It was a December night, late 90’s.  My entire family was in downtown Philadelphia taking in the Christmas attractions.  One of our traditions was marveling at the magnificently decorated, larger-than-life tree in the City Hall courtyard.  But when we arrived, the gates were locked.

Viewing the tree wasn’t going to happen.

Disappointed, we started walking away when none other than the Mayor himself came bounding out of City Hall right next to us, clearly in a hurry.  But he saw us, turned around, and shot the bull for several minutes.  Upon hearing our plight, he immediately summoned a police officer from his detail and instructed him to take us up to his office, which “has the best view of the tree,” for as long as we wanted.

That tree never looked so beautiful.

And through it all, that Mayor never asked us our names or where we lived.  Whether or not we were voting constituents had absolutely no bearing on him.  He instinctively did what he thought was right, in much the same way he operated while an Assistant District Attorney, and later, the City’s DA.  He was one of the good guys.

And after his two relatively successful terms as Mayor, hopes that he would lead Pennsylvania in the right direction were not unfounded.

But after eight disastrous years as Pennsylvania’s Governor, Ed Rendell being viewed as a “good guy” is as likely as the Eagles’ winning this year’s Super Bowl: nonexistent.

                                                           *****

Up to this point, his legacy was known for three things: the introduction of gambling, which did not live up to the promise of tax-relief; huge tax hikes, coupled with a 40 per cent increase in state spending; and a perception of widespread pay-to-play within his Administration. Of lesser note but still sore subjects were his signing an unconstitutional legislative pay raise and not getting a single budget passed on time --- budgets that were full of smoke and mirrors, such as imaginary revenue from the failed I-80 tolling plan.

But now, the image of Rendell that is etched in people’s minds is the Governor blowing his top during one of his final interviews. 

With teeth clenched in a menacing growl, he karate-chops the air and literally screams at 60 Minutes interviewer Lesley Stahl that … “You guys don't get that. You're simpletons. You're idiots if you don't get that."   He was defending his position that gaming was good for Pennsylvania, under the rationale that if gamblers are going to lose their paychecks anyway, it’s better for state coffers if they lose them in Pennsylvania.

Truth be told, Rendell’s anger wasn’t really directed at Stahl.  An intelligent man, the Governor is all too aware that, under his watch, the state earned points in all the wrong categories: some of the highest taxes in the country; the nation’s most hostile legal system, causing doctors and companies to flee; a failing educational product; the country’s worst roads, and a decimated manufacturing base.

Pennsylvania’s biggest export is its children, and that, more than anything, has extinguished the hope for a better tomorrow under Rendell.

But if there is ever to be a turnaround, the time is now. Republican Attorney General Tom Corbett will be the state’s new Governor, a leader who has promised to run Pennsylvania in the mold of New Jersey’s Chris Christie.  And he definitely has the horses to accomplish his agenda: the Senate is solidly Republican, and the State House saw a thirteen seat swing to give the GOP a double-digit majority.

Many analysts postulated that Dan Onorato was defeated in the Governor’s race, and the Democrats lost control of the State House, because of the national Republican tidal wave, with Rendell playing little role in that result.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In the off-year elections of 1994 and 2010, newly elected Democratic Presidents pushed unpopular policies: Clinton with national health care and gays in the military, and Obama with universal healthcare, cap-and-trade and the stimulus. In both cases, Republicans took advantage of the momentum and captured the U.S. House of Representatives and numerous Governorships, including the gubernatorial victories of Tom Ridge and Tom Corbett in Pennsylvania. 

The State House was a different story. In 1994, the outgoing Governor, Bob Casey, Sr., was a popular conservative Democrat, and his influence helped the Dems maintain their slim majority. But Rendell was an albatross around the neck of Onorato, his protégé, and Democratic incumbents statewide.  Given that Corbett made Rendell’s legacy the focal point of his campaign, the Governor bears the most responsibility for his Party’s shellacking.

It’s legacy time for the Governor, and his approval ratings are downright dismal: twenties throughout much of the state and only thirties in his home base of Southeastern Pennsylvania. Poll numbers don’t lie, so when the vast majority of people say that Rendell’s eight years at the helm were a disaster, the realization of failure sets in, and backlashes occur --- hence the uncontrolled outburst on 60 Minutes.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of Rendell’s unpopularity is that it occurred despite the media’s cozy relationship with the Governor.  That free pass culminated when Brian Tierney, (former) publisher of the Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News --- the state’s largest papers --- sought a taxpayer bailout from Rendell himself, who was primed and ready to comply.  Thankfully, this was eventually nixed.

But if you read the glowing editorial in the Inky this past Sunday, you’d have thought Rendell walked on water. Consider these beauties:

“…he is leaving office as one of the most effective and capable governors that Pennsylvania has ever had.”

Nothing like telling 70 percent of Pennsylvanians they are dead wrong. And who says the media is elitist?

“…Rendell has led the state to impressive gains in public education.”

How?  By throwing an endless supply of taxpayer money into the black hole we call Philadelphia’s deathtrap schools?  If more funding was the solution, we’d have the best and brightest students.  Instead, we have unacceptable dropout rates, functional illiterates, low SAT scores and unaccountable teachers’ unions. But God forbid we try the only solution proven to work --- school choice.  The unions wouldn’t like that, and far be it for the Governor to offend a big contributor.

Speaking of which, from the bailout of Boscov’s to the millions bestowed upon Ballard Spahr, the Governor’s former law firm, Rendell has, first and foremost, taken care of his political pals and big-dollar contributors.  That, of course, was completely lost on the Inquirer’s editorial board as it opined, “Rendell's push for tax breaks resulted in the construction of Comcast's new corporate headquarters in Center City...”

Tax breaks?  Come on!  Those were blatant cash giveaways of OPM --- Other People’s Money! The Comcast-Rendell High Speed Money Connection was nothing more than corporate welfare to a multi-billion giant whose employees, political action committee, and executives (and spouses) --- including Rendell confidant, former Ballard boss and Chairman of the Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce David Cohen --- just so happened to throw almost $750,000 Rendell’s way. 

 “…The gaming part of Rendell's legacy has yet to play out. The new casino industry is providing jobs, as well as revenue for significant property-tax relief.”

Property-tax relief? Where?  Uranus?

Introducing addictive gambling as the centerpiece of an Administration and thinking it will lead to an economic revival is naïve, at best. But to rabidly defend it despite its obvious failures is deserving of our pity.

“…Overall, this governor was a friend of citizens whose voices don't often get heard in the halls of power. Pennsylvania has benefited as a result.”

Wait.  When did politically-connected law firms, unions and big-time fundraisers stop having their voices heard?

Here’s the sad reality.  If Rendell kept his word by not vetoing the Fair Share Act (limiting liability in lawsuits), if he hadn’t taxed people and businesses to the brink, if he had acted with a even a shred of responsibility when it came to budget spending, if he demanded accountability in our schools instead of being beholden to union interests, and if he instituted transparency and reform in state government, then Pennsylvania wouldn’t be near the bottom in job creation, economic opportunity --- and hope.

That this is lost on the insulated media is not surprising. But it’s certainly not lost on the only ones who matter --- the people. Tom Corbett and his Party would do well to always remember that.

To paraphrase a popular saying, a legacy is a terrible thing to waste.

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 newsApapers, 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

It’s Business As Usual at the DRPA.  And despite all the “reform” rhetoric flying around, don’t expect real changes anytime soon.

The reason is simple.

The people charged with implementing the reforms are the very same ones who have been, and still are, completely immersed in the conflicts, nepotism and cronyism that need reforming.

That’s like criminals running the prison, inmates taking charge of the asylum.

Given their legacy of abject failure, from accumulating massive debt to spewing outright lies, The DRPA’s Big Four executive braintrust simply has no credibility.  (It was The Big Five, but Jon Corzine was given the boot last year).

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell has been virtually silent during the recent brouhaha, and, as the person in charge of the DRPA since 2002, that tells you all you need to know.

Rendell feigning indignation that corruption occurred on his watch as DRPA Chairman is like throwing ballast off a sinking ship.  It just doesn’t cut it.

His awful reform spin aside, Rendell is gone in months.  Two down.

That leaves CEO John Matheussen, Chairman John Estey, and Vice Chairman Jeff Nash, with their new-found piety and wounded vanity.  Despite PR tours and crisis management spin, their attempts at reforming the DRPA have fallen woefully short of the mark. 

You simply cannot lead when your followers have lost faith in your abilities.

The only viable solution is to wipe the DRPA clean, and Flush The Johns ---and Jeff too.

Need more ammunition for why they need to go?  Consider these recent beauties:

Estey’s Insulting FOX 29 Interview

During a recent interview on FOX’s Good Day Philadelphia, Estey, a partner at Ballard Spahr, was asked about possible DRPA conflicts with his law firm.  His response: “The truth is, I don’t know where that came from….my firm doesn’t do any work for the DRPA.”

Oh really, John? How utterly disingenuous can he be?

Ballard Spahr billed over $80,000 in 2010 alone, and $186,000 in 2009!  When did the firm stop its DRPA business dealings?  Five minutes prior to the show? 

And even if some of that billing was carried over from other years, that absolutely should have been disclosed by Estey. But it wasn’t.

What Estey also conveniently failed to mention was that Ballard performed almost $3 million in legal work for the Authority since Gov. Ed Rendell appointed himself DRPA Chairman in 2002. 

Which is interesting, given that Rendell worked at Ballard for the three years prior to his election.

Oh, and just to be clear: Ballard, its attorneys, and the Philadelphia Future political action committee --- which is registered at the Ballard offices, and whose Treasurer is Rendell confidante, political powerbroker and former Ballard Chairman David Cohen ---  donated nearly $1.5 million to Rendell’s campaigns. 

And Rendell’s Governor committee is registered at the Ballard Spahr offices!

For comparison, Ballard billed a total of only $480 in 2001 ---the year BEFORE Rendell was elected.  Quite a jump by any standard.

And despite Rendell’s claims that he had no influence in how Ballard was selected, Ballard Chairman Arthur Makadon was quoted in a 2009 news article, stating that the choice is "effectively up to the Pennsylvania governor."

Call me slow, but those two statements seem contradictory, and raise a whole lot of other questions that need to be scrutinized in great detail.

Are Rendell and Estey Really Clueless On Audits?

One of the reforms Estey has championed is allowing the Pennsylvania Auditor General to conduct an audit of the DRPA. 

In fact, the stated purpose of Estey’s upcoming resolution is to “…permit the Pennsylvania Auditor General’s Office…to audit the performance of the Authority.”

Sounds great as a 30-second sound bite.  But the reality is an entirely different animal.

As in….that audit CAN’T occur.  Not now, not ever.

The Pennsylvania Auditor General (currently Jack Wagner, who has been one of the only consistent voices of reform) has an automatic seat on the DRPA Board.  As such, it violates government auditing standards for Wagner to conduct a forensic audit on an agency on which he sits.

Estey and Rendell either don’t know this, making them incompetent, or they do, making them complicit in deliberately misleading the Board, the public, and the media.

And it isn’t like the DRPA is being audited regularly, anyway.  The governing rules of the Authority, known as the Compact, REQUIRES a management audit every five years. 

But this being the DRPA, where rules are for other people, they just released the audit THAT WAS DUE IN 2006!  Since the Authority footed the $500,000 bill, the audit’s independence was immediately nullified.  In fact, one Board member called it a complete waste.

To use a phrase made famous by former DRPA Board member Vince Fumo, now vacationing in federal prison, it’s Other People’s Money.

Typical DRPA.

The only way to ensure an audit is conducted independently is to utilize an auditor as far removed from the New Jersey and Pennsylvania political scene as possible. 

The United States Government Accounting Office or Inspector General’s Office are the most viable options --- but neither are being recommended by the DRPA.

DRPA Salary Increases: Yes Or No?  Ask Dick Brown

According to the DRPA, there have been no recent salary increases for employees.  Yet Richard Brown, longtime General Counsel, had his $9,000 car allowance shifted to his salary.

Despite car allowances being eliminated last month as a “reform” measure, Brown’s $9,000 car allowance-turned-salary increase will NOT be retracted. 

In other words, he received a pay raise. His salary stands at $189,081.

Car allowances are taxed as income, but that money does NOT count toward one’s pension.  Could it be that the DRPA made this salary-increase arrangement for Brown, who is at or near retirement age, so that his pension could be padded--- a hefty increase that toll payers will be paying for the rest of Brown’s life?

Legal or not, such a move is a slap in the face to those who will be paying $5 to cross the bridges next year --- bridges that remain overdue for capital improvement projects due to a lack of money.

Board Has Been Kept In The Dark

On numerous occasions, including some in the DRPA’s recent “Age of Reform,” the Port Authority’s Board Of Commissioners have been kept in the dark regarding resolutions, conflicts, personnel matters and the overall direction of the DRPA.

Consider just a few:

-The Board wasn’t informed of Vice Chairman Nash’s conflict when the DRPA shelled out three $50,000 marketing contracts to his (now) ex-wife’s company, Live Nation. 

-The Board wasn’t informed when Corporate Secretary John Lawless --- a self-described whistleblower --- was escorted from the building by Matheussen for non-disciplinary reasons in April, despite the fact that Lawless doesn’t work for the CEO, but for the Board itself. 

-The Board hasn’t been consulted on the reform resolutions being offered at the August Board meeting.

- Several Board members were unaware that DRPA executives had Authority-issued credit cards, and still have no idea how much was spent, and on what.

This veil of secrecy has become so commonplace that several Board Members are openly calling for a change in DRPA leadership.

If the Authority’s own Board doesn’t even know what the leadership is doing, how can the public ever feel confident that they are getting straight answers, let alone the truth?

So much for openness, transparency and accountability.

Attitude reflects leadership

The attitudes of Matheussen, Estey and Nash have consistently exuded nothing but contempt for toll payers, the media, law-and-order politicians and the truth.  No amount of reform will change that fact, so the only answer is their removal.

Likewise, the leadership of Gov. Chris Christie will be forever damaged if he reappoints or endorses any of the current DRPA leadership.

After decades of abuse and scandal, Business As Usual at the DRPA must come to an end.

Governor Christie, the people are waiting.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist 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 also serves as a weekly guest commentator on the Philadelphia-area talk radio show, Political Talk (WCHE 1520), and makes numerous other television and radio appearances, most notably on FOX 29 in Philadelphia. 

He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

In 1999, after serving eight years as Mayor of Philadelphia, Ed Rendell joined the Ballard Spahr law firm, headquartered in Center City. Two years later, during his campaign for governor, Mr. Rendell said, "I have, for the last two years, done practically nothing for [Ballard]," according to numerous press reports.

Upon assuming office, he appointed himself Chairman of the Delaware River Port Authority (DPRA), the entity overseeing the four major bridges in Philadelphia. One of the major beneficiaries of Gov. Rendell's being DRPA chairman has been his former firm.

In the three years preceding Mr. Rendell's election, Ballard received $25,000 in legal fees from the Port Authority, including only $480 in 2001. From 2002 until the present, Ballard has received over $2.7 million.

Two of the governor's former top aides, John Estey, his former chief of staff and Adrian King, his former deputy chief of staff, are currently partners at Ballard, and both hold influential positions related to DRPA. Mr. Estey chairs the board meetings and maintains full voting rights on behalf of the governor, and Mr. King serves as the authority's outside counsel. Mr. Estey and Mr. King are brothers-in-law, and together they have contributed over $35,000 to Mr. Rendell's political coffers.

Additionally, a Rendell appointee, Pennsylvania Treasurer Robin Wiessmann, sits on the DRPA board. Her husband, Ken Jarin, also a partner at Ballard, serves as DRPA outside counsel and occasionally chairs board meetings. He contributed $90,000 to the governor's campaigns. Ballard attorneys have contributed nearly a half-million dollars to Gov. Rendell. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of "in-kind" contributions were also donated.

The Philadelphia Future Political Action Committee, registered at the Ballard Spahr offices, contributed $471,000 to Mr. Rendell. The PAC's treasurer is David Cohen, former chief of staff under then-Mayor Rendell, former chairman of Ballard Spahr and the current executive vice president of Comcast Corporation. Mr. Cohen contributed $80,000 to the governor.

According to Pennsylvania Department of State campaign filings, the address of Gov. Rendell's campaign treasurer is the 51st Floor of 1735 Market Street in Philadelphia. Ballard Spahr occupies the entire floor.

While many believe this arrangement is a blatant conflict of interest, it not unusual. In fact, such relationships are commonplace in how business is conducted in Pennsylvania.

Despite the questionable nature of such practice, it is not officially considered "pay-to-play," which generally relates to the illegal practice of giving political contributions in return for government contracts. In the absence of a quid pro quo arrangement, the rewarding of former firms with lucrative contracts is legal and continues unimpeded.

What has raised the ire of both the public and the state legislature, however, is the frequency of these contracts, the huge contract amounts and the secrecy surrounding no-bid contracts. That is especially true when they are doled out to firms, such as Ballard Spahr, which maintain a close relationship with the governor. When pressed for answers about the decision-making in hiring Ballard Spahr, Gov. Rendell's spokespeople routinely deflect all responsibility away from him, issuing statements that the governor had no role in the selection process.

Consequently, there has been a renewed push in the state House to enact reforms in how contracts are awarded and to prohibit campaign contributions by companies and individuals who contract with the commonwealth or its political subdivisions. Four bills addressing these issues have been introduced as a legislative package by state Reps. Robert W. Godshall, R-Montgomery County; Douglas Reichley, R-Berks and Lehigh counties; Glen R. Grell, R-Cumberland County; and Mike Turzai, R-Allegheny County, and all remain pending in the Democratic-controlled committee (see Legislators Introduce Bills To Reform Contracts).

There are numerous firms that have benefited from political connections, but none navigate the political landscape so adroitly as Ballard. Many of its partners are consummate political insiders, so much so that according to press reports, Gov. Rendell chose not to utilize his Philadelphia office in The Bellevue for an August meeting regarding city casinos, preferring the cozy confines of Ballard Spahr instead.

Zack Stalberg, president of the nonpartisan watchdog organization Committee of Seventy, was quoted as saying, "It seemed like an odd place to have it. There's got to be a lot of other neutral territory around town other than a highly influential, connected law firm."

According to state records, more than $1 billion in no-bid contracts have been issued during Gov. Rendell's tenure. While the vast majority of state contracts require a bidding process, the governor has the discretion to award contracts on a no-bid basis when it is in the "best interest of the commonwealth." It is not known whether the Rendell administration has exploited this loophole more than the previous administrations, since comparative state records were "lost," according to the Department of General Services, who has, to date, been unable to locate the records.

Ballard Spahr ranks near the top of law firms receiving state work since Gov. Rendell became the state's chief executive, totaling more than $10 million, not including DRPA fees. That is in large part because no other firm comes close to having the intimate connections with the governor himself. Enough eyebrows have been raised by watchdog groups and in the General Assembly that Barbara Adams, general counsel to the commonwealth, and Rendell appointee, made a special presentation during a recent state-sponsored Continuing Legal Education (CLE) course to stress that law firms are not chosen because of their political connections. According to a source, many attorneys "rolled their eyes and smirked" at that comment. CLE courses are mandated for all Pennsylvania attorneys in order to keep their law licenses current.

In addition to the millions in DRPA legal fees, Ballard Spahr's connections have allowed it to be selected as counsel for the following entities:

The Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

For several years, the Rendell administration has proposed privatizing the turnpike in order to raise revenue. Despite the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation having a large in-house legal staff, numbering more than 70 attorneys, Ballard was selected as counsel for this project, being awarded a $1.8 million no-bid contract.

Ken Jarin billed the state $25,000, which was ultimately paid for by the state treasurer - and Mr. Jarin's wife - Robin Wiessmann. Ballard Chairman Arthur Makadon billed the state at a rate of $637 per hour. Additionally, Ballard performed $773,000 worth of legal work without a contract. In order for those legal fees to be paid, a special arrangement, known as a "Compromise, Settlement and Release" agreement, was executed between the state and Ballard. These actions have infuriated state legislators, prompting the proposed reform legislation.

The Philadelphia Regional Port Authority (PRPA)

As an "independent agency of the commonwealth," the PRPA depends on and takes direction from the state. John Estey serves as Chairman of the PRPA. During a June 18, 2008 board meeting, Ballard Spahr was selected to be counsel to the authority.

GTECH

This Rhode Island company, which specializes in casino-related operations, hired Ken Jarin for assistance in contract negotiations while it was attempting to win a contract for a computer system that monitors slots gaming in Pennsylvania. GTECH received a five-year contract worth millions per year.

Additionally, the state Department of Revenue awarded a five year contract to GTECH earlier this year "to supply terminal-based game services to the Pennsylvania Lottery," potentially worth $25 million a year.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist 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 also serves as a weekly guest commentator on the Philadelphia-area talk radio show, Political Talk (WCHE 1520), and makes numerous other television and radio appearances.  He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

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

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

“The Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce is dedicated to promoting regional economic growth…and advancing business-friendly public policies.”

So says the Mission Statement of Philadelphia’s Chamber of Commerce.

It further states that it is, “dedicated to supporting and encouraging the continued growth” of its members by striving “to influence business-friendly legislation in all levels of government, participate in initiatives to improve education and the community.”

And its Public Policy department is supposed “…to address pro-business legislation directly with the policy-makers who can make a difference.”

Wow.

If only the Chamber put just a small fraction of that mission into reality, maybe Philadelphia wouldn’t be such a dismal place to live and work.
But the city Chamber is not alone in selling out its members.

Last month, the Montgomery County Chamber, in an act that defies belief, issued a “Lifetime Achievement Award” to Governor Ed Rendell at a “Celebration of Excellence” event. 

It’s no small point that Rendell, more than anyone, is responsible for the carnage that is Pennsylvania’s economy.                                                                  

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.

In 2007, Ballard Spahr, Gov. Ed Rendell’s former law firm, performed $773,000 of state legal work without a contract.