Critz up big in latest poll.

VIA our friends at PolticsPA: After a very tough primary where Rep. Critz defeated Jason Altmire, Critz is cruising to victory over challenger Keith Rothfus according to the latest poll.

Critz’s name ID: 57 percent of voters surveyed had an opinion of him (38 percent positive, 19 percent negative). The residual name ID from Rothfus’s own race against Altmire, in 2010 when he lost by 1.4 percent, has faded a bit more. Just 21 percent of voters had an opinion of Rothfus (14 percent positive, 7 percent negative). In the Johnstown area of the district currently represented by Critz (about 30 percent of the district overall) he holds a 60 to 34 percent lead.

Critz has been distancing himself from Obama and considering the demographics of his district that is a good thing in this political climate. Critz also announced he is planning on skipping the Democratic National Convention this week. Considering Critz is pro gun rights and is generally more conservative than former PA Senator Arlen Specter, I think this district can be counted as a conservative win this election cycle. A pleasant shift away from the rule of Critz's old boss, Murtha, who used to be the top dog here.

Winning the Battle but Losing the War

Guest Column by Terry Madonna and Michael Young

The New York Times calls Pennsylvania a “toss up state.” Others have tagged it a “battleground state” and even a “swing state.” Electoral labels aside, Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes comprise the second largest prize among the competitive states. Not surprisingly, both presidential campaigns seem to be taking the state seriously despite Barack Obama’s approximate 8-point lead and a string of Democratic victories stretching back to 1988.

But if the Keystone State is in play now, it may not be for long once an impending Supreme Court decision is handed down.

Shortly, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to announce whether the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obama Care) passes constitutional scrutiny. Most observers expect some or the entire act to be struck down. If this happens the electoral implications will be profound. In fact, striking down all or major portions of the health care law could reshape the ongoing presidential race in ways only now dimly perceived.

Exactly why this is so requires explanation and history provides it. Indeed, American history offers a compelling lesson: in analogous situations to the health care debate: the losing side in major court cases often becomes energized while the winning side often becomes complacent. The nation’s long running legal debate over abortion exemplifies this pattern, although it has existed as far back as ante-bellum Civil War times. Many of the transformative issues of American national life including prohibition, women’s suffrage and even slavery illustrate the principle.

Applying this lesson to health care means a Democratic loss in the Supreme Court could inject a powerful shot of adrenaline into a largely apathetic Democratic Party base. At the same time it would probably undercut the GOP enthusiasm that has been so massively mobilized by opposition to Obama’s healthcare plan.

The converse, while unlikely, is true also. If the Supreme Court does uphold Obama care, it will be Republicans who are energized, with consequences equally as significant for the 2012 election. States now comfortably in Obama’s column could become toss-ups overnight.

How can a single Supreme Court decision hold so much importance to an election? One way to answer this question is to examine the most recent Franklin & Marshall College Poll that asked Pennsylvania voters how they felt about Obama’s health care law.

Statewide, Pennsylvanians are actually divided somewhat evenly on Obama’s healthcare legislation, with about 46% in favor and 48% opposed. But this apparent divided opinion dissolves dramatically when one examines the data along party lines.

Rarely, if ever, is there greater polarization along party lines than exists on this issue. In Pennsylvania eight in ten Republicans oppose the Affordable Care Act, but only about two in ten Democrats do.

The sharp party polarization in Pennsylvania is roughly mirrored in national statistics. The Pew Research Center estimates that nationally 88% of Republicans disapprove of the law, while only 37% of Democrats disapprove.

Opposition to Obama care has been the GOP’s hot button issue in 2012. Consequently, if the Supreme Court scuttles it, the issue that has animated Republican voters more than any other will be mooted. Taking it off the table inevitably effects Republican turnout and support for Romney. How much is impossible to say. But by winning in the Supreme Court, some of the air goes out of the GOP electoral balloon.

Similarly it is impossible to know how much losing in the Supreme Court will motivate Democratic voters . The now relatively quiescent Democratic base, however, might respond vigorously. Certainly Democratic strategists will have new found opportunity to castigate Republicans over issues that have been moribund since Obama care was passed, including uninsured voters and lifetime spending limits.

What this means for Pennsylvania is that a race now seen as more and more winnable for Republicans may instead shift decisively toward Obama and the Democrats. What it means nationally is that a tight race gets tighter still.

Winning on health care reform could cost Republicans the presidency, while losing could give Democrats another term in the White House. If it turns out this way, it won’t be the first time in American history that winning a legal battle lost a political war.

Politically Uncorrected™ is published twice monthly, and previous columns can be viewed at http://politics.fandm.edu.

Reason for Pessimism

Guest Column by Lowman S. Henry

Convention wisdom over the past few months has it the economy is finally beginning to emerge from the recession that began back in 2008. So it was a bit surprising that the Spring 2012 Keystone Business Climate Survey of major employers found chief executive officers around the commonwealth were more pessimistic about the direction of the state's economy than they were a year ago.

In fact, by almost a two-to-one margin, the CEOs said Pennsylvania's economy had gotten worse over the previous six months rather than better. A majority - 51% - said the state's economy had remained about the same. That, however, is faint praise in that recent surveys have placed economic confidence levels at their lowest point in the 17-year history of the poll.

This raises the question: Is the economy really improving, or has the mainstream media bought into Obama Administration election year spin?

The answer is probably a bit of both. After four down years the dynamic nature of the American economy is such that some improvement — as reflected in the rising equity markets — is real and likely sustainable. However, government created uncertainty has fostered a climate in which many businesses are still not ready to risk significant amounts of capital on expansion.

At the national level the chief culprit is the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare. Businesses have not been able to digest the highly complicated legislation, let alone begin to project how regulators might interpret the law. Adding to the chaos are constitutional questions, which will be answered in a few weeks when the Supreme Court of the United States issues its ruling.

But here in Penn's Woods the business climate is also suffering from growing disappointment with state government. There was actually a slight uptick in business optimism last Fall as business leaders looked to a new Republican governor and historic Republican majorities in both chambers of the General Assembly and anticipated the passage of business friendly legislation.

To be sure some progress has been made, but the pace of reform has been disappointing, so much so that as the legislature lumbers into the last six months of its session the lack of progress has become downright disheartening.

This disappointment is reflected in the job performance rating of the General Assembly. Fifty-six percent of the CEOs surveyed have a negative opinion of the job being done by the state Senate, 22% view the upper chamber positively. The House fares marginally better: 53% have a negative opinion of the job being done by the House, 26% offer a positive view.

While generally applauding the fact Governor Corbett and the legislature held the line on both taxes and spending last year — and appear likely to do the same in the budget currently under consideration — business leaders say the cuts do not go far enough. Fifty-nine percent want state spending cut further. And there are no sacred cows. Seventy percent say they want cuts in public welfare; 42% would cut human services; and 38% want further cuts in higher education spending.

In short, the business community wants state government to do what it has done: cut costs and live within its means. Many businesses have trimmed their workforce, cut hours, reduced product lines, and taken other unpleasant steps in order to remain viable in the down economy. They look at government and want it to do the same.

And so, as major issues such as privatization of the state's liquor stores, school choice, dealing with the looming state and school district pension crisis, and union power issues remain unresolved the hopes for a major change raised by the onset of Republican dominance in Harrisburg are giving way to disillusionment and becoming manifest in a growing pessimism over the direction of the state's economy.

Making matters worse, everyone knows that when the legislature adjourns in early July for its two month summer vacation there is no chance of any proposal even remotely controversial being brought up in September or October as the General Election season will be in high gear.

So, little has been accomplished and the window of opportunity is closing. Therein lays the explanation as to why the brief burst of optimism that developed last year has reverted back to recession era pessimism.

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 Antidote to Voter Apathy & Improved Election Outcomes: The Political Committee Person

Guest Column by Lois Kaneshiki

Less than one-third of registered Republicans turned out to vote in the Primary of 2012. For those of us who are paying attention, it seems unfathomable that Republicans would not be interested in helping to choose who their next United States Senator should be, even if they believe the GOP presidential Primary is over. The question, “Why don’t they vote?” has almost become a cliché.

What kind of outcome do we get from this kind of voter behavior and what can we do about it, if anything?

Let’s take a look at the people who do come out and vote, the ones who don’t, and what we can do about it.

The Informed and the “Regulars”

The “party regular” is the voter who will come out and vote “no matter what.” They believe it is their civic duty to vote and they take pride in their flawless voting record. We know they vote incumbents back in office the majority of the time, even though most people seem to be dissatisfied with the performance of this same government.

The people who actually follow the election and the candidates are few. Even people who try to keep up with the “news” seem unaware of who the candidates are the week before the election.

Why Don’t People Vote?

We currently have a small minority of eligible voters electing candidates to office. The vast majority of citizens don’t feel it is worth the effort to educate themselves about the candidates, don’t have the time, or have some other “it just doesn’t matter” type attitude.

If you ask them why they don’t vote you will get various answers such as, “they are all the same,” “they are all corrupt,” “nothing will ever change,” etc. It is a very fatalistic and pessimistic attitude. They feel these are people who are far away, out of touch, and somehow all fall into the same unfavorable category of “politician.”

Before we look at how to address this phenomenon, we have to examine its roots and see what might be the plausible approach to changing these voter attitudes.

Case in Point: The 2012 GOP U.S. Senate Primary

First of all, can we blame the candidates themselves? Are they really all the same? Are they really all that bad?

In the beginning of the campaign season (fall 2011), the GOP had nine potential candidates for U.S. Senate. The variety of candidates could not have been more diverse. Most of them were “regular people” who are disturbed by the direction our country is heading and wanted the opportunity to be heard and to try to make a difference.

Isn’t this what the people want?

Or do you automatically become untrustworthy the moment you announce you would like to be considered for public office. If that is the case, we have given up the democratic republic that our founders handed to us and we are ready to take the elections away from the people.

I am not ready for that. Are you?

The Public is Disengaged from the Process

The public doesn’t really have any adequate central sources of information on elections that they trust. They don’t invest time in doing the candidate research. Many don’t have opportunities to meet the candidates in person to get the “gut feel” about the candidates that is so important.

Even tea party leaders across Pennsylvania were scrambling a few weeks before the election to figure out who they should support. In the meantime, several good candidates had already dropped out of the race due to lack of attention from the public.

Money: The Mother’s Milk of Politics?

The candidates who dropped out of the race early suffered from lack of financing to continue their campaigns. Money is used to help candidates travel throughout the state, pay staff if required, and to reach voters who otherwise wouldn’t hear about them.

Why has money become so influential and even necessary in politics?

The phenomenon of money in politics and public disengagement go hand-in-hand. Advertising influences voters who don’t have other adequate sources of information. They don’t have the opportunity to question assertions made in advertising to see if they are factual or distortions of the truth. As a result, people throw their hands up and think, “I’m not voting for any of these bums!”

Over the years, money has filled the vacuum created in politics by the failure to maintain healthy grassroots political organizations that fully engage their neighbors.

All Politics is Local

It’s not just a slogan!

What is the alternative? The alternative is the exact opposite of what the political “experts” and consultants want us to believe. It is not more money. It is more organization. It is old-fashioned grassroots politics. This is the function of political campaigns, but even more importantly, the county committees.

The Crux of Voter Apathy: Lack of Relationship

Voters are apathetic because of the failure of the political parties to develop local and lasting relationships with their voters that transcend specific elections. Of course the voters do not trust politicians, because they know politicians will basically say what is necessary to get elected. So who can they trust?

That is where the county committeeman or woman comes in. The purpose of the county committeeman is to establish the link with the local voter with the Party. They are the local contacts, the liaisons, between the party and the voters in the precinct. They are the “go-to” people in between and at election time. They know where to get the information and will help voters stay informed about candidates and elections. They have an incentive to be honest and trustworthy with their local constituents, because they are not running for local office – they represent the party now and tomorrow. If they do not do a good job, the voters will elect someone else the next election cycle to re-elect them. (For more information on how to become a county committeeman, see http://www.PrecinctProject.net.

Unfortunately, the parties have gotten so far away from the grassroots representation that local voters not only do not expect their local committeeman to perform this function, but most of the voters do not even know they exist. We have a lot of rebuilding to do.

Over one-half of these important committee seats, which are supposed to be elected by their neighbors, were vacant in Blair County on election day. If we are to keep politics close to the people, the continuation of this trend is unacceptable.

Politics is all about Relationships

If you doubt what I say, think about the “talented” politicians you have known in the past. They are people the voters feel they can “relate” to in some way or another. They are people they know personally (if it is a local office.) The voters have the impression they can be trusted. They are not stiff and academic. They come across as real people who are likeable and seem like they care about us. This either is or simulates what a person would be if you were to establish some kind of relationship.

Establishing Relationships Will Increase Voter “Connectedness”

If voters feel disconnected from the political process, the committee people can change that impression through making regular contact of some kind and letting voters know they are there for them if they need information, etc. This can be done in person, over the phone, through email, or the Internet. This can also be done more regularly and more locally by recruiting “block captains” within the precincts who will be responsible for a smaller section of the precinct.

Local Outreach Benefits the Party & Its Candidates

By reaching out at the local precinct level, the committee people help improve the image of the party. They are letting the voters know they are important.

The committee people are experts in their precincts. They are better resources to candidates and the party than any professional polling, because they are speaking directly to the people and know what they think. Voters are honest with them because they have established their credibility and they are not running for public office. Just as it says in our state committee handbook, they are the “most important link in the organization of the Republican Party.”

Local Outreach Improves the Process

When the voters feel more connected to the process they will participate more. People who haven’t voted may feel motivated to vote. People who only vote will be more motivated to volunteer a few hours of their time. Everyone will feel more hopeful about the process because their neighbor cares enough to stop by and give them some information.

Local Outreach Increases Awareness

When voters are visited by party representatives, they will have an opportunity to ask questions. They will know who they can call if they think of questions later. An informed voter will give us a better result on Election Day!

Recruiting Better Candidates & Getting Them Elected

Ultimately, more participation in the process from everyone will attract a higher caliber candidate and help us get these candidates elected through awareness.

Restoring Pride in the GOP

When local committee people are empowered to take ownership of their precincts, they will make a real difference in their neighborhoods. This local connectedness will allow the GOP rank-and-file to restore pride in their local party by understanding their vital role in the political process.

Ending at the Beginning

I hope you see how important the committee people are. When we have brought the process back to the grassroots, we will realize how important it is to have good committee people who are able to organize the precinct. I hope that this will attract the kind of committee people who understand how important their work is, take it seriously, and utilize their important position within the party.

Rick Geist fails to make the fall ballot as the Democratic Party's nominee

Rick Geist's political career is over.

Representative Rick Geist's 34 year Harrisburg career is finally over. Today, the Blair County Election Board released the their final election totals and Geist has failed to receive enough w to be the Democratic Party's nominee on the fall ballot. The final election totals show that Geist only received 172 write-in votes.

Many Harrisburg insiders have speculated since Geist defeat on Tuesday that he would accep the Democratic Party's nomination if he received enough write-in votes. After the election Geist hinted about a possible run in yesterday's PA Independent article.

Geist said Thursday he likes his chances of winning the general election over McGinnis, but would first have to decide if it is worth it to run.

“I don’t know yet. I’d have to have a long discussion with the business community and others,” he said in a phone interview with PA Independent.

But in the end Geist came up short. Suprisingly when you look at the vote totals, John McGinnis the Republican Party's nominee who defeated Geist by 200 votes in the Republican primary received 80 write-in democratic write-in votes.

Richard Flarend, a physics and energy instructor at Penn State Altoona, did receive 306 write-in votes, enough to be on the ballot in the fall as the Democratic Party's nominee. This sets up an election battle between two Penn State Altoona professors both focusing on reforming state government in the November election. 

Not Everyone's Cup of Tea

Guest Column by G. Terry Madonna & Michael L. Young,

Even if one doesn't buy tea, drink tea, or even like tea, the well-steeped tea leaves from Pennsylvania's April 24th presidential primary still make for some fascinating reading. Together they vividly portray contemporary currents in state electioneering while portending some dynamic changes in future politics and policy.

Here are five take-aways from the voting. Not all are everyone's cup of tea, but all are likely to influence Pennsylvania politics long after the November presidential election enters the history books.

• Party endorsements aren't worth much.

Governor Corbett and the Republican Party failed to deliver the U. S. Senate nomination to their endorsed candidate Steve Welch, showing once again that endorsements often mean little in modern statewide politics. This is a lesson state Democrats also have painfully learned over and over in past elections. In modern politics, with self-financed candidates, sophisticated media campaigns, and 24 hour news coverage, endorsements only matter if they bring significant financial and organizational resources. Increasingly state parties lack the heft to back up their candidate choices. In the future, party endorsements will certainly play much less of an important role.

• Ideological polarization continues in both parties.

The focus this time was on the Democratic Party with two powerful "blue dog" conservative congressman going down to defeat at the hands of more liberal opponents. Both Tim Holden, the most senior of Democratic candidates and Pittsburgh area's Jason Altmire are only the latest casualty of a seemingly inexorable trend to hard-edged ideological politics from both parties. A parallel trend in 2010 produced similar results for the state's Republican Party, adding five strongly conservative Republicans to the state's delegation. When the new Congress meets in January 2013, the state's congressional delegation in Washington will be more polarized along conservative-progressive lines than any time in modern history. Significantly, so is the state legislature in Harrisburg.

• Democrats might finally have figured out how to be competitive for Attorney General.

Since its inception under the amended state constitution, the office of Attorney General has been held continuously by Republicans. Voters appear to be more comfortable with GOP attorneys general explaining some of the reasons Republicans have dominated the office. But state Democrats have aided and abetted the problem by often failing to nominate AG candidates that appealed to the electorate's preference for a take-no-prisoners prosecutorial style candidate. Now in nominating Kathleen Kane, an experienced state prosecutor, who can and, in fact, has financed her own campaign, the stage may be set for a hard fought closely contested fight for attorney general this fall. Certainly Democrats seem to have a better shot at winning the office than any time in recent memory. Real competition between the two parties for the office is more important than ever since future attorneys general are more and more likely to continue to be future gubernatorial candidates.

• Continuing dominance of legislative incumbents.

Several marquee races resulted in the defeat of five state House legislative incumbents as well as a couple of closer than expected contests. These isolated elections, however, almost all featured unique local conditions. The much bigger picture is the huge number of incumbents that ran without opposition in the primary or face opposition only in the November General Election.

Altogether more than 40% of state House members and 20% of state Senate members face no opponents at all this year. Only a miniscule eight percent of senators and 14% of House members faced opposition in the primary. Of those with opponents in the fall, many face only token opposition. We are a long distance from the watershed 2006 anti-incumbency election in which 54 new members were elected. This year neither anger nor antipathy has morphed into a serious anti-incumbency fervor. The 95% reelection rate for incumbents of past years may not be returning yet, but we are far from enjoying truly competitive legislative elections in Pennsylvania.

• A curious combination of apathy amid continuing anger prevails among voters.

Even as voters continue to fulminate at their politicians and their policies, turnout Tuesday hovered in the low 20% range. Part of the problem with turnout is the dearth of competition in many state races. Voters simply don't have enough choices. In the recent primary only four senators and 28 House members had any challengers. Even the two incumbent congressional losses were the result of decennial redistricting rather than genuine competition. We face an interesting moment in history--low turnout despite the anger and the angst--how does that work for the fall? Democrats show slightly more enthusiasm than Republicans in the national polls, but neither party's voters seem deeply motivated. Will voters also just stay home in the fall as they did in the spring? An angry voter with an agenda for change is a positive thing; an angry voter, alienated from participation in the system, is a dangerous thing.

Politically Uncorrected™ is published twice monthly, and previous columns can be viewed at http://politics.fandm.edu. Copyright © 2010 Terry Madonna and Michael Young.

Memo from Voters: Stuff Your Endorsement

Guest column by Lowman S. Henry

Tuesday's primary election highlighted two serious structural deficiencies in Pennsylvania's electoral process. Once again the "Keystone State" was anything but in the presidential nominating process. And, clearly the day of the party endorsement - especially a nod forced from the top down - has passed.

For several weeks it appeared as if the Pennsylvania and New York primaries would be pivotal contests in the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination. But, several weeks ago when former Pennsylvania U.S. Senator Rick Santorum suspended his campaign our state's primary was rendered virtually meaningless. Sure, delegates had to be elected to the national convention, but the nomination had been decided.

Every four years there is talk about moving Pennsylvania's primary to an earlier date, perhaps to so-called "Super Tuesday" in early March, but nothing ever comes of the idea. So, as in presidential contests past, small states like Iowa and New Hampshire, and even other industrial states like Michigan and Ohio got to impact the choice of the nominee while we here in Penn's Woods watched from the sidelines.

Four years ago state Democrats did get a big say in the Obama/Clinton race, but that brief spurt of relevance was an exception to the rule. This year, lacking the glitz of a presidential contest, voter turn-out was abysmal. So many down ballot races - for congress and for seats in the state legislature - were decided by in some cases less than a quarter of the registered electorate.

Despite tepid participation in the primary election, voters did manage to deliver a message or two. The race with the most political ramifications was the five-way contest for the Republican nomination to take on incumbent U.S. Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr. That race turned into a virtual referendum on the once vaunted Republican Party endorsement process. That process was shredded by voters as they relegated the endorsed candidate, Steve Welch, to third place.

The Welch defeat marks the first loss of a Republican Party endorsed statewide candidate in a non-judicial race in over three decades. Part of the reason for voter rejection of the party pick was the heavy-handed manner in which the Welch endorsement was forced on Republican State Committee members by Governor Tom Corbett and party leaders. The fact is Welch would never have been endorsed without that support, and his candidacy never did develop any real grassroots appeal.

Party apologists will contend that the personal financial wealth the winning candidate, former Tea party activist Tom Smith, brought to the race was a deciding factor. But, Welch is wealthy himself and put over a million dollars of his own money behind his candidacy. And, former State Representative Sam Rohrer finished second having spent few dollars, but earning a wave of grassroots support. Welch failed to dominate with either money or manpower - two advantages normally associated with the party endorsement.

This year's GOP endorsement debacle has politically wounded an incumbent governor and called into question the effectiveness of the party apparatus in a vital presidential election year. The Republican State Committee should re-evaluate the future of party endorsements. The process this year both divided and weakened the party, calling into question its utility going forward.

Part of the reason for this is that the endorsement process has degenerated from truly democratic selection into a tool by which party and elected leaders exert their control over who gets nominated. The GOP has already split into "establishment" and grassroots conservative camps with the latter gaining influence with each passing election cycle. Forced endorsements only inflame the grassroots further aggravating that divide.

None of this is good for the party, and neither will it yield good government. This year's presidential election is shaping up as one of the most important in generations as voters decide whether to continue down the soft socialistic path of the Obama Administration, or return America to its historic traditions of individual liberty.

That battle will ultimately unite all factions within the GOP. But going forward, the Pennsylvania Republican Party must ditch the endorsement process and restore individual liberties within the walls of its own house.

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.

John McGinnis defeats Rick Geist in the 79th!

John McGinnis defeats Rick Geist!

There is no doubt that tonight was an historic election here in the 79th Legislative District. Longtime Harrisburg incumbent, Rick Geist, was defeated by John McGinnis in the republican primary election 52% to 48%.

The scene was an emotional one at John McGinnis' campaign celebration. McGinnis's supporters cheered as the final vote tolals came in and the race was called on WRTA. McGinnis was very humble in is victory. He thanked God for blessing his campaign and thanked his supporters for their dedication. McGinnis made sure they knew that this victory would not have been possible without them.

McGinnis then went on to focus on his message throughout the his campaign. Tonight was a victory for liberty and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania he said. Tonight McGinnis' campaign sent a message to Harrisburg that business as usual is not what the voters here in the 79th District want.

John McGinnis's victory is something I will never forget. A group of dedicated, hardworking everyday people were able to change the direction of state government. Liberty, the Tea Party, and freedom are alive and well here in the 79th once again.

Some 2012 Pennsylvania Primary Election Predictions

It's Primary Day in Pennsylvania!

Republican Senate Primary Race: In a surprise victory Sam Roher defeats Tom Smith, Steve Welch, and Marc Scaringi. Both Smith's and Welch's campaign ads highlighting their past ties to the democratic party made them both look bad. Also a big embarrassment for Governor Corbett backed Welch losing here.

 Attorney General Race: Kathleen Kane may be the PA democratic party's answer to Sarah Palin. She's hot! She wins a big victory over Patrick Murphy. The truth is Kathleen Kane ran a great campaign. Murphy did not.

State Auditor General Race: John Maher wins this one big. Frank Pinto gave it his best shot. GOP party establishment candidates always win these races.

4th Congressional District  Race: Commissioner Chris Reilly (R) tops Rep. Scott Perry (R).


17th Congressional District  Race: Attorney Matt Cartwright finally takes down  Representative Tim Holden

12th Congressional District Race: Jason Altmire (D) defeats Mark Critz (D). This will be very close.

11th Congressional District Race: Gene Stilp (D) defeats Bill Vinsko (D)

29th State Senate District: Businessman John Rich (R) defeats Senator David Argall (R).
Argall voted for the pay raise and Citzen's Alliance of Pennsylvania sending a message with a victory here.

37th State Senate District: Businessman D. Raja (R) defeats Rep. Mark Mustio (R). Mustio's racial debacle doomed his candidacy.

50th District House Race: Bill DeWeese resigned his seat this morning and will end up winning the nomination tonight again in Green County. 

79th District House Race: This no doubt will be the biggest surprise upset of the night. Professor John McGinnis takes out longtime republican Rep. Rick Geist. Geist's negatives were just too high to overcome in the polling data. Also this is another impressive victory for Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania. Another pay jacket caucus leader goes down tonight!

U.S. Senate candidate, Tom Smith, is the one true shady candidate

REALLY TOM? THE TRUTH IS YOU ARE A LIFELONG DEMOCRAT

The thesaurus describes someone who is shady as one who is not worthy of trust or belief; simply put "an untrustworthy person". In fact, I can't think of a better word than shady to sum up Tom Smith's campaign thus far. I have to say in all my time I've been blogging on state politics, I've never seen a more shady candidate than Tom Smith.

His latest campaign commercial makes you believe that he is the only true conservative candidate running in the Pennsylvania republican primary for U.S. Senate.

That my friends is just laughable.

Tom Smith has some gall considering he was registered democrat for 45 years.

A few months ago, on August 4, 2011, Smith switched his registration to republican, just three weeks before he filed as a U.S Senate candidate as a republican, on August 25, 2011. To this day, Smith has never voted in a Republican primary in his life. Just two years ago, in 2010, Smith was also elected and served as a local Democratic Party committee member in Armstrong County.

Smith also recently made a maximum $2,400 campaign contribution to liberal Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman Jason Altmire. But you got to love how Smith's republican backers like to bring up the fact that Smith also made campaign contributions to conservative candidates as well. Really? Altmire!

Added to all of this, is the fact that Smith was horrible in virtually every debate and didn't seem to fully grasp the questions let alone answer them. There is a big difference between making donations to candidates that will benefit your business and actually and running for elected office.

As a conservative primary voter, I just can't see myself supporting this guy. He seems to be all over the map and is basically a big money business owner who seems to like throwing a bunch of politcal money around.

All the campaign commercials between Welch and Smith that basically highlighting how liberal they both are just made me want to pull my hair out. Considering the fact that Steve Welch voting for Barack Obama and Smith voted for Bob Casey Jr. I just can't see how conservatives can seriously support these idiots.

There is no doubt in my mind that Sam Roher is the best candidate to take our conservative message to the voters in the fall.  So there you go I hope I helped my conservative friends here in Pennsylvania figure this crazy republican senate primary out.

Conclusion, vote for the one candidate that is a life long republican and did not vote for President Obama or Bob Casey Jr.

Rick Geist vs. John McGinnis: Rick Geist and the culture of corruption in Harrisburg

Rick Geist and his buddy John Perzel.

Here in the 79th Legislative District, Representative Rick Geist loves to pound his chest and highlight his 34 years of service  in Harrisburg. Geist's own biography says that he ranks as one of the General Assembly's, "most senior statesmen moving to the top of the House Republican seniority list in this, his 17th consecutive two-term representing the 79th legislative district.

Geist has a way of portraying his 34 years of service as almost heroic. His radio ads and TV ads over the years always end by saying that Geist is "your man" in Harrisburg representing your values and fighting for the people.

But when you look at those 34 years under the microscope you see a very different story. Infact, Geist has been right in the center of the many of the recent scandals that have rocked Harrisburg over the past decade. In recent posts, I've already highlighted Geist's votes for the 2001 pension grab and the unconstitutional 2005 pay raise scandal.

Let us not forget that it was Rep Rick Geist who nominated former Representative John Perzel (R-Philadelphia, now in jail guilty of corruption) for the position of Speaker of the House not once but twice.

A grand jury accused Mr. Perzel and nine others in a scheme that funneled more than $10 million in state funds to political causes.  The grand jury accused Mr. Perzel of politicizing virtually every aspect of his state office, using technology workers to develop political databases, deploying legislative workers assigned to district offices as campaign researchers and funding anonymous "robo-calls" to homes in the districts of fellow Republicans who defied him on a 2005 pay raise bill -- 82 criminal counts in all, ranging from conspiracy and theft to conflict-of-interest. Perzel pleaded guilty on August 31, 2011 to eight criminal charges, including two counts of conflict of interest, two counts of theft, and four counts of conspiracy for his role in using state tax dollars and state government resources for political purposes while in charge of the House Republican Caucus. On March 21, 2012, District Judge Richard Lewis sentenced Perzel to 30 months in prison and to pay one million dollars restitution to the state.

The following is what Geist had to say about his good buddy John Perzel during his nomination speech on the floor of the state House of Representatives in 2005.

(Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Legislative Journal January 4th 2005)

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Blair County, Mr. Geist.

Mr. GEIST. Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Clerk.

It really is an honor for me to rise today to second the nomination of my good friend, John Perzel.

In 1978 we came in together. John was just so full of energy, unbelievable energy, and I had the pleasure of working side by side with him during the battles and watching him mature to Speaker of the House of the Pennsylvania General Assembly.

And when you look at John, you think, wow, this guy really has been a self-made man. When I nominated him the last time, the first time for Speaker, I said that he was going to need a seat belt to stay in that chair up there because it would be impossible for him to stay out of the fray. John loves the debate process. But along the way, as any good Speaker does, he really became the shepherd of this House, and when we talk about a sense of collegiality in this wonderful fraternal organization, and new members are going to learn that, as I have discussed it with Mike Veon and Kevin Blaum and my three great seatmates, George Hasay, Merle Phillips, and Dick Hess, that kind of bonding that you get in this job is unbelievable. You will never
explain it outside of this building.

And yes, we read where John Perzel is now the most powerful politician in Pennsylvania – I certainly believe that – but to us in here, both Republicans and Democrats, he is a member’s member. He knows what it takes. He is not afraid.
He makes decisions for the good of the order, and that is the job of a Speaker.

Mr. Chief Clerk, I am absolutely delighted to second the nomination of our good friend, John Perzel, for Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Another nomination speech by Rick Geist supporting John Perzel for Speaker on the floor of the House of Representatives in 2007.

(Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Legislative Journal January 2nd 2007)

Mr. GEIST. Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Clerk, and boy, it is a pleasure to see you up there, Roger, after all these years. I do not think there is a finer guy in Harrisburg than you.

I stand here today to place in nomination the name of John Perzel for Speaker of the House. In 1978 when I came into this body with John and a few of us who are left, we were a bare minority, and I got to know John very, very well as an individual. I think he is a brilliant politician, a great guy, a guy who has done a fabulous job over all the years, and a guy who has been able to reach consensus, which is what this body is about. It takes 102 in the House and 26 in the Senate and a Governor to agree, and this is a guy who has been able to put it all together.

We have not always agreed on everything and we will not – he is from Philadelphia; I am from Blair County – but there is one thing that I do know: He knows how to do this job, he knows how to manage this House, and he understands the business of politics that we are all in. There is nobody who can do a finer job than John Perzel, and I place his name in nomination. Thank you.

These speeches are telling considering the man he is nominating for Speaker is perhaps one of the most corrupt politicians in our state's history. The part of the speech that really is chilling is when Geist says of Perzel "he really knows how to do this job, and really knows how to manage this House, and he understands the business of politics that we are all in". Spoken like a true Harrisburg insider.

The most pressing question for voters here in the 79th legislative race is how much did Geist, a member high up on the Republcian Caucus Seniority List, knew about Perzel's use of taxpayer dollars and state resources for political purposes. You would think a legislator that has been in Harrisburg 34 years and is, "Your Man in Harrisburg", would at least have a basic understanding of our state's campaign laws.

But evidence shows that Geist's previous campaigns actually participated in Perzel's corruption schemes. According to CasablancaPA Blog's, "Revisionist History" November 2009 post, Geist was one of the Republican House members who either knowingly or unknowingly were funneling contributions to the House Republican Campaign Committed through the State Capitol and their district offices. Geist was even mentioned by Rep. Mike Veon's (Former Minority Whip if the House now in jail for corruption) selective prosecution defense as one of the House republicans that were participating in the same type of activity in the legislature as he was. Here are a few links to examples of Rep. Rick Geist sending contributions to the House Republican Campaign Committee 2004 and 2007.

If Geist knew about the corruption why didn't he stand up to Perzel? I just can't stand a legislator who willingly violates the public trust or who stands on the sidelines when the public trust is being violated. It is time to kick out the longtime Harrisburg incumbents like Geist who have played a role in reducing the public's faith in state government to historic levels over the years. In my book Geist is one incumbent that needs to go.

For more information on Geist challenger John McGinnis's candidacy and his campaign please visit www.mcginnis2012.com.

Joe Paterno's family says no deal to renaming Beaver Stadium

It seems like the relationship between Penn State University's administration and members of the Paterno family continue decline. Today the Patriot-News is reporting , that Joe Paterno's family have recently turned down an offer by Penn State to rename Beaver Stadium after JoePA as part of a package deal that would have prohibited the family from suing the university.

This so called deal is simply outrageous. Imagine what the members of Paterno's family have gone thru these past five months, especially his wife Sue Paterno, and now we find out that the administration offered them to rename the stadium after Joe as part of a "deal". This is just shameful.

Thank God the family said no deal and apparently renaming the field in Joe Paterno's honor was not important to Joe anyway. Renaming Beaver Stadium is pretty much a fan driven idea but it is interesting to see the family's take on the matter.

A source close to the Paterno family says renaming the field would still be “a tremendous and humbling honor,” but it “has always been a fan-driven matter. It was never important to Joe.”

So in January, when Penn State tried to use the issue as leverage to get the family to sign a full release in exchange for paying the full contract, the family didn’t budge, the source said.

Renaming the stadium was one of three items in the package that would have come in exchange for a full release. The school also offered an apology for firing Paterno over the phone and said they would fully honor the late coach's contract.

Penn State did honor the terms of Paterno's contract last week by making an estimated $5.5 million termination payment to his estate, but an attorney representing his family stressed that the payout was not a settlement.

"The university had requested that the family agree to a full release in return for the payments under the contract," attorney Wick Sollers told the newspaper in a statement. "That request was declined and no release was signed. It would be incorrect, therefore, to characterize the payments as a settlement."

The terms of the contract also included a $3 million retirement bonus and the use of a Beaver Stadium suite by Paterno's family for 25 years, a privilege valued at roughly $1.5 million. Paterno's wife, Sue, will also receive a monthly payment of $1,000 for the rest of her life and has been granted access to specialized hydrotherapy equipment in the Lasch football building.