Category: Chris Freind

After his victory in 1980, Ronald Reagan chose the best, the brightest – and make no mistake – the most politically powerful to fill his cabinet. In an acknowledgement to the Republican might of Pennsylvania (a state he won), he chose three cabinet officials from the same county! Drew Lewis (who fired the striking air traffic controllers), Alexander Haig, and Richard Schweiker all hailed from Montgomery County.

In 1994, Pennsylvania was the most Republican state in the nation in terms of elected officials. The GOP controlled the two U.S. Senate seats, the Governorship, the state Legislature, all statewide row offices, and a majority of the congressional delegation.

And in 2010, five congressional seats flipped to the Republicans, Tom Corbett trounced his gubernatorial opponent, the state Senate remained in GOP hands, and Republicans seized control of the state House with a 10-set majority.

Yet the biggest prize of all has eluded the Party for a quarter-century: a win for their presidential candidate. Not coincidentally, the southeastern counties, home to nearly half the state’s population, have trended Democratic in that timeframe, with the former GOP strongholds of Delaware and Montgomery counties abandoning Republican nominees since 1988.

So it’s no surprise that leading Republicans, including Gov. Corbett and Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-9, of Chester, have come up with a plan to change how the state’s presidential electoral votes are awarded. Under their proposal, one electoral vote would be allocated for each congressional district a presidential candidate wins, as opposed to the current system, which is winner-take-all.

We’ll get to the real reason behind this naked political ploy, but first, let’s look at why the plan is a bad idea:

1) It politicizes the election process in an unprecedented way: Congressional districts would be gerrymandered like never before, drawn by the party in power to suit its candidate’s needs in order to win the most districts. This is NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they designed the system, and most definitely puts the politicians ahead of the people. It’s supposed to be the other way around.

2) It sets the stage for the system to constantly change: Although labeled a plan offering “electoral fairness,” it is being pushed simply because the GOP now controls Harrisburg and wants to bolster the Republican nominee’s electoral total any way it can. Remember, the Democrats need Pennsylvania to win the White House, whereas the Republicans do not.

And since this change would be enacted by simple legislation, where does it end? If Pennsylvania Democrats regain control in 2014, and a Republican occupies the White House, would we then see the winner-take-all system come back into play? The electoral system in constant flux would only breed resentment and confusion, which could not come at a worse time.

3) It’s a wash on the national level: If enacted nationally, this system would ultimately be a wash, or even negatively impact the GOP. For example, Republicans would no longer win all of Texas’ 38 votes, perhaps only taking 25. Taking it even further, it is possible that in 2004, despite George W. Bush winning 31 states, he might have lost the election, since he only won the Electoral College with 16 votes to spare.

4) The system works as it is: It is not easy to pigeonhole the American people’s voting preferences. For example, Montana and North Dakota, both Republican states in most presidential elections, have Democratic senators, as did solidly Republican Georgia a short time ago. Indiana, with a GOP governor and legislature, had voted Democratic for president only once since 1940 — but that changed in 2008. Obama also won the normally GOP states of North Carolina, Virginia, Florida and Missouri. Yet the Republicans are darn close to winning the traditionally progressive states of Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Bottom line: Voting patterns are not set in stone. The more competitive elections are, the more engaged the electorate. The Electoral College works, so why mess with a good thing?

5) It all comes down to having good candidates who can articulate a message with charisma and passion. When Republicans instead coronate those whose “turn it is,” they get clobbered. Bob Dole and John McCain are prime examples. Neither had any business being the presidential nominee. Not much has changed, as the GOP is in total disarray heading into what many Republicans call the most important election in history. The truth is, there are only two candidates capable of winning the nomination, both of whom carry tremendous baggage. Yet McCain, the party’s patriarch, just stated, “We have the deepest bench in the Republican Party now that I have ever seen.” And that says it all.

On the state level, it’s much of the same, as Lynn Swann and Mike Fisher proved all too well.

Which leads us to the The Pennsylvania story.

The GOP’s demise in the Keystone State can be attributed to two things: the lack of quality candidates and the colossal failure of leadership. Fix both, and they win the state — and the White House. But the electoral system shouldn’t be changed just because the entrenched Business As Usual GOP hierarchy is the poster boy for incompetence.

The combination of running untenable candidates, valuing insider contracts and solicitorships over issues and choosing laziness over grunt work has caused it to lose huge chunks of the political landscape.

There has been little effort to groom candidates, and absolutely no initiative to stop the hemorrhaging from Philadelphia, where Republican statewide candidates routinely face half-million vote deficits. As a result, the Party is in the strange position of sitting on massive gains from the tidal wave of 2010, but taking a pass on challenging vulnerable Democratic Sen. Bob Casey. The GOP leadership doesn’t seem to realize that the big swings in 1994 and 2010 were not mandates for the Republicans per se, but a demand that real solutions be enacted to solve monumental problems.

When Republicans talk about the issues, they win – and win big. President Reagan innately understood that, which is why he won 44 and 49 states, respectively, with massive Electoral College victories. Even George W. Bush learned that lesson, as he too galloped to victory with 40 states and 426 electoral votes.

Thirty years ago, when someone moved into the Philadelphia suburbs, they were always greeted (usually within a week) by the local Republican committeeman. The conversation went something like this, “Oh, I see you moved here from the city. Well, we have safer streets, better schools, and lower taxes – because our municipality and county are run by Republicans. Here is a voter registration card. I’ll be back in a few days to see how we can work together.”

That recruiting effort built the Party into a well-oiled machine, and the county organizations could be relied upon to deliver for national and statewide candidates.

But all that ended, and with it, the GOP’s dominance. Issues gave way to power trips and petty infighting, the Party lost its energy and brand. Now, door-knocking and personal visits are virtually non-existent. And the numbers illustrate that failure: in the largest Republican wave since 1946, neither Tom Corbett nor Pat Toomey won Delaware or Montgomery County. Given that the GOP isn’t making the necessary changes, it’s a good bet that trend will continue, with Obama and Casey again winning the state.

Republican woes aside, letting the genie out of the bottle by fundamentally altering the hallowed electoral system established by our Founding Fathers – one that has served us so well -&nbs
p; for short-term political gain is anathema to everything uniquely American.

The folks pushing this change should look in the mirror and ask themselves if they are truly the leaders they purport to be. If so, they should abandon this foolhardy plan and seize the day, winning the hearts and minds of the electorate the old-fashioned way – through hard work.

The Founding Fathers knew a thing or two about how government works best. Honoring them by not punting a good thing is the least we should do.

Montco Reagan Connections

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Scares U.S. ?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to the United Nations has been met with fierce opposition, including a 30-nation walk-out during his address to the international body. That childish protest, led by the U.S., was exactly what transpired during his previous visits when he spoke at both the U.N. and Columbia University.

People can protest all they want. That’s their right in this country, and Ahmadinejad has certainly provided enough material. But a distinction has to be made as to what is being protested.

If people want to voice disapproval of Ahmadinejad’s totalitarian policies and inflammatory statements, great. If, however, the walk-out was to (ultimately) criticize the organization’s decision to allow an unpopular figure to speak, that’s a different story.

Why are we so scared of Ahmadinejad? What frightens us so much that we demand his viewpoints be silenced? He is the undisputed leader of a sovereign nation, a man whose words and decisions have significant weight on the world stage. Like him or not, he’s the president of Iran, and the West has no choice but to deal with him and his government.

And if the criteria for a walk-out are fanatical statements made by the ranting leader of a second-rate country, then UN delegates better get comfortable shoes, because they’ll be doing a hell of a lot of walking.

Walking out on Ahmadinejad is completely counterproductive, as it gives him a public relations bonanza. Like eating the forbidden fruit, Ahmadinejad’s remarks will now be heard by many who otherwise would not have cared, being attracted by the “If it’s bad enough that the U.S. walked out, I must hear what he said” mentality. And it permits our enemies to label us hypocritcal; we jettison free speech whenever convenient.

It’s exactly like those who protest KKK and neo-Nazi marches. The louder the protesters, the more energy and media coverage is given to those groups. They feed off the attention. Stay home, and they go away. It’s that simple.

And it’s a horrible example for our children. Don’t like what the professor has to say? Leave. Mom and Dad trying to enforce the rules? Walk out. Disagree with what your political opponent says about you? Throw out some invectives and storm away.

*****

In 2007, despite getting hammered by protesters and politicians, Columbia played it right by affording Ahmadinejad a platform, but equally important, chose not to give him an award. It is one thing to allow someone to speak, but quite another when accolades are bestowed upon individuals who don’t deserve them.

The larger question centers on free speech. Aren’t we always told that America sets the standard for the free exchange of ideas? Don’t we teach our young people to keep an open mind and question everything? Isn’t it invaluable to hear opposing points of view, and ultimately form one’s own opinion?

Failure to maintain an open atmosphere leads to close-mindedness and ignorance. The world is increasingly “flat,” in that we live in an ever-expanding global economy. Traditional borders and cultural barriers continue to be dismantled. Therefore, it’s imperative that Americans understand the value of listening, are open to constructive dialogue, formulate tough questions, and refuse to live in fear.

Narrow-mindedness will only make the road ahead more difficult.

This is not a call for appeasement, nor is it running from reality. Iran’s posturing–and actions–have made the West very uncomfortable, and if that nation continues on its current path, especially with regard to its nuclear program, the situation may well become bloody.

Is Iran an “enemy,” whose leaders should be banned from entering America, as some contend? Depends on your definition. But if that’s the case, then kick out France, which aided and abetted Iraq leading up to the war (in many cases illegally). And China, since it massacred citizens at Tiananmen Square, among its other heinous transgressions. And Syria, given the ongoing slaughter of its citizens.

And let’s not forget to look in the mirror, as America’s role in overthrowing the sovereign regime in Libya–which we had repeatedly praised as a nation reformed and a partner in rooting out terrorism–was nothing more than an inexcusable oil grab for our European allies. Where do you draw the line?

We are not at war with Iran. If Ahmadinejad wants to make ludicrous statements amounting to Holocaust revisionist history, the absence of homosexuality in Iran and who was really behind 9/11, he does so at his own peril. He needs Western investment and petro dollars to survive, and such rhetoric only undermines his credibility and jeopardizes the economic stability of his country. The more Ahmadinejad speaks, the more he hurts himself.

While he advocates much which we abhor, it is the strength of America that allows him to express himself without fear of repercussion. That is why we are still the envy of the world.

It’s time to start effectively dealing with Iran–politically, diplomatically, economically, and yes, if necessary, militarily. For that to happen, we need to act like grown-ups and dispense with second-grade games that make Khrushchev’s shoe-banging outburst look respectable.

The United States should run from no one, least of all Mr. Ahmadinejad. In the words of FDR, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Scares U.S. ?

Obama’s Obit By Chris Freind

Despite scandal and a stagnant economy, he was surging in the polls as the election neared. Against the odds, he had gained enough momentum that victory was within his grasp. But in the span of one televised debate, a gaffe sealed his fate. Gerald Ford, president of the United States at the height of the Cold War, adamantly stated that the countries in Eastern Europe were free of Soviet domination. Ballgame over. (But there was a silver lining. Had Ford won, Ronald Wilson Reagan would never have been president).

In 1972, Democratic Senator Edmund Muskie’s campaign for the presidency immediately imploded when he cried during a speech in front of the offices of Manchester’s Union Leader, claiming that the paper’s editor unfairly criticized his wife.

And in 1967, a leading Republican presidential contender saw his hopes crushed after saying he was “brainwashed” into supporting the Vietnam War. The otherwise very smart man who said that? George Romney, father of current candidate Mitt.

The point? At any given time, especially in the world of 24/7 news coverage, a major gaffe can sink an otherwise strong candidate. So the fact that many Republicans are already writing President Obama’s political obituary a year out from what will be a close election is not just naive, but political stupidity.

And it will be a close election.

In addition to the billion-dollar war chest the President will have, the most important aspect that commentators and politicians are missing is that the popular vote–and by extension most polls–are meaningless.

The only thing that matters is getting 270 electoral votes, and Obama already has, at a minimum, 164. And when you add the states he will likely win, including electoral prize Pennsylvania, which hasn’t voted Republican in 24 years, that number rises to 224–just 46 shy of victory.

Is the President’s road difficult? Absolutely. The economy is in shambles with no possibility of a recovery until an energy policy is instituted, and that simply isn’t going to happen anytime soon.

Bank failures continue, homes are still being foreclosed at an alarming rate, inflation is rising, and companies not only aren’t hiring (let alone expanding), but are shedding jobs and closing doors. Merck is laying off 13,000, while Bank of America is jettisoning 30,000–and that’s just two companies. Job loss and uncertainty are so commonplace now that the nine percent unemployment rate has become the new norm. America is fast becoming a suburb of France.

And that doesn’t bode well for an incumbent.

So while it is a good bet that Obama will not be re-elected, the “put-it-in-the-bank” GOP mentality can only work to the President’s advantage. A look at the recent special election for disgraced Congressman Anthony Weiner’s seat in New York City tells the story.

A Republican won the seat for the first time since 1920. Impressive? Yes. Good for the President’s party? No. A harbinger of Obama’s re-election chances? Absolutely not. But the long-lasting impact of the GOP win? Zero.

For the very few able to step outside of the ridiculous spin zone, a few things are obvious about that race:
1) The Republican winner will either be bounced out next year, or will be re-districted out of Congress.
2) Does anyone really think Congressman Bob Turner, while good for the Republican caucus’ organizational votes, will vote as a true Republican in an extremely liberal district?
3) Voters knew the world was watching, and many voted Republican as a public rebuke to Weiner’s extremely salacious behavior. They did their job, but it will be back to business as usual next year.
4) Many of the Jewish voters wanted to send the President a message that they were displeased over his position regarding Israel. But does anyone really believe they will abandon the President in the general election? Not a chance. Yet some political insiders have even suggested that the state of New York might be in play electorally (as well as states like Maryland). That thinking is just so out there that I can’t even come up with an appropriate sarcastic response. Optimism is great, but what’s next? The Iranians holding hands and singing “Kumbaya” with us? Entertaining as it is, let’s stick with reality.
5) The Democratic candidate was a boring, uninspiring hack. Which leads us to the next principle in politics: It usually helps to have good candidates.

Barack Obama has certainly not been an effective or popular president. His policies of Big Government are based on academic theories that simply do not work in the real world, especially in a market-driven economy. His advisers don’t have a clue, and the administration keeps going back to the same old playbook that never worked particularly well. The results (although not all his fault) speak for themselves.

That said, he is a great campaigner. And make no mistake. Running for president and being president are two totally different things.

While Romney and Texas Governor Rick Perry are formidable challengers, neither has been battle-tested in the fire of a presidential general election. Maybe it will be enough in 2012 for candidates just to have an “R” next to their names. Sometimes that is all that’s needed, but that should never be a strategy, and is no guarantee for success.

For proof, look at the 2010 election–the largest Republican tidal wave since 1946. Delaware’s Christine O’Donnell got be-witched in a lopsided loss, Nevada’s Sharron Angle lost to the unpopular Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, despite the state having the highest unemployment rate in the nation, and Alaska’s Joe Miller lost to incumbent Lisa Murkowski in the general election–by a write-in campaign. All three were bad candidates, and none of the races was close.

Trite as it sounds, Republicans would be wise to focus on the issues, ignore the spin and stop deluding themselves that 2012 will be a walk in the park. An example of how fickle the political winds are? Just four months ago, in another New York special election, the Democrats won a long-held Republican seat. In full spin mode, the Dems declared it a monumental setback for the Republicans and a validation of the President’s vision.

That spin was wrong too.

What these last several election cycles show is that voters, more volatile than ever, are fed up with scandal, bickering and meaningless 30-second sound bites. They want vision. They want solutions. They want action. And they will reward whomever can best articulate their ideas in a bold, commonsense way–and kick out those who don’t.

Bottom line: While current conditions certainly favor the Republicans, it is entirely too early to put 2012 in the record books for the GOP. To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the President’s political death are greatly exaggerated. If the GOP refuses to recognize that, they do so at their own peril.

We Remember. Never Forget. These phrases have been endlessly uttered in the weeks leading up to the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. If only they held the true meaning so many ascribe to them.

But, to quote a line recently overheard: There’s what people want to hear; there’s what people want to believe; there’s everything else; then there’s the truth. It’s time to cut through the emotion and get to the heart of where America really stands, a decade later. Be warned: It’s not a pretty picture. And through it all, no leader has appeared who can steer the nation back on track and take the bull by the horns to avoid another major attack—and, God forbid if there is one, lead the nation through it.

* * *

The Economy
After spending hundreds of billions on homeland security, and over a trillion more on two wars, is America in a stronger position than it was in 2001? Not even close. In fact, in large part due to the blood and treasure expended, this nation is in perhaps its most precarious state ever.

Manufacturing jobs have been hemorrhaging at an unprecedented rate, the economy is in shambles with absolutely no recovery in sight, the real rate of inflation is significantly higher than the government admits, and incomprehensibly large debt has America on the brink of insolvency.

And all can be attributed to one thing: the lack of an energy policy. Or, more accurately, the flagrant disregard of instituting an energy policy that utilizes America’s vast resources. The result is complete reliance on foreign oil, especially from hostile Middle Eastern oil nations whose regard for America’s interests resides somewhere between zero and nonexistent.

Mammoth spikes in gasoline, diesel and jet fuel continue to drive up costs, which puts companies out of business, citizens on the unemployment rolls, and keeps bank foreclosure executives very, very busy.

Perhaps most tragic of all, American’s immutable sense of pride and nationalism has taken a hit. Once, we possessed a “can-do” pioneering spirit that pervaded all aspects of American life, where “impossible” was not in the American lexicon. That resolve is what vanquished the Axis Powers in World War II. It’s what opened up the western U.S. after the war, making California alone one of the largest economies in the world. It’s how we put a man on the moon a mere 66 years after the Wright brothers’ famous 120-foot, 12-second flight. And yes, it’s how, under the leadership of Ronald Wilson Reagan, America won the Cold War—and provided freedom for millions.

Failure to achieve success was the exception. Now it’s become the norm. The best example of our malaise of mediocrity? Ground Zero.

The most startling aspect of that hallowed ground isn’t that the Twin Towers, once the sentinels of American free enterprise, are gone, but that NOTHING stands there. Sure, there are reflecting pools and trees, and a shell of a building. But that’s it.

It’s been 10 years!

How is that possible? How can a decade have passed with no real progress? How could we have let the enemy win that important part of the battle?

As a comparison, if the Empire State Building had been attacked during World War II, it would have been rebuilt immediately. No questions asked, and no moral victories for the enemy.

And to those naysayers who would argue “it’s a different time,” think again. If the 9/11 attacks had felled China’s buildings instead of ours, you can bet the ranch that they would have been resurrected—bigger, better, and bolder—in less than a year. Guaranteed.

Why? Because the Chinese took a chapter out of America’s playbook, and are mastering it to perfection. You know—the same playbook that we seem to have relegated to the dustbin.

Are We Safer?
Given the hundreds of billions allocated for our security, are we really safer?

Despite some advances in communications, intelligence and specific security measures, the ultimate answer is no, for there are two gaping holes in our defenses: The borders are wide open and we refuse to profile. Both are easily rectifiable, but because political correctness wins the day, Americans are living with a false sense of security.

Borders: What good does securing airports do if al Queda can simply walk across the border from Mexico—with a suitcase nuclear weapon? Incompetent as that organization ultimately is, especially now that bin Laden is dead, they’re not dumb. If they haven’t already smuggled weapons and terrorist cell members into America via our porous borders (fat chance of that, as intelligence experts concede cells are in place), they soon will.

Despite ample funds to build a wall—a clear deterrent to both illegal invaders and terrorists—neither party chooses to do so for purely political reasons. So much for real Homeland Security.

Profiling: Grandmothers continue to receive prisoner-like exams at our nation’s airports, while olive-complexioned individuals from the Middle East stroll by, unquestioned, with smirks on their faces. Why the free pass? Precisely because they look like Arabs.

America’s lawmakers have caved in to a small element that shouts “racist” anytime profiling is employed, especially in, God forbid, airports. Such practice, they claim, singles out individuals just because they appear “Muslim” or “Arab” and, as a result, these flyers feel offended.

Get over it.

Profiling is simply a tool for law enforcement to determine who and what may be a threat, based on an ever-increasing array of data. Certain packages may be the hallmark container for a bomb—and they should be checked. A specific type of shoe may be the favored choice of shoe-bombers—so that footwear, and the owner, should be closely examined.

And yes, certain Arab and/or Muslim individuals, based on historical events, and along with appearance characteristics, mannerisms, suspect financial transactions and other patterns of behavior, should be singled out for closer inspection.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with profiling in sensitive security areas. Yes, it’s a form of discrimination. So what? All 19 highjackers on 9/11 were Muslim Arabs. And so was the 20th, Zacarias Moussaoui. The 1993 World Trade Center bombings were also carried out by people of this ethnic group. As was the trans-Atlantic shoe bomber, the bombers of the U.S.S. Cole, the Madrid train bombers, and the London subway attackers.

What are we missing? Why are we so scared to profile? What will it take for America to demand policies that actually protect, not appease?

Sadly, probably only another terrorist attack.

This is because our elected leaders are, for the most part, too scared to tackle the issue, even though the majority of Americans support such measures. They are counseled to stay away from “hot-button” topics, instead focusing on 30-second soundbites on irrelevant issues.

To be clear, I am not advocating that random people on the street be detained and interrogated, with no probable cause, just because they “look Arab.” This kind of harassment is contrary to the freedoms our country provides.

But it’s time we stop worrying about people’s feelings and reintroduce some common sense into our security measures.

One thing is for sure: al Queda will not stop. And if we continue to give them openings, they will gladly take them. While it’s not possible to guarantee another attack won’t occur, it will be unconscionable if it does—and was preventable.

If we truly want to honor the memory of the 3,000 souls who perished on 9/11, we need to jettison political correctness, enter the real world, and combat threats in a
meaningful way.

God help us if we don’t.

Twin Towers Site Shows U.S. Weakness

“This is the most important election in American history … if we don’t beat Obama and take back the U.S. Senate, the country won’t survive … ” Such is the rallying cry of many Republicans across Pennsylvania and the nation. When I hear this, several things come to mind:

1. The United States will “survive,” even if Barack Obama is elected to a second term. Sure, more spending and bigger government will push the country further down the wrong path, but the GOP would do well to tone down the sky-is-falling rhetoric and concentrate on the actual issues. And for the record, it’s a pretty good bet that America, the most powerful nation the world has ever known, is strong enough to survive a liberal President for a term or two. If one man really can “destroy” the nation, the ballgame was over long ago.

2. The electorate has shown itself to be extremely volatile, with huge swings in the last three elections. Those power shifts were not mandates for either side, but a message to Washington: solve the nation’s economic problems. That trend looks to continue in 2012, and as of now, seems to favor the GOP. In such a “wave,” some candidates will win solely because they have an “R” next to their name. That type of “right place, right time” luck should never be a strategy for victory, but in several key races, that appears to be the GOP plan.

* * *

What does it say about the Republican Party that, heading into what should be a banner year, it has only two top-tier presidential candidates (and as of two weeks ago, just one)? While it’s still feasible for candidates to enter either race, it is the fourth quarter, and the clock is running. The Iowa caucuses take place in just five months, barely enough time for a late entrant to organize a grassroots ground-game and raise the huge sums necessary to compete. So short of a nationally known figure with a solid track record jumping into the fray (which pretty much comes down to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie), the GOP field is set.

Two candidates? That’s it? In the “most important” election in history to many Republicans, it’s come down to a mere two (Texas Governor Rick Perry and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney)?

And before the partisans cry foul about that analysis, let’s be honest about the field. Congressman Ron Paul has the most loyal supporters, and more than anyone, shapes the debate. But his numbers will stay the same, not nearly enough to win the nomination.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, while also having passionate supporters, was dealt a severe blow by Perry’s entry, as many Republicans looking for the “conservative with the best chance of winning” have defected. And neither Paul nor Bachmann have history on their side, as only one congressman has ever been elected president (Garfield).

The rest of the field consists of has-beens and also-rans. None can win and labeling them “second-tier” is being entirely too generous.

At least there were four top-tier candidates in 2008 (McCain, Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson) with guys like Paul and former Congressman Tom Tancredo nipping at their heels. But to only have one up until recently begs the question: Of all the Republicans nationwide, how is it possible to have so few viable candidates?

* * *

In the all-important electoral swing state of Pennsylvania, things are even worse. There remains no frontrunner to take on vulnerable freshman senator Bob Casey. As a matter of fact, not only isn’t there a “big name” challenger, there is only one announced candidate, only months before the April primary: Marc Scaringi, a former Rick Santorum staffer.

Scaringi is a solid candidate with a firm grasp of the problems facing America, and, truth be told, would be a good U.S. senator. And if he wins the nomination by default because no other candidates step up, he may just be that senator if anti-incumbency fever runs high in Pennsylvania. (Although it is important to note that no Casey—father or son—has ever lost a general election). But he has no name recognition, little money and hails from a sparsely populated area of the state.

So where is everyone else?

Oh, the Party hierarchy is working hard, doing everything in its power to recruit a wealthy businessman who could self-fund the race, which is codespeak for them not wanting to do their job. The most important qualification for Party support? “How big of a check can you write?”

To the business-as-usual establishment, policy positions don’t matter, nor does damn near anything else. One’s knowledge of the issues—and how well a potential candidate can articulate those positions—is irrelevant.

How long have you been a Republican, and how closely aligned to the GOP platform are you? Can you relate to the voters? Will you run the campaign the way it must be run to win—aka visiting all 67 counties in the dead of winter? And are you a candidate of good character? All secondary to the Party establishment. The only thing that matters is the size of your wallet. And that is a major reason why Bob Casey, despite plummeting approval numbers, still maintains the advantage.

Several months ago, I wrote a column stating that the GOP had no frontrunner to challenge Casey and was roundly criticized by the same folks who are now scrambling to find a viable candidate. Some things never change.

And why is that?

Because the GOP, both nationally and in Pennsylvania, too often choose candidates not on merit—as in, who can best defeat the Democratic opponent—but instead, on whose “turn” it is or who can fund the race. In the mold of choosing Bob Dole and John McCain, Pennsylvania’s nominees may look great to Party insiders, but fare dismally when put before the voters.

There has been little effort to groom candidates for the future, and absolutely no push to stop the hemorrhaging from Philadelphia, where Republican statewide candidates routinely face half-a-million vote deficits. So now the Party is in the strange position of sitting on massive gains—having won a U.S. Senate seat (Toomey), the Governor’s office (Corbett), and winning back the State House (a 10-seat majority)—but potentially taking a pass on the Casey seat, which could well be the deciding vote as to which party controls that legislative body.

You reap what you sow, and the critical harvest is upon the GOP.

The biggest irony is that a strong senate candidate could help put Pennsylvania back in the “red” column nationally, as the state is still in electoral play. (Bush lost by only two points in 2004.) And while Republicans can lose Pennsylvania and still win the White House, the same is not the case for the Democrats. Take the Keystone State away from Obama, and you send him packing. It’s that simple.

But with scant Republican leadership in Pennsylvania, it’s not a good bet that will happen. Incumbents don’t usually lose unless they’re challenged by viable, first-tier candidates.

With Rick Perry now in the race, Obama is sweating. But Bob Casey is playing it cool, thankful the GOP is acting like his biggest campaign supporter.

Pa. Republicans Blowing It With Biz As Usual Strategy

The televised images of violence and looting triggered one recurring thought in many people: This isn’t supposed to happen in our civilized cities. No, we’re not just talking about in London, but right here in Philadelphia, as flash mobs have grown more frequent—and more violent.

To deal with mobs—which keep residents barricaded in their homes and visitors out of the city—Mayor Michael Nutter has instituted a citywide curfew. In and of itself, the curfew isn’t a bad idea, but that seems to be the Mayor’s only answer, and that’s the real problem.

Curfews are short-term, reactive tools of government, a tactic rather than a strategy. While people feel safer—which is important to keep society functioning—the false sense of security that a curfew provides often evaporates when the situation doesn’t stabilize or the curfew is lifted.

They are simply too expensive and resource-intensive to be permanently maintained. Police become bogged down in the menial work of processing curfew violators and contacting their parents (who will be hit with fines they can’t afford), instead of focusing on the real criminals prowling the city.

The other downside is that curfews create resentment among those affected—most of whom are law-abiding citizens—because an entire group now becomes classified as criminals for doing something that two weeks ago was perfectly legal. The majority are punished for the actions of very few.

Measures that are perceived to unfairly target people based on age, skin color and gender will only enflame tensions, not soothe them. And as a result, people take on the persona of that which they are accused of being.

Curfew aside, perhaps the focus should be on targeting actual crime, and concentrating on the arrest of actual criminals (not curfew violators). If police catch the bad guys, prosecutors gain convictions, and judges hand down tough sentences, we’d be light years ahead of where we are today.

Here’s the bottom line: You don’t solve a crime problem by making something a crime that is now not a crime.
So why do we do these things? Because they’re easy and make good 30-second sound bites. While the Mayor wants us to believe that the curfew will make everything right, in reality we are left with a city that is no safer in the long run.

Beyond the curfew, what does the Mayor suggest to solve the problem? He says parents and children need to “get their act together” and that there will be a “zero tolerance” for this type of behavior.

Some parents absolutely need to get their act together, but for many, they are doing all the right things yet are still swimming against the tide. Things that would improve their situation are out of their control, and the person who could fix the problems—the Mayor—chooses not to.

Too bad Michael Nutter doesn’t employ a zero-tolerance policy where it’s needed most: educational failure and businesses fleeing the city.

* * *

Solve the Problem
Sure, there is an element in every society that is violent and lawless, and nothing can ever change that. The only solution for those thugs is a life in prison.

But for the majority of others, crime doesn’t have to be a way of life, but often is because of the lack of opportunities, both educationally and professionally. That’s where bold leadership comes into play, the ability to reverse years of decline with real solutions to the toughest problems.

Unfortunately, this Mayor is totally lacking in that category.

As I’ve repeatedly noted, the core reason for our situation is the horrendously bad educational system, which directly results in the lack of hope for young people.

There is simply no possibility of receiving a quality education in Philadelphia, despite taxpayers spending more than $17,000 per student, per year. Some schools are deathtraps and, incomprehensibly, many sport graduation rates in the 20s and 30s—and that’s after a huge number have already dropped out. Despite all the rhetoric promising to turn things around, they have only gotten worse.

When the most basic life skills are lacking, the prospects for a decent job are virtually nonexistent, so many of our youth see the dream of a stable and prosperous life as nothing more than an illusion. Faith is lost.

If young people feel they have nothing to live for, they resort to criminal activity. The youths committing these crimes figure that, before they are 30, they’ll either be dead or in jail. The “I’ve got nothing to lose” attitude turns them into predators, and law-abiding citizens become their prey.

When education is trumped by survival, everybody loses. But no one wants to fix the problem, instead pretending that more money is the solution. Wrong—it isn’t. Only educational competition—school choice—can turn things around. But it isn’t happening, so another generation will be lost while gutless politicians continue their inane babble that accomplishes nothing.

And speaking of competition, is it any wonder why Philadelphia can’t compete with the nation’s cities that are growing? Could it have something to do with the fact that, cumulatively, it’s the highest-taxed city in the country? And that the situation is only worsening?

Under the Mayor’s watch, property taxes have gone through the roof, the city portion of the sales tax has increased 100 percent, pension payments have been deferred, and numerous other taxes and fees have been instituted or proposed. And that’s in addition to what was already a crushing tax load.

It’s a simple cause and effect. Businesses flee the city or refuse to relocate here. The resulting lack of opportunities in turn triggers despair and increased crime. As the recently released Pew survey showed, residents who can depart Philadelphia do, leaving behind an underclass with scant opportunities and even less hope.

You wouldn’t treat a heart attack victim by giving him an aspirin, since that would only be treating a symptom. In Philadelphia, curfews and feel-good fairy tale rhetoric have become the “cure” but do nothing other than speed up the city’s death spiral.

* * *

Until leaders with a true understanding of the problems—and how to solve them—take control, citizens will continue to be held hostage to terrorizing thugs, and brazen crime sprees will increase. Whether it’s flash mobs, riots, brutal subway attacks, or cops in the crosshairs, it’s clear that respect for authority is waning, and no one is off limits to the predators.

Create opportunity, and you create stability. People with good jobs buy houses, have families and become productive, law-abiding citizens with an incentive to keep their neighborhoods safe. Ignore the problems, and you have a powder keg ready to explode. With nothing to lose, all bets are off—and society takes a hit.

Anything less than real solutions will make flash mobs more than just a flash in the pan, but an unfortunate part of everyday city life.

Mayor Nutter’s Curfew Isn’t A Solution

On any given day, tens of millions flock to the beach for the sun, sand and surf. Yet because there have been 50 cases over the last decade of people digging deep holes in the sand and then getting trapped in cave-ins (including one in the last week), there is a renewed call to ban digging holes at the beach. Some towns have already done so (Myrtle Beach), and some are close to following suit (Los Angeles). It’s such a “serious risk” that the L.A. lifeguard division chief, when asked by a reporter what advice he would give parents who are heading to the beach, replied, “Don’t let your kids dig holes.”

Talk about burying your head in the sand. Fifty cases out of millions is insignificant. We’re talking about creating laws to ban an activity that had negative results for only 50 out of literally billions of beach trips.

Given that this warped mentality is now the norm, it’s no surprise that America just got handed a horrendously bad debt ceiling deal by Congress—one that will only exacerbate the problem—yet is already being celebrated as a necessary step and part of the “solution.”

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

So what do passing ridiculous laws and debt-raising deals have in common? Both ignore the real problems, with bury-your-head-in-the-sand thinking. Bad decisions are rationalized in a paternalistic, group-think way, accomplishing nothing but providing the decision-makers with a false sense of feeling good.

It’s bad enough that we now make laws to “protect” idiots who want to dig six-foot-deep holes side by side and try to tunnel between them. But laws intended to prevent stupidity never work. So why don’t we instead focus on the real problems that we have, instead of passing do-nothing regulations that only hinder law-abiding folks using common sense? Because it’s the easy way out.

Welcome to the MO of the United States Congress.

Let’s look past the rhetoric and ponder the real implications of the debt deal recently passed by Congress and heralded as absolutely “necessary” to save America:

1) If virtually everyone in Washington agreed that the high national debt was a bad thing, then how could those same folks turn around and raise it? It’s like locking an alcoholic in a liquor store for a week and expecting sobriety. If the debt was admittedly the problem, then raising it, by definition, would only make the problem worse. Go figure.

2) How can Congress be expected to solve the nation’s educational failures when its own basic math skills are suspect? So to cut two trillion in spending, the solution is to add two trillion to the debt? Hmmm. Granted, columnists are not that smart, but that one just doesn’t seem to add up.

3) A number of Republican congressmen voted for the debt deal “so that the small businessman wouldn’t be hurt” and to avoid a credit-rating downgrade. Now, they get the worst of both worlds. As any high-schooler could have told you, the downgrade was coming, since the cuts weren’t nearly substantial enough. So now faith in America takes a huge hit, interest rates and inflation will rise, and the markets will continue to free-fall. Yep, those things really serve the interests of small business.

4) Who exactly is going to buy the additional trillions in debt? Sure, there will be foreign nations, investors and fund managers, but there simply isn’t enough money out there to buy that much debt. And don’t look to China to buy a whopping share of the new debt, since they aren’t exactly thrilled with the way things are going. They are nervously watching their current U.S. debt holdings, and don’t want to be holding a worthless bag of goods as the value of the dollar continues to plummet. The Chinese may be a lot of things, but being imprudent with their own money is not one of them. They were cutting back on buying U.S. Treasuries well before this current fiasco.

5) Most significantly, does anyone really have any idea what a trillion is, let alone two, or 17, for that matter? No, not even the brightest astrophysicists. It is an incomprehensible number. So to give the debt increase some perspective, we have just given ourselves the green light to borrow more than twice the entire economic output of Texas, currently the most productive state in the nation in terms of attracting residents and businesses and beating the recession. For that matter, the debt increase is greater that the gross domestic product of all but four countries—just the increase!

The truth of the matter is that America’s credit rating should have been downgraded quite some time ago, so it is a mathematical certainty that it will be downgraded again in the relatively near future. And regarding the argument that raising the debt was necessary to avoid default, that’s Washintgton-speak, plain and simple. There were numerous ways to pay the nation’s bills while not raising the debt ceiling. Don’t get hypnotized by the “complexities” foisted upon us by a Congress—both parties—with an insatiable appetite to spend. They could have fixed the problem. They chose not to.

And the beauty of it all, at least from Congress’s perspective, is that they got what they wanted: more money to spend now, and down-the-road reductions that can, and absolutely will, be ignored by future Congresses.

So what happens? Given our unprecedented situation, no one really knows for sure, but none of it will be good, and the pain level will be huge.

The West is experiencing its financial bankruptcy in large part because of its spiritual bankruptcy, and until that changes, don’t expect things to “get back to normal” anytime soon.

But there is one measure of preparedness that will undoubtedly come in handy as the economic storm worsens: When at your foreign-owned service station, learn to ask for your Middle Eastern-derived gasoline in Chinese.

U.S. Credit Downgraded Again Deservedly

Chris Freind’s Best (and Worst) of Philly

By Chris Freind

Who makes the best Bloody Mary in the city?
Where is the best brunch? Freindly Fire has no idea. Thankfully, though,
there are much smarter folks who know the best things in and around the
nation’s fourth-largest market. For those gems, see the Best of Philly
awards in this month’s Philadelphia magazine. There are,
however, some Best and Worst awards that I’d like to bestow on some very
deserving winners … and losers. Here’s my list.

***Best of Philly***
Best Snowfall Removal:
Anywhere but Philadelphia. The
streets were absolutely deplorable last winter, with significant snow
and ice on major city roads days after the storms, not to mention that
many side streets were simply impassable. How did city residents react?
Almost 80 percent voted for Mayor Nutter in the May primary. In
comparison, Chicagoans kicked out their Mayor for similar incompetence in 1979. Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow … just don’t complain when you can’t get to work. He’s your Mayor.

Best Political Comeback: IBEW 98 boss John Dougherty.
After losing a bid for the state senate and coming up short in clashes
with Democratic party powerbroker Bob Brady, Doc came roaring back. He
garnered huge headlines by trying to reform the DRPA, but most
significantly, orchestrated big wins in City Council races. More than
anyone, Johnny Doc has positioned himself to be kingmaker in deciding
who the next Mayor of Philadelphia will be.

Best “It’s All About Me” Moment: City Council’s
refusal to abolish the DROP retirement program for city employees—you
know, the one that makes elected officials rich when they “retire” for a
day after being re-elected. So while the folks who actually foot the
bill are struggling just to survive, city lawmakers keep cashing in at
the public trough. Often forgotten in the criticism, though, is
Council’s stellar stewardship of Philadelphia. Its leadership has
produced the highest rates of taxes, murder, violence and poverty in the
nation, an education system that, by all accounts, is a colossal
failure, and a city that is perpetually ranked as one of the dirtiest.
But give ‘em a break. We’re not Detroit. Yet.

Best “I Don’t Recall” Moment: No, it wasn’t a political corruption trial, but the just-revealed grand jury testimony of Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua
as he weaved his way around prosecutors’ pointed questioning regarding
the ever-widening Church sex-scandal. The Cardinal’s memory lapse was an
oh-so-convenient backdoor for covering his own derriere and evading
discussion about his role in the cover-up, leading the grand jury to
label him as “untruthful” and “not forthright.” Church officials need to
be reminded that sins of omission can be just as bad as sins of
commission, and that ignoring the 8th Commandment is not a prudent way
to go through life. So much for always standing behind the kids.

Best Sports Move: Bringing Cliff Lee
back. The Phils have been transformed from an organization that made
the playoffs only three times in 26 years (and that’s with the wild
card), to being perennial contenders. But being “very good” wasn’t good
enough, so they brought back Lee. With him rounding out one of the best
rotations in baseball history, the Fightin’s are fully expected to win
the World Series, and that has them hanging out in hallowed Yankees
territory, at least for the present. Like the Bronx Bombers, the
Phillies are now in the elite world where a season that culminates in
anything less than total victory will be viewed as a failure. Tough as
it will be to swallow if the Phils aren’t World Champions again, that
expectation of perfection is rarely seen in any sport, and was
nonexistent in Philly. Tip of the hat to the best—and only—sports
braintrust in the city that has shown the resolve to do whatever it
takes to win.

Best Thing About Philadelphia: Its people.
It’s a blue-collar town, through and through, and that makes it as real
as it gets. People wear their emotions on their sleeves, and it’s rare
to not know where someone stands. Politics? Rough and tumble—sometimes
literally. Sports fans? The most dedicated, if not always educated, in
the country. Run out every play, and you’ll be a Philly Hall of Famer,
but cop a ‘tude, pout, dog it (no Vick pun intended) or just plain suck,
and you’ll be run out of town on a rail. Everyday people? Not nearly as
rude as we like to think we are. That salt-of-the-Earth,
you-know-what-you’re-getting character is innately Philly, and, while
maddening at times, is beyond refreshing in an increasingly shallow
world. Yo Philly, don’t ever change.

***Worst Of Philly***
Worst Way to Earn a Living:
Dealing with the dead. Not
funeral directors, coroners, and grave diggers (although all have been
quite busy with skyrocketing murders). They all earn an honest living.
We’re talking about Michael Meehan, the city GOP boss
and lawyer extraordinaire who gives the famous movie line “I see dead
people” some real-life meaning. Seems that a dearly-departed soul—a year
after dying—retained Meehan as legal counsel to challenge the petitions
of people running for Committee posts—in his own party. Meehan didn’t
fare much better with the living, as many of his other “clients” signed
affadavits stating that they never met or heard of Meehan, and
that the signatures in Meehan’s possession were not theirs. The Philly
GOP led by Meehan may be dead, but the criminal investigation into the
matter by the District Attorney isn’t. And who said lawyers couldn’t get
any lower?

Worst Sports Move: Yes, it was last year’s move, but it’s been so devastating that it bears repeating. Getting rid of Donovan McNabb.
Life is now so boring without Number 5 around. Just look at all there
is to miss: throwing up in the huddle during the Super Bowl, laughing
jovially when his team was losing, not knowing the rules of overtime,
making racially charged comments where they had no place, and always
connecting with his favorite receiver—the turf—when the game was on the
line. Sports in Philly just aren’t the same anymore, especially with
Michael Vick being so dog-gone … normal. Without McNabb’s drama queen
theatrics over which to obsess, Philadelphia is on the verge of
becoming, dare we say it, a civilized sports city. Bring him back!

Worst Empty Promise: Philly’s pension will be OK.
Anytime a politician admits that something is bad, it’s always worse.
So when the Mayor says the city’s pension fund is 45 percent funded
(less than 50 percent is considered somewhat catastrophic), you know
there just won’t be a happy ending. With no more state or federal money
to bail out the virtually insolvent pension, and no possible way Nutter
can keep his promise to write an $800 million check to the pension (to
make up for several years of deferred payments), look for retirees to
start getting pennies on the dollar in just a few short years. Think it
can’t happen in America? Given the fact that the nation came within hours of default—despite its magical power to print money out of thin air—can anyone seriously believe that?

Worst Thing About Philly: Its people.
Or more accurately, the people’s complacency. What can you say about
residents who, despite the knowledge that things are going the wrong
way, time and again reelect the very same people who created the mess?
Philadelphia has the potential to be a world-class city, with not one
but two major rivers (neither developed). It is ideally situated within a
day’s drive of more than half the country. As a major gateway for
overseas travelers, it should unquestionably be a destination rather
than a layover stop. And with major ports, railroads, airports and
interstates, it should be a no-brainer for companies to locate their
operations in Philadelphia. Philly’s stagnant position stems from a lack
of leadership. It’s time for Philadelphians to wake up and demand that
their city take its rightful place as one of very best. But that mantle
simply can’t be claimed until the people show the will to make a change.
Given Mayor Nutter’s virtually guaranteed reelection, though, that may
have to wait another four years. How ’bout them Phils?