Pop Quiz: What’s the relationship between the following two statements which have appeared in recent news articles:

1) “Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett’s national profile rises in the wake of Penn State scandal.”

2) “Tom Corbett has been mentioned as a possible Vice Presidential candidate.”

Strangely, they are inversely proportional.  When one’s profile rises, that’s typically a good thing. But as the nation learns about some very disturbing actions of Corbett related to the Penn State scandal, his Veep chances are plummeting.  As a direct result, his chances of ever being a heartbeat away are between zero and forgetaboutit.

At this rate, he may be lucky just to survive his first term.

*****

Why the cover-up, and how far up the ladder did it go?  Why the lack of swift action, from not just the University, but from law enforcement?  And how could football --- no matter how storied a program --- have risen above the protection of innocent children?

These questions were supposed to be answered by a thorough and unbiased investigation by the state Attorney General’s Office.  But as more information emerges on that front, the less faith people have that justice has been --- or will be --- served.

Enter Tom Corbett.

For better or worse, Corbett has been a quiet, behind-the-scenes governor during his first year in office.  Yet he felt compelled to address the state and national media on the scandal.  In doing so, he said more in one press conference than he had in his entire governorship, despite the fact that he declined to answer most questions.

Interestingly, Corbett is wearing three hats.  He is the Governor of a state that contributes millions to Penn State. He is a Penn State Board Trustee who participated in Board decisions, including the firings of Joe Paterno and University President Graham Spanier. And most significantly, he is the former Attorney General who launched the child molestation investigation of former football coach Jerry Sandusky in 2009.

Corbett has attempted to have the best of both worlds: national publicity where he touts the virtues of morality, and a free pass on accountability because of alleged confidentiality issues.  But that tactic has backfired, as the media spotlight turned on Corbett himself. The more that is learned about Corbett’s actions --- and inactions --- regarding the investigation, the more his credibility tanks.

Consider:

1) It took substantially longer for the Attorney General’s office to bring charges against Sandusky than it did for numerous politicians to be indicted in the Bonusgate corruption probe. Bonusgate was a very complex investigation involving crafty politicians with the best lawyers money could buy. Since much of what was being investigated in Bonusgate was not run-of-the mill illegalities, the investigators had to overcome a hefty, time-consuming learning curve to understand the subject matter.

So how can such a complicated investigation come to fruition more quickly than a black-and-white child rape case?  And where is the rule against making an initial arrest to get the molester off the street --- and warn the public --- while continuing to build the case?

Given the appalling nature of the alleged crimes, and the real possibility that more young children were molested during the three year investigation, why did the Attorney General wait so long to make the staffing level as robust as it should have been from the start?

If the answer is that resources were limited --- sorry, try again.  As bad as other crimes may have been, such as those committed in Bonusgate, no one was physically hurt and the welfare of children was never an issue.  Giving priority to children who are at risk of rape and molestation is a no-brainer. But inexplicably, that wasn’t done.

The Governor continues to defend his actions --- scolding those who dare question him --- by stating that it takes time to build such a case and that he can’t comment further, but three years? That’s an insult to everyone, especially the victims.  Again, you can’t have it both ways, grandstanding for political points but clamming up when the questions get tough.

And fair or not, many are now asking if the investigation was delayed so that Corbett could avoid being the gubernatorial candidate who took down Joe Paterno and Penn State --- both wildly popular among the hundreds of thousands of alumni living in the state.

2) This one is simply incomprehensible.

In yet another instance of Corbett finishing what former Democratic Governor Ed Rendell started (others being $20 million of taxpayer money to renovate the Yankees’ AAA  stadium, and $42  million to bail out the Philadelphia Shipyard to build ships with no buyers), the Governor personally approved a $3 million taxpayer-funded grant to Sandusky’s Second Mile charity --- just four months ago!

That bears repeating.  Tom Corbett, with full knowledge that Sandusky was under investigation for multiple child rapes, still approved the money to his charity. 

How is that possible?  And why on earth is the national media not yet running with this?

In a response that was offensive to any rational person, here’s what his spokesman said, as reported in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review:

“He (Corbett) couldn't block that (grant) from going forward because of what he knew as attorney general…He couldn't let on to anyone (including the governor's office) what he knew….”

That is so wrong that it begs the question as to the real motivation behind approving the grant.

First, the fact that so many people had been interviewed by the grand jury made the investigation anything but a secret.  Second, the Harrisburg Patriot News reported on the grand jury investigation ---- in March.  Corbett approved the funds --- in July!  So not wanting to “let on” was clearly bogus.  The investigation was already well-established in the public domain.

Secondly, there was an incredibly easy way to deal with the grant without tipping off anyone: simply strike it.  After all, the budget Corbett signed cut everything else, so a grant to a charity would have been seen as just another casualty of financial cutbacks. 

Veto the grant (why taxpayers are funding that in the first place is obscene, but that’s another story) and be done with it.  It should have been that easy.  But it didn’t happen.

Why?

Well, consider if the following may have had anything to do with it. According to the sports website Deadspin.com, past and present board members of the Second Mile, along with their businesses and families, have donated more than $640,000 to Corbett since 2003.

That interesting --- and massively significant --- point seemed to have slipped the Governor’s mind during his press conferences.  Go figure.

*****

Something is rotten to the core about how this whole affair has been investigated.  It’s time for the Feds to take the lead role in uncovering the whole truth, and that includes possibly looking into the Attorney General’s investigation. 

It’s clear the Board of Trustees cannot be counted upon to conduct an unbiased investigation, nor can the local police, and, sadly, even the Attorney General’s office.  And nothing emanating from the Governor’s office on this issue can be taken at face value.

In discussing why Paterno and Spanier were fired, the Governor said, “…the Board lost confidence in their ability to lead Penn State through this time and into the future.”

With all the opportunities Tom Corbett has had to play it straight with the people of Pennsylvania --- especially the victims --- on his dealings with the Penn State issue, he hasn’t done so.

And that has caused an ever-increasing number of people to lose confidence in his ability to lead.

There is a great scene in the movie The American President where Richard Dreyfuss suggests that being president “was, to a certain extent, about character.” And in classic Michael Douglas style, he replies, “I can tell you, without hesitation, that being President is entirely about character.”

Well, character isn’t limited to the Oval Office. It resides in every one of us --- and that includes Governors, Trustees, coaches, police and investigators.

Moving forward, let’s demand that a basic legal and moral principle be followed to the very end:

Fiat justitia ruat caelum  ---"Let justice be done though the heavens fall."

The victims deserve no less.

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

FREIND Talks Bonusgate And Legislative Corruption On FOX 29

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/good_day_philadelphia/video%3A-chris-freind-on-bonusgate

Note: This Freindly Fire column first appeared in Philadelphia Magazine's Philly Post)

Why does it seem that every time a politician takes on corruption, his motives are called into question?

We often hear that investigations of this sort are “politically motivated,” but rarely whether or not the charges are true.

Attorney General Tom Corbett is a good example.

Despite great success in rooting out legislative corruption --- an investigation known as “Bonusgate,” --- Corbett, the GOP gubernatorial candidate, continues to be accused of using his office for political gain.

Unfortunately, too many of the Attorney General’s critics fail to look at the facts before they open up with both barrels.

Bonusgate was not the brainchild of an ambitious man looking to generate headlines for a gubernatorial run, but an investigation dropped into his lap by a newspaper’s investigative reporting.

In fact, Bonusgate was investigated using the evidence as a guide, wherever it happened to lead. At first, that was the Democratic Caucus, where ten felony convictions have been achieved thus far.

Later, it was the Republican Caucus, where a host of GOP insiders have been indicted, including powerful former Speaker John Perzel.
Because of the investigation, Corbett has said he will take neither campaign donations nor endorsements from legislators. 

So how alienating an entire legislative body, including members of your own Party who normally contribute over a million dollars to a gubernatorial candidate’s war chest, is politically beneficial, remains a mystery.

But the criticism continues unabated.

Corbett has come under more fire recently, this time for obtaining a grand jury subpoena against Twitter to ascertain the identity of an anonymous blogger who had repeatedly criticized the Bonusgate investigation.

The Attorney General believed that Brett Cott, a convicted Bonusgate defendant, was the mastermind behind the blog.  And since Cott was scheduled for sentencing, it was Corbett’s intention to show that Cott lacked remorse for his crimes, and therefore deserved a long prison term.

Was Corbett within his legal right? Certainly.

Was it damaging to his political aspirations? Absolutely.  Of this, there can be any doubt.

And that, in a very real sense, is what would make Tom Corbett an effective governor.

*****

A veteran of the political arena, Corbett knew the subpoena would unleash a torrent of negative press only five months before the election. Despite this, he chose to move ahead, and in the process, provided an insight into the type of governor he would be.

The easy road would have been to forget the subpoena.  After all, Cott was already convicted, and that’s the only headline he needed to be perceived as successful.

But Corbett, a prosecutor to the end, made the decision to see the case through in the manner he deemed most appropriate ---political repercussions be damned.

Whether or not one agrees with the Attorney General’s decision --- and from Democratic opponent Dan Onorato to free speech advocates, many do not --- Corbett has shown his mettle by following through on his pledge to conduct investigations free of political motivations.

Indicting powerful politicians and subpoenaing Twitter are not exactly the most prudent political moves, but both reflect Corbett’s philosophy to do the right thing without regard to the political consequences. 

While that mentality is a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stagnant political atmosphere, there is the possibility that Corbett’s stick-to-his-guns approach may make him an “also-ran.”

If citizens think he is selectively prosecuting legislators to benefit his gubernatorial bid, he will lose.

And if enough people think he abused his office by subpoenaing Twitter, he may not be the Keystone State’s next governor.

But a funny thing is happening in America that hasn’t occurred in a very long time.  People are awakening.

More and more, Americans are experiencing a deep-seated feeling that this time, things are different --- and that we might not pull out of the current crises like we’ve always done in the past.

As a result, they are seeking a leader with the conviction, core and common sense to do what he believes is right…period.  No polls, no politics --- just principle.

Whether Tom Corbett is that person, only time will tell.

Like or dislike him, agree with his decisions or not, Tom Corbett has just shown Pennsylvania that he is a man of his word and will not allow gubernatorial politics to get in the way of his job as the state’s top cop --- even if it costs him the governorship.
Since that is a rare quality in any elected official, one thing is certain.

This November will make for a very interesting election.

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.

O'Herrick's Televised Speech From the Pennsylvania Leadership Conference Panel "Corruption and the Need for Transparency and Reform" April 16, 2010

On  September 3, 2008, in Philadelphia, a man viciously attacked a dozing subway passenger with a hammer, while all of the other riders stood by and watched --- not one lifted a finger to stop the assault.

Outraged at the lack of help, the city's police commissioner scolded the passengers, stating, “They better pray they're never a victim, because if someone was attacking them that way they would certainly hope someone would step forward and help, and it starts with stepping forward and doing something yourself," Chief Charles Ramsey said.

Unfortunately, this story reminds me of others of a similar nature, all set in Pennsylvania, where good people did nothing to stop injustices occurring right in front of them :

---from the Cash-For-Kids scandal involving judges in Luzerne County, to the widespread political corruption of Vince Fumo, to the Bonusgate scandal of elected officials using taxpayer dollars---our dollars--- to pay bonuses for campaign work.

The failure to stop egregious acts, be they violence or corruption, leads to the same result: a systematic breakdown in our society where we all become victims.

In Pennsylvania, a culture of corruption has entrenched itself so deeply that many citizens across the Commonwealth have become desensitized to its effects, and therefore aren’t willing to stand up for what is right.

The idiocy of some people never ceases to amaze.

For the latest example, just look how the political hacks reacted to the recent week of Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett.

First, Corbett’s office was successful in prosecuting former state representative Mike Veon and two others in the Bonusgate scandal, bringing the total number of felony convictions in that corruption investigation to ten.  Veon and his cronies were convicted on numerous charges related to using taxpayer money for political campaigns. 

Taxpayer money is, in fact, the people’s hard-earned cash that is sent to Harrisburg for the purposes of good government.  Using it for anything else, especially campaign activities, is an atrocious breach of the public’s trust.

So sending someone like Veon away with a case of Soap-on-a-Rope should be considered a good thing by all sane and rational Pennsylvanians.  Score one for the good guys ----us.