Corbett nominates Eileen Behr for Montgomery County Sheriff

The first female police chief in Montgomery County history could soon make more history as the county's first female Sheriff.

Gov. Tom Corbett has nominated Eileen Whalon Behr, retired Whitemarsh Police Chief, to serve as Montgomery County Sheriff for the remainder of 2011.

If confirmed by the Pennsylvania Senate, Behr will fill the office of the late Sheriff John P. Durante, who passed away in February of 2010.

Behr will also receive a tremendous boost toward a full four-year term as Sheriff. She is one of two Republicans seeking the party's nomination to run for Sheriff in November.

The other GOP candidate is Robert J. Durante, who is no relation to the late Sheriff Durante, but should receive a lot of support because of confusion of the name. The Democratic candidate, William A. Holt Jr., is running unopposed in the primary.

Behr is the endorsed candidate of the Montgomery County Republican Committee.

"Chief Behr has dedicated her life to public service. During her tenure as Chief of Police in the Whitemarsh Police Department, she has made it one of the premiere departments in the County," Montgomery County Republican Committee Chairman Bob Kerns said. "She has distinguished herself in the field of law enforcement, as well as in the community."

Behr has spent her entire career in law enforcement, starting as a police dispatcher with the Whitemarsh Police Department at age 19, and has held several positions within the department over the past 35 years – patrol, traffic safety and accident investigation, juvenile detective, detective sergeant, and chief of police, the first female chief in Montgomery County.

Ryan Costello is new Chester County commissioner

Chester County Recorder of Deeds Ryan Costello got a promotion Thursday.

Costello is the newest member of the Chester County Board of Commissioners, picked from 7 finalists who were interviewed for the post by the county's judges.

Costello, a Republican, will fill the unexpired term of Carol Aichele, who recently joined Gov. Tom Corbett's cabinet.

"I am honored to have earned the confidence and unanimous support of the board of judges to serve as interim Commissioner," Costello told The Mercury shortly after the announcement was made Thursday evening.

Aichele's term runs until the end of the year. Costello is a candidate for a full four-year term on the three-member commissioners' board.

The other two commissioners, Republican Terence Farrell and Democrat Kathi Cozzone, have also announced plans to seek re-election.

Each political party will nominate two candidates in the May primary and the top three vote-getters in the November general election will win seats on the Board of Commissioners.

Republicans have always held the majority on the commissioners' board and a Farrell-Costello team would have the advantage going into November.

Read more about Costello's appointment in a story by reporter Evan Brandt at the link below:

Costello tapped as new Chesco commissioner - pottsmerc.com

GOP has solid chance to win O'Pake Senate seat

Republican Larry Medaglia Jr. has launched a website in support of his campaign for Pennsylvania's 11th state Senate District, which covers most of Berks County.

The special election to fill the unexpired term of the late Sen. Mike O'Pake is scheduled for Tuesday, March 15.

Medaglia's campaign theme is: "The People's Choice for State Senate."

The current Berks County Register of Wills and former Berks Republican Party chairman, Medaglia is pushing four major issues: 1) Property Tax Elimination 2) Economic Growth and Job Creation 3) Reforming State Government and 4) Improving Basic Education

"This campaign is about the future of our community - a future where government leaders must be willing to make difficult choices and truly serve the community by lowering the tax burden and focusing resources on creating economic opportunities for everyone," Medaglia states on the website.

Medaglia's opponent is former Berks County Commissioner Judy Schwank, who voted to raise property taxes by 34% before leaving office four years ago.

Although Democrats enjoy a voter-registration advantage because the City of Reading is part of the 11th Senatorial District, Medaglia has a good chance of winning the election because he has waged successful countywide campaigns and the Democratic Party is split in its support of Schwank.

Many party loyalists wanted state Rep. Dante Santoni Jr., an 18-year veteran of Harrisburg, to be the candidate. Santoni's 126th House District is part of the 11th Senate District and Santoni is used to running campaigns and winning.

Schwank hasn't run for political office in more than eight years.

A party insider tells me Santoni and his supporters are very bitter at the way the party leaders picked a candidate and support for Schwank among active party workers is weak.

Visit Medaglia's website here.

Pennsylvania: The newest red state

Pennsylvania no longer has the blues.

After trending Democratic in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles, Republicans stormed back in a big way on Election Day 2010.

The Republican tide that swept across the nation Tuesday included Pennsylvania, where Republicans made significant gains at all levels of government.

Let's take a look at how the political landscape changed overnight in Pennsylvania: A Republican replaces Ed Rendell as governor; a Republican replaces Democrat Arlen Specter in the U.S. Senate; Republicans ousted five Congressional Democrats and held all current Congressional seats; Republicans held control of the Pennsylvania Senate by a 30-20 margin and Republicans regained control of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives with a solid majority of at least 110 seats in the 203-seat body.

A Republican will move into governor's mansion with Attorney General Tom Corbett defeating Ed Rendell-clone Dan Onorato. Republican Pat Toomey defeated liberal Joe Sestak for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Arlen Specter.

Pennsylvania voters tossed out five incumbent Democratic members of Congress from Pennsylvania, helping the GOP retake control of the House in Washington, D.C. Republicans will hold 12 of Pennsylvania's 19 Congressional seats come January.

Among Election Night highlights from Pennsylvania: Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta defeated 26-year career politician Paul Kanjorski and Republican Pat Meehan beat Democrat Bryan Lentz in the race for the Congressional seat being vacated by Sestak.

All of this took place in Ed Rendell's back yard in a state where Obama and his minions campaigned heavily for incumbent Democrats.

The message sent by Pennsylvania voters Tuesday was loud and clear: The Democrats agenda of deficit spending and higher taxes has to stop.

TEA for Two? Should the TEA party movement be co-opted by the government?

Guest Column By Lowman Henry

The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party movement over the past year has developed into a major force in American politics. So much so it lifted a little known state senator in Massachusetts into the U.S. Senate seat once held by Ted Kennedy, and last month held a national convention that attracted Sarah Palin and other big names as speakers.

But where does the TEA Party movement go to from here?

TEA activists, in Pennsylvania and nationwide, will undoubtedly have a significant impact in a number of statewide, congressional and even legislative races. There will also likely be an inflow of TEA activists into the official Republican Party structure as seats on both the state and county committees are up for election this year.

How closely though should the TEA Party movement bind itself to the Republican Party? When it adheres to its principles, which it sometimes does not, the Republican Party is clearly more ideologically in step with the TEA activists than the Democrats. In fact, is the Leftist Democratic agenda pushing for nationalized health care, Cap and Trade, excessive spending and massive deficits which have awakened and energized TEA partiers causing them to become involved or more involved in the political process.

Despite that, there is good reason for the TEA Party movement to not allow itself to be co-opted into the establishment Republican Party. It would be far better for the movement to exist as an independent political force, making common cause with the GOP when interests coincide.

The debate is running both ways. Establishment Republican leaders are divided over how to deal with the TEA Party movement. Some are politically savvy enough to understand many of the TEA partiers are part of the conservative base of the GOP that became disaffected with the party's straying from its principles over the past decade.

Other Republican officials are scared of the TEA Party types. One Republican county chairman recently called a congressional candidate to berate him for speaking at a TEA Party rally. State Republican Chairman Rob Gleason was the master of ceremonies at a TEA Party candidates' night, and then branded as rebels anybody who opposed the party's endorsed candidates - all in the same week.

There is no doubt that when the TEA Party movement and the Republican Party are united they are unbeatable. But, that unity should only exist around candidates who deserve it. TEA partiers should remain free to boycott those Republican candidates who don't reflect their ideals - or even to support conservative Democrats who do.

If the TEA Party movement is co-opted into the mainstream Republican Party its influence will wane. The movement is powerful precisely because it cannot be counted on: it must be courted, and candidates must prove they deserve its support. If the TEA Party activists are assimilated into the establishment GOP they will simply be taken for granted much in the same way the conservative Republican base has been in recent years.

This is not a broadside at the Republican Party. It simply is the natural order of things. In the Democratic Party, for example, the African-American vote is taken for granted because party leaders know 90% or more will vote for the Democratic candidate in any given election. Thus, elected Democrats tend not to be overly responsive to the needs of that community.

The same fate will befall the TEA Party movement if it allows itself to be incorporated into the Republican Party. For now, at least, the TEA Party is best developing as an independent movement, and the GOP would be wise to court its support. That will allow the TEA Party movement to keep alive its activist fervor, while making the Republican Party toe the ideological line.

It is best if the Republican Party is forced to earn the support of the TEA Party activists. Or perhaps, as happened in Massachusetts, the TEA Party movement can earn the support of the mainstream Republican Party. After all, the GOP had written off Scott Brown and it was the TEA Party movement that put him in a position to win. Only then did the Republican machinery kick into gear and help to put him over the top. The bottom line there is that Republicans and TEA Party activists worked together - and won.

The formula for success has been discovered, and there is no reason to fix what isn't broken.

(Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal. His email address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.)

Taxpayer Friends or Big Spenders?

By Tony Phyrillas

For the past 31 years, the National Taxpayers Union, an independent, nonpartisan advocate for overburdened taxpayers, has been issuing an annual report card for members of Congress.

The Washington, D.C.-based NTU rates each member of Congress based on his or her voting record to determine how "friendly" or "unfriendly" they are to taxpayers.

The group has just released its report card on the first session of the 111th Congress, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

"Despite a few encouraging trends, the results from NTU's rating vividly demonstrate why 2009 was such a fiscal disaster," said NTU President Duane Parde. "For every member of Congress doing his or her best to relieve overburdened taxpayers, five other lawmakers were doing their worst."

A Taxpayer Score is determined for each member of Congress and a letter grade is awarded based on the score. If you want to review the process NTU uses or the actual votes taken on specific bills, visit the group's Web site at www.ntu.org

NTU rates House and Senate members on their actual votes — every vote that affects taxes, spending and debt. While many other watchdog groups release ratings based on selected votes, NTU considers every vote taken by every member of Congress during a particular session, making its rankings the fairest and most accurate guide available on Congressional spending.

A total of 333 House votes and 227 Senate votes taken last year were considered in determining the NTU rankings.

"NTU has no partisan ax to grind," according to its Web site. "All members of Congress are treated the same regardless of political affiliation. Our only constituency is the overburdened American taxpayer. Grades are given impartially, based on the Taxpayer Score."

The Taxpayer Score measures the "strength of support for reducing spending and opposing higher taxes," according to the NTU. A higher score is better because it means a member of Congress voted to spend less money, the group says.

The Taxpayer Score can range between zero and 100, but to date, not a single member of Congress has ever scored a perfect 100.

In 2009, 55 lawmakers attained scores sufficient for a grade of "A" (earning at least a 90 percent in the House and the Senate) and hence were eligible for the "Taxpayers' Friend Award" — an increase from the 48 who earned top grades in 2008, according to NTU.

Unfortunately, 267 Senators and Representatives captured the title of "Big Spender" for posting "F" grades (15 percent or less in the House and 16 percent or less in the Senate), according to the group. This number is unchanged from the record 267 Big Spenders recorded in 2008.

The top scorer from Pennsylvania is Rep. Joe Pitts, a Republican who represents parts of Berks, Chester and Lancaster counties. Pitts earned a B+ in the report card.

On the bottom of the scale, Rep. Chaka Fattah, a Democrat from Philadelphia, turned in the lowest House score, rounded to 1 percent. However, 21 other House Members had scores that were higher by fractions, but which still amounted to 1 percent when rounded, notes the NTU.

I spent time on the NTU Web site looking up Pennsylvania members of Congress to find out how many "taxpayers' friends" are on the 2009 list. Unfortunately for Pennsylvania taxpayers, far too many of the 21 lawmakers who represent the state earned "F" grades from the NTU, qualifying for the group's "Big Spender" category.

Here's a look at how Pennsylvania members of Congress did on the taxpayer report card:

SEN. BOB CASEY JR. — F

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER — D

REP. JASON ALTMIRE — D

REP. BOB BRADY — F

REP. CHRIS CARNEY — D

REP. KATHY DAHLKEMPER — F

REP. CHARLIE DENT — C+

REP. MIKE DOYLE — F

REP. CHAKA FATTAH — F

REP. JIM GERLACH — C+

REP. TIM HOLDEN — F

REP. PAUL KANJORKSI — F

REP. PAT MURPHY — F

REP. TIM MURPHY — C

REP. JOHN MURTHA — DECEASED

REP. JOE PITTS — B+

REP. TODD PLATTS — C+

REP. ALYSON SCHWARTZ — F

REP. JOE SESTAK — F

REP. BUD SHUSTER — B

REP. GLENN THOMPSON — B

In the Senate, Specter and Casey are both Democrats. In the House, all of the Democrats from Pennsylvania received "F" grades.

Something to keep in mind as you go to the polls this year. Every member of the House plus Sen. Specter is up for reelection.

Tony Phyrillas writes about politics for The Pottstown Mercury. E-mail him at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com

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!

Two Roads Diverged in Penn's Woods

Will PA-12 be NY-23 or Massachusetts?

By Lowman S. Henry

Will the special election to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Congressman John P. Murtha be a re-run of New York 23, or a Republican coup like the election of U.S. Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts?

The direction of the race now lies in the hands of the nine county Republican committees who will select conferees to a convention that will choose the GOP nominee in the special election likely to be held in conjunction with the upcoming May Primary.

New York 23, you may recall, was won by the Democrat Bill Owens after a Republican civil war erupted when the party establishment selected a nominee who held views to the left of President Obama. This spawned the third party candidacy of Doug Hoffman who quickly became a cause célèbre for the conservative wing of the Republican Party. Ultimately GOP nominee Dede Scozzafava withdrew from the race; then plunged the knife in Hoffman by endorsing Owens.

In Massachusetts the scenario unfolded very differently. The establishment GOP early on wrote off Scott Brown. But, the Bay state's TEA party movement ignited a grassroots brushfire for Brown which lifted his candidacy putting it back on the national Republican radar screen. The GOP establishment engaged in the race; forged a common bond with the TEA partiers and Brown scored an upset victory that literally changed the political landscape in Washington, D.C.

The PA-12 special election could go either way.

Bill Russell was the party's 2008 nominee against Murtha and he gave the incumbent a run for his money. Murtha and the Democrats went into panic mode the last weeks of the campaign and then rode the national Democratic wave to victory.

Russell has never stopped running. He has been engaged fore square in the TEA party movement that burns bright throughout southwestern Pennsylvania. It is likely Russell will be the choice of a majority of the grassroots, TEA party types and certainly has emerged as a favorite of the GOP's conservative wing.

But the TEA party activists will have no voice in the party selection process. Under the rules of the Republican State Committee each of the nine counties which have territory in the 12th Congressional District will select conferees who will meet in convention to select the nominee. Typically conferees are tried and true party activists. Thus, the establishment GOP will pick the candidate.

What makes the picture both more complicated and more hopeful is the fact that southwestern Pennsylvania Republican party leaders tend to be more conservative than those in some other parts of the state. They also tend to be fiercely independent. Thus, the establishment party in Murtha's district is more in tune with the grassroots back-to-our-principles movement sweeping the region, the state and the nation.

Left to their own devices, Republican leaders in PA-12 likely will arrive at a party-uniting consensus. But, this is a special election and that means outside interests - including the National Republican Congressional Committee and the Republican National Committee will try and bring about the selection of a cookie cutter candidate who fits Washington's poll and focus group driven view of the world.

Also complicating matters is that Republican State Committee Chairman Robert A. Gleason, Jr. hails from Cambria County, which will send one of the biggest delegations of conferees to the convention. Under Gleason, the Republican State Committee has recruited candidates in congressional districts around the state to oppose grassroots conservatives, and even tried to gin up competition to Pat Toomey in the U.S. Senate race.

Gleason has also had an unholy alliance with Murtha over the years. Thus, he will want a candidate beholden to him. But he is also pragmatic, and with the eyes of the nation on PA-12 Gleason will want, above all, to win. This means the considerable influence of the Gleason organization will, for the first time in decades, be deployed on behalf of the Republican candidate. And that dramatically improves chances for a Republican victory.

The upcoming special election in PA-12 will be a gut check for the Republican Party in Pennsylvania. All the crosscurrents and rip tides that currently roil both the state and national Republican parties will be at play in this selection process.

In the end we are going to get either NY-23 or a Pennsylvania version of Scott Brown. It will be interesting to see what happens.

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

The PA GOP Saga Of Deleting Comments On Their Facebook Page Continues........

I received the following message via Facebook this morning from Michael Glick, Deputy Technology Director of the PA GOP or better known today as Pennsylvania's version of the Soviet Politburo!!

Michael sent you a message.

--------------------
Re: Page Block

I am just a guy. I believe in what I am fighting for. I understand you believe differently. Please respect that I am truly believe in the Republican Party and that we are the best chance at defeating President Obama and Nancy Pelosi's liberal agenda. It is absolutely nothing against your beliefs or passion. I hope you are having a great weekend and are looking forward to a great work week, not to mention (in light of a Democratic majority in the US House and Senate, a tremendous election year).

I truly believe that our country is being destroyed by a liberal socialist agenda. And that perhaps we may win a few seats by simply saying that Democrats are bad politicians. However, I believe that Americans want more than rhetoric about Corbett being an insider (which is an absurd notion considering Rohrer has been here longer or that Toomey is not a fiscal conservative)

I believe that these candidates, as do the State Committee Members who voted to endorse, that these candidates are what PA needs to win the support of a state that currently has more than 1,000,000,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans.

You, obviously, have the right to disagree. However, we will never discourage you from your beliefs. But please do not be slanderous to the Members of the Republican State Committee of PA by saying that an endorsement of a candidate is anti-American.

Best,
Michael Glick

I have not responded to this Facebook message from Michael Glick. In fact I don't think I will. Mr. Glick has a right to his own personal beliefs and his own personal opinions on what is best for the Republican Party. However, he does not have the right to inflict those beliefs on people that disagree with the same party he is a member of and works for. Heck our donations support his job. Is something wrong in the universe here or something.

This in a funny way sums up the essence of the entire Tea Party movement. The American people are finally standing up and saying, "Hey you guys work for us!". This entire situation is an embarrassment for the state party.

But apparently Mr. Glick is not the only one at the PA GOP that feels that dissent should be discouraged in the party. The entire organization apparently is discouraging dissent. John Micek of the Morning Call on his Capitol Ideas Blog has a great post today, "No Free Speech Please, We're Republicans.", covering the behind the scenes shenanigans that are going on at the PA GOP. According to the post:

Criticism of the endorsement, which came Saturday at the Harrisburg Hilton, is being efficiently purged from the page in the name of party unity, we learned this afternoon.

"We didn't allow any disparagement of our candidates before the endorsement and we won't allow it after the endorsement," state GOP spokesman Michael Barley told us this afternoon. "It's not in the best interests of the party. Our job is to win in November."

This is embarrassing and I am very ashamed that the party that I support has stooped to soviet style tactics in order to reaffirm their own agenda. The PA GOP will now forever be known as the PA Politburo for now on in my mind.

Warning

There is a secret government does not want you to know:

If you do not know your rights, you do not have them.

That is why they get away with laws that are unlawful, like the permit to carry concealed here in Pennsylvania. They get $25 from you, and in return you give up to carry as allowed by the Constitution of Pennsylvania -- without question. Article I, section 21: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned.

Or like the members of the General Assembly taking compensation that defies the Constitution:
Article II, section 8: The members of the General Assembly shall receive such salary and mileage for regular and special sessions as shall be fixed by law, and no other compensation whatever, whether for service upon committee or otherwise. No member of either House shall during the term for which he may have been elected, receive any increase of salary, or mileage, under any law passed during such term.

Hmmm. So no health insurance, per diem, hotel rooms, meals, are legal? Afraid not.

While you scrimped for lunch money, you were paying for most of your elected employees in the General Assembly, both houses, to chow down at your expense. They feel free to take your property to pay for their rooms and lunch, even though they took an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution. By my calculation, about 99% of the General Assembly breaks that law every month, at your expense.

Get your federal and commonwealth Constitutions, read them, and defend them. You send young men to war to preserve and defend the Constitution, how can we dare not do the same here at home???

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.

PA GOP State Committee Votes Against An Open Primary And Endorses Candidates

Today Republican State Committee members once again have chosen to ignore the overwhelming public outcry of republicans throughout the state who were pleading for an open primary this year.

Sources say that the vote to endorse candidates wasn't even close. So the committee is moving full speed ahead with the party endorsement of candidates for all the statewide races.

We The People of the United States has become We The People who are sheep being herded by the two party political establishment.

Update On PA Senate Race Endorsement:

The Party just announced on the PA GOP Facebook page that committee members have voted to endorse Pat Toomey over Peg Luksik who only received 12 votes. Pat Toomey received 327 for Toomey votes.

Update On The PA Governor's Race Endorsement:

The Party just announced that committee members have voted to endorse Attorney General Tom Corbett for Governor over State Representative Sam Rohrer. Corbett received 329 votes to 10 for Rep. Sam Rohrer.

Update On The LT. Governor's Race Endorsement:

KDKA is reporting that state committee members have voted to endorse Jim Cawley, a Bucks County commissioner, for lieutenant governor.

This is a big blow to both Sam Rohrer and Peg Luksik who pushed hard for the committee to not endorse candidates for statewide races during the primary elections. This also puts them at a disadvantage as the endorsed candidates have the luxury of utilizing the party machine to get their campaign message out.

More: Pa. GOP Backs Corbett For Gov, Toomey For Senate (KDKA)

Real Hope and Change Coming in 2010

Pollster Scott Rasmussen asks Americans each month to give their opinion on whether the United States is headed in the right direction or the wrong track. His polls were widely reported by the mainstream news media during George W. Bush's last year in office, but the right direction/wrong track numbers get little coverage now that the media's hand-picked candidate occupies the White House.

Nearly 80 percent of Americans told Rasmussen just before the November 2008 election that the country was on the wrong track. That explains why Barack Obama was elected president and Democrats picked up seats in Congress.

Bush has been out of office for 11 months as promises of "hope" and "change" swept the land, but most Americans now believe Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats are taking the country in the wrong direction.

A majority of voters — 62 percent — believe the nation is heading down the wrong track, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Just 32 percent of U.S. voters say the country is heading in the right direction. That's a small gain after two months of decline that culminated in a finding of 29 percent, the lowest number Rasmussen reported since February 2009.

The percentage of voters who feel the country is heading in the right direction remained in the range of 31 percent to 35 percent from July to early November. From late November until the end of 2009, confidence in the country's current course steadily declined, Rasmussen says.

It's no surprise that Democrats suffered embarassing defeats in the New Jersey and Virginia governor races last November. Obama campaigned heavily for the Democrats in both states, but Republicans won decisive victories in what many saw as an early referendum on Obama's agenda of record deficit spending, higher taxes and a government takeover of health care.

Only the most partisan of Democrats can feel good about the midterm Congressional elections. Most pollsters and pundits predict heavy losses for Democrats in both the House and Senate.

You not only have the normal disappointment with a presidential administration, but the Democrats' heavy-handed tactics in ramming through the unpopular health care reform bills will cost Democrats seats in Congress.

There have already been two attacks on U.S. soil by Islamic terrorists during Obama's first year in office — the shootings at Fort Hood in early November and the attempted downing of a Detroit-bound passenger airliner on Christmas Day.

Concerns that Obama is soft on terrorism are starting to resonate with many Americans, even ones who voted for Obama.

With Obama's job approval numbers below 50 percent and poll numbers for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid consistently below 30 percent, it's no longer a question of whether Democrats will lose seats, it's now a matter of whether Democrats will lose control of Congress.

Most political observers predict Republican gains of 20 to 30 seats in the House, where Democrats have a 262-178 majority and a handful of seats in the Senate, where Democrats have a 60-40 majority.

Some pundits are predicting a historic comeback for the Republican Party. The astute Dick Morris, who helped Bill Clinton win two terms as president, believes Republicans will take back the majority in both the House and Senate.

While publicly downplaying potential losses in Congress, the Obama administration has seen the writing on the wall. Pushing a far-left agenda and breaking numerous campaign promises has alienated independent voters and some Democrats. That's why Obama's job approval numbers have declined rapidly since he took office. Obama's personal popularity remains high, but most Americans do not support his radical policies.

The reason Obama is rushing legislation through Congress and making back-room deals that will cost taxpayers billions of dollars is because he knows his time is running out.

The health care reform bills, negotiated in secret without any Republican input, barely passed the House and only won Senate approval after key Senators were bribed by Majority Leader Reid at the prompting of the Obama White House.

And don't forget that the defection of Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter to the Democratic Party is the only reason health care passed in the Senate. Specter is probably in his last year in the Senate, facing a tough primary challenger (Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak) in May and an even tougher Republican opponent (former Congressman Pat Toomey) in November.

Without the 60-vote majority in the Senate, Democrats are done and Obama will end up a lame duck in his last two years in office.

Tony Phyrillas is an award-winning political columnist and blogger for The Mercury, a daily newspaper in Pottstown, Pa.