Category: Election 2012

GOP Bosses Back Candidate Who Voted For Obama, Sestak

GOP Bosses Back Candidate Who Voted For Obama, Sestak

By Chris Freind

To say the Republican presidential primary has become interesting
would be a gross understatement. With three different winners in the
first three contests—an unprecedented situation—everyone is asking why
the frontrunners keep falling and why the GOP base cannot unite behind a
leader.

Well, hold on to your seat, because here’s a big question: Would you
believe that both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich voted for Barack Obama
in the 2008 primary? And after they became disenfranchised by the
Republican Party for moving too far Left, they decided to do the only
logical thing: become Democrats? And in addition, does it blow your mind
that besides voting for the Big O, they took out their frustrations
over a too-liberal GOP by financially supporting the most far-left
Democrats in the entire Congress?

Seem far-fetched? Well, it is—and it isn’t.

No, of course, Romney and Gingrich didn’t switch parties, vote for
Obama or support liberal Democrats. If either had, it would, without
question, be lunacy for any element of the Republican Party to endorse
them. To many in the GOP, Obama is not just a political adversary but
the Devil Incarnate who must be defeated at all costs. So running
someone against Obama who had previously supported him would be a
surefire recipe for disaster.

In some respects, Jon Huntsman fell victim to this exact situation.
Many Republicans refused to trust him after he served as President
Obama’s ambassador to China, and his candidacy tanked. Likewise, one of
Romney’s biggest obstacles to winning over Republicans stems from his
implementation of an Obamacare-type health-care system in Massachusetts,
since many feel that he would be unable to effectively run against
Obama on that critical issue.

Enter the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania.

There are seven candidates vying for the opportunity to take on
incumbent Bob Casey. The election is in April, but it’s this Saturday,
January 28th, that may well determine the nominee. That’s when the
Republican State Committee convenes to decide whom it will endorse—if
anyone.

Incomprehensibly, but not surprisingly, certain factions within the
GOP leadership are pushing to endorse Montgomery County’s Steve Welch, a
candidate who:

A.  Became a Democrat because the GOP wasn’t conservative enough.

B. Financially supported (former) Congressman Joe Sestak, one of the most liberal members of Congress.

C. Voted for Barack Obama in 2008.

For those who may think this is also a fairy tale to illustrate a point, think again.

Steve Welch voted for Barack Obama and supported Joe Sestak. So why
on earth would the state committee want to endorse Welch, and in doing
so become the laughingstock of the nation?

Good question. And since committee members are elected officials, perhaps they should be asked that before Saturday’s vote.

This is just another example of brain-dead GOP leadership choosing
laziness over hard work. Since Welch is a millionaire who could
self-fund, GOP leaders wouldn’t have to engage in fundraising activities
(AKA “doing their job”) nearly as much as they would for other plebian
candidates—no matter how much more qualified they may be.

Many GOP faithful want to believe that the majority of the state
committee sees a Welch endorsement for what it would be: a political and
public relations disaster, one that would seriously erode what
credibility Pennsylvania’s Republican Party has left. Such an
endorsement would also cement the growing perception—not incorrect, by
the way—that the only thing of importance to the GOP hierarchy in
choosing a candidate is the size of his wallet. Qualifications? A lot of
money. Period. Republican values? Irrelevant.

Brilliant.

******

Given his recent support of leftist Democrats, would Steve Welch make
a good Republican senator? Tough to tell, but Pennsylvania’s Republican
voters should be the ones making that determination, not party leaders
in a smoke-filled backroom who only see dollar signs from a candidate.

Republicans deserve straight answers from Steve, and to this day,
they really haven’t received them. Did he vote for Obama to spite his
“true” party. Did he truly support him? Or did he do it to stop
“Hillarycare,” as was reported? We don’t know. With those significant
questions unanswered, and by extension, character and judgment issues
swirling around Welch, an endorsement would only serve to muddy the
waters and foster an anger among Republicans that hasn’t been seen in
Pennsylvania in decades.

Amazing as it now seems, Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater girl,
supporting Barry in his presidential election. It took years for her to
evolve into the more liberal Hillary that we know today. So perhaps most
disconcerting is the speed in which Steve Welch evolved with his party
loyalties—and then back again.

If one was disgruntled with the Republicans not being conservative
enough, fine. Many felt the same way. But that’s why God made the
Independent Party.

If one is truly seeking more conservative values, where is the wisdom
and good judgment in switching to a party that, for years, has
unabashedly moved further to the Left? And regarding Obama and Sestak,
give them credit where it’s due: Both were crystal clear about where
they stood on issues. Nationalized health care? Absolutely.
Redistribution of wealth through higher taxes? Yep. More government
spending is the answer, as a paternalistic government knows best?
Without question.

So someone abandoning the Republicans to join the Democrats, and
march behind people such as Obama and Sestak, may well indicate that
person’s true political leanings. All the more reason for such a
candidate to be vetted by ALL Republicans, not just the state committee.

There are some on the right who seem opposed to the endorsement
process every time it rolls around. Yet in many instances, it has its
rightful place, a key instrument in a political party advancing its
vision through whom it deems the best candidate. When candidates are
vetted correctly, with the best interest of the party in mind and not
the selfish agendas of individual leaders, endorsements can be
critically important in winning elections.

But when unprecedented situations arise that scream for an open
primary, endorsements should never be forced, as they will virtually
always backfire.

Given this situation, it absolutely boggles the mind that Tom
Corbett—the Republican governor of Pennsylvania—would not only get
involved in a primary, but would choose to endorse someone with Welch’s
background, as he did last week.

For the good of its party, the Republican State Committee should do
the right thing this weekend by voting for an open primary. If it
chooses to self-destruct by endorsing Steve Welch, that laughing you’ll
hear will be Bob Casey as he wraps up another six-year term 10 months
before the election.

 

GOP Bosses Back Candidate Who Voted For Obama, Sestak

Primary System Unfair To Other States

Primary System Unfair To Other States

By Chris Freind

Pennsylvania and the nation have zero say —yet again

Another election year is upon us, and there’s good news and bad news. On the
upside, Americans will again peacefully choose their next leader in
November, a continuing miracle which we too often take for granted.

The
not-so-great part is that the 98 percent of citizens who don’t live in
Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina will — yet again — have
virtually no say in their Party’s nominee for President.

In other
words, the leader of the Free World will largely be determined by
Hawkeye State hicks whose claims to fame are making full-size butter
cows (sounds like a made-to-order Paula Deen special) and hysterically
crying whenever their other sacred cow is criticized: ethanol mandates.

Likewise,
an equal say is incomprehensibly bestowed upon folks in New Hampshire
— which is mindboggling since these people still don’t know there’s an
“r” in the alphabet. Guess it’s just pa’ fa’ tha’ coua’se. Pass the
lobsta’.

And now we have Uncle Cletus in the state that started
The War of Northern Aggression putting the finishing touches on the
coronation.

Only in America.

Where does that leave the
rest of the country? Voting for dogcatcher, coroner and several other
less flattering offices, such as U.S. Senate.

So why does the
nation put up with such an inequitable system, will it ever change, and
is there a better way? Lack of political courage, probably not, and
resoundingly yes.

Jokes aside, all three early-voting states are
wonderful in their own right, rich in history and filled with
salt-of-the-earth folks trying to make their lives and country better.

But having the first and last word
in the election process is insane. No state should hold that much
power, and possessing it manages to accomplish three things, all
negative:

-The rest of the country grows angrier every four years.

-That
resentfulness leads to significant voter apathy because of the
not-incorrect mentality that “my vote doesn’t count since the winner has
already been chosen.” As a result, other critical state and local
races, many of which affect people infinitely more than a national
contest, go unnoticed and voter turnout nosedives.

– The eventual nominee leaves a lot to be desired.

With
the exception of the Obama/Hillary Clinton race going the distance,
which in truth was over well before many late-in-the-game states voted,
nominees have been chosen by these states for decades. And the nation
suffers.

What does an oil driller in Alaska, a manufacturer in
Pennsylvania, or border patrol agent in Arizona have in common with an
Iowa farmer? How does a small business owner in Oklahoma relate to a New
Hampshire lobsterman’s fishery issues? And how much is a Montana
rancher in tune with a South Carolina textile worker?

The present
rigged system results in candidates who, instead of being more in touch
with Americans’ varied interests — and being forced to take positions
on those issues —are increasingly responsive only to voters in those
three states. Win them, and it’s over, and the rest of the nation be
damned.

The system is the way it is because the Establishments of
both Parties like it that way. To them, it is easy, clean and
(relatively) quick, and avoids what is anathema: a long, drawn out
primary election that ultimately would wrest control from Party leaders
and give it to —God forbid — the people. And the more quickly a
nominee can be picked, the less money has to be spent during primary
season, with more time to raise cash for November.

But since the
interests of the people are not high on Party leaders’ lists (they
prefer power for the sake of power), they will move Heaven and Earth to
retain the status quo.

It could be changed, but that would require political courage. And that is in short supply.

Frontrunners are almost always part
of the Establishment, so count them out. And long-shot challengers
either suck up to Party leaders trying to get into the Club, or end up
spending an entire year in one state pandering to a particular
constituency —such as Rick Santorum selling his soul by courting the
ethanol corn vote in Iowa.

Admittedly, it is an extremely
difficult system to break, but thus far the efforts to do so have been
misguided. Take Jon Huntsman, who skipped Iowa to focus on New
Hampshire. He was an extreme long shot anyway, so all the more reason to
spend some of his personal fortune to tell the nation — and the Party
hierarchy — why he was boycotting Iowa, and why the system was so
flawed. In doing so, he could have gained significant traction, not
enough to win, perhaps, but enough to call the system into question.
And in some respects, that would have been more important than winning
the nomination. But he didn’t.

And in 2008, Rudy Giuliani
skipped all three states to first compete in Florida. Had he actually
had a competent campaign and resonating message — including strongly
advocating why the system was unfair — the outcome might have been
different (especially since eventual nominee John McCain’s campaign was
in significant debt). But he didn’t.

So can it change? Tough to
say, but if the electorate has taught us anything recently, it’s that it
is volatile, angry and unpredictable.

To make it fair for all Americans, one of two options should be considered:

1)
Divide the nation regionally into three groupings of roughly 17 states,
and rotate each subset so that every four years, a different one starts
the voting. That would offer enough of a variation that local or even
regional issues would not dominate the campaigning.

2) Perhaps
better, the groupings of states should be picked randomly, so that the
diversity of Americans’ issues would be better reflected. With only
three primary election dates on the calendar, every state would have a
significant say in which Party nominee wins. The downside is that
nationwide campaigning for each of the primaries would drive campaign
costs up, thus increasing the need for more fundraising. But campaign
costs will go up anyway, and with so many more voters having a stake in
the election, small dollar donations via the internet may well offset
the increased costs of running a larger campaign.

Switching to a
new system is no guarantee that better candidates will be chosen. It
would, however, undoubtedly increase the slate of folks willing to throw
their hat into the ring — given that many now stay out because they
feel they can’t compete. It would also engage millions more Americans in
the presidential election process, finally giving them a say that has
been denied to them for far too long.

Given the state of America,
due in large part to electing pandering politicians with a scarcity of
courage and conviction, it’s time to try something new and return power
to the people, instead of relying on butter cows and lobsterman to
choose our leader.

We could do no worse.

Pennsylvanian For President III

Pennsylvanian For President III — Congratulations Newt Gingrich for a landslide, comeback win in tonight’s (Jan. 21) South Carolina GOP Primary.

Mitt Romney and the old media fired just about everything they had at him but when the smoke cleared he was still marching forward and breathing fire.

It was almost as though he was Godzilla.

One suspects his adversaries are getting low on ammo, and they aren’t going to leave much left for Obama.

Granted,  Gingrich made his fame as a congressman from the 6th District of Georgia and now lives in McLean, Va. in the Washington Beltway, but he was born in Harrisburg and grew up in Hummelstown.

If he should get the nomination and win in November he would be the first native-born Pennsylvanian since James Buchanan who won in 1856.

 

Pennsylvanian For President III

Sam Rohrer Asks Gleason To Hear The People

Sam Rohrer Asks Gleason To Hear The People — Reader PhilM asks if we had received the letter from prospective GOP U.S. Senate Candidate Sam Rohrer regarding his request to sign an on-line petition to state Republican Party Chairman Robert Gleason that party leaders refrain from making an endorsement in the primary race.

The answer is yes and here it is:

(And yes, I signed the petition)

Dear Friends,

My entire career I have fought for openness and reform, and in this Senate race, that will not change.

That’s why I have stated my view today that the Pennsylvania Republican Party should not make a formal endorsement before the Primary. We have launched a petition at DearMrGleason.com, asking Chairman Gleason to keep the Primary process open and fair. Will you join me and sign the petition?

A top-down endorsement process is counter-productive to defeating Sen. Casey and winning Pennsylvania for our eventual Republican nominee for President. Let me explain: after endorsing, the Pennsylvania GOP sends out a letter to all the County Chairman, and here’s what they tell them:

1. Only candidates endorsed by the PA GOP should be recognized and/or allowed to speak at official events such as county dinners, endorsement meetings, candidate forums, etc. Endorsed candidates and staff should be able to attend gatherings as complimentary guests.

2. County Chairs, county party staff, and county party members should NOT be circulating petitions for statewide candidates who have been endorsed by the PA GOP.

3. County Chairs, county party staff, and county party members should only be distributing materials for candidates that have been endorsed by the PA GOP.

4. County Chairs should decline any promotion materials from non-endorsed candidates.

These kinds of pressure tactics are not worthy of the Republican Party. This kind of thing will only serve to alienate the members of the Tea Party, sow division within our ranks, and make it harder to ultimately elect a Republican U.S. Senator.

We’ve got nothing to be afraid of from having a fair, unbiased Republican Primary in April. In fact, it will strengthen our Party and allow us to bring new people in to the process. If you agree, please go to DearMrGleason.com, and sign the petition.

When you’re done, if you could forward it to your family and friends, and share it on your Facebook and Twitter pages, I’d be ever so grateful.

You have my word that in this campaign, I will always stand up for grassroots conservatives, even when sometimes it makes folks uncomfortable. And as your nominee, I will speak the truth to Sen. Casey and President Obama.

Thanks for your support!

Sincerely,

Sam Rohrer

Yesterday And Newt

Mitt Romney is the same ol’ type of Republican that has collaborated on getting us in the mess in which we find ourselves.

Rick Santorum is annoyingly passive-aggressive and smarmy.

Ron Paul doesn’t seem to understand that giving asylum to a man who murdered 3,000 Americans is an act of war. At least he doesn’t seem to be able to articulate it.

So that leaves us with Newt Gingrich who really does seem to get what is wrong with this country. If we demand a saint we are going to get Obama again and Obama is no saint.

Here is the link to his ex-wife Marianne’s interview which aired Jan. 19 on ABC’s  Nightline.

Newt stayed with Marianne for 19 years. Maybe he is a saint.

Freed Last Pub Standing In AG Race

Freed Last Pub Standing In AG Race — State Sen. John Rafferty has withdrawn from  GOP contest to be the party’s Attorney General nominee leaving a clear path for Dave Freed it was reported yesterday.

Freed is the son-in-law of Leroy Zimmerman, who served as the state’ AG from 1981 through 1989.

Zimmerman, however, most recently was chairman of the scandal-plagued Hershey Trust Co., a post from which the weight of those scandals forced him to leave last November.

I  see myself splitting the ticket for a Dem this fall.

Hat tip Bob Guzzardi

When Mitt Came To Town

Here’s a link to the controversial anti-Romney film When Mitt Romney Came To Town which was produced by supporters of Newt Gingrich.

How accurate is it? How fair is it? It certainly is cutting and Romney better come up with some answers to the claims made or he could actually lose to President Zero.

He could start by releasing his income tax statements.

Hopefully he’s not the nominee.

If he is, well,  I’d vote for Bernie Madoff over Obama so . . .

Hat tip Tom Flocco.


Scott Petri DNR (Do Nothing Republican) Under Fire

Scott Petri DNR (Do Nothing Republican) Under Fire — And in other news about do-nothing Republicans, State Rep. Scott Petri is about to be primaryed in the 178th District up in Bucks County.

His challenger is Gloria Carlineo, who ran for Congress in 2010 finishing second behind Tom Fitzpatrick in the GOP Primary.

“I am running for state representative because it’s time to reduce our massive government in Harrisburg,” she says. “Not just talk about it, but do it! It’s time to end union and party boss control of our state and the politicians that they fund, and to bring the government back to the people.

Ms. Carlineo, who is a native of Puerto Rico, has a  JD from the University of Cincinnati College of Law and worked for Republican Congressman Dan Burton of Indiana. She calls herself a member of the “taxpayer party”.

In other news about “do nothing Republicans” or DNRs, Dr. Bob Sklaroff of Rydal has submitted a letter demanding that Montgomery County GOP Chairman Bob Kerns call an organizational meeting and resign.

That’s pretty merciful, Dr. Bob. You could be calling for seppuku.

Hat tips Bob Guzzardi.

Pennsylvanian For President Ron Paul

Pennsylvanian For President Ron Paul — After his show finish in Iowa, Ron Paul’s strong place behind Willard Mitt Romney tonight in New Hampshire means he will be a factor to be recognized this election year.

Paul, who made his fame as a Houston-area congressman, was born in Pittsburgh and grew up in Green Tree, Pa.

While his foreign policy is a tad scary he does have his points. When the Soviet Union fell 20 years ago, why did NATO remain?

And he is dead right when it comes to sound money and pointing out that inflation merely transfers wealth from the middle class and poor to the already rich.

And congrats to Romney who made a very fine victory speech. I still won’t vote for him until I have to.

 

Pennsylvanian For President Ron Paul

Democrats Hit All-Time Low Says Pollster

Rasmussen Reports reports that the percent of Americans who claim to be Democrats hit an all-time low in December at 32.7. The previous low was 33 percent in August.

The percent  of us claiming to be Republican hit 35.4 just shy of the year high of 35.6 recorded in May.

The percent of us claiming to be independents was 32.

And some really  think that Santorum, Perry or Gingrich can’t beat Obama, and Little Bobby Casey is going to be re-elected.

As long as those of us who believe in commonsense speak out loud and proud the America-hating Alinksyites who now lead us are doomed.