GOP Should Not Deny Secret Ballot For Endorsement Vote

By Chris Freind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They can’t be that dumb.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Haditha Drama Ends With Near Exoneration

Haditha Drama Ends With Near Exoneration — The big story of ’05 is over and it turns out that U.S. Marines did not murder 24 innocent Iraqis in a blood-thirsty, kill-crazy rage in complete violation of the laws of war and Uniform Code of Military Justice despite the claims to the contrary by Time Magazine, the British film industry and a deceased Pennsylvania congressman.

And you saw all the headlines and broadcasts declaring such, right?

SSgt Frank Wuterich pleaded guilty to one count of “negligent dereliction of duty” on Jan. 23. He will be reduced in rank to a private but serve no jail time.

He had been charged with murder.

Of the seven other Marines indicted charges were, over the years, dismissed against LCpl. Stephen Tatum, LCpl. Justin Sharratt, Capt. Lucas McConnell, Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz, and Capt. Randy Stone, while Lt. Andrew Grayson was found not guilty on all counts and no misconduct was found by LtCol Jeffrey Chessani.

On Nov. 19, 2005, a 500-pound improvised explosive device destroyed a humvee killing Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas and seriously wounding two others in Haditha, Iraq. Wuterich’s squad was ordered to clear out some nearby houses to find the bomb’s triggerman and suppress snipers. The Marines threw hand grenades into the buildings before entering. Many of the dead were women and children.

Bad, yes, but as the trials unfolded it became clear the Marines had not acted for vengeance or were in violation of their training.

Wuterich accepted guilt for negligent dereliction of duty because he admitted uttering “shoot first, ask questions later” in the heat of battle.

Compare that to the statement by the late  John Murtha (D-Pa12) who ascertained on May 17, 2006 in the comfort and safety of the floor of Congress: “There was no firefight, there was no IED
that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the
pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood”.

Murtha’s  malicious claim authoritatively stated as fact  was instrumental in sending  eight men — men who had forwent comfort and risked their lives to keep this country safe —  through a half-decade of hell.

Murtha died in 2010. He has an airport named for him in Johnston, and a statue in a city park.

Kudos to warchronicle.com which provided excellent day-to-day coverage of the Wuterich trial.

 

Haditha Drama Ends With Near Exoneration

Coalition For Romney

The forces pushing for Mitt Romney to be the Republican nominee include — as one expects — the don’t-rock-the-boat crony capitalists and government insiders for whom the status quo has given comfortable lives.

Joining them, however, are erstwhile firebrands such as Ann Coulter and Matt Drudge, whose DrudgeReport this morning, Jan. 26, featured nine wildly anti-Gingrich stories.

What’s up with that?

It seem the common denominator for Romney supporters are the never having felt the fear of meeting a payroll filled with people one knows and likes, or wondering how one is going to stay in business with the cost of transportation, energy and supplies exploding.

Or working for someone one knows and likes and sees sweating over what sacrifices to make.

Drudge, by the way, is not simply anti-Newt. He was hard on Rick Perry and Herman Cain as well.

I’d vote for Paris Hilton over Barack Obama, but Willard Mitt Romney is my last choice as the GOP nominee.

Meehan Only Hero In ConocoPhillips Tragedy

Meehan Only Hero In ConocoPhillips Tragedy — ConocoPhillips announced billions in profits, yesterday, shortly before it was expected to layoff its workforce at its refinery in Trainer, Pa.

This has resulted in outrage, and there should be outrage. Not just an employer but a major part of our industrial infrastructure is shutting down.

Where is the attempt to save it?

ConocoPhillips spokesman Rich Johnson explained the reasoning for the closing as being “based on the level of investment required to remain competitive in the U.S. East Coast refining market that has been under severe market pressure for several years.”

He cited product imports, weakness in motor fuel demand and costly regulatory requirements as the cause of this market pressure.

Where were our politicians in demanding relief from these requirements? Congressman Pat Meehan (R-7) is the closest thing we have to a hero on this and even he could have been a lot louder.

Congressmen Bob Brady (D-1) and Chaka Fattah (D-2) have been dead silent on the issue. One of the similarly endangered Sunoco refineries is in Fattah’s district and Brady’s district includes many of refinery workers.

How about the union leaders? Notice Johnson was not blaming labor costs for the closings? Why do they continue to support politicians who want to regulate away our industry?

Our senators Pat Toomey (R) and Bob Casey (D) haven’t been particularly outspoken on providing relief for the refineries and their workers.

And of course there is President Obama. Obama didn’t even make the feeblest effort to save them and it would have been likely been all that it would have taken. Does Obama want to destroy our industry? I fear the answer to that.

So outrage is warranted but don’t direct it all at the oil company.

Springfield (Delco) To Crack Down On Yard Sales

The Springfield (Pa) Commissioners, Jan. 10, had the first reading of an ordinance that would restrict yard sales by residents.  Residents would be limited to two a year and have to pay a $10 fee per sale.

Whose egregious abuse of residential zoning is causing such action to come about? You know who you are on West Springfield Road and on North Rolling Road.

Debbie Bosanek Little Guy LOL

Debbie Bosanek Little Guy LOL — Warren Buffet’s secretary, Debbie Bosanek, who served as a stage prop for President Obama’s State of the Union speech, Jan. 24, to illustrate the alleged unfairness of our tax system in which the little guy pays a higher rate than billionaires is estimated to have a salary of between $200,000 and $500,000.

 

Debbie Bosanek Little Guy LOL

Rohrer To Hold Town Hall In Newtown

Republican candidate for the US Senate, Sam Rohrer, will hold a town hall meeting, 7 p.m., Wednesday, Feb. 1 at Knights of Columbus Mater Dei Hall, 327 N. Newtown Street Road, Newtown Square, PA 19073 in Newtown Township.

For information or to RSVP, please contact Dale Kerns at
kerns4office@gmail.com

House Committee OKs Smaller Legislature In Power Grab

The House Committee on State Government, yesterday, Jan. 24, voted overwhelmingly to send to the House floor a bill that would cut representation in Harrisburg.

The bill, HB 153, would cut the number of  representatives in the State House from 203 to 153. It would leave the membership of the state Senate unchanged at 50.

The bill would also mandate that counties, municipalities and wards not be divided in forming a senatorial or representative district which would be about the only bright side of this wealth and power grab.

The argument for the bill is to cut cost since the base  pay for a  Pennsylvania legislator is $$82,026, and, yes,  fewer legislators would mean spending less money. Of course, if saving money was really the motive, maybe they would have first thought of cutting their extremely generous pay and benefits rather than representation.

In fact, I am certain we could get high quality citizen-legislators who would be willing to serve for no material compensation just as we get high quality people willing to serve as volunteers as ambulance drivers, and firefighters and Little League coaches and on church boards and on charities.

In fact, I am certain they would be an improvement.

HB 153 is sponsored by House Speaker Samuel Smith (R-66). Among the co-sponsors is Bill Adolph (R-165) of Delaware County.

The only GOP State Committee members voting nay were Lynda Culver and Jerry Stern. The only Democrat members voting aye were Eugene DePasquale, Florindo Fabrizio and Steve Santarsiero.

Zero From Zero Is Nothing

I tried, but when the President started his speech tonight saying the bad economy was  Bush’s fault and that things are just getting good, I found myself spending more time with an old rerun of Cold Case.

Switching back I caught snippets about how he is going to raise taxes on companies that ship jobs overseas — hey, is General Electric included — and keep trying to pick winners and losers here. I heard him say how he’s going to send everyone to community colleges and high-tech and innovation and buzzwords and hey, kids let’s put on a show. Or something like that.

I heard him say natural gas is going to supply us for 100 years and that he’s going to protect our intellectual property so  those threats from Hollywood about his SOPA stance apparently had some affect.

So anyway,  Cold Case ended and I saw he was still rambling on about something, well, nothing after I listened to it for a bit, so I came up here and wrote this up.

Addendum, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels provided the GOP response to the President’s address and showed that he gets it. Daniels noted that middle class cannot be maintained on government programs financed by ever-increasing borrowing as the President sincerely appears to believe is possible.

He noted that debt causes nations to fall and that there is only a short time to get our house in order.

He said simple arithmetic shows that Social Security and Medicare will soon fail. Rather than asking that the tax rate on the wealthy be increased, he wondered why they continued to receive safety net benefits along with breaks in the tax code.

You think he might see a chance to be the Republican presidential nominee?

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