Well, primary election day is almost here, and some of the races have gotten downright nasty. From disingenuous, mean-spirited campaign ads to a Democrat masquerading as a Republican accusing his opponent of being a Democrat (did you get all that?), there’s something to satisfy everyone’s entertainment needs.

Perhaps the ugliest race is the Democratic contest for Attorney General (an office that Party has never held), pitting a woman against a whiner: prosecutor Kathleen Kane and former congressman Patrick Murphy.  Murphy certainly can’t run on his record (there isn’t one), so instead has charged Kane with being a millionaire trucking executive. (Note: if you can figure out how being married to a trucking company owner would prevent a career prosecutor from being an effective AG, please let me know. Perhaps she would look the other way on the rampant truck-on-truck crime in Pennsylvania?)

Of particular concern to many is that Murphy, who as a congressman perfectly personified the deer-in-headlights legislator (remember the Hardball interview with Chris Matthews on the Iraq war?), is running for the state’s top law enforcement job despite never prosecuting a single criminal case in Pennsylvania. He will need all the help he can get to pull out a victory, and apparently that help has arrived. Sources tell Freindly Fire that elements of the Republican Party have been covertly (and even overtly) pulling out all the stops for the young doe.  And for good reason: they see him as infinitely easier to beat in November than an articulate (and better looking) female prosecutor.

And speaking of Republicans helping Democrats, for your reading pleasure we have a letter from Governor Tom Corbett pushing Steve Welch, the Obama-voting, Joe Sestak-supporting U.S. Senate candidate he personally endorsed (and strong-armed the Republican Party to do the same). Unfortunately for the Governor, his letter is being received by an ever-dwindling number of supporters, many of whom are flat-out rejecting his call to back Welch. From elected officials to the grassroots, they are so incensed by what Corbett has demanded of them (akin to Party treason) that they are openly supporting other candidates in the race. Welch is most likely heading for a second-place finish, and maybe even third, either of which would be an incredible embarrassment to Corbett and a severe blow to his ebbing credibility. 

Alienating the Party faithful in a mystifying way is not exactly a recipe for influencing people and making friends, a fact lost on this Governor.

So in the spirit of accuracy, it is Freindly Fire’s civic duty to correct the Governor’s letter to reflect the truth, though we will leave the bad sentence structure intact. Commentary in bold:

Dear Friend,
 
In less than two years we have turned the tide (by being just like Ed Rendell?), and are righting the wrongs of the liberal agenda here in Pennsylvania (yes, that same “liberal agenda” that, in fact, was passed by an overwhelmingly Republican state senate).  We brought a new way of thinking to Harrisburg after inheriting a recession and a $4.2 billion dollar budget deficit in 2011 (Sorry, Guv, but despite the constitutional requirement for a balanced budget, those deficits still exist because no one---Republican or Democrat --- will address the issues that led to those deficits.  Examples abound, such as the $400 million in I-80 tolls used to “balance” a prior budget --- even though that interstate never became a toll road, and the money was never “repaid.”). While we have witnessed others in the past attempt to solve our state’s problems by spending more of your hard-earned tax dollars, I have employed a fiscally conservative approach to our economic issues (Yes, by finishing Rendell’s spending legacy of bailing out the Philadelphia Shipyard to build ships with no buyers, constructing a new stadium for the (obviously poor) New York Yankees’ AAA baseball team, funding the multimillion dollar Arlen Specter library,  spending Delaware River Port Authority funds (AKA taxpayer dollars) on projects having nothing to do with the bridges while tolls continue to increase…we’d love to continue, but column space is limited to 10,000 words).
 
Together with the General Assembly, we have put our state’s economy back on track (uhhh, the natural gas industry is leaving the state, in part because of no political leadership, and the unemployment rate has not measurably dropped), not by demonizing the private sector, but by lowering taxes (Really? The job-killing taxes haven’t been touched, such as the nation’s second-highest corporate tax and the 18 percent tax on every bottle of wine and booze to rebuild Johnstown from the flood --- of 1936!), cutting government spending (let’s be honest --- that’s only because the federal stimulus dollars dried up), balancing the budget on time and giving businesses the ability to create jobs and drive economic growth.
 
Unfortunately, we have a government in Washington, D.C.  stuck in the same liberal trap that Pennsylvania was suffering in. (Sorry, can’t help it.  You aren’t supposed to end a sentence with a preposition. Where’s your brain at? Or, to be grammatically correct, Where’s your brain at, Genius?) We started the fight in 2010 by talking about real change and real reforms (Very, very true.  It was, and remains, all talk.) With your help and support, I was elected along with a Republican State Senate and House Majority, U.S. Senator Pat Toomey and 12 Republican congressmen to cut wasteful spending and promote economic growth. This year, we have to continue our efforts and send U.S. Senate candidate Steve Welch to join the fight! (The irony is just dripping here. Pennsylvania elects all those Republicans to stop the “liberal” Obama agenda --- and Corbett is pushing an Obama-voter who was, until fairly recently, a Democrat. Go figure).
 
I endorsed Steve because he has the passion and ability to take our shared Pennsylvania values (Another truism, as Welch’s vote for Obama helped the President win Pennsylvania, and Corbett has acted more like a Democrat than Republican) to Washington, D.C. and get our federal government’s reckless spending back under control.  He is a businessman who has worked tirelessly to achieve the American dream, creating a successful living for himself and creating jobs for hundreds of others.  In the private sector, Steve has helped young entrepreneurs achieve their own dreams of launching a successful small business (In keeping with the “dream” theme, who in their right mind could possibly dream that endorsing an Obama-supporter would rally the Republican Party?)
 
Steve is running for the U.S. Senate because he believes in the same values you and I do! (Wait, whose values? Obama’s or Sestak’s? Or both? And do most in the GOP share those values? Admittedly, the Party’s pick for Prez is the architect of government healthcare, but still…). Steve could no longer sit back and watch as President Obama and Senator Bob Casey continue to spend our way into oblivion and add more debt onto the backs of future generations (Damn! If only Welch didn’t vote for Obama, that line may have worked!!). Steve wants to bring fiscal responsibility back to Washington, D.C. and help others achieve the American dream, as he has. (Unfortunately for Corbett and Welch, that’s not going to happen. There are no points for second (or third) place.  Sorry, Bob Casey --- it doesn’t look like Christmas is coming early for you.)
 
Remember that we have a great slate of statewide candidates including Steve Welch – David Freed for Attorney General, John Maher for Auditor General and Diana Irey Vaughan for Treasurer – who need your support over the next few days.   You can visit www.pagop.org to learn how you can help.
 
Most importantly, I hope you will join me on April 24thand cast your ballot for Steve Welch for U.S. Senate and our entire statewide team! (Too bad Democrats can’t vote in the Republican primary, since that would at least give your man a fighting chance…)
 
Sincerely,

Tom Corbett
Governor (well, at least until 2014…)
 

An accredited member of the media, Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Denying GOP Committee A Secret Ballot Is Hypocrisy

The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), commonly known as “Card Check,” is the misnamed legislation promoted by Organized Labor to stop the hemorrhaging within union ranks.  (From a high near 40 percent after World War II, union representation in the private sector has plummeted to just 7 percent today). It would make organizing a union infinitely easier by eliminating the current secret ballot vote used to determine whether employees wish to unionize.

Common sense tells us that whenever a secret ballot is not employed, many people will not vote their conscience.  Instead, they fall victim to intimidation and arm-twisting, and end up casting a ballot in favor of the person whom they are strongly encouraged ---AKA “told” --- to support.  The result is a rigged, Banana Republic election, anything but “Free Choice.”

The Republican Party, on both the state and national level, has vigorously opposed Card Check, not only because it is grossly unfair to companies, but much more important, because it would cavalierly discard that most fundamental American bedrock value: free and fair elections.  It is a right that has been held sacred in this nation, and has allowed the people to chart their own course and make their own decisions, free of outside influence and intimidation.

Given this, it seems extremely hypocritical that the Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania --- while opposing Card Check --- jettisons free and fair voting for its own members by refusing to allow secret ballot votes on important issues, such as Party endorsements.

And now, on the eve of the meeting in which the Committee will vote whether to endorse a candidate for the U.S. Senate (or not endorse at all), that issue has become a firestorm that is only growing in intensity.

The big question centers on whether the Party will endorse millionaire Steve Welch, a favorite among several GOP leaders, including Republican Governor Tom Corbett. The problem many have with Welch is that he voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary and supported former Congressman Joe Sestak, a stalwart liberal consistently to the Left of Obama. Welch claims he left the GOP out of frustration that it wasn’t conservative enough, leaving more than a few Republicans perplexed.

(In an email to PoliticsPA this week, Sestak wrote of his meeting with Welch: “He expressed support of me and what I stood for. He seemed nice and, separately, supportive of the Democratic Party and its efforts.”)

So would the Party really risk massive damage to itself by endorsing an Obama-voter, and make the sin mortal by doing so without a secret ballot?

They can’t be that dumb.

But this being Pennsylvania’s Republican Party, all bets are off.

Should they endorse Welch, it will be a double whammy, throwing the entire Party into a quagmire from which it would be difficult to escape.

State Committee would cement the perception that its endorsements are behind-the-scenes deals by inside powerbrokers hell-bent on executing individual agendas --- the rank-and-file Party faithful be damned.  More damaging, it would play out --- in full public view --- exactly how ruthlessly efficient Card Check tactics are, making unions blush with envy.

How could Party leaders possibly explain with a straight face that the process was fair, and that no political pressure and intimidation took place --- when Governor Corbett and certain State Committee leaders were openly pushing Welch?  Would it really be plausible to believe that the message “do it for the Party, and do it for your Governor --- or else your political career stops here” wouldn’t be made loud and clear?

Even more telling, how could the Party explain Committee members’ change of heart in endorsing Welch after only one of five State Committee regional caucus straw polls voted for Welch as their candidate of choice? In other words, of the five regional “pre-election” votes that took place --- voted on by the very same people who are now being asked to change their vote and endorse Welch --- only one made Welch a winner. Significantly, Welch’s own Southeast Caucus refused to hold a straw poll, and Corbett was not even able to deliver his hometown Southwest Caucus for Welch.

This is by no means an indictment of Steve Welch. It has nothing to do with him, and everything to do with the Republican Party. Clearly, in this particular situation, the wisest course of action would be to ignore the Governor’s misguided endorsement and refuse to endorse any candidate. 

In allowing grassroots Republicans across Pennsylvania to make their choice, free of Party endorsements, a civil war inside the GOP would be averted, and the best candidate --- the people’s choice --- would emerge to take on incumbent Bob Casey.  And if Welch wins a non-endorsement primary, his victory would not be tainted with the perception that he “bought” his way to the nomination.  Regardless of the outcome, no one can argue with the results if rank-and-file Republican voters make that decision.

Besides gaining immense credibility with many Republicans should it not endorse a candidate, State Committee could score a huge coup by then amending its bylaws to allow for that which is uniquely American: secret ballot elections.

Otherwise, it will become known as Republican State Committee, Local 666.

An accredited member of the media, Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

It could be a battle royale between the two former prosecutors, but what about Joe Sestak?

Assistant District Attorney, Delaware County.

Assistant United States Attorney, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, specializing in prosecuting illegal firearms cases and violent drug offenders.

Governor-appointed Safe Schools Advocate for the School District of Philadelphia --- a position that was ultimately “eliminated” not for budgetary reasons, but because he publicly chastised the Governor and Department of Education for their willful failure to protect students.

Was often mentioned as a possible nominee for United States Attorney.

And now, this person is considering running for Congress as a strong get-tough-on crime candidate.

Such a resume would seem a great springboard for elected office, as law-and-order candidates have met with great success lately: Governors Tom Corbett and Chris Christie are former prosecutors, as are Pennsylvania Congressmen Tom Marino and Pat Meehan, as well as State Representative Todd Stephens.

But here’s where it gets interesting.  All the aforementioned politicians are Republicans, but this resume belongs to Jack Stollsteimer, a self-styled RFK Democrat who is strongly positioned to win his Party’s nomination in next year’s Seventh Congressional District race.  To claim the ultimate prize in November, he would have to beat not just a Republican, but his former U.S. Attorney boss, Rep. Pat Meehan.

But first things first. Will the path to the nomination be clear, or will a well-known Democrat with a history of success --- and unpredictability --- decide to throw his hat into the ring? And if so, when?

                                                                                *****

The district, which includes most of Delaware County, parts of Chester County and a section of Montgomery, is traditionally perceived as Republican, because voter registration favors the GOP, and the Delaware County courthouse has long been controlled by the well-oiled Republican Machine.

But while Republicans hold a majority of offices throughout the county, their grip on power has been slipping.  No Republican presidential candidate has won Delco since 1988, and numerous Democratic state legislators now represent districts long-held by the GOP. But perhaps most telling, in 2010 --- the largest Republican wave since 1946 --- both Governor Tom Cornett and U.S. Senator Pat Toomey lost the county.

Yet Pat Meehan won by ten points.

Meehan’s impressive showing was bolstered by the Republican tidal wave and the fact that it was an open seat, since former Congressman Joe Sestak ran for U.S. Senate.  That substantial victory has provided him a solid foundation to launch his re-election bid. 

But to stay in office, he will have to wage an aggressive campaign, taking nothing for granted. Unlike last year, he now owns a voting record. And when it comes to Congress, Seventh District voters have an independent streak that defies conventional political wisdom. 

In the 70’s and 80’s, the Seventh was represented by Bob Edgar, arguably to the Left of Mao and universally recognized as the most liberal member of Congress.  After giving up the seat to (unsuccessfully) run for U.S. Senate, Edgar was replaced by the generally-conservative Republican Curt Weldon. But in the Democratic wave of 2006, he lost to Sestak, a former Navy Admiral who, like Edgar, was unabashedly liberal.

Understanding the volatile electorate, the District’s wild fluctuations of the past, and sensing that the seat is not as safe as last year’s election results would indicate, the national Republican Campaign Congressional Committee has “enrolled” Meehan in its Patriot Program.  An effort designed to assist mostly freshmen, the program targets the top ten GOP legislators whose perceived vulnerabilities will likely lead to tough reelection fights.

                                                                *****

Stollsteimer has been actively courted not just by local leaders but the national Democratic Campaign Congressional Committee. To take on Meehan, though, he must first secure the Democratic Party’s nomination.  To that end, his plan is to aggressively work the committee to earn its endorsement, hopefully avoiding an expensive, and potentially bruising, primary fight. He has already made inroads, having secured the backing of several highly influential Democrats within the Party hierarchy.

"Jack would be a great candidate if he decides to run, with a strong profile and reputation for independence and integrity, that has attracted the attention of the national Democratic Party," a Party leader in the district told “Freindly Fire.”

That official requested anonymity, though, as the path has not yet been smoothly paved for Stollsteimer --- or any other potential candidate.  And that’s because there is an 800 pound gorilla hovering in the wings who could change the dynamics of the race at a moment’s notice --- for both the primary and general elections.

And in typical fashion, that individual is playing it coy, not announcing his intentions whether to seek the Congressional seat --- which he happened to hold just seven months ago.

Joe Sestak is the ultimate wild card, an independent Democrat who has often clashed with Party powerbrokers and a person to whom the terms “conventional wisdom” and “predictability” simply do not apply.

He gave up what virtually every political analyst stated was a near-100 percent safe seat, to run as David against Goliath --- 30-year incumbent powerhouse Arlen Specter, whose war chest dwarfed that of Sestak. The political insiders not only didn’t give Sestak much of a chance --- he was trailing by more than 20 points just a few months out from the primary --- but did everything in their power to stop him. 

They attempted to talk him out of running, not just to keep the Congressional seat safe but to avoid a primary challenge to Specter.  When that didn’t work, there was the “Job Gate” offer, in which Sestak said the White House dangled a high-ranking position in exchange for his dropping out of the senate race. But that didn’t work, either.

Then the D’s took the gloves off, with prominent leaders, including then-Governor Rendell and the state Democratic Party chairman, openly attacking Sestak on numerous fronts.  They said he could not win a general election, and predicted a Sestak primary victory would be “cataclysmic” in the fall election.

And yet, despite the GOP wave, Sestak lost to Toomey by a mere two points.

Would Sestak present a viable candidacy to Meehan?  Absolutely.  The 2012 elections will be more favorable to Democrats, not just because a presidential year always brings out more voters, and political waves are never sustainable when they crest at such a high level, but because the “Republicans-are-destroying-our-Medicare” issue will undoubtedly gain traction.  Democrats are already pointing to their win in the recent New York special election as evidence, given that the seat was widely expected to remain in GOP hands.

But for the Democrats to be successful in the Seventh next year, they need to unify soon or risk losing good candidates.  Very few will be willing to put blood, sweat and tears into a campaign --- and they would have to open a committee very soon --- while the specter of a Sestak candidacy still looms.  And if Sestak declines to run, but announces that decision late in the game, precious time will have been wasted.

Sestak would most likely be able to establish a grassroots operation and generate significant fundraising relatively quickly, due to the national network gained from his senate run, but the same is not the case for other candidates. They would have to lay the groundwork, and that takes time and resources.  And many potential donors and campaign workers will stay on the sidelines, reluctant to commit to someone like Stollsteimer --- no matter how attractive a candidate he may be --- until Sestak makes up his mind. 

In an age where campaigns routinely begin over a year out from the election, any significant delay could prove a boon for the Meehan camp. Translation: the longer Joe Sestak remains noncommittal, the less likely the Democrats’ chances for success next November.

Will Sestak get back into the political fray?  If so, would it be for Congress, a position some think is not prominent enough for someone used to commanding a carrier-battle group --- especially when he would likely return to Washington in the minority? And why would Sestak still be touring Pennsylvania, meeting new Democrats statewide, if he intends to run in the relatively small Seventh District? 

It is never easy when it comes to predicting anything regarding Joe Sestak, and experience has shown that most “experts” are wrong anyway.

So the biggest question is the simplest one: at this point, does even Joe Sestak himself have any idea what he is going to do?  Whatever the answer, it’s in the best interest of his Party to make up his mind quickly.

Let the games begin.

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 regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in
Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national
television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

It's that time of year again when Freindly Fire heaps praise upon those most deserving. You probably aren't going to find these winners on the lists of typical media outlets, most of which bow at the altar of political correctness.

The Biggest Winner of 2010, as is the case every year, goes to none other than illegal invaders, all 20 million of them. Year after year, they continue to win everything. They are handed driver's licenses, free education - in some cases all the way to college - and free first-rate health care. Most appallingly, their freedom exists because of our government's non-existent efforts to deport them. Their presence has forced the closure of hospitals, taken jobs from American workers, depressed wages and caused taxes to sharply increase. And let's not forget that many illegals are voting in our elections. How's that for irony: foreigners deciding American elections. And every time the illegals win, there is an even bigger loser. Us.

Michael Vick and the Canine Community

As quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles, Vick has played spectacularly well, good enough to hide the team’s considerable shortcomings and earn the Birds the Division crown.  He is often mentioned as a leading MVP candidate, and many experts predict he will lead his team to the Super Bowl.

Which is all an unexpected pleasure, given that Vick was in jail not that long ago for executing losing canines in his dog-fighting operation. Given a reprieve by the League, he was the Eagle’s third-string QB last season, and he started this one as the backup.  He got his shot though, and, made the most of it.  Perhaps most noteworthy, he never used his numerous injuries as a crutch when the team lost, and has demonstrated more leadership in one season than former-quarterback Donovan McNabb showed in his entire, lackluster career.

Is Vick truly remorseful about the dog killing, or sorry only that he got caught? Tough to say, but second chances are what America is all about, and, for the most part, he has kept himself out of trouble.  With dogs everywhere breathing easier (actually, breathing at all), and Vick on the right track, he is definitely the most unexpected winner this year.

Governor Ed Rendell

Ok, not really.  Rendell’s eight-year tax-and-spend agenda, combined with widespread conflicts of interest throughout his Administration (some say pay-to-play) has driven Pennsylvania off the financial cliff, leaving a $5 billion deficit debacle for incoming Governor Tom Corbett to fix. And it’s been three years and counting since his promised interview with “Freindly Fire” --- making that the only media entity with which he refuses to speak.  I wonder why.

But fair is fair, and Rendell could not have been more correct when he hammered the NFL for canceling the Sunday night football game in Philadelphia because of a snowstorm.  Not a two-foot storm of the century, mind you, but an 8 inch “weather event” that would have made an outdoor football game one to remember. The roads were drivable, subway trains were operational, and the fans would have shown up in force --- loving every minute of it.  They do it in other places just fine --- Green Bay, Chicago and New England, to name a few.  But now, Philadelphians are officially considered pansies.

The reality is that the League saw an opportunity to test market Tuesday Night Football.  As with most things, the decision was rooted in money.  But it was done so at the expense of the last real sport in America, where players gut it out with broken bones instead of running to the disabled list because of a hangnail.  In many ways, the game’s cancellation reflects what America has become: soft and wimpy, offended by everything and decisive in nothing. It’s how we run business, operate government, wage war, and yes, play football. The pioneering, tough-as-nails spirit that made us unique is all but gone.

Rendell labeled the NFL’s action the “wussification” of America.  Wrong first letter, Guv.

Congressman Joe Sestak

True, Sestak lost his bid for United States Senate, but he was unique among politicians. Here’s a guy who gave up the job security of a 100 per cent safe congressional seat to take on 30-year incumbent and Goliath of the Senate, Arlen Specter, in a long-shot bid. The entire Democratic Party power structure was against him, from Rendell to President Obama, thus ensuring very limited campaign money.  Yet he persisted in his mission, even turning down a reported job offer from the White House. And a funny thing happened along the way: he won the primary election.

But the more admirable trait of Sestak was that he never backed down from his core convictions.  Whether or not one agreed with him, he should be respected for standing his ground and not playing both sides or “moving to the middle” to appease the pundits. 

For any pol to do that is unusual, but it’s even more amazing in a year that saw a political wave running in the polar opposite direction of his beliefs.  To Sestak’s credit, in the best Republican year since 1946, he ran to the left of Barack Obama, favoring bigger government, higher taxes, more stimulus and expanded national healthcare.  And with the courage of his convictions, he ran towards those ideas, not away, as the vast majority of Democrats did.

Voters are craving more leaders committed to their ideals, whether Right or Left.  They may not always agree with those people, but they respect knowing where such leaders stand.  Unfortunately, such courage is in short supply.

China

The global recession is wreaking havoc on America, but China continues to grow at an unprecedented rate.  Why?  Because they put themselves in a position to win no matter what transpires, assuming that political will in America doesn’t raise its head.  And since there’s a fat chance of that happening, China’s push toward domination continues.

Taking advantage of its favorable trade deals with the U.S. (READ: bad for us), and benefitting from America’s business-killing tax rates (highest in the world), China is advancing itself with state of the art infrastructure --- such as the world’s fastest train, biggest hydro-electric dam, and 25 nuclear power plants under construction ---, and a first-rate military that not only boasts quantity but quality.

If the dollar stays (relatively) strong, China’s boom will continue as its manufacturing expands.  And if the dollar plummets, China, while taking a slight hit in the value of the considerable U.S. debt it holds, could well find itself a kingmaker by controlling the world’s reserve currency.

Blaming China for our woes makes for effective campaign commercials, but unless we start taking a hard look in the mirror very, very soon, we might as well invest in Rosetta Stone for one last financial hurrah, as its “How To Speak Chinese” will be the hottest seller in the USA since Rubik’s Cube.
 
Chris Christie and the Republican Party --- Sort Of

New Jersey’s Christie has accomplished more in one year than damn near all the other 49 governors combined.  And all it took was that elusive trait called “political will.” The Republican Chief Executive has successfully taken on all sacred cows, from public education to unions, bureaucrats to the entrenched political culture.  So effective has his brand of in-your-face reform been --- achieved with both legislative chambers being solidly Democratic ---, Christie’s star power is so bright that he is routinely mentioned as a presidential contender, and serves as a model for politicians nationwide, including Pennsylvania’s Tom Corbett.  With Corbett and Christie as bookends in two powerhouse states, these law-and-order leaders may yet pave the way for how America gets itself back on track.

The Republican Party as a whole is a different story. 

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, Harrisburg and Trenton, and are demanding their elected officials focus on what the people want, not what some leaders think they need.

If they become the Party of No, expect the pendulum to swing back yet again.  People don’t want more of the status quo.

And with America more vulnerable than ever before, from its reliance on foreign oil to its economy --- with the dollar based on absolutely nothing of value --- the stakes have never been higher.  Will the GOP work with the President on his promises to expand nuclear energy and offshore drilling, enact further tax cuts and demand more teacher accountability?

The next year will tell, and if the Republicans --- and the President --- don’t play their cards right, they will end up on the nations’s Biggest Losers list.  And most definitely, neither can afford to be on such a list. 

Look for Freindly Fire’s Biggest Losers of 2010 column next week...

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

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

Chris Freind interviews U.S. Senate candidate Joe Sestak about his role in "Job Gate"--- the possible quid pro quo job offer from the White House in exchange for Sestak abandoning the race.  Criminal implications for both White House officials and Congressman Sestak are discussed.

Job Gate portion of the interview runs from minute 4:00 to 11.35 and from 15:20 to end (one minute later).

http://wche.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-05-28T07_32_02-07_00

Excerpt:

FREIND: "U.S. Senator Dick Durbin, one of the highest ranking Democcrats in the Senate, has publicly said that you need to come clean....

...Clearly, someone isn't telling the whole truth.

If this was a quid pro quo arrangement, (which by your words it would seem to be), that would be against the law....so Number 1, (if that is the case) do you let the White House get away with that crime, and Number 2, could your silence be construed as obstruction, of aiding and abetting?

SESTAK:  I don't really care what Dick Durbin says....he's the Establishment of Washington, D.C.  I appreciate Dick Durbin. But I've already demonstrated that when the Establishment thinks it can dictate what's right for Pennsylvanians....who have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs...I'm not going to let Washington or anyone else dictate what I'm going to speak about.... 

I answered this question honestly. Others have to stand up for their accountability and what their role is..."

FREIND:  Do you think they (the White House) committed a crime?

SESTAK: I'll let others decide that...

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Joe Sestak, fresh off his primary win dethroning 30-year incumbent Arlen Specter, may have thought he was entitled to a brief honeymoon.

Instead, he has been ravaged by a firestorm for the last week.

Sestak is not only facing a major threat to his political career, but also the possibility of being on a police blotter.

Being subpoenaed and facing possible criminal charges are not exactly the best ways to start a general election campaign.

*****

It was no secret that the President was backing Specter after the incumbent switched parties and voted for all of Obama’s crucial initiatives, and the President committed himself to Specter’s re-election.  (Of course, that was before Obama abandoned Specter in the final weeks of the campaign after seeing the poll numbers go the wrong way.)

The cauldron in which Sestak finds himself stems from his statement earlier this year that the White House offered him a high-level job in exchange for abandoning the senate race. 

Based on Sestak’s own words, this is a quid pro quo --- a “you do something for me, and in return, I’ll give you this” arrangement.

Quite simply, you can't offer somebody a government job in return for receiving anything that could be considered a benefit.  And Specter’s re-election would have been a huge benefit to the White House.

So when it comes to this type of quid pro quo, it’s against the law.  Period.

But here’s the problem: no one is talking.

The White House: Mum’s The Word

According to news reports, the White House originally denied that any conversation ever took place.  But now, after the heat started rising, Administration officials have changed their story.

The President’s spokesman now states that while discussions with Sestak did in fact occur, “nothing inappropriate” transpired. 

And what assurance are we given that no laws were broken and nothing inappropriate took place?

The White House checked into the matter itself.

Wow.  That’s a relief. After all, the Obama folks tout themselves as the most open, transparent and accountable Administration in history.

But merely saying “nothing inappropriate” took place just doesn’t pass muster.

Assuming that the offer was made, by definition, someone is lying.  Either Sestak made the whole thing up, or the Administration’s collective nose is growing at an exponential rate.

If an official attempted to make the deal, that is bribery --- a federal offense. And since Sestak is a U.S. Congressman and a retired Admiral with 31 years in the Navy, it’s probably safe to think that he wasn’t offered a secretary position. 

Or at least one that involves taking dictation.

But maybe Secretary of the Navy?  If so, that’s a position that would clearly need approval at the highest levels of government.

So it might be a good idea that whoever made the offer consider buying Soap-On-A-Rope.  In bulk.

So much for White House transparency.

Is Sestak Criminally Liable?

I had the opportunity to interview Congressman Sestak this week during my weekly appearance on the radio show “Political Talk.”

Holding fast to his script, Sestak refused to say who offered him a job, and what the position was, instead stating that, for his part, he has been honest in answering the job-offer question.

He then deflects follow-up questions with vague answers that anything more is “for others to talk about,” and that he wants to talk about issues affecting Pennsylvanians. 

This oft-repeated response makes it seem that Sestak is absolved of any wrongdoing, and that all that is required of him is to verify that the quid pro quo offer was made.

Wrong.

First, the longer he stalls on coming clean with what really happened --- the names, dates and details involved --- the quicker his political career implodes.  Being embroiled in a controversy that simply won’t go away is not a good way to win elected office.

But infinitely more important, Sestak has, perhaps unwittingly, backed himself into potential legal trouble, as criminal liability in this case is a very real possibility. 

Obstruction of justice? Aiding and abetting? Failure to report a crime? Conspiracy?

Could he be charged with these serious offenses? Time will tell, but that may depend on how thorough an independent investigation is performed, if one is done at all.

Why does it seem that the only way people tell the truth anymore is with a subpoena?

And at this point, no matter what is forthcoming by either side, an investigation must take place.  Failure to do so will only result in a higher level of people’s mistrust of government.

David Axelrod, Senior White House Adviser, denied that a job offer took place, but added that if it did, such an action would be a “serious breach of the law.”

But on the radio show, Sestak said that this type of issue isn’t what concerns Pennsylvanians.  Rather, they are interested in how government is going to solve their problems.

At best, that answer is at least half wrong.

More than ever, Americans are looking for leaders who provide accountability, transparency and conviction --- people who will make the tough decisions to get the nation back on track, political repercussions be damned.

Sidestepping a public corruption scandal that may reach the very highest levels of government, and one in which he’s the most critical figure, is an indication that Sestak is not that type of leader.

For the sake of good government and his own integrity, Joe Sestak needs to come clean now, tell the truth, and let the chips fall where they may.

Anything less is unacceptable.

On far too many occasions, the media gets a story wrong. Whether that stems from laziness, ignorance or incompetence --- or all three --- the people deserve better.

As the drama of Pennsylvania’s nationally-followed primary played out, two major stories emerged.

The media got only one right.

*****

First, the one they got wrong.

As Senator Arlen Specter was heading for defeat --- the end of an era --- at the hands of Congressman Joe Sestak, the prevailing sentiment was that this result somehow translated into a “message to Washington.” This was usually followed by commentary that it showed people were angry at the policies coming out of the nation’s capital.

People are angry, to be sure, but this race had nothing to do with that.  In fact, Sestak’s election, from a policy standpoint, was an affirmation of Barack Obama’s agenda.

Sestak --- an incumbent, by the way --- not only voted for bailouts, the stimulus, federal takeovers of industry, and national health care, but wants to go considerably further.  More taxes, more spending, more regulation, more bureaucracy --- flat-out, Sestak just wants more government.

Since he, like the President, believes government knows best, how is that, in any way, a “message to Washington” and a repudiation of the current political environment?

It’s not.

Remember that this was a Democratic primary election, and Joe Sestak’s positions appeal to the Party’s Leftist base. And why not? He is one of them.

We also heard that there was an anti-incumbent message, which, overall, is true. Specter fatigue was running high, given that he has been a senator for a third of a century. But even that was a smaller factor in his defeat.

This senate election became a referendum on whether Specter was an untrustworthy political opportunist due to his party switch last year. Sestak’s ad showing Specter, in his own words, justifying his switch because it would “enable me to be re-elected” was the turning point in the race.

And it certainly didn’t help Specter when TV ads showed him not only being embraced by Sarah Palin, but being called an “ally” who could be “counted on” by the Devil himself --- at least to the Leftists --- George W. Bush.

Specter had a major credibility problem, and Sestak had enough money to inform voters of that --- over and over again.

That’s the whole issue, plain and simple. How anyone can extrapolate anything else is just ridiculous.

You want a “message to Washington?” Look to Tea Party candidate Rand Paul’s stunning victory in Kentucky, or if Pat Toomey beats Sestak in the fall, but don’t look to the Sestak-Specter race.

*****

The story the media did get right was Barack Obama’s abandonment of Specter in his hour of need.  Of this, there is no dispute.

And make no mistake, Obama should --- and will --- pay for his callous, calculated and crass political decision.

After successfully wooing Specter to join his Party, and immensely benefitting from that switch (as Specter was THE decisive 60th vote in favor of the stimulus), Obama blatantly turned his back on his one-time ally, humiliating an against-the-wall Specter.

Why? Because the President put politics before principle.  Despite the fact that he gave his word ---in front of the entire nation --- that he would help Arlen in any way, Obama broke that promise.

Specter saw the election slipping away, and repeatedly implored the President to campaign in Pennsylvania for him.  But those calls were rebuffed. 

It makes no difference whether Obama’s appearance would have helped or hurt Specter.

That is completely irrelevant.

What matters is that the President --- our leader and supposedly a role model --- broke his word to save his own skin.  Or so he thinks.

Ironically, the very reason Specter went down --- lack of credibility --- will now haunt Obama as he hurriedly tries to pass his agenda before Republicans win a sizable number of congressional seats this fall.

“What’s that, Mr. President?  You want my vote on a controversial issue, and in exchange you’ll give me A, B, and C, and, geez, you’ll even campaign for me when I need you?” 

That question will be echoed repeatedly between now and November as the President advocates cap-and-trade, spending and tax increases,  Wall Street reform, internet regulation, and a host of other issues.

And you know what he’ll hear more often than not?

“Hmmm.  You know I love you, Mr. President.  The same way you told Arlen that you loved him.  But after you hung him out to dry when he needed you most, you can’t blame me for thinking that your promises are a bit hollow right about now.  And by the way, you’re not up for re-election this year.  But I am.  So don’t take this the wrong way, but don’t let the door hit you in the derriere on the way out!”

Obama’s calculated move of not stopping in Pennsylvania, while flying over it on election day, was viewed as a political gain.  Short-term, he may be right.  But in the long-term, which in this case is the next 6 months, his decision will backfire in a big way.

Give George Bush credit for doing one thing right (which is not an easy thing to do).  He gave his word that he’d go to the wall for members of his party facing tough election challenges. And he came through in a big way.  Despite the risk to his prestige and political capital, Bush crisscrossed the country stumping for his allies.  And he emerged a stronger leader because of it.

Barack Obama may be naïve in many policy matters, but he should have been smart enough to know the value of keeping his word, both personally and politically.

But he didn’t. And he will suffer the consequences.

Want the most fitting possibility? Specter could actively campaign against, and attempt to derail, Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court nomination.
After all, he voted against her before as Solicitor General, and now he has nothing to lose.

Literally.

And for that, he can partially thank Barack Obama.

Aren’t paybacks hell?

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.

"We're all here because we're enraged at the fact that someone, anyone in the United States today, would question someone with 31 years of (military) service."

So said a retired lieutenant general about Arlen Specter’s television ad which stated that Joe Sestak, his opponent in the U.S. Senate Democratic primary, was relieved of duty in the Navy for creating a “poor command climate.”

Other veterans have chimed in with similar criticism of Specter, labeling the Senator and his commercial as “disrespectful” and “unpatriotic,” and adding that it should be off the table to question, let alone criticize, a veteran.

And making the sin mortal, we are told, is that it’s one veteran attacking another.

That line of thinking is not only wrong, but dangerous.

Why should anyone’s record be off limits to scrutiny ---veteran or not --- especially when that someone is seeking to become a United States Senator?