The Consequence Of A One-Party Town

Hours after the polls closed, the nation still didn’t know who would become Pennsylvania’s junior senator, as Republican Pat Toomey and Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak were locked in a back-and-forth duel, a race too close to call.

Finally victorious, Toomey thanked his supporters, of course, but he should have also thanked those most responsible for his success: Philadelphia Democrats.

It was the relatively light turnout in the city that killed Sestak’s candidacy.  Based on the 77,000 vote statewide margin --- out of 3.9 million cast --- if just one of ten more Philadelphians voted, Sestak’s election would have been a lay-up.

Ironically, the One-Party town of Philadelphia, with virtually no competitive races, led to the demise of the Democratic senate seat. As a matter of fact, the only race that was close involved  incumbent Republican State Representative John Perzel, saddled with an 82-count indictment. 

That said, there’s a lesson to be learned for Pat Toomey and all Republicans running statewide, including Presidential candidates: make major inroads in Philadelphia immediately, or suffer the consequences. The Democratic vote in the city always jumps in Presidential election years, as it will in 2012, and 2016 --- when Toomey faces the voters again.

*****

Now that the Election Day white noise has subsided, let’s look at the true picture that has emerged from last week’s historic vote.

The Republicans made huge gains all around, especially in Pennsylvania, arguably the epicenter of electoral activity.

Attorney General Tom Corbett trounced Rendell-protégé Dan Onorato by a ten point margin, the seat held by Arlen Specter was flipped by Toomey’s win, and five congressional seats fell into GOP hands.  And the state senate --- up until Election Day the ONLY elected Republican body from the Mid-Atlantic north and east of Ohio --- is now joined by a GOP dominated statehouse, with Republicans picking up an almost-unfathomable 15 seats to enjoy a 12 seat majority.

So is the Keystone state “red” again, like in 1994, when Republicans controlled the governorship, both U.S. senate seats, all row offices, and had majorities in the state house, senate and congressional delegations?

Not so fast. 

Things didn’t work out back then because too many Republicans chose power for the sake of power, and abandoned the platform on which they were elected. Likewise, if the current GOP winners don’t follow through on their campaign promises, they do so at their own peril.

Republicans have usually been an effective minority opposition Party; it’s the governing part where they have had problems. They must avoid taking the position of Robert Redford in The Candidate, when, after he wins his election, famously asks, “What do we do now?”

*****

The GOP would be wise to understand that the election was NOT a mandate for Republicans, as much as it was a protest…a shot across the bow of both Parties.

Voters have grown increasingly irritated with the Business As Usual approach in Washington and Harrisburg, and are demanding their elected officials focus on what the people want, not what some leaders think they need.

The best example of arrogant leadership was when Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama ram-rodded national healthcare legislation through to fruition. While the need for reforming healthcare is universally recognized , it was fourth or fifth on most people’s lists.  After Scott Brown’s victory for Ted Kennedy’s seat, the message was clear: jobs, jobs, jobs.

Despite that, universal healthcare was given priority over the economy. Give Pelosi and Reid credit: they got the job done against the odds, but with SEVERE consequences.

The Republicans would do well to heed that lesson.

The message is clear.  The GOP cannot just be Party of No.  Instead, voters are insisting that they work with Obama and the Democrats, creating solutions to float the sinking economy.

The Catholic vote is a prime example, as it abandoned the Democrats in massive numbers. Just two years ago, Obama (despite his avidly pro-abortion stance) won Catholics 54-44, but this time they voted for the GOP in droves. Some observers estimate that the swing was 34 points.

Voters want the focus to be on the economy.  If Republicans don’t make strides in this regard, their gains will be in jeopardy over the next several years. And they can’t make progress unless they are honestly willing to work with their counterparts.

Where do they agree? For starters, offshore drilling, nuclear power, certain tax cuts, and more teacher accountability. The President made these items part of his agenda this year, only to be met with disdain from the current congressional Republicans, who made no attempt to cooperate on these issues.

So here’s the $64,000 question: will the incoming Republicans give serious effort to getting America back on track, knowing that any achievements will help Obama’s reelection, or will they play partisan politics, trying to turn every word the President utters and every action of the Democratic senate into a campaign sound-bite in two years?

The latter choice is more enticing, since it’s far easier to play politics inside the beltway than actually make tough governing decisions, but it is a slippery slope.

Regardless which path the GOP chooses, it will most certainly make more gains in 2012 based on simple math.  The Democrats must defend 22 seats to the Republicans’ nine, with only four needed to control the senate.

But what then?

Obama will most likely be re-elected, made possible, ironically, by the Republicans gains.  It is very difficult to defeat an incumbent President, only accomplished four times over the last 150 years. In fact, an incumbent has to work very hard to have the voters reject him.  Give them credit --- Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush did just that.

Therefore, the Parties will once again be forced to work together --- done so effectively when Bill Clinton and the GOP got down to the business of governing --- or they will deliberately stand opposed to gain miniscule partisan advantage, all while solving nothing.

If a ship changes course only one degree, over many miles its destination will change dramatically, but trying to steer away from an iceberg only 100 feet away is pointless.

The time for America to safely turn away from the iceberg has almost elapsed.

America is at a crossroads, reeling in unprecedented fashion.  The decisions its leaders make over the next several years will largely determine if it will continue its debt-ridden decline into a second-world nation with a first-world military, or whether its beacon will once again glow brightly as the Shining City on a Hill, the civilized leader in an increasingly chaotic world.

If the choice is Business As Usual, if it’s Robert Redford’s line, if it’s divisive politics at its worst, then it won’t matter which Party rules Washington, because the lights will already have gone out.

And what a wholly avoidable tragedy that would be.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears nationally in Newsmax, also serves as a guest commentator on Philadelphia-area talk radio shows, and makes numerous other television and radio appearances, most notably on FOX.  He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Freind talks about Corbett's "unprecedented" situation...not owing the legislature anything because he "didn't take one penny" from them...so his agenda won't be "watered down by political IOU's"....and that he "defied the Business As Usual approach by indicting two former House Speakers"...
 
 
He added that the Marcellus Shale is ..." not the basketball player the 76ers need to win the Championship..."

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/politics/what-new-governor-means-to-philly

Desperate and baseless attacks are backfiring on Dems across the state

Vice President Joe Biden visited Delaware County this week, stumping for Democratic congressional candidate Bryan Lentz.  In his remarks, Biden blamed the Bush Administration for the nations’ economic woes, further chastising the GOP for not “getting it.”

As far as not getting it, it remained unclear as to which Bush Administration Biden was referring.  But why stop at Bush I?  Why not blame Nixon and Cal Coolidge, too?

The Veep, in an attempt to rally his troops, emphatically stated that those reports (READ: every single poll) predicting the death of the Democratic Party are “greatly exaggerated,” and that his Party would “continue” digging America out of its hole.

“Continue”?  Wait…when did they start?

*****

There were two unmistakable messages that emerged from Biden’s speech:

1)      He can reference Mark Twain, and

2)      His Party is completely bereft of ideas, without the slightest clue as to how to right the ship.

Neither one is very helpful come Election Day.

Point Two is not a new revelation, however, as most Democratic incumbents have known this for quite some time.  Since they know it’s childish and ineffective to blame prior administrations for today’s recession, especially in light of mammoth spending and crushing new taxes instituted under total Democratic control, these seasoned pols inherently understand that they can’t run on their records.

Hence, dirty campaigns have hit an all-time high.

Just when you think the wool can be pulled over Americans’ eyes, and that they are easily manipulated, they surprise you.  Next Tuesday will be one of those times.

The Democrats aren’t going to lose control of congress, the state house and the Pennsylvania governorship just on the issues alone (although that will play a huge role), but because of something much more basic: lack of credibility and good judgment.  Kind of how the Republicans operated in 2006 and 2008.

More than ever, folks are looking for honest change and aggressive leadership on the issue that matters most --- getting the economic engine started again.  Instead of discussing solutions, however, many Democrats have resorted to the low-blow tactics so despised by voters.

Consider these Democratic campaign doozies playing out all around us:

• In northeast Pennsylvania’s 10^th congressional district, incumbent Chris Carney’s “conservative BlueDog” Democrat veneer has been stripped off by former U.S. Attorney Tom Marino, with several polls showing Marino slightly ahead.  Carney loves to tell the voters of the Republican district that he’s not a liberal, yet refuses to run on his record of voting for the federal stimulus and Obamacare --- and his 93% alignment with Ms. San Francisco, Nancy Pelosi. 

Instead, he has chosen to run ads attacking Marino’s relationship with a local businessman who was convicted of a crime over three decades ago, and one in which no jail time was given. Marino was unequivocally up front about this friendship ---years ago --- yet Carney portrays Marino’s friendship as a “breaking news” damaging revelation, wildly taking the situation out of context.  Carney’s smear campaign has rightly backfired, and despite a huge money disadvantage, Marino continues to hold his own.

• Bryan Lentz is giving Pat Meehan a run for his money, but rather than compete on the merits of their man’s vision, Lentz’ supporters actively recruited a conservative tea-party activist to run as a third party candidate. Stacking a primary field where most candidates agree on the issues is one thing, but doing so in a general election is tantamount to admitting your campaign platform is bankrupt of ideas.  Sure, all’s fair in war and politics, but this disingenuous move will likely send Lentz to defeat.

• In Pennsylvania’s 151^st state legislative district in Montgomery County, GOP challenger Todd Stephens, a former Assistant District Attorney, is running neck-and-neck with incumbent Rick Taylor. (Stephens lost to Taylor by only 400 votes in 2008). In a disgraceful ---and utterly baseless ---attack, the Taylor campaign slammed Stephens for his role in a 2009 high-profile murder case where one of the defendants wasn’t convicted. 

A local newspaper editorial wrote that Taylor’s charge was “pure fabrication,” and in an unprecedented move, District Attorney Risa Ferman called the Taylor line-of-attack "a complete, flat-out lie." Even the son of the murder victim was content with Stephen’s performance.

Taylor’s slanderous attack politicizing a man’s murder was so off-base that Taylor is reeling uncontrollably --- as he should be.  Even for politics, this is beyond the pale, and Taylor needs to be sent to the unemployment line.

• Perhaps most bizarre is the attack against former State Representative Jay Moyer, who is attempting to reclaim his seat in this Montgomery County district.  Rather than discuss the state’s imploding financial situation which he helped create, however, incumbent Democrat Matt Bradford has continually slammed Moyer as “Jaguar Jay.”  Why?  Because Moyer owns a ten-year old Jag he reportedly bought used.

The point?  Anyone’s guess, but it looks like class warfare at its worst.  Above all, though, it shows how truly “classless” Matt Bradford is.

• And for the truly clueless, we have Chester County State Representative Paul Drucker and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Dan Onorato.  To their credit, they are talking about issues.  Well, just one each, actually.

Drucker wants to toll Route 422, which is already an immense parking lot every single weekday. The fact that Drucker thinks levying yet more tolls and taxes on Pennsylvanians is the viable path to prosperity just shows how insulated from reality he really is.  Enough said.

For Onorato, his passion is similar --- pushing for additional taxes on companies extracting natural gas from the Marcellus Shale, the only industry that can restore Pennsylvania’s lifeblood.

First, Onorato stated that he would deny drilling permits to companies not hiring a certain number of Pennsylvania residents, which, in addition to being simply juvenile, is unconstitutional on every level.

Onorato (as he says in his commercials, it’s O-N-O-R-A-T-O, but could just as well be R-E-N-D-E-L-L) also loves to state that the oil companies need to “pay their fair share.”

Like they’re not already. 

Every company unlucky enough to conduct business in Pennsylvania is subject to the second-highest corporate income tax in the nation --- a whopping ten percent! So to propose a nine percent extraction tax on top of that just shows how far out of touch Onorato (Rendell) is in this race.

Maybe that’s why he has never led in the campaign, and Rendell’s statewide approval ratings are in the twenties.

*****

It cannot be stressed enough how important these elections are to the future of this state and nation. Candidates advocating the common sense policies of fiscal restraint, energy independence, school choice and public-sector union reform are leading across the board.

More important for voters, however, is choosing those with the political will and core convictions to follow through on their promises.

Only then will we be able to stop blaming past politicians of both Parties for current problems, and focus on the only thing that matters --- the long road ahead.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears nationally in Newsmax, also serves as a guest commentator on Philadelphia-area talk radio shows, and makes numerous other television and radio appearances, most notably on FOX.  He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Governor Christie:

Political courage.

That is the description you have earned as Governor.  And for good reason.

You have successfully confronted the most powerful special interests in the state, sending a message that there are no sacred cows. In doing so, to the pleasant surprise of millions, the entrenched “business as usual” crowd is finally on the run.

In that regard, I want to discuss what is perhaps the most patronage-laden and inefficient entity in the state --- the Delaware River Port Authority.

As you are aware, the contract of Authority Chief Executive John Matheussen expired July 17. While he is still functioning month-to-month as the CEO, his future rests with you.

There has been much coverage devoted to the largesse of the DRPA, specifically the $400 million in “economic development” funds that were spent on everything under the sun --- except the bridges --- leading to massive debt and rising tolls.

In addition to the misuse of the people’s money, there are a number of other factors to consider when deciding whether Mr. Matheussen’s contract should be renewed by the Board and approved by you.

Following are several examples of John Matheussen’s failed leadership:

1) Permitted Immense Conflicts Of Interest

Without question, Matheussen’s greatest failing is his toleration of the unfettered conflicts of interest that permeate the DRPA Board.

Upon assuming office in 2002, Governor Rendell appointed himself Chairman of the DRPA. One of the major beneficiaries has been his former firm, Ballard Spahr. In the three years preceding Rendell's election, Ballard received $25,000 in legal fees from the Port Authority, including only $480 in 2001. From 2002 until the 2009, Ballard has received over $2.7 million.

Ballard, its attorneys and associated entities have contributed $1.5 million to Rendell’s campaigns.

Two of the governor's former top aides, John Estey, his former chief of staff and Adrian King, his former deputy chief of staff, are currently partners at Ballard, and both hold or have held influential positions related to DRPA.

Estey has chaired virtually every Board meeting since 2002, and Mr. King served as the Authority's Outside Counsel. Mr. Estey and Mr. King are brothers-in-law, and together have contributed over $35,000 to Mr. Rendell's political coffers.

Former Pennsylvania Treasurer Robin Wiessmann, who had been a Rendell appointee, sits on the DRPA Board. Her husband, Ken Jarin, also a partner at Ballard, served as DRPA Outside Counsel and occasionally chaired board meetings.

Incomprehensibly, Matheussen never raised an eyebrow when Estey, King, Jarin, and Wiessmann voted to “accept and receive” Ballard's legal bills to DRPA, since that action amounted to money going into their law firm’s pocket, and, ultimately their own.

As you know better than most, Governor, the toughest challenge of being a leader is to buck the crowd and do the right thing, no matter how difficult.  But instead of illustrating that trait, John Matheussen was an instrumental part of the go-along, get along crowd --- to the detriment of all but the insiders

2) The Conflict Of DRPA Executive John Rogale 

Matheussen was asked about a possible conflict of interest with one of his executives, John Rogale, the Director of Labor Contract Compliance.

According to the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission, Rogale made a contribution in May 2006 in which his listed employer was the DRPA. However, for a contribution made several months later, the employer listed for Rogale was Remington and Vernick Engineering, of Haddonfield, N.J. It is one of the largest general engineering firms performing work for the DRPA.

Matheussen’s response? Two sentences: "DRPA can confirm that as of May 17, 2006 Mr. Rogale was employed at the DRPA. Mr. Rogale has informed DRPA that since his employment by DRPA on April 13, 2003 he has not been employed by any other employer."

And with that non-answer, Matheussen stated his satisfaction that the case was closed. 

Pressed further, Matheussen played coy, stating that he hadn't seen any information that Rogale worked for Remington and Vernick. When confronted with the election document, he sidestepped the issue, instead suggesting that it could have been a mistake.

A mistake?

If Rogale’s employer had been NASA, that would be inaccurate. But when he lists a major DRPA vendor as an employer, that's not just forgetting to dot an "i" or cross a "t".

It’s just not believable that it was a simple mistake. 

The absence of due diligence in investigating a possible situation where millions in DRPA contracts --- the people’s money --- may have been awarded unfairly reflects a disturbing lack of leadership from the CEO.

3) Contract Snatched Away From Non-Union Contractor

In 2009, the DRPA awarded a contract to a unionized construction firm, reversing an earlier recommendation from its Operations Committee. Despite repeated questions, Matheussen refused to explain the Authority’s decision.

John D. Lawrence Inc., a New Jersey all-union construction firm, was awarded a multimillion dollar contract to retrofit the authority’s headquarters.  However, C&C Construction Management, a Philadelphia firm that utilizes non-union labor, was a lower bidder and had been recommended by the DRPA’s Operations and Maintenance Committee.

Freindly Fire questioned Matheussen as to why the board rejected the recommendation of the Operations Committee. His response: “The committee came back to the full board, and determined that the [John] Lawrence company was the lowest qualified bidder and not C&C construction.”

Asked if he could explain the 180-degree change, Matheussen replied, “No, I cannot.”  Pressed as to what specific criteria C&C failed to meet, Matheussen declined to answer.

To add salt to the wound, the President of C & C Construction was notified that his firm lost the contract --- by the media.

Is it just coincidence that the Port Authority’s board is laden with union representation? Maybe, but when Matheussen deliberately withholds answers, suspicion and cynicism only grow.

While Matheussen said there was no conflict of interest, and the contract awarded to Lawrence Construction had nothing to do with union affiliation, his honesty is suspect at best.

And based on his complete unwillingness to answer even the most basic questions on the matter, Matheussen sent a very chilling message to all cost-conscious non-union firms seeking business with the DRPA: “Good Luck.” 

4) Bridges Are In Disrepair…Yet Funds Were Available

By the DRPA’s own admission, the Walt Whitman Bridge is several years past due for its re-decking project.  Why? Lack of funds. 

And how is it that there is a money shortage? 

Because the Port Authority squandered hundreds of millions on projects such as the soccer stadium, the Kimmel Center and the Barnes Foundation --- all worthy projects but having absolutely nothing to do with the integrity of our bridges and the safety of those who use them.

As a result, it is $1.5 billion in debt, and more than 76 % of its revenue is allocated to salaries, benefits and debt service. However, with nearly $40 million in economic development funds remaining, Matheussen and the Board chose to ignore the bridge’s infrastructure needs --- despite the potential danger --- and instead continued to spend money on non-bridge projects.

After stating, “Not to be picky, but it was closer to $350 or $375 million in economic development,” Matheussen refused to answer why the bridges continue to be ignored.

As is usually the case, the people are once again victimized. To date, tolls have increased 33% under Matheussen, and another $1 increase has been authorized for next year.

So Matheussen’s track record: a 67% toll increase, hundreds of millions in additional debt, still no work on the Walt Whitman Bridge, and a total stonewalling of repeated requests to view bridge safety reports.

5) Tram To Nowhere

In December 2000, the DRPA started a tram project to carry passengers between Philadelphia and Camden.  The authority spent a considerable sum  — possibly as much as $17 million — on the project, including  building a tower in Pennsylvania and a concrete caisson in the river near Camden. A sign near the DRPA headquarters marks the future home of the tram, yet no action has occurred in years.

Despite millions expended on an unfinished project, Matheussen and his communications office stonewalled repeated media requests for basic information on the tram.  It took three months to receive a feasibility study --- that had been completed ten years prior. A second feasibility study was promised but never delivered.

The only responses managed by Matheussen’s office were vague, noncommittal answers, with one advising the media to check  “newspaper archives (which) contain many stories on this issue.”  Additionally, standard answers to information requests were “Request received,” “Request acknowledged” “Received your tram request.” 

After four months of being told that answers to Freindly Fire’s requests were being compiled, the Port Authority’s spokesman, who reports to Matheussen, stated that all requests needed to be sent via U.S. mail.

To date, years after the requests were made, virtually no accounting of the tram debacle has been forthcoming by Matheussen.

                                                      *****

The attitude of John Matteussen, without question, smacks of arrogance and indifference: questions purposely avoided, conflicts of interest tolerated if not openly encouraged, and patronage trumping performance. Whatever credibility he may have had has been lost.  Whatever integrity there may have been at the DRPA has vanished.

In the real world, a tenure marked by this kind of abject failure would have come to an end.  But at the DRPA, such behavior has been traditionally rewarded with more job security.

Without question, the DRPA is a highly political creature.  Despite pressure to retain Matheussen, from officials such as State Senate President Stephen Sweeney, whose union leader brother serves on the Port Authority Board, I urge you to remain steadfast in holding the DRPA accountable.

Governor Christie, on behalf of millions of commuters and taxpayers thoroughly disgusted with the DRPA’s corruption, toll increases and incompetence, I urge you to clean house at the Port Authority and restore dignity to a once-respected entity.

I urge you to begin this task by causing the dismissal of John Matheussen.

CC: Gov. Edward Rendell
       Tom Corbett, GOP Candidate For Governor
       Dan Onorato, Democratic Candidate For Governor
       Deborah Gramiccioni, Director Of The NJ Authorities Unit

Note: This column first appeared in Philadelphia Magazine's Philly Post.  Read all of Freindly Fire's Philly Post columns here:

http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/author/cfreind/

As millions of Pennsylvanians head to the polls for today’s primary election, experts have noted that the electorate is restless, volatile, and even angry. They attribute this to unpopular spending policies and a backlash over ever-increasing taxes.

With so many people losing jobs, houses and retirement accounts, the level of interest in how the people’s business is conducted has reached record highs.

At the same time, the level of cynicism and mistrust is also off the charts.

Many activists have learned that challenging the establishment is a daunting task, leading some to become frustrated by the entrenched business-as-usual order that prevails.

As a result, there is a growing perception that most candidates are just more of the same, cleverly disguising themselves as reformers and agents of change to appeal to the electorate’s current mood.

And that’s not an unfounded perception.

All the candidates for U.S. Senate and governor have snappy television ads and slick mail pieces, and all promise virtually the same thing: more jobs, lower taxes and a reformed, more accountable government.

But since all of the candidates detailed below are current office holders, they are, by definition, part of the very establishment against which they campaign. So how do people know which ones to trust, and for whom to vote? 

Trite as it sounds, people need to do their homework. Being busy at home, work and with children’s activities may be a way of life for many, but it’s simply no excuse to be ignorant.

And corrupt and lazy public officials exist on such voter ignorance.

Too many citizens either don’t vote, especially in primaries, or pull the lever merely because of a TV ad or yard sign.

Given the enormous problems that confront us, it’s time for voters to make better informed decisions.

Granted, there is no such thing as a perfect candidate, but if more than a precious few exercised the three “C’s” --- common sense, core values and consistency --- our government would be infinitely more efficient, and we might actually have a chance of turning the ship around before it plows into the iceberg.

As an Election Day primer, Freindly Fire cuts through the political spin to look at the not-so-well-known political baggage each candidate brings with him, with the hope that such knowledge will allow readers to make the best, most educated choice for Pennsylvania’s future as they head to the polls.

U.S. Senate

-Thirty-year incumbent U.S. Senator Arlen Specter, who has been defying the odds for much of his career, has to contend with the fallout stemming from his highly-publicized Party switch. The question is whether Democrats will follow the lead of President Obama and Governor Rendell in welcoming Specter into the Party, thankful for his decisive votes over the last year, or whether he will be booted from office because he is viewed as the ultimate political opportunist interested only in prolonging his own career.
Interestingly, Specter’s deciding vote on the stimulus plan --- made as a Republican ---was done so against the advice of trusted political advisors. 

Had he gone the safe route and voted with the GOP against the bill, he would have virtually assured himself no primary opponent (as he had also announced his opposition to the union-backed “Card Check” bill). So not only might the opportunism charge not stick, but Specter may, in fact, be rewarded for what he calls his most important vote of conscience.

-Joe Sestak has saturated the airwaves with commercials stating that Specter’s time has come and gone, with fresh blood needed in Washington.  Running as an outsider, he has branded himself as an atypical politician.  Yet his steadfast refusal to release records concerning his controversial departure as Deputy Chief Of Naval Operations, his paltry pay for campaign workers ---while family members make thousands ---, and his large number of missed votes have led to questions about his character, judgment, and integrity. 

The problem Sestak faces is that, for the most part, people aren’t voting for him; instead, he must rely on “Specter fatigue” --- voters coming out against the incumbent. If Sestak is viewed as just another politician, voters will choose the “devil they know.”

Governor (GOP)

-State Representative Sam Rohrer touts himself as a constitutional conservative while campaigning for fiscal responsibility and limited government.  Yet on the most important issues to many in the GOP, Rohrer did the opposite of what he now preaches by voting for an unconstitutional payraise as well as hiking his own pension by 50%.  And that pension vote is the largest contributing factor to the state’s pension crisis, which is the ticking time bomb awaiting the next governor when state pension payments jump eightfold in the next three years.

-Attorney General Tom Corbett is certainly the most believable candidate who talks about “reforming Harrisburg,” since his legislative corruption probe has netted ten felony convictions, as well as indictments of two former House Speakers --- actions once thought unthinkable by many. But he is still dogged by charges from opponents that his investigations, as well as his lawsuit against Obamacare, are politically motivated.

Corbett’s most notable policy issue is his no-new-taxes pledge. While a sound policy, Corbett will be severely tested not to break it as the fiscal crisis grows to almost unmanageable proportions over the next Governor’s term.  Such pledges prove popular at election time, but the corollary is unmistakable: break it at your own peril.  One only has to look at how much free time President George H.W. Bush had after he uttered --- and then broke ---one of the most remembered pledges in political history: “Read my lips, no new taxes.”

Governor (Democrats)

-Allegheny County Dan Onorato’s $8 million war chest has staked him to a large lead, allowing him to run as the reformer who will clean up Harrisburg.  But as the candidate most closely linked to Ed Rendell --- the very Governor who has presided over the environment that needs to be “reformed” --- Onorato has learned to dance the Harrisburg Two-Step perfectly: reaping the Rendell Machine’s largesse while publicly calling for change. 

It remains to be seen in the general election if Onorato’s stategy will be seen as genuine or a business-as-usual extension of the Rendell Administration.

- State Senator Anthony Williams has run perhaps the most unusual campaign. Despite being late to the show, he has raised an astounding $5 million, mostly from a few individuals advocating school choice.  Of particular interest is that, despite receiving some of the largest campaign contributions in the history of Pennsylvania politics from these one-issue folks, Tony Williams has never introduced true school choice legislation.

 One must question how Williams can convince people that he is their education savior when he hasn’t actually gotten any education reform legislation passed. Meanwhile, the system continues to crank out functional illiterates from deathtrap schools.

The larger question is how a Harrisburg insider --- one who also voted for the payraise --- can effectively run as reformer. And the answer is that he can’t, which is why, despite his millions, he hasn’t moved up at all in the polls.

-Auditor General Jack Wagner is viewed by many as the most genial of the Democrats who, if he could have raised any money, would have been the D’s best shot in November.  Wagner has shown his independence by taking the Rendell Administration to task for waste and conflicts of interest in a number of audits, and has shown himself to be the only voice of reason and fiscal restraint on the Delaware River Port Authority Board of Commissioners. But with little campaign cash, Wagner’s chances are dismal at best. Some say good guys finish last in politics, and that may well be the case in this race.

-Montgomery County Commissioner Joe Hoeffel, while involved in a number of controversial issues in that job, has shown himself to be one of the most open and honest candidates in this race. A self-proclaimed proud liberal, Hoeffel chastises all of his competitors as being too conservative. Hoeffel admits that his philosophy would be a hard-sell in a general election, especially in this electorate’s anti-Democrat, anti-tax-and-spend mood, but has not backed off his platform. But with virtually no money in the bank, Hoeffel’s fight will be to stay out of last place.

*****

Given the fiscal armageddon Pennsylvania faces in the next four years ---the state is facing budget deficits upwards of $7 billion---, it is important to elect those most likely to take on the business-as-usual culture and put principle before politics. Cutting through the political spin and taking a hard look at the candidates now and in the fall --- both the good and bad --- and holding them accountable, is the best, and only, way to steer the ship back to calmer waters.

But given that voter turnout today is only expected to be average or slightly above, that message may sink in after it’s too late.

Pennsylvania’s elections this year will be front and center on the national scene, as there are numerous hotly contested congressional races and a U.S. Senate seat up for grabs. But attracting the most attention is the open race for governor.

To cut through the self-serving spin that surrounds elections, Freindly Fire sat down with Pittsburgh-based independent political consultant Michael O’Connell to receive a non-partisan analysis of the gubernatorial primary. O’Connell, who has worked the Pennsylvania political landscape for nearly 25 years, has no personal stake in any of the campaigns.

GOP Race: Corbett Vs. Rohrer

Background

The presumptive Republican nominee in the gubernatorial race is Attorney General Tom Corbett. He has won statewide twice, including 2008, in what was an otherwise horrid year for Republicans.  Corbett’s stunning 400,000 vote margin that year --- when Barack Obama carried the state by 600,000 --- cemented his status as the gubernatorial frontrunner.  

Corbett has also made headlines for his successful prosecution of legislative corruption, known as the “Bonusgate” scandal, and more recently when he joined other Attorneys-General in supporting a lawsuit against the national health care law.

That success has contributed to a war chest of $4 million.

As a comparison, his opponent, State Representative Sam Rohrer, has raised $500,000, and had only $15,000 in the bank as of the last reporting period.

Rohrer, an 18 year veteran of the state house, touts himself as a constitutional conservative, while Corbett is anchoring his campaign on fiscal discipline, limited government, and free enterprise.

The Attorney General, endorsed by Republican State Committee, holds a commanding lead in the polls, but the Rohrer campaign believes it can win by mobilizing its grassroots machine. Rohrer is not seeking re-election to the House.

Freindly Fire: Despite the fact that Corbett has consistently campaigned on conservative principles, some Tea Partiers and other conservatives are backing Rohrer because of his conservative credentials. Yet Rohrer voted for the infamous unconstitutional payraise in 2005 --- when legislators pocketed the money in that term --- and voted to increase his pension by 50%.  Do you think some conservatives are giving him a free pass on these issues? Why?

Mike O’Connell: Here we get to the politics of style versus substance.

For anyone familiar with Harrisburg, the notion that an eighteen-year-legislator, who cast the votes you just mentioned, and who was content to work with House leaders—including former Speaker John Perzel, bravely demonized by many on the Right now that he is no longer in power—is now somehow an outsider and political rebel is just silly.

That’s the substance. 

The style is different:  what the “tea party” movement sees is a graduate of Bob Jones University—which it must be said is a pretty good first step in establishing one to be, or at least to have been at age eighteen, out of the political mainstream—who avers that he is an outsider is taken at face value by those who value outsider-ness . . . and to the degree the movement prides itself on not knowing what state government does, ignoring actual votes cast by a flesh-and-blood legislator is not only convenient but can be a badge of honor.

There is also frankly a measure of cynicism among some of Rohrer’s institutional supporters:  a wide array of conservative groups in Harrisburg have had a field day, and for good reason, in the Rendell years.  The prospect of a Republican governor is for them a mixed blessing.  Their relevance, which is already open to question in some cases, and their mission are likely to be a bit confused.

It bears noting, by the way, that Rohrer’s rhetoric has been relatively subdued compared to the excesses of many candidates pursuing the support of what is identified as the “tea party movement.”  The points out his seriousness about this venture:  he is running for governor rather than indulging a desire to trash his opponents.   Sam Rohrer is not going to be the Republican nominee—I would be shocked if he captured even a quarter of the vote or carried a single county—but he has acquitted himself with dignity.

The same cannot be said for at least some of the would be “tea party” candidates for Lieutenant Governor, of whom there may be more than there were actual participants at the Boston Tea Party in 1773.  At least one, hitherto a party loyalist of unvarying regularity at the county and state level, has dipped into family money to run a campaign with all the restraint usually associated with a blood-crazed ferret.

FF: Rohrer has made school choice one of the cornerstones of his campaign, but he didn’t support voucher legislation in the past.  Instead, he advocates a tax credit to businesses that contribute to a scholarship fund.  What is your view as to Rohrer’s approach to the school choice issue?

MOC:  I was intimately involved in the legislative battle over school choice in 1995, when the position taken by Sam Rohrer and a handful of other conservative legislators was that a helping hand extended to middle- and low-income parents seeking to take their kids out of failing public schools would somehow destroy the non-public schools in question.  It is probable that they made the difference between victory and defeat for school choice that year; given how many non-public schools in urban areas have been forced to close since then, I think it is unlikely that there is much of a reservoir of gratitude among the parents and teachers who were thus “saved” from having tuition kept in an affordable range.

The EITC, which Rohrer supports, is a good thing that has made a real difference for many non-public schools.  Despite wildly exaggerated claims that have been made by some of Rohrer’s supporters about his role in passing that legislation, I have no doubt that his support is sincere.

FF: Past insurgent primary campaigns have gained traction in this state. But with the overwhelming advantages Corbett has in name recognition, campaign funds, and the fact that he has been so successful in two statewide elections, what can the Rohrer camp do to steal a victory?

MOC:  The problem for Rohrer is that insurgent campaigns have not ever gained traction in Pennsylvania.  The last real ideological wars among Pennsylvania Republicans were in the forties and fifties, as rival establishments opposed each other.  Pat Toomey’s near miss against Arlen Specter in 2004 is arguably the great exception, but one that rested on Specter’s long-established problems within his own party. 

The great wave of primary defeats in 2006 was a single-issue wave revolving around the pay raise, not a reflection of a larger trend.

FF: What is your prediction as to the outcome of the GOP race, the level of voter turnout, and what must the winner do in the fall to counter the 1.2 million voter registration edge the Democrats enjoy in the state?

MOC:  The race for the Republican nomination for governor only looks like a cliffhanger if your standard of comparison is the contest for the Republican nomination for the U. S. Senate.  At a guess, Republican turnout will be about thirty percent, with precious few people voting who have not been fairly regular primary voters over the years.  As I mentioned before, my bet is that Corbett carries every county and finishes statewide with a percentage well over seventy.

Democratic Primary: A Crowded Field

Background

The Democratic gubernatorial primary had all the makings of an exciting race: two longtime enemies were facing off like the Hatfields and McCoys --- Auditor General Jack Wagner and Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato---, black State Senator Anthony Williams who, while a late entrant, brought a multi-million war chest with him, and perennial candidate Joe Hoeffel, a Montgomery County Commissioner who lambasts his opponents as way too conservative.

Exciting as that script seemed just a few months ago, the race now appears to be a fait accompli, with Onorato ahead in the polls by thirty points, thanks in large part to his massive fundraising advantage.

Even though it appears that Onorato will be anointed the Democratic candidate, the general election will be no picnic. While benefitting from a large voter registration edge, he will face both history and a hostile political climate.

It’s a virtual certainty that voter backlash will negatively affect Democrats, in part because of unpopular presidential policies, a severe recession, and the fact that they are the sole Party in power in Washington.

In addition to off-year elections almost always benefiting the minority Party, the gubernatorial candidates also have state history to contend with: since governors were permitted to run for two terms, beginning in 1970, that office, without fail, has traded hands every eight years. Given that the current occupant is Democrat Ed Rendell, the GOP is looking to keep that cycle intact.

FF: After looking at the fundraising numbers, the most obvious question is how anyone can beat Onorato. Having raised over $8 million, and with the de facto endorsement of Gov. Ed Rendell, what scenario is there for any of the other Democrats to pull out a victory?

MOC:  The short answer is that there isn’t one.  Onorato will not get the same numbers Corbett will—I certainly haven’t heard sober people talking about Onorato getting eighty percent, as some have of Corbett—but both parties for all practical purposes already have their nominees.
In passing, let me point out that the much-vaunted “eight-year rule” is little more than a series of interesting coincidences, which a tiny vote shift could have broken in 1986, 1982, 1958, and arguably in 1994 as well. 

Any Republican strategist who treats it as some Newtonian law of politics this year needs to spend some time studying the political history of the state.

FF: Sen. Williams has raised over $4 million, and has been on statewide television for several weeks.  As the only Democrat to be on the airwaves other than Onorato, can Williams count on the black vote in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh to unify behind his candidacy en masse, and could this be enough to eke out a victory?

MOC:  I don’t doubt for a moment that he will be the overwhelming choice of African-American voters statewide, which may well be enough to propel him to an honorable if distant second-place finish.

What he’s failed to do, as he campaigns on a combination of issues—gun control and abortion—where the power of the Commonwealth is sharply limited by the federal courts and one—school choice—where he is completely out of step with substantial and powerful elements in his party, is identify a chink in Dan Onorato’s armor.  With just days to go, it is simply too late.

FF: Montgomery County Commissioner Joe Hoeffel, the self-proclaimed true liberal in the race, has little money but substantial name recognition from his long career in public service. As the only candidate in vote-rich suburban Philadelphia, Hoeffel’s strategy is to win the majority of the left-leaning Democratic base, while benefitting from Onorato and Wagner slugfest in the Pittsburgh region.  Is there any validity to this strategy, and what impact can a Hoeffel candidacy have on the rest of the field?

MOC:  The strategy is not inherently unsound, even given the complex nature of the Democratic primary electorate here.  In this particular case, Joe Hoeffel seems to have run into a few problems, however.

First, despite having run for Congress in 1984, 1986, 1998, 2000, and 2002, and for county commissioner in 1991, 1995, and 2007 in what is easily the most affluent county in the state, while spending 2004 campaigning for the U. S. Senate in the fifth-largest state in the Union, he appears not to have developed a fund-raising base able to come close to carrying him through a serious statewide campaign.

Second, Democrats who are concerned about who is and is not a “real Democrat” this year have one focus—the contest for the United States Senate.  This increasingly looks like a real problem for Arlen Specter, but it means that the limited window of opportunity for Hoeffel closed some time ago.

FF: Auditor General Jack Wagner is the only candidate in the Democratic field to have successfully run statewide, earning the second-most votes ever amassed by a candidate.  He has received numerous county endorsements, and is widely considered a conservative, pro-business Democrat not afraid to tackle government waste and corruption. Yet with Wagner’s fundraising being so dismal (he had only $210,000 in the bank as of the last period), is it possible for Wagner to beat his long-time nemesis Onorato, who enjoys an 8 to 1 cash advantage?

MOC:  No.  Few myths in Pennsylvania are more persistent than the one that suggests that winning second-tier state offices somehow paves the way to higher office.  Eighteen years after the elder Bob Casey was elected Auditor General as a consolation prize for his first defeat in a race for governor, he was elected governor, but that hardly disproves the rule.

Beyond that, look at the results:  the younger Casey is drilled in a gubernatorial primary in 2002, Barbara Hafer runs for governor as Auditor General in 1990 and loses counties that had not voted against a Republican nominee for governor since the party was formed, and Genevive Blatt while serving as the elected Secretary of Internal Affairs manages in 1964 to be nearly the only Democrat in the country to lose a race for the United States Senate. 

We’ve seen a serving Auditor General lose a primary for the Senate in 1986, a serving Lieutenant Governor lose a Senate primary in 1992 and another one a general election for governor in 1986, and serving Attorneys General lose a primary for governor in 1994 and a general election for the same office in 2002.

County party support, help from organized labor, a proven ability to work the room at a fraternal club, service as Auditor General:  all this leaves Jack Wagner in a great position were he running as recently as 1958.  None of it matters today, after a few developments that long ago became old news—the advent of television, never mind the new media, the collapse of the old party machines, and the ever-increasing imperative that candidates raise enough money to drive home their message.

FF: Dan Onorato enjoys the support of some of Rendell’s biggest fundraisers and closest confidantes, such as Comcast Executive David Cohen and Ballard Spahr partner and former Rendell Chief of Staff John Estey.  But given the Rendell Administration’s reputation for awarding no-bid contracts to large-dollar contributors, and the Governor’s unabashed push for increased spending, bigger government, and significant tax hikes, how much will the perceived alignment with Rendell hurt Onorato, if at all?

MOC:  In the Democratic primary, not at all.  I think we will hear a fair amount about it in the fall, though.

FF: Prediction in the Democratic Primary?

MOC:  Onorato wins comfortably, with between 45 and 50 percent of the vote.

FF: November is a political eternity away, but at this point, what is your prediction for who will be Pennsylvania’s next Governor?

MOC:  The national political climate, Pennsylvania’s looming fiscal calamity, and his own track record all seem to work in Tom Corbett’s favor. 

Anything can happen, but we are well out of the starting gate and he is several lengths ahead.