange the lieutenant governor does, well, actually very little. The state constitution (a seldom read document) provides that the lieutenant governor serves as president of the state senate. That basically means standing at the podium and looking good while senators go about the real business of governing.

Aside from that, the lieutenant governor basically sits around and waits for the governor to die, to become incapacitated, or to leave office prematurely. That has actually happened quite a bit in recent years. Lieutenant Governor Mark Singel became acting governor when then Governor Robert P. Casey, Sr. had a multiple organ transplant. Then, in 2001, when Governor Tom Ridge was summoned to Washington to help secure the homeland, Lt. Governor Mark Schweiker became governor.

For his part, Schweiker actually made something of the lieutenant governor's office. He was delegated the responsibility of overseeing emergency preparedness and became the official face of state government often wearing plaid shirts during major snowstorms. His successor, the late Catherine Baker Knoll, did not look good in plaid, so she discontinued the practice.

The current lieutenant governor, State Senator Joseph Scarnati, is something of an anomaly. He is the President Pro Tempore, the guy who actually presides over the state senate when the lieutenant governor is otherwise occupied. When Mrs. Knoll, a Democrat, passed away Senator Scarnati, a Republican ascended to the office.

Having a governor and a lieutenant governor of differing political parties is virtually unheard of in Pennsylvania. That is because while nominees for the two offices are selected separately in the primary, voters cast but one vote in the general election for governor and the lieutenant governor comes along as sort of a package deal. Thus, it is not possible for a governor and lieutenant governor of differing parties to be elected.

That state of normalcy will be restored this year when voters elect a new governor. But, before that happens voters of each party will get to determine in the May primary who will be their candidates for lieutenant governor. For Republicans the field is large and diverse, but few contenders have emerged on the Democratic side.

Depending on the day, there are over a dozen Republicans seeking the GOP nod for lieutenant governor. Campaigning with various degrees of seriousness are several state representatives, a couple of county commissioners and a former county executive, businessmen, reform activists, a city councilman, and even a minister.

At this point the Republican nomination appears to be wide open. Typically, the party's endorsed candidate for governor picks a running mate. But sheer numbers make that hazardous this year as one happy camper would be overwhelmed by disappointed also-rans. The number of candidates virtually ensures a contested primary, so a pick from the top could ultimately be rejected by voters.

Meanwhile, far fewer Democrats have shown an interest in the office. Perhaps that is because the race for governor on the Democratic side of the ledger is less settled than it is for Republicans. The only serious candidate to emerge to date is former Philadelphia Controller Jonathan Saidel. Several others have floated trial balloons, but at this point the nomination appears Saidel's to lose.

A flood of Republican candidates and a dearth of Democratic candidates only tend to make an obscure race even more so. Republican voters will have difficulty sorting through the field, while there is little interest on the Democratic side. With more fireworks expected in hotly contested U.S. Senate and gubernatorial races, the party nomination battles for lieutenant governor will be largely overlooked.

But they shouldn't be. While the office in and of itself has no power and virtually no influence, lieutenant governors have been called upon to step into the top spot. And when they are, the circumstances are almost always bad. And the only real chance for voters to weigh in comes during the primary process. So, while it may be second fiddle, it is important to pay attention to who is standing next to Pennsylvania's new governor on inauguration day.

Lowman S. Henry is chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the Lincoln Radio Journal. His e-mail address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org