Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper is a member of the US House
of Reprsentatives. She was elected to that office in 2008 to Represent
the 3rd Congressional District of Pennsylvania. She has offices in Erie,
Kittanning, Butler, Meadville, Hermitage, Emlenton, Warren, and Washington
D.C.
Last night I attended another formal debate of the 3rd Congressional
District Republican Candidates. The event was sponsored by Allegheny
College and was held at Quigley Hall on the Allegheny College
Campus. It was another standing-room-only event as it was a rare
opportunity for the people of the 3rd Congressional District to
determine which candidate can best represent them when
we send Kathy Dahlkemper home in November.
All six candidates were in attendance. In order on the stage from
left to right were Steve Fisher, Ed Franz, Clayton Grabb, Paul
Huber, Mike Kelly, and Martha Moore.
The last formal debate was held a month ago on March 25th in Grove
City (read about it HERE).
It may have only been 4 weeks ago, but it seems like a lifetime.
The last four weeks have been packed with events, get-togethers,
meet-n-greets, fundraisers, and tea parties for all six of the
Republican candidates . . . and the bloggers that follow them.
The grueling schedule is beginning to take its toll on everyone
involved, but it hasn’t dampened our determination to push
through to November.
At the debate that was held a month ago, we met six candidates
that were fresh, unpolished, and unique. Four weeks later, the
six candidates are beginning to meld into one and other. The have
all had an opportunity to tweak their presentations, and some
are actually stealing each others quotes (i.e, I believe it was
Ed Franz that stole Martha Moore’s “enough is enough”
quote last night and it made me laugh).
I documented the entire evening, but you all know that I’m
not one to simply provide a laundry list of the evening’s
events. No, I’d prefer to paint you an abstract portrait
of the highlights and lowlights of the night.
Highlights?
Anyone that attended last night’s event would agree hands
down that the “star” of the evening was Dr. Martha
Moore. At the debate in Grove City, Dr. Moore was noticeably nervous
and she struggled at times to find the words to properly describe
her stand on issues. That was simply not the case last night as
Dr. Moore has found a comfortable place in just shooting straight
from the hip. “Like what?”, you ask. Allow me to provide
a few sound bites:
When discussing why she was running for office, Dr.
Moore stated “Because I don’t want to be nauseated
every time that I hear the President of the United States speak.”
She made a reference to a patient that recently visited her
office who has over $90K in outstanding medical bills. She stated
“Call Kathy Dahlkemper (and ask her to pay your bill)”.
When referring to the recent health care reform bill she stated
“that stupid bill they passed . . . just stupid”.
The most precious references that Dr. Moore made were during
her closing statements where she literally brought down the
house. For instance . . . “When I go to Washington, I’m
going to say NO a lot. They are going to say that I’m
from the party of no’, but I’m the party of ‘STOP
THIS’”.
I applaud Martha Moore for offering us “Martha Moore Unplugged”
last night. She brought a level of straight talk and humor to
an otherwise serious and sometimes lifeless event. I’ve
said it before and I’ll take this opportunity to say it
again. I really respect Dr. Moore for standing up as a concerned
citizen and becoming involved in this race. I still don’t
believe that she is necessarily the best choice to become our
next Congresswoman, but I appreciate the perspective that she
brings to the table. She says the things that many of us are thinking
. . . but we’ve never actually said out loud, and because
she is a candidate she is able to inject those thoughts directly
into the formal debate conversation.
Her participation in last night’s event was “priceless”.
Interesting Notes on Each Candidate
I’d like to point out some interesting statements from each
of the candidates presented in the order of the seating arrangement
on the stage from left to right.
Steve Fisher continues to illustrate that he is the perfect
mix of grassroots candidate and qualified representative. He
presents himself as a “Statesman” and not a politician.
He is polished in all the right places, but he remains human
(and appropriately ‘unpolished’) in the way that
he connects with the people of this area. He is sincere, honest,
and approachable but also projects an unmatched level of confidence
and professionalism.
On issues of the budget, Mr. Fisher pointed out that we need
to make decisions that are “good for us”. He pointed
out that too much attention goes to how our budgetary decisions
will affect China and Japan and that we need to concentrate
on how those decisions will affect us first.” He suggested
that we reestablish an impartial review of the federal government
and possible inefficiencies through an investigation similar
to the Grace
Commission (that was established during the Reagan administration).
In response to issues of our military and his willingness to
respond to a strike against the United States, Mr. Fisher first
stated that he is concerned “about how thin our military
is stretched” and whether they are receiving the support
that they need. He also pointed out that we need to “forget
political correctness”.
In his closing comments, Mr. Fisher made a great statement worth
noting. He said “I am not a politician. I plan on serving
a maximum of three terms and coming back to the area to work
in the insurance industry . . . if there is an insurance industry
to come back to”.
Ed Franz positions himself as the man who can “represent
the average taxpayer in Washington DC”. He pointed out
that “inside the beltway politicians have concentrated
on healthcare legislation and not the health of this nation”.
Mr. Franz made reference to the “800 lb gorilla in the
back of the room”. Some may have thought he was referring
to one blogger that was seated in the last row of the auditorium,
but he was referring to “the national debt”. Mr.
Franz wants to be the voice in the debate that represents the
average taxpayer.
Regarding budget deficits, Mr. Franz made his stand clear when
he stated “We need to get out of deficit spending. We
need to get out of financing bills and legislation that we cannot
afford.” It was a short statement, but it hit at the heart
of the problem.
In a humorus moment of the evening, Mr. Franz was discussing
his thoughts on the strength of the military and his stand on
responding to a strike on the US. To quote “If we are
attacked we should hunt them down.” He then went on to
discuss a reference to a movie . . . “Patton”, and
he stated “Wasn’t that the way a war should be fought.”
The reference sent chuckles across the crowd.
Clayton Grabb continues to prove that he is the anti-politician.
His concerns are not for “the Party” but for “the
People”. He started by explaining why he decided to run
for office. He stated “I believe our constitution is under
attack”. He then went on to explain “I got tired
of holding my nose to go and vote in the past. My Republican
Party has left us down before. We need someone that will go
to DC and stand up for the people and tell it like it is.”
It is statements like these that explain why Mr. Grabb is not
embraced by the Republican Party, but is, instead, embraced
by people who have experienced the same frustrations . . . which
are many.
He continued to separate him self from politicians by saying
“(we need to elect people to) do the people’s work
and then go home . . . we need a citizen legislator that does
not want to be there.” (emphasizing that once they get
there they get too comfortable)
When it comes to budgetary issues, Mr. Grabb offers common sense
solutions to that too. He stated “How about we cut all
government hiring. The government is the only sector of our
economy that is growing right now. . . . we cannot continue
to grow our government . . . the more (people) that depend on
government the harder it will be for people like us to get in
there and stop it.”
Regarding issues of the military, Mr. Grabb stated “We
need to pull the politicians out (of the decision making process)
and let the military do what it needs to do. We need to do what
is necessary to be the biggest baddest dog on the block.”
Paul Huber remains firm on his position as the businessman with
the experience needed to represent us in Washington DC. In his
opening statement his first words were “I’m a life
long social and fiscal conservative”. I mention this because
it raised a few eyebrows in the crowd as some people have questioned
the fact that Mr. Huber only became a Republican last year.
Mr. Huber did, however, manage to present a very conservative
stand on fiscal issues including his statement on budgetary
issues as “I’m proposing that we go to 2009 levels
of spending and that includes legislative salaries as well.
It is a step in the right direction that sends the right message
to the financial markets and the American people that we are
serious about this.” Mr. Huber’s ideas for tackling
economic problems are aggressive and bold and I like that.
Regarding job creation in our area, Mr. Huber offered a great
explanation of the problem as “government doesn’t
create jobs . . . they create an environment where jobs are
destroyed or they can create an environment where free enterprise
can create jobs”. Mr. Huber continues to offer the prospective
of a business person, and he is quite clear on his vision of
how that prospective is desperately needed in Washington DC.
Mike Kelly also offers the business owner angle, and he is quite
direct in his approach. Unlike Huber (who is polished and refined),
Mike Kelly offers similar ideas but with an extra “edge”.
When explaining “why” he was running he simply stated
“because none of us ran before.” He further explained
that “We were all responsible people sitting back and
didn’t have time to get involved . . . We forfeited our
future . . . it is time to get people like ‘us’
into office.”
Regarding the issue of term limits, Mr. Kelly made his stand
clear when he stated “people are sitting too long in the
same spot and they aren’t held accountable.”
In response to a question regarding budget deficits and the
President’s plan to freeze discretionary spending, Mr.
Kelly boldly stated “I have a problem listening to anything
that Obama says and taking it seriously.” Again in referencing
the President he said “We’ve got a 3 yr old running
the highest powered locomotive on earth.”
Mr. Kelly’s most important point of the evening was his
repeated reference to “it’s the spending, stupid”.
He continues to press the common-sense idea that spending needs
to be addressed before this nation can move forward on anything.
I agree.
Mr. Kelly did attempt to address recent comments that he “comes
across as angry”. He explained that people might get that
impression because “he is angry”. He explained that
he is angry about the problems that we are facing in this country
and he is serious about fixing them.
As a side note . . . After the
debate I did ask Mr. Kelly that the next time he wants to quote
me directly I only ask that he give me a public shout out. This
is, of course, a reference to the fact that my written statements
regarding Mr. Kelly were the catalyst to the conversations about
his “anger”. Mike and I laughed about it and I reassured
him that “I think he is just a big teddy bear”.
Aside from the comments that I’ve already made regarding
Dr. Moore, there were other points that did not go unnoticed.
Regarding finding solutions to fiscal issues, she stated “don’t
look to the Government to fix problems that the Government created”.
It isn’t just a great quote . . . it is the truth.
Regarding budgetary issues and a proposed freeze on discretionary
spending, Dr. Moore stated “a miniscule part of the budget
is what he is freezing . . . then he passes a bill that will
cost 2.4 trillion dollars . . . they said 1.4 trillion but they
lied.” She then went on to explain “We are going
to have to tackle the big items.” As a possible solution,
she suggested that “we need to audit the federal government”,
and I completely agree.
One key difference between the candidates?
After almost two months of following these candidates from event
to event I was surprised last night when an issue surfaced which
drew a very definitive line of distinction between them. That
issue was regarding campaign financing and specifically the
Supreme Court ruling on “Citizens
United v. FEC”.
The issue has multiple facets that generated great conversation.
The first is an issue regarding the First Amendment and free
speech, and the second issue is that of campaign financing and
the idea of “deep pockets buying elections”.
All of the candidates were in agreement on the issue of free
speech (no shock there), but there were additional comments
made by some that highlighted a serious problem regarding political
campaigns in general.
Mike Kelly felt that the ruling helped to “even
the playing field”. He explained that “corporations
shouldn’t be pouring this much money into elections, but
when you look at how the Democrats raise money you need to level
the playing field.”
In drastic contrast, Steve Fisher was clearly
against the concept of corporations funding elections. He stated
“We spend far too much on elections already. I don’t
think that corporations should be allowed to spend money to
buy votes and buy elections.” He further explained “there
is big difference between dollars between many candidates, but
to take corporate money and throw it in there is unfair”.
As a grassroots candidate, Fisher has experienced first had
how deep pockets and large bank accounts can make the election
process a particularly uneven playing field.
Ed Franz agreed with the Supreme Court ruling
but emphasized that “we need to watch what special interests
are financing which candidates . . . the voters need to keep
an eye (on the process)”.
Clayton Grabb also agreed with the Supreme
Court ruling and supported his comments by saying that “corporations
ARE you and I”. However, as another grassroots candidate,
he was quick to point out that “Campaigns should not cost
what they cost!” [I say “Amen” to that.] He
further went on to explain exactly how “big money comes
in and they buy the Primary”. In closing he reminded everyone
that the “grassroots people are the ones that need to
be represented”.
Paul Huber agreed with the Supreme Court ruling,
and he seemed to have no problem with the concept of corporations
funding elections.
This specific debate drew very clear lines for me. 2010 is an
election year that offers very stark contrasts. It is a year
that pits “deep pockets” against “grassroots
Average Joe’s” (as in the race for the 3rd Congressional
District). It is a year that battles “endorsed candidates”
against “unendorsed candidates” (read an example
HERE).
It is a year that will put unaffiliated Independents up against
20-year entrenched incumbents (read an example HERE).
In summary, 2010 is the year of David vs. Goliath.
In the race for the 3rd Congressional District, David is represented
by Steve Fisher, Ed Franz, Clayton Grabb, and Martha Moore.
Goliath is represented by Paul Huber and Mike Kelly. The Primary
on May 18th will settle the debate and the battle once and for
all.
On March 29th I published the first in a series of several grades
for lawmakers. The grading system is called the Mercer
Conservatives Index (the Index) and it is a basic grading
system designed to compare and rate candidates, elected officials,
bills, etc. on a simple scale of fiscal conservatism and public
service.
In the first set of grades that were determined, I compared all
of the state lawmakers that represent Mercer County. Senator Bob
Robbins, Representative Michele Brooks, Representative Dick Stevenson,
and Representative Mark Longietti were all graded in 10 categories
and final results and grades were published for each.
Below are the results for the State Legislators that represent
Mercer County. An individual article was published for each as
follows:
The 3rd Congressional District -- Candidates and Incumbent
I’ve been busy compiling a comparison for the 2010 race
for Congress in the 3rd Congressional District. The race will
put current incumbent, Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper against
one of 6 Republican challengers. In an effort to provide guidance
to my readers, I’ve graded all of the individuals involved
in this race. I first graded Mrs.
Dahlkemper (read HERE).
She received a flat out F. I’ve since compared the 6 Republican
candidates that want to challenge Mrs. Dahlkemper in the fall.
The summary results of my analysis are listed below:
Here is an overview of my findings:
#1 Steve Fisher
After analyzing all of the candidates in all categories and
tallying the results, my findings show that Steve Fisher was
the highest rated candidate in my comparison. The totals for
the top three vote getters were very close. Steve Fisher, Clayton
Grabb, and Paul Huber rated VERY high in all categories. Steve
Fisher ended up at the top of the pile because of his perfect
grades in the area of Transparency, Accountability, and Public
Service. In my analysis of the candidates, Steve Fisher was
the ONLY candidate that responded to my initial query immediately.
My original query went out by email on 3/4/2010 at 1:24pm. At
1:34pm Mr. Fisher emailed me personally to touch base. At 3:07pm
on that same day, Mr. Fisher provided full written answers to
all of my questions and provided me the OK to publish those
responses in my blog. He was thorough, he was expedient, and
he was charming in the process. He answered my questions completely
and IN WRITING (which is unheard of by most politicians). Most
importantly, the answers to his questions made me want him to
be my Congressman.
If I were a registered Republican, I would vote for him in the
Primary. Unfortunately, as an Independent my vote doesn’t
count in the Primary, so I’ll need to wait until November
to cast my vote for Steve Fisher.
#2 Clayton Grabb
Clayton Grabb is a very strong candidate and he was #2 in my
ranking. He scored lower than Steve Fisher only in the areas
of Transparency and Public Service. Clayton Grabb did answer
my questions when I asked him personally, and his answers were
spot on. He did not, however, respond to my original written
query and he never answered in writing. I had no choice but
to score Steve Fisher higher due to this significant difference.
Clayton Grabb has many wonderful qualities, and I would be proud
to support him against Congresswoman Dahlkemper should he win
the Primary in May.
#3 Paul Huber
Paul Huber is a very intelligent and strong candidate. Only
4 points from the top score, Mr. Huber scored well across the
board, but he was simply not as transparent and responsive as
Steve Fisher. Mr. Huber is extremely smart, but he lacks a scrappy-ness
(yes that is made up) that some voters are looking for right
now. I fear that Mr. Huber may appear too “low-energy”
to some people on a first impression. If you get an opportunity
to talk to him personally, he is a great guy, but first impressions
mean a lot.
Paul Huber is a strong and qualified candidate, and I would
be proud to support him against Congresswoman Dahlkemper should
he win the Primary in May.
#4 Mike Kelly
Mike Kelly ended up only a few points off of Paul Huber. While
scoring very high in most categories, I am concerned about Kelly’s
tough-guy image. He appears too rough and mean at times. I realize
that we might need someone like that in Washington DC right
now, but I’m not sure that many voters can embrace him.
Additionally, Kelly scored lower than Fisher, Grabb, and Huber
due to his inability to answer some questions completely. His
score of a 3 in Transparency hurt his overall score.
#5 Ed Franz
I really like Ed Franz. He is a nice guy, and I could see sitting
down to have a beer with him. The problem is that I don’t
drink. Ed’s charm is that he is a blue-collar guy with
really good intentions. While I admire his desire to “serve”,
I can’t see him as my Congressman. It is my opinion that
Ed Franz overshot his mark in this race. He would have been
a wonderful pick for State Representative or State Senator,
as those positions require that you really be involved with
the locals. In a state position, you are involved with more
hands-on work with your constituents, and Ed would have been
perfect in that arena. He could go into a crowd of folks in
Greenville and charm everyone in the room. Unfortunately, Ed
didn’t want to go against the grain and challenge the
current incumbents from his own party. Senator Robbins and Representative
Brooks would have had their hands full with Mr. Franz. Unfortunately,
in the race for Congress, Mr. Franz is outmatched by some of
his opponents. I’m sorry Ed.
#6 Martha Moore
Dr. Moore seems like a very passionate individual. She is a
patriot and she loves Ronald Reagan (so I have to like her).
Unfortunately, Martha Moore has way too much competition in
this race. If no Republican’s had stepped forward to run
against Mrs. Dahlkemper, I think Martha Moore would have had
a great chance of beating Kathy in November, but the fact is
that there are a number of very qualified candidates to choose
from . . . Martha Moore is lost in the dust.
In Closing . . .
I’ve tried to be fair in my anaylsis, and I’ve adapted
my numbers in each category as I’ve had additional time
to talk to the candidates in more detail. In general, I feel
that the race in the 3rd Congressional District is down to three
primary candidates. Steve Fisher, Clayton Grabb, and Paul Huber
are all very strong candidates. Each one is very different in
personality, and each offers a different style that is very
appealing. If I can summarize,
Steve Fisher is both friendly and compassionate.
He has the ability to summarize information and make decisions
quickly and with great ease. He is a quick thinker . . . he
is a smart thinker . . . but he is not overly analytical or
disconnected from who he is or who he will represent. He is
a natural.
Clayton Grabb is very passionate, and his passion
is contagious. I’ve used his quotes more than a half-a-dozen
times over the past week alone. [I’ll be wear out his
“If not me, who? If not now, when?” reference quickly.]
His involvement in this race will put the power of the Tea Party
to the test, and it will be an interesting experiment.
Paul Huber is the sharpest knife in the drawer.
He has proven his analytical abilities and he has demonstrated
his commitment to the race. He is somewhat sterile, but this
might appeal to some voters. He lacks some of the passion that
Fisher and Grabb demonstrate, but he is driven and focused on
beating Congresswoman Dahlkemper in November.
Wednesday, April 7, 7PM was the tip off for yet another “Meet
the Candidate” night in Sharon. The meeting, which was hosted
by the Pennsylvania Patriots in Action, was a gathering of all
non-incumbent candidates that are vying for the Congressional
Seats in the 3rd and 4th Districts. The event attracted a sizeable
crowd that was a virtual “who’s who” in Mercer
County politics.
The current office holders, Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper and
Congressman Jason Altmire, were not present but they were still
the main topics of conversation. Interestly enough, Congresswoman
Dahlkemper was represented by a mole in the crowd . . . a member
of her staff from the Hermitage office was hiding in the hall
(and undoubtedly taking notes). The candidates each took the opportunity
to explain why they would be the best choice to replace Dahlkemper
and Altmire, and many of the more heated comments were pointed
directly toward the incumbents (no shock).
I will outline my observations from the event below. PLEASE understand
that I am trying to be as fair and unbiased as is possible, but
this is a BLOG. I will offer my own spin on the events of the
evening and I will interject my personal opinions and summaries
where I see fit. Sorry, but those are the rules.
4th Congressional District
Mary Beth Buchanan and Keith Rothfus were on hand to battle for
the Republican nomination for the 4th District against Altmire.
I’ve met both candidates once before and I enjoyed another
opportunity to hear them speak. I was pleasantly surprised, however,
that an Independent candidate, John Vinsick, also surfaced at
the event. Vinsick of Aliquippa was a highlight of the evening
as he shot from the hip and added a bit of spice to the conversation.
Mary Beth Buchanan is a strong and spirited candidate
who carries herself well in the debate style environment. She
more than held her own and didn’t back down to some obvious
shots that were sent in her direction. She focused on her platform
of limited government, pro-life, and pro-2nd Amendment. She is
extremely intelligent and very likeable. She makes me wish I was
in the 4th Congressional District. For more information about
Ms. Buchanan, you can visit her website at MaryBethBuchanan.org.
Keith Rothfus is an analytical individual with
great ideas. He is a family man with 6 children who is running
on a platform of limited government, lower taxes, repeal of ObamaCare,
and traditional family values. Mr. Rothfus offered one of my favorite
quotes for the evening when he stated that the first legislation
that he would offer would be the “Restoring Edison Light
Bulb Act”. He is a common-sense sort of guy with great ideas.
For more information about Mr. Rothfus, you can visit his website
at http://www.keithpa4.com/.
John Vinsick, the Independent candidate, was
a treasure. His campaign slogan of “the will of the people
must preside over the will of the politician” explains that
his platform is anti-politics and pro-citizen. Mr. Vinsick will
have an uphill battle in collecting the 3,731 signatures that
will be required to get his name on the ballot, but he is optimistic
about the process and he is even more optimistic about his chances
in November. While he received some negative comments from hard-core
Rs in the crowd (for threatening their Party), Mr. Vinsick hit
home with a number of key points that were met with supportive
applause. For more information about Mr. Vinsick, you can visit
his website at http://www.johnvinsickforcongress.com/.
3rd Congressional District
For the 3rd District, Republican candidates Paul Huber, Steve
Fisher, Clayton Grabb, Ed Franz, and Martha Moore were on hand.
Mike Kelly was out of town and was not represented. The order
of the six-minute presentations was based on a draw from a hat,
and the speeches by 3rd and 4th District candidates were mixed
together. Up first for the 3rd District was Clayton Grabb.
Clayton Grabb never fails to inspire me when
he speaks. He is a conservative who is proud of his Tea Party
activities, and his presentations are always geared toward the
more "independent thinking" (that's me). He made a reference that
struck a chord with me when he explained his reason for running
as “If not me, who? If not now, when?” (NOTE: I’ll
be using that quote as my own soon). Mr. Grabb speaks from the
heart and is passionate about his country. For more information
about Mr. Grabb, you can visit his website at http://www.grabbforcongress.com/.
Ed Franz is “just Ed”. Ed has a blue-collar/guy-next-door
quality about him, and the people that support him like for exactly
that reason. His platform is based on social conservatism, fiscal
conservatism, and pro-life stands. He made a good point when he
stated “this election year it’s government versus
the taxpayers”. That simple statement summarized all of
the political dancing that is going on in a few simple words.
Mr. Franz pointed out that he feels that he is the best candidate
to beat Dahlkemper in November because of his labor ties to Erie.
For more information about Mr. Franz, you can visit his website
at http://www.edfranzforcongress.com/.
Paul Huber, a fiscal conservative, took the opportunity
to layout his plans for fiscal reform. He made the point that
“all of the (government) spending is being put on a credit
card”, and he explained his plan for freeing the taxpayers
from that problem. He stressed that he was “born and raised
on a farm and raised on values of honesty and hard work”.
His presentation was analytical, but he manages to deliver his
statistics with a personal touch that gives the distinct impression
that his concerns are heart-felt. He closed his presentation with
a statement that I liked . . . “when people find the courage,
they can change anything” (NOTE: I’ll be using that
quote as my own soon). For more information about Mr. Huber, you
can visit his website at http://www.huberforcongress.com/.
Steve Fisher makes me smile. He is the perfect
blend of intellectual, analytical, and personable. He is detail
and fact oriented, but he connects with people on a personal level
when he speaks. This is even more obvious if you get an opportunity
to talk with Steve one-on-one. Mr. Fisher opened his discussion
with an explanation of why he was running for Congress. He made
reference to a quote “if you don’t want to be a part
of the menu, you better take a seat at the table” (NOTE:
I’ll be using that quote as my own soon). He went on to
explain that his first goal in Congress would be to repeal the
Health Care Bill . . . which met with positive feedback from the
crowd. His experience in the insurance industry gives him a different
perspective on the health care situation and offers a special
value that should not be overlooked. For more information about
Mr. Fisher, you can visit his website at http://www.stevefisherforcongress.com/.
Martha Moore continues to amaze me. As a country
doctor from Stoneboro, she is not the typical candidate. She is
outmatched in many ways by her fellow Republicans on the ticket,
but she continues to show up . . . she continues to express her
patriotism . . . she continues to quote Reagan . . . and she is
beginning to gather a following. I had a great seat in the very
back of the room and I was able to gauge the reactions of the
crowd to each of the speakers. Dr. Moore got lots of nods and
“I like her” comments from many of the women in the
crowd. She began her comments with a simple quote that explained
why she was running for office. She said “three words .
. . enough is enough”. She is a concerned patriot that is
running for office in an effort to stress the issues that are
important to her. I give her credit for her courage and commitment.
For more information about Dr. Moore, you can visit her website
at http://www.moore4congress.com/.
Mike Kelly was unable to attend the event and
there was no spokesperson available to speak on his behalf. For
more information about Mr. Kelly, you can visit his website at
http://www.mikekellyforcongress.com/.
In Closing . . .
I’d like to extend thanks to the Pennsylvania Patriots in
Action for organizing the event. It was informational, but it
also gives concerned citizens the opportunity to look into the
eyes of the candidates to get a personal perspective of who they
are.
I’ve been to several events, and I suppose that might seem
unusual to some people. However, it is important to get to know
the people that may soon be representing you. I make an effort
to go to as many events by elected officials and candidates as
possible. I do so to gain an understanding of them, and I do so
in an effort to share information with those people that can’t
be there themselves. I hope that my brief summaries give you a
feel for the individuals, but I also hope that it encourages you
to take a look for yourself.
I will begin publishing event announcements (as they are given
to me) for all of the candidates listed above. If you are a candidate
(or work for a candidate) and you would like your event posted
here, email me (roberta.in.mercer@gmail.com)
with the details and I’ll do what I can.
I’ve been waiting to publish my results from the Mercer
Conservatives Index regarding the candidates from the 3rd
Congressional District. I’ve been continuing to gather information
and my final scores have been in flux. I’ve already published
my results for Congresswoman
Dahlkemper (F) as well as the four state legistlators that
represent Mercer County [Senator
Robbins (F), Representative
Brooks (B), Representative
Longietti (C), and Representative
Stevenson (D)]. It is my intention to put the finishing touches
on my summaries by the end of this coming weekend. Please be patient
and keep an eye on this site for the final publication.
For those of you that are interested in a different political
angle on the event, I suggest that you read the write up that
was published in The Herald by Matt Snyder HERE.
It was announced by WTAE Channel 4 News today that Senator Jane
Orie was arrested today on charges that she allowed state funded
staff and office resources to be used for campaign activities.
You can read the full story on the WTAE website HERE.
The charges were brought by Allegheny County District Attorney
Stephen Zappala, and some are screaming "Foul". The accusation
is that Zappala (a Democrat) is bringing the charges against the
Senator because she is a Republican. Some say, therefore, that
the charges are simply politically driven.
For goodness sake, people . . . can’t we all grow up.
The Bigger Picture
In light of the charges against Orie as well as the recent guilty
verdict against former State Representative Mike Veon, I'd like
for us all to step back and wonder if there is a bigger problem
here.
Is it possible . . . is there some remote chance . . . it there
some odd circumstance where politicians might just break the law
because they think they can get away with it?
Robbins, Brooks, Longietti, and Stevenson Dodge Questions
I've been engaged in a battle with our state legislators in Mercer
County recently regarding this very issue and I’m becoming
deeply concerned. Back in March I began a letter/email writing
campaign to our state legislators (Senator Bob Robbins, Representative
Michele Brooks, Representative Mark Longietti, and Representative
Dick Stevenson). The conversation began after it was found that
a staff member of Congresswoman Dahlkemper had published a nasty
comment on my blog from a taxpayer funded computer during business
hours. Since that time I’ve been repeatedly asking our legislators
where they stand on the use of taxpayer funded staff and resources
for personal/campaign purposes. They’ve dodged my questions
repeatedly. I’ve asked the same questions in 3 or 4 different
ways, but the responses are always the same . . . silence.
You would think that ‘honest politicians’ (oxymoron
alert!) would jump at the opportunity to set the record straight
about their own personal records. Sensible people would think
that hard-working public servants would have a desire to be totally
transparent in order to prove that Veon and Orie are exceptions
to the rule, right?
Apparently those sensible thoughts are ridiculous. Instead, elected
officials are running to their caucus legal teams and finding
out exactly how deep they can hide to escape prying eyes and questions.
What is the result? Well, the general rule seems to be “if
you don’t NEED to answer questions, don’t”.
For those legislators that are lucky enough to have no political
challengers this year, they can hide in silence and hope that
the storm blows over. Unfortunately, that is currently the case
for every single state lawmaker that represents Mercer County.
Lack of Challengers Makes for Lack of Tranparency
Twenty-year incumbent Senator Bob Robbins, ten-year incumbent
Representative Dick Stevenson, and relative new-comers Representative
Michele Brooks and Representative Mark Longietti (who both began
their first terms in 2007) are all running for re-election this
year without challengers from their opposing parties. With no
pressure to answer hard questions, all four of these lawmakers
have chosen the “path of least resistance” by simply
shutting up and hiding. They are hopeful that I will eventually
disappear (i.e. become uninterested, suffer head trauma and lose
my memory, move, die, etc.), and they’d like for me to do
it quickly.
A Fine Line Between Legal and Illegal
The issue of using legislative staff members for campaign purposes
is a sensitive and tricky topic. Technically, lawmakers can use
their staff as long as those individuals do so on their own time
and voluntarily. Unfortunately, in many cases staff members were
not hired because of their amazing qualifications. Nope. In many
instances, legislative staffers were hired because they were long
time friends (or friends of friends) of the elected officials
for whom they work. For that reason lines become blurred. It becomes
difficult to draw a clean line between legislative work and campaign
work. It all gets jumbled together into a big melting pot and
it is hard to know the difference between legitimate work and
illegal campaign activity. I believe that this may be the case
with more than one of the lawmakers that represent Mercer County.
I’ve seen lots of things over the past few years. I’ve
experienced situations that were questionable and I can direct
you to photos that document equally confusing behavior. Rather
than relying on politicians to “do the right thing”,
maybe we should make the rules more straight-forward. A possible
answer is available from my Platform
for Good Government (see more about this below).
Solution: Draw a Thicker Line
The solution is simple. The staff of elected officials should
NOT be involved in partisan political activity of any kind. PERIOD.
The Hatch Act of 1939 prohibits federal employees from engaging
in partisan political activity. This same concept should be implemented
at every level of government. Legislative staff (as well as County
and Local) should not be permitted to be involved in any political
activity (on taxpayer time or on their own time). For more information
about his concept, please read the on-line article titled “Politically
Uncorrected : IF MEN WERE ANGELS" which is available for on-line
review HERE.
In this example, legislation would prevent legislators from mixing
paid staff with campaign staff. HOWEVER, legislation needs to
be authored by and passed by LEGISLATORS! Sort of like the fox
watching the chicken coop, don’t you think? If legislators
aren’t honest enough to draw the lines without a law, how
could they possibly be interested in drawing a line officially
WITH legislation?
And therein lies the problem. This is the vicious circle of government.
How do we fix it? I’m glad you asked!
Platform for Good Government
Those of you that know me realize that I’m passionate about
the concept of “good government”. It is my opinion
that our county, state, and federal governments could use a good
“scrubbing behind the ears”. Government needs to be
reformed from the inside out, and it needs to begin with a changing
of the guard. “Out with the Old and In with the New”
is a perfect slogan for what needs to happen. We need to replace
dusty old politicians with fresh new public servants that (above
all else) have a desire for “good government”.
How do we find those people? There are plenty of good, honest
people out there that would qualify. Unfortunately, those people
don’t attempt to run for office because it is too darn hard.
Politics is set up in such a way as to discourage good and honest
people from getting involved, and incumbents keep it that way.
Here in Mercer County we have the “Mercer County Incumbent
Party” that controls politics. They are a team of very dedicated
Republicans and Democrats who work closely together to protect
the inner circle (and keep out any chance of “good government”
or “public servants”). The parties are not the answer.
Instead, the movement needs to be grassroots in nature. Much like
the Tea Parties are rallying concerned citizens, those same citizens
need to step up and challenge the status quo.
It isn’t easy, and I say that from experience. However,
once you realize what to expect, it becomes less threatening.
I did it once (in 2009), and I’m determined to do it again
. . . maybe sooner than later.
To set ourselves apart from “politicians”, we need
to establish our own platform that goes against the “bad
government” that we are trying to reform. For that reason
I’ve established my own Platform
for Good Government. The Platform is based on a list of specifics
that I’ve found to be very wrong with “business as
usual” in Mercer, Harrisburg, and Washington DC. It is my
wish list of problems that need to be fixed, and it will be my
main topics of conversation with elected officials and candidates
that are running for office. If elected officials or candidates
disagree with items on the platform, then they are part of the
problem (and they need to go).
I don’t suggest that my Platform
for Good Government is THE only answer. I am only suggesting
that we should all take the time to prioritize our issues of concern.
Take a few minutes to draft a platform of your own and stick by
it. Make a list of the issues that are important to you, prioritize
the list, and use the list to determine who is the most qualified
to represent you as a public servant.
According to an article in the Beaver County Times [read HERE],
Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper will take on yet another challenger
in the November election. This time the challenge comes from the
Libertarian Party. According to the article, this challenger is
a little questionable (like Mel
Marin).
Do you think someone smells blood in the easy target of Congresswoman
Dahlkemper?
For those of you that are interested in comparing the six candates
that are seeking the Republican nomination, you will have another
opportunity tomorrow night, April 7, 2010. Pennsylvania Patriots
in Action are sponsoring a meet the candidate night at the Radisson
in Sharon at 7pm. If you are interested in attending you can RSVP
HERE.
I hope to see you there!
The
“Mercer
Conservatives Index” (hereby referred to as “The
Index”) is a basic grading system designed to compare and
rate candidates, elected officials, bills, etc. on a simple scale
of fiscal conservatism and public service.
Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper (D-3rd) Grade: F (Scored 8 out of 55 = 15%)
The Details of Congresswoman
Dahlkemper’s Grade
Record: For elected officials, this
score is based on the person’s proven record as an elected
candidate from a fiscal conservative standpoint. It is completely
based on their recorded votes and their public position on specific
issues.
Score for "Record": 2
The Congresswoman started out as a Blue Dog Democrat
with what seemed to be a fiscal conservative direction. Unfortunately,
the color of the dog is changing as a whole. I’m not sure
what you’d call the “dogs” anymore, but it wouldn’t
be Blue. Her recent vote FOR the 2700 page health care bill scores
her low points here.
Leadership: Leadership is defined at
the person’s ability to lead others and their ability to
inspire others to follow them. This score is based on my personal
interactions with the individuals and the impressions that they
left me with. Score for Leadership: 0
In every encounter that I’ve had with Congresswoman Dahlkemper,
I’m left with the impression that she is weak. I don’t
see her as a leader . . . not even a little. When given the opportunity
to stand up and lead (as was the case with the complaint against
her staff), she failed.
General Intellect: Based
on personal conversation, public presentations, and platform details,
General Intellect rates an individual on their level of intelligence.
“How Smart” does the person seem.
Score f or General Intellect: 5
I think the Congresswoman is intelligent, but she may be a bit
obvious about it. I’ve seen her flaunt it as a way to belittle
some. She is intelligent but she doesn’t carry it well.
Capability: Capability differs from
General Intellect in that it takes into account the ability of
the individual to learn and adapt. Will they be able to step up
to the position for which they have been or will be elected using
a combination of intellect, hard-work, commitment, and desire?
Score for Capability: 1 The Congresswoman may be book smart, but she has a long
way to go in the Capability Department. She seems unable to make
difficult decisions on her own and she seems unwilling to take
a stand when necessary.
Likeability:
Likeability is a simple term. The grades are based on MY impression
of the individual, but it also takes into account the way that
others may view them.
Score for Likeability: 0
I’ve met the Congresswoman many times. She has no people
skills to speak of. She doesn’t remember names or faces,
and she generally doesn’t go into a venue alone (for fear
of being left in an uncomfortable social situation). I have heard
her referred to numerous times as “a wet rag”. Correct
me if I’m wrong, but a “wet rag” would score
a zero in the likeability department, right?
Electability:
Electability is defined as the candidates ability to win the election
in November.
Score for Electability: 0
I personally think that the Congresswoman is done in public office.
She has alienated many of her constituents in the 3rd District.
She will lose if she gets a half-decent opponent in the fall.
Transparency and Accountability: This is an important category for
me. It judges each candidate based on my experiences with them
thus far. High points are given to those candidates that have
been forthcoming with detailed information and who are willing
to discuss issues openly and honestly. Low points are given to
those candidates that have failed in their ability to communicate
and provide specific answers in response to the questions that
were asked.
Score for Transparency and Accountability: 0 Kathy Dahlkemper has never responded to any direct request
from me. I’ve sent letters and I’ve sent email messages
and posts to her website. This is a complaint that I’ve
heard throughout the District. She not only fails to provide detailed
answers to questions . . . she simply fails to respond at all.
Public Service: Public Service is somewhat
tied to Transparency and Accountability. Public Service specifically
rates each candidate on their record of responding to requests.
It grades each candidate on their willingness to “go the
extra mile” for their constituents. High marks are given
for making an effort to communicate by phone, email, social networking,
and personal meetings.
Score for Public Service: 0 See “Transparency and Accountability” above.
Desire to Represent “The People” of his District: This is a very important element
of the Index. Based on my discussions with the individuals (and
their public remarks), each candidate is graded on their concern
for the taxpayers of their District. Are their interests specifically
focused on the people of the District, or are they looking at
a broader base of constituents?
Score for Desire to Represent: 0
Based on her record and her refusal to answer questions from the
people of the District, I give the Congresswoman a ZERO. I get
the impression that her ambition is to please a more broad base
of constituents that exist outside of the 3rd District.
Scrappy Factor: I made this one up. Scrappy is hard
to describe, but it rates each candidate on their “stick-to-it-iveness”
(yes, I made that up to). I wanted to rate each candidate on whether
or not they seem like the type that is willing to roll up their
sleeves and do the hard work that will be required of them. Are
they willing to do the “not-so-glamorous” work that
is part of public service, or do they tend to delegate responsibility
so as to keep a distance from the more demanding tasks.
Score for Scrappy Factor: 0
Scrappy doesn’t apply to the Congresswoman. She is not the
“push up her sleeves” sort of gal.
Mercer Conservatives Litmus Test: During the 2008 General
Election, I invented the Mercer Conservatives Litmus Test. This
score was based on one simple question. “Would I like to
sit down and have a cup of coffee with this candidate?”
My answer is based on the individual’s ability to impress
me as being a “normal person” or the “guy or
gal next door”. . . not just a politician.
Score for the Litmus Test: 0 Would I like to sit down and have coffee with this woman?
My answer is the same as it was in 2008. No thank you. To be fair,
however, I didn’t want to have coffee with Phil English
either.
In Closing . . .
The fact that Congresswoman Dahlkemper has created the interest
of 6 candidates on the Republican ticket should not be a surprise.
She is a very weak candidate. She managed to win her seat in 2008
because people were sick and tired of Phil English. In all honesty,
Phil English should have considered running against her this year.
He could have run the campaign on the “do you miss me yet?”
question.
For the sake of comparison, even Senator Robbins scored higher
than Congresswoman Dahlkemper . . . which is really saying something.
You have to be a pretty bad public servant to score lower than
Bob Robbins.
Yes, I’m a blogger. Yes, I’m admittedly opinionated
when it comes to politics, political issues, and issues of good
government. I am, however, also an analyst. I enjoy parsing data,
analyzing it at a very basic level, and then making summaries
based on the results of my research. Sometimes all of these interests
overlap. The Mercer Conservatives Index is an example of that.
The “Mercer Conservatives Index” (hereby referred
to as “The Index”) will use a basic grading system
to compare and rate candidates, elected officials, bills, etc.
I will begin my analysis by examining legislators that represent
Mercer County in Harrisburg and in Washington DC. I will then
continue the analysis over the next 7 – 10 days as I examine
all of our incumbent lawmakers and the candidates that are challenging
them in the Primary and General Elections. This analysis will
include Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper and the six candidates
that are challenging her from the Republican Party.
I’ll warn you now that you may not all agree with my grading
system. You also may not agree with my conclusions. Unfortunately,
it is MY index and it reflects my findings. If you’d care
to start your own index, I invite you to do so. This project is,
after all, an attempt to generate interest in our legislators
and in candidates running for public office. It is intended to
spark conversation and debate. It is not intended to serve as
an endorsement of any public official or candidate.
The Grading System
Each candidate (as well as the incumbents) are graded on a set
of 10-11 categories (depending on their current elected status).
For each category, the candidate will receive a score based on
the information that I’ve collected (through my personal
exchanges with each of the individuals). The score assigned will
be a number from 0 to 5 with 0 being the lowest score . . . and
5 being the highest. The scores for each candidate will be tallied
and a total score will be provided. That total score will then
be converted into a letter Grade (A, B, C, D, F) based the common
grading scale below:
Grade A = 90-100%
Grade B = 80-89%
Grade C = 70-79%
Grade D = 60-69%
Grade F = 0-59%
Analysis Categories
Below is a brief description of each category and how the score
for that category was determined.
Record
For elected officials, this score is based on the person’s
proven record as an elected candidate from a fiscal conservative
standpoint. It is completely based on their recorded votes and
their public position on specific issues. For candidates for office,
this score is based on their published stand on issues and their
professional resume.
Leadership
Leadership is defined at the person’s ability to lead others
and their ability to inspire others to follow them. This score
is based on my personal interactions with the individuals and
the impressions that they left me with.
General Intellect
Based on personal conversation, public presentations, and platform
details, General Intellect rates an individual on their level
of intelligence. “How Smart” does the person seem.
Capability
Capability differs from General Intellect in that it takes into
account the ability of the individual to learn and adapt. Will
they be able to step up to the position for which they have been
or will be elected using a combination of intellect, hard-work,
commitment, and desire.
Likeability
Likeability is a simple term. The grades are based on MY impression
of the individual, but it also takes into account the way that
others may view them.
Electability (applied to candidates in current
races only)
Electability is defined as the candidates ability to win the election
in November. This takes into account the individual against whom
they will be running.
Transparency and Accountability
This is an important category for me. It judges each candidate
based on my experiences with them thus far. High points are given
to those candidates that have been forthcoming with detailed information
and who are willing to discuss issues openly and honestly. Low
points are given to those candidates that have failed in their
ability to communicate and provide specific answers in response
to the questions that were asked.
Public Service
Public Service is somewhat tied to Transparency and Accountability.
Public Service specifically rates each candidate on their record
of responding to requests. It grades each candidate on their willingness
to “go the extra mile” for their constituents. High
marks are given for making an effort to communicate by phone,
email, social networking, and personal meetings.
Desire to Represent “The People” of their
District
This is a very important element of the Index. Based on my discussions
with the individuals (and their public remarks), each candidate
is graded on their concern for the taxpayers of their District.
Are their interests specifically focused on the people of the
District, or are they looking at a broader base of constituents?
Scrappy Factor
I made this one up. Scrappy is hard to describe, but it rates
each candidate on their “stick-to-it-iveness” (yes,
I made that up to). I wanted to rate each candidate on whether
or not they seem like the type that is willing to roll up their
sleeves and do the hard work that will be required of them. Are
they willing to do the “not-so-glamorous” work that
is part of public service, or do they tend to delegate responsibility
so as to keep a distance from the more demanding tasks.
Mercer Conservatives Litmus Test
During the 2008 General Election, I invented the Mercer Conservatives
Litmus Test. This score was based on one simple question. “Would
I like to sit down and have a cup of coffee with this candidate?”
My answer is based on the individual’s ability to impress
me as being a “normal person” or the “guy or
gal next door”. . . not just a politician.
Who will be evaluated?
Initially, grades will be assigned for the state legislators that
represent Mercer County. Evaluations for Senator Bob Robbins,
Representative Michele Brooks, Representative Mark Longietti,
and Representative Dick Stevenson will be published first (and
in that order). Their evaluations will provide an example of how
my grading process works.
Next will be my evaluation of Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper.
Lastly, I will provide an evaluation for each of the candidates
that are running for Congress in the 3rd District against Congresswoman
Dahlkemper. Those individuals (and the order in which I will publish
my findings) are:
Clayton Grabb
Steve Fisher
Mike Kelly
Paul Huber
Ed Franz
Dr. Martha Moore
Detailed evaluations will be published through my blog and on
my standard website for historical purposes. I will publish one
blog post for each individual to provide an equal promotional
platform for every official and candidate that is involved in
the analysis.
Below are the results for the State Legislators that represent
Mercer County. An individual article was published for each as
follows:
This blog seems to be the conduit for sharing information about
Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper. I received multiple email messages
today . . . all containing the same thing. Each email message
(received from various individuals) contained a forwarded email
message from the office of Congresswoman Dahlkemper. In an effort
to "share and share alike", I'm posting the content of the email
message below so that we can all enjoy this valuable information
together . . . like a family:
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about H.R.
3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This
is an important issue, and I take your comments very seriously.
While we may not agree on the nature of every solution,
I think we can all agree that the American health care system
is in need of reform.
As you may know, affordable and reliable health care is essential
to the long term well-being of the people and economy of our
district. Approximately 11% of the population in Pennsylvania's
3rd District is uninsured. This amounts to approximately 71,000
of our neighbors at risk of being financially handicapped
by the skyrocketing costs of health care. Over 172,000 families
and 13,200 small businesses will receive tax credits to help
them afford coverage. That's going to make health care coverage
more affordable for hundreds of thousands of people in Western
Pennsylvania. Under this legislation every resident in the
3rd District will be guaranteed to find health insurance regardless
of a pre-existing condition. People with diabetes, children
who were born with a birth defect, cancer survivors?"they
will have guaranteed access to care.
The Young Adult Healthcare Coverage provision which I authored
was included in this legislation to allow young adults in
the district the option to stay on their parents' plans up
to their 26th birthday. This year, children with pre-existing
conditions can no longer be denied health insurance coverage.
Insurance companies will no longer be able to discriminate
against women because this bill prohibits gender disparities
in rates and coverage. It also ensures that you cannot be
dropped from coverage due to an illness, creates an out of
pocket max, and offers no lifetime limits on coverage. This
bill outlaws these practices for all health insurance plans.
This legislation would also have a positive effect on the
elderly population in our
region. This bill starts to close the Medicare Part D donut
hole in 2010 by providing a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries
who hit the gap in prescription drug coverage. And beginning
in 2011, the bill institutes a 50% discount on prescription
drugs in the donut hole. This bill eliminates co-payments
for preventive services and exempts preventive services for
seniors from deductibles under the Medicare program.
Without this bill, the steadily rising cost of health care
would become unsustainable. The non-partisan Congressional
Budget Office estimates that the House bill is fully
paid for and will reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion over
the next 20 years. About half of the cost of the Affordable
Health Care for America Act is paid for by targeting waste,
fraud, and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid. The other
half of the cost of the bill is paid for through a surcharge
on a portion of the income on the wealthiest of Americans.
This surtax would not affect 99.5% of taxpayers in our district.
I would also like to address some misinformation about the
bill that has been circulating over the past few months. First,
you should know that my staff and I have read and reviewed
this legislation multiple times since it was introduced in
December. There was some concern this summer that Members
of Congress were specifically exempting themselves from the
health care bill. H.R. 3590 requires that Members of Congress
enroll in the exact same plan as constituents that decide
to enroll in the state exchange plan. Also veteran's health
care programs for both the
military and our veterans will not be undermined or compromised
in any way by this health care reform legislation.
Some have suggested that this bill is not pro-life and will
allow for federally funded abortions. That is simply not true.
As you know I am pro-life, and I insisted upon strong pro-life
language to fix the Senate bill. The President has signed
an executive order that closes loopholes in the Senate abortion
language to ensure that no federal
funds pay for abortions. The executive order from the president
has the full force of law and maintains the status quo of
the Hyde Amendment. No federal funds or taxpayer dollars will
pay for abortions because of this executive order.
Finally for your review, I have attached a timeline of what
and when, specific portions of the health care bill will begin
working for you. Thanks again for taking the time to share
your views with me. I hope that you will continue to keep
me informed of your views on this and other issues of interest
to you. If you would like to receive my E-newsletter, please
sign up at my website at www.dahlkemper.house.gov. If I can
be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact
me.
Sincerely,
Kathy Dahlkemper
Member of Congress
It is good to know that we are in the good hands of the federal
government. AND, YES, I'm being sarcastic!
If you have comments, please post them. If you have questions,
please address them to the Congresswoman.
My Comments?
Oh, you all want to hear what I have say about the email message?
OK, I'll make a few official statements.
1. Regarding her statement "Under this legislation every resident
in the 3rd District will be guaranteed to find health insurance
regardless of a pre-existing condition", I'd like to correct the
Congresswoman and edit the statement to read "Under this legislation
every resident in the 3rd District will be REQUIRED
to find health insurance regardless of a pre-existing condition.
If they do not they will be fined."
2. Regarding the Young Adult Healthcare Coverage provision that
she authored which will allow young adults in the district the
option to stay on their parents' plans up to their 26th birthday,
I'd like to explain that the "Slacker
Mandate" simply allows young adults to put off "adult" responsibilities
far too long. Are we doing our "young adults" a disservice by
letting them rely on Mom and Dad until they are nearing 30 years
of age?
3. Regarding the $250 rebate to seniors to help to fill the "donut
hole", I'd like to state that no government program would be incomplete
without a direct payment to seniors. Once again the Federal Government
has it wrong. Some people are affected by the donut hole, but
others are not . . . but we are just going to give $250 to everyone?
Sigh . . . .
4. Regarding the fiscal responsibility issues that were outlined,
I'd like to know . . . IS YOUR CALCULATOR BROKEN?
Energy levels were high as the crowd squeezed into the Schict
Auditorium at Grove City College on Thursday night. The event
was a candidate debate hosted by the Grove City College Republicans.
The forum made it possible for concerned citizens to compare the
six Republican candidates that are vying for the 3rd Congressional
seat against Congresswoman Dahlkemper in 2010.
At the start of the presentation the room was cramped. Co-moderator,
Michael Coulter, announced that additional seating for the event
was available in pour-over rooms that had a live feed of the event.
The high attendance was a testament to the fact that this is a
VERY IMPORTANT election. Interest is high and that is always a
good thing. The stage was set for a heated debate.
The format of the debate was simple. There were a few questions
from the moderators that were directed to all candidates. Additionally,
each candidate was given the opportunity to direct a question
to another in the group. The decision of who would question whom
was decided by a draw from a hat.
In the end, the forum allowed each candidate to enjoy a high point
or two . . . some experienced more high points than others. Below
is a quick breakdown of those highlights (and maybe a “low
light” or two). My analysis would be incomplete if I didn’t
also provide my opinions, which are scattered in for flavor.
The Candidates
Seated from left to right on the stage were Dr. Marta Moore, Steve
Fisher, Paul Huber, Ed Franz, Mike Kelly, and Clayton Grabb.
Opening Remarks and Sound Bites
Each candidate was given the opportunity to introduce themselves.
Below are some of the interesting sound bites from each.
Dr. Martha Moore:
“Why do I want to run for congress? Three words . . . enough
is enough.”
Steve Fisher:
“People in Washington are not paying attention to what the
citizens want. The difference is in listening to what is being
said.”
“I’ll be as visible for you in Washington as I am
in this district during this campaign.”
Paul Huber:
**While I have no specific sound bite for Mr. Huber, he overviewed
his numerous qualifications and outlined his business background.
**
Ed Franz:
“I think that Washington has been tone deaf to the 3rd District
and the citizens of Pennsylvania.”
“Kathy Dahlkemper and the rest of the Democrats including
Barack Obama aren’t concentrating on putting Americans back
to work.”
Mike Kelly:
“I know what it takes to run a business. Wouldn’t
it be nice if the people that run the Country knew how to run
a business?”
Clayton Grabb:
“We The People”. Three simple words. Three powerful
words. Three words that are divinely inspired.”
“They (in Washington) are our servants. They are no different
than you or I. That is why I’m running.”
Highlights (or lowlights) for each Candidate:
Based on everything that was said throughout the evening, I’ve
selected a few interesting remarks that summarizes the performance
of each candidate.
Dr. Martha Moore:
The first question to all candidates asked when they would be
willing to compromise on issues. Dr. Moore (who seems to have
a quote for everything) referred to the quote “In issues
of style, go with the stream . . . in issues of principle stand
like a rock”. That was a pretty cool response.
Another highlight from Dr. Moore was not in her responses but
in the question that she offered Paul Huber. Dr. Moore finally
asked the question that everyone has been tip-toeing around. She
asked “You started as a Democrat but now you sound like
a Reagan Republican. Are you going to get to Washington and turn
into a Democrat again?” It was a great question and it needed
to be asked. Unfortunately, the response ended up being one of
Paul Huber’s highlights (see below).
Steve Fisher
One of the highlights of the evening for Steve Fisher was his
response to a question regarding what government program he would
reduce and/or eliminate. Unlike some of the candidates, Steve
Fisher made the bold statement that he would “reduce Welfare”.
Bravo! Mr. Fisher, however, refused to commit to one program that
he would eliminate. Like most of the candidates, he explained
the he would need to look at all of the programs in more detail
before he could make a determination like that.
Another highlight for Steve Fisher was in his question from Mike
Kelly. In may have been a softball question on Kelly’s part,
but he asked what suggestions Fisher could make to fix the Health
Care problem from the private level. Fisher is an insurance professional
and handled the question expertly. He has a firm grasp of the
Health Care issue, and the question from Kelly gave him an opportunity
to show that off.
A final highlight from Fisher came in his closing remarks. The
question (to all candidates) was “Why do you feel that you
are the most electable candidate over Dahlkemper?” Fisher’s
response was “I think Kathy Dahlkemper is vulnerable.”
He explained that he is drastically different from Mrs. Dahlkemper
because, in his words, “I’m going to listen to what
the people are looking for.” Fisher’s response stated
the obvious . . . Kathy Dahlkemper ISN’T listening. Fisher
positioned himself as the candidate that will do the people’s
business.
Paul Huber
One highlight for Paul Huber was his suggestion of what Federal
programs should be reduced or eliminated. He agreed with Steve
Fisher’s choice (welfare). Mr. Huber also picked out the
program of Agricultural Subsidies. Many of you may know that this
is an area of specific interest to me. I’ve written about
Farm Subsidies in the past, and I’m against them. While
he didn’t take the opportunity to discuss the matter on
Thursday night, he did describe his concerns in more detail last
Sunday. At that time he explained that he was raised on a farm
and still farms to this day. He explained that in all that time
“he has never accepted subsidies”. This pushes on
a point that I’ve debated for quite sometime. It is often
the case that subsidies don’t actually go to people that
need them. Instead, they simply go to people that know how to
use the system. I found this interesting and I like his stand
on it.
The second highlight for Mr. Huber came in his response to a question
from Dr. Moore. As stated above, Dr. Moore questioned Huber’s
recent change to the Republican Party. I find this issue of particular
interest because I’ve seen a similar argument in my own
political background. Paul Huber had a wonderful response that
struck a chord with me. He stated “labels belong on jars
. . . not on people”. I thought that was particularly well
said. Mr. Huber then went on to explain his conservative beliefs
and background.
A lowlight moment for Mr. Huber was in his question to Ed Franz.
Mr. Huber’s question was “What would you do regarding
tax policy, regulatory policies, and employment policy that would
help manufacturers get people back work?” It is my opinion
that Mr. Huber comes off as an intellectual elitist. His question
was asked in such a way that it seemed as though he was intending
to belittle Ed Franz in some way. Ed Franz’s initial response
was one of his highlights (see below).
Ed Franz
As mentioned above, the question from Paul Huber to Ed Franz came
off in a bad way. After Huber asked his question, Ed Franz simply
paused and said “well, thanks for that question Paul”.
There was a hint of sarcasm in his voice and it was noticed by
all attendees. The response received chuckles across the room.
It was a very funny and light-hearted moment.
Another highlight in the evening for Franz was his response to
a question regarding how he would “compromise” in
Washington. Ed Franz went in a perfect direction when he stated
“The death tax needs repealed. A compromise is to lower
it. As long as the compromise helps, I’m okay with it. Where
I won’t compromise is in deficit spending.” This simple
statement managed to position Franz as a fiscal conservative.
In my opinion, Franz needs to concentrate on this issue in order
to pull himself away from the pack as a focused fiscal conservative.
The final highlight from Ed Franz came from his response regarding
his electability against Kathy Dahlkemper. Franz made the bold
move to state “(Kathy Dahlkemper) ran on the issue of Pro-Life.
14 months later she proved that she is not a friend of the unborn
. . . she voted for a bill that will pay for tax funded abortion.
We can’t afford to send fakes to Washington.” Wow.
Those sound like fighin’ words to me. He took a bold stand,
and I applaud him for his direct attack at the Congresswoman.
It was refreshing.
Mike Kelly
A highlight for Mike Kelly came in his response to a question
from Steve Fisher. The question was regarding the GM bailout.
Fisher asked Kelly, a GM Dealer, how he would have voted on the
government bailout. Kelly said “If you can’t make
it on your own, how do you expect to make it on someone’s
back?” He went on to say “I would have voted No. Your
tax dollars should not have gone to keep a company alive that
couldn’t make it on their own.” Those have been my
thoughts regarding the bailouts, and it was nice to hear them
clearly stated by one of the candidates. Mike gets extra credit
for that one.
Kelly’s final highlight was, unfortunately, also a lowlight
for him. During the closing question regarding his electability
against Dahlkemper, Kelly started by explaining that “we’ve
all had it with politicians”. He continued with “don’t
blame the government. . . blame the people that we have sent to
Washington” and he used great sound bites like “Say
what you mean and mean what you say”. Unfortunately, as
he was presenting his worthy sentiments, his voice was rising
and he took on a very mean and angry tone. I realize that this
might be part of Mike Kelly’s “schtick”, but
he left me (and others in the room) with a sense that he is just
a very angry man. In my opinion, it was an unfortunate ending
to his performance. In an argument about why he is the best person
to defeat Dahlkemper in November he managed to demonstrate why
he may not fair well against her when it comes time to take her
on face-to-face.
Clayton Grabb
Clayton Grabb had numerous highlights throughout the evening.
Mr. Grabb seems very sincere and he genuinely speaks from his
heart. While he may not be the most polished “politician”
of the group, that is exactly what makes him appeal to the “anti-government/anti-incumbent”
crowd.
One specific highlight from the evening was Grabb’s response
to the question about which Federal programs should be eliminated
or reduced. Grabb is the ONLY candidate that provided an example
of a program that he would eliminate. Grabb stated “Eliminate
the Department of Energy. We need energy independence and that
department is not getting it done.” In a question that was
ducked by many, Grabb stood out with his bold comment. Grabb also
commented that there should be a “freeze on all government
hiring”. I say “Amen” to that.
A second highlight came for Grabb in his use of humor. When discussing
ways to improve health care, Grabb made the reference “You
can’t have a night watching TV without seeing a caveman
or a gecko.” This was an obvious reference to the fact that
insurance companies have plenty of money for advertising. As a
follow up he stated “Open up the markets and let there be
competition”. His use of a bit of humor was a great way
to bring attention on the issue. It was a light-hearted moment.
The most memorable highlight for Clayton Grabb was in his closing
statements regarding his electability against Dahlkemper. Realize,
first, that his comments followed those of Mike Kelly, which were
very angry and loud. After a brief silence Grabb first stated
“I know in my heart that I’m going to win the Primary
in May and I feel confident that I’m going to beat Kathy
Dahlkemper in November.” Clayton Grabb has the ability to
inject emotion in his words, and it is moving. He then went on
to make a statement referencing his military background and the
explanation of what occurs when there is a “breach in the
wall”. He used the same words last night as he did at a
similar forum last Sunday, but it is a REALLY GOOD speech. I won’t
even attempt to quote it here as it simply wouldn’t do it
justice. Let me simply say that if you haven’t heard Clayton
Grabb speak you should make it a point to make it to one of his
upcoming functions.
In Closing . . .
Those were the notable highlights and lowlights of the evening
. . . from my perspective, of course. I’m sure that everyone
in the room left with different impressions of the events of the
evening, but that is what makes this Country so great. One thing
that we can all agree on is that formal debates like this one
are an important part of the political process. It was encouraging
to see so much interest from the community. I can only hope that
everyone went home more informed than when they arrived.
Based on a reader request, I've compiled a list of links to the
candidate websites for your reference. Please use these links
to due further research regarding each candidate.
If you have ever wondered how you could define irony in one
simple picture or one no-nonsense example, I think I’ve
found an answer.
The screen shot to the right illustrates the advertisement that
was running on my blog site today. Google is great for running
related advertisements based on content. Unfortunately, I may
have found a weakness in their algorithm. In this case, the
ad was running on my blog post titled “Employees
of Congresswoman Dahlkemper Campaigning “On Company Time”?
I urge you all to visit the article link above and click on
the advertisement (if it is still available). First, I’d
like for you all to send Congresswoman Dahlkemper an “appropriate”
thank you message. Second, I get PAID for each referral.
For those of us concerned citizens that reside in the 3rd Congressional
District, the upcoming debate of the Republican Congressional
Candidates is a MUST SEE. The details were published by my friends
at The Herald HERE.
Here are the specifics:
Date:
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Time:
7PM
Where:
Grove City College, Schict Auditorium of the Hall of Arts and
Letters
Why:
This meeting with give the six candidates that are trying to de-thrown
Congresswoman Dahlkemper the opportunity to pit themselves against
each other. It will provide us with the ability to compare apples-to-apples
in this very heated race. We need to get to the details, and this
debate MIGHT just do that.
Who will be there?
Attendees will include concerned citizens like myself. I urge
you all to attend.
The six candidates that are running in the May Primary on the
Republican ticket are . . .
Steven M. Fisher, 52, Cochranton, a health insurance salesman.
Ed Franz, 48, a Conneautville hourly worker at General Electric
Corp. in Erie.
Mike Kelly, 61, a Butler car dealership owner.
Clayton Grabb, 47, a Butler pharmaceutical salesman.
Dr. Martha Moore, 52, a Sandy Lake family practitioner.
Paul Huber, 65, a Meadville businessman.
In Closing
I've had an opportunity to speak with all of the candidates personally.
I have had at-length discussions with three . . . Steven Fisher,
Mike Kelly, and Ed Franz. I like all three. Fisher, Kelly, and
Franz all have "a backbone" and "a clear and fiscal conservative
vision" for the people of the 3rd Congressional District. Most
importantly, these three all get points in the "likeability" column.
Clayton Grabb seems to be a stand up guy. I like his "independence
from Party" stand, and I think his military background is a bonus.
He also gets points in the "likeability" column.
Politics are funny. Wait. STRIKE THAT. Let me start again.
Politicians are funny.
They are all the same. Democrat or Republican . . . it doesn’t
matter. They all follow a code. That code can affectionately be
referred to as CYA (yes, Cover Your Arse). As a general rule,
once an individual has been elected to public office, they will
live and die by the CYA code. I’ve seen it in action for
years, but never quite so obviously as over the past few weeks.
Today’s issue actually began at the beginning of March.
On March 1st I published an opinion
post. Nothing unusual. On March 2nd I received a nasty
comment to my opinion post. Again nothing unusual . . . not
on the surface anyway. I receive positive and negative comments
all the time. I write political commentary in an effort to educate
and to stimulate. If I don’t stimulate conversation, then
I simply haven’t done my job. It is my belief that more
people need to “care” about politics and government,
and I’m doing my part to increase interest and attract attention
to important issues. The comment that I received on March 2nd
was particularly personal. When I researched its origins I found
that the comment was generated from a computer in a U.S. House
of Representatives office. Based on a review of all of the data
available, it was clear that the comment was submitted by a member
of Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper’s staff. I did what I
do best . . . I published
the information and contacted Mrs. Dahlkemper, the current
candidates for Congress in the 3rd Congressional District, and
my current state legislators to find out where they stand on the
issue of congressional staff using taxpayer resources to grind
a personal axe. Letters and email messages went out on Thursday,
March 4, 2010.
The responses (or lack thereof) to my direct questions were interesting.
In this post, which is PART ONE of a two part series, I will outline
the response that I received from Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper
and those that are challenging her politically this year in the
3rd Congressional District. Here is a detailed break down of "who
said what":
Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper
On Wednesday, March 10, 2010, I received a phone call from Congresswoman
Dahlkemper. The call came in at 5:40pm from the US Capitol (202-226-9928).
I was not home and the call went to voice mail. Congresswoman
Dahlkemper left the following message:
“Hi Roberta. This is Congresswoman Dahlkemper calling. I
was following up with you on the letter that you sent me. I will
try to call you later this evening just to touch base with you
on that.”
I received a second call from Mrs. Dahlkemper’s private
cell phone at 7:30pm. She left no message.
I received a third call from Mrs. Dahlkemper’s private cell
phone again at 8:59pm. Because I was still not home, she left
the following message:
“Hello Roberta. This is Congresswoman Dahlkemper calling
again. I was hoping to connect with you. I will try again. If
you have a chance you can call me at my office tomorrow at 202-225-5406.
Thank you.”
I called Mrs. Dahlkemper’s office on Thursday, March 11,
2010 as instructed. She was unavailable and I left a message.
I never received a return call. I emailed the Congresswoman’s
office once again on Tuesday, March 16th. I received no response.
Mrs. Dahlkemper found it important enough to attempt to call me
three times in three hours on one evening. However, the interest
quickly faded and things returned to business as usual. It is
unfortunate that I was not available to receive Mrs. Dahlkemper’s
calls. I would have enjoyed the opportunity to discuss the matter
with her personally and to find out exactly where she stands on
the issue of her staff’s misuse of time and resources. Lack
of a concrete response leaves me with no other choice than to
say that Mrs. Dahlkemper didn’t find the issue important
enough to take a stand “for” or “against”
her staff. I find her behavior weak. I have no respect for an
elected official that “stands for nothing”. If she
had at least explained her opinion in the matter, I would have
respected her for taking a stand. Instead, she tossed the hot
potato.
Mrs. Dahlkemper receives high points in her ability to follow
CYA protocols.
Candidates for Congress
in the 3rd District
I sent letters and/or email notifications to the candidates for
Congress in the 3rd District. Who responded to my query?
Steve Fisher (Candidate
for US Congress, 3rd District)
I received an immediate response from only ONE of the candidates
listed above. Steve Fisher contacted me personally by email and
promised that he would provide official written responses to my
questions. In response to the three questions that I posed to
all recipients of my letter, Mr. Fisher responded as follows:
Question #1: Do you condone the use of federally-funded
equipment on federally-funded time to defend your image as a Congressperson?
Response
to Question #1 from Mr. Fisher’s perspective:
As an elected official, I would not condone any of my staff members
for using such equipment or time to defend my image in a manner
such as this. First of all, it was a blatant attack on your character.
And second, it was done without any identification. My staff would
be instructed to respond accordingly to letters, complaints, etc.
using all professional methods necessary. If we were made aware
of a Blog, Twitter account, etc. that is seeking information regarding
my position, they would be responding without personal attack
and would use factual documentation and they would be identified
by name and position. If detailed information was required, I
would have those requests directed to me. I would also personally
follow-up as much as possible to meet with the concerned citizens.
I understand that covering seven counties can make this difficult,
but a letter like what you wrote would definitely receive a personal
phone call or visit.
Question #2: Do you actively request that your
employees seek out negative information about you (on Federally-funded
time and equipment) on the internet with the intention of personally
attacking the individuals that are responsible for the posts?
Response to Question #2 from Mr.
Fisher’s perspective: Absolutely not. As an elected official,
one must understand that there will always be some negativity
in the media, on the internet, or in social activities. I am sure
that people would make me aware of such personal attacks, but
we would not be spending tax-payer dollars seeking them out. As
to how we would respond, I believe I addressed that in the first
question but can assure you that I would not allow any personal
attacks such as what you received. In my opinion, such an attack
would be cause for discipline and possible termination.
Question #3: Do you encourage your staff members
to speak on your behalf regarding issues of policy, issues of
politics, and issues of personal-decisions and personal preferences?
Response to Question #3 from Mr.
Fisher’s perspective: Knowing that I will not always be
available, I believe that my staff should have a strong understanding
of my position on issues and would be able to reflect my position
to constituents. If specific questions are asked that go beyond
the basic information, my preference would be for them to refer
those directly to me for my personal response. Part of the problem
that we have had in Washington is that our elected officials have
distanced themselves from the voters. I do plan to make myself
more available in all seven counties on a regular basis. This
may require me to hold meetings at night and on weekends, but
that would be acceptable if it allowed me to better serve the
District.
Steve Fisher took the time to respond personally, and he put forth
an effort to be clear about his opinions of the incident. He took
a stand, and he put his opinions in writing. He demonstrated that
he would not waiver on how he makes decisions. He is a
candidate worthy of support in his race against Mrs. Dahlkemper
in November. He demonstrated intestinal fortitude, which
is refreshing.
Ed Franz (Candidate for
US Congress, 3rd District)
I had the opportunity to have a one-on-one discussion with Ed
Franz. I attended a meet-and-greet which was held on his behalf
on Tuesday, March 9th in Linesville, PA. I was encouraged to attend
by a friend (and an Ed Franz supporter). I had heard that Ed was
a great guy, but I wanted to make my own judgment on his qualifications
as a candidate. I had an interesting conversation with Mr. Franz,
and in response to the 'Dahlkemper issue' he stated that he would
provide me with a written response by email. We exchanged contact
information. Unfortunately, Mr. Franz never bothered to take the
time to put his responses in writing and he did not contact me
to complete our conversation. He was quick to make 'the promise',
but he did not follow through with 'the action'. He did the one
thing that ALL people hate about "politicians" . . . he made a
promise that he did not keep. Tisk . . . tisk
. . . tisk. For this reason, the value of Ed Franz stock has dropped
in my book. I don't want to be too quick to judge, but Mr. Franz
has not made a good first impression with me. He is a nice guy,
but he hasn't demonstrated his ability to take on the task of
Congressman in the 3rd.
Mike Kelly (Candidate for
US Congress, 3rd District)
I received a personal phone call from Mike Kelly. He called to
thank me for my work as a blogger and my efforts to shine a light
on the political issues of the area. While he did not call to
specifically discuss the issues related to Mrs. Dahlkemper, he
found the allogations regarding the actions of her staff to be
embarrasing. He stated in general terms that Mrs. Dahlkemper has
abandoned her original stand as a non-politician and business
person by quickly becoming a very entrenched politician. Our conversation
was brief but we managed to discuss our opinions on many different
issues. We both agreed that a longer discussion at a later date
would be useful. He stated that he would call me back in the near
future to schedule a personal meeting.
I give Mr. Kelly credit for taking the "personal route". The effort
was all his, and he earns extra credit for that. I was curious
to see if Mr. Kelly would keep his promise by scheduling a face-to-face
meeting. My question was answered on Saturday, March 20 when I
received another call from Mr. Kelly and he scheduled to meet
me for coffee and further discussion. What did I discover?
Mr. Kelly is less interested in "politics" than he is in "policy".
He is less interested in the "political back biting" that IS the
Mercer County GOP than he is interested in bravely representing
the 3rd District in Washington DC. He gracefully manages to side
step "political" questions by focusing on the issues. He explained
his view on Health Care Reform by citing specific examples that
he has experienced as a business owner. He explained is support
for keeping I-80 TOLL FREE by citing a childhood experience and
his common sense view. He illustrated his firm support of smaller
government and fiscal conservatism by expressing his own personal
concerns as a "person" and not a "politician".
I'll admit that some of the rumors that I read and heard about
Mike Kelly had me somewhat concerned. The gossip put him "in the
pocket of political insiders", and that worried me. After meeting
with him personally, I can say that Mike Kelly is his own man
and he seems genuine in his desire to bring bold representation
to our area. He is a candidate worthy of support in his
race against Mrs. Dahlkemper in November.
All Other Candidates
Paul Huber (Candidate for US Congress, 3rd District)
Clayton Grabb (Candidate for US Congress, 3rd District)
Martha Moore (Candidate for US Congress, 3rd District)
The remaining candidates on the list had no response to my inquiry.
Hmmm. Hot potato anyone?
I had the opportunity to meet all three remaining candidates at
a townhall meeting today. Here are some additional comments:
Clayton Grabb knew me when I introduced myself, he perfectly recalled
the letter that I sent, he noted that he had posted my blog article
on his Facebook page, but he never thought to respond. Hmmm.
Martha Moore knew me when I introduced myself. I asked if she
received me letter and she said "yes". I asked if she wanted to
respond to my questions and she said "should I?". Hmmm.
Paul Huber seems to be the most intelligent and well-versed in
the group. However, when I introduced myself he had no idea who
I was. I explained that I had sent a personal letter to his campaign
and he responded "I've receive a lot of correspondence and I've
been really busy". Hmmm.
In Closing . . .
This is a simple example focused on one straightforward set of
questions.
Out of seven candidates for a very important elected position
in the of U.S. Congress, only four made ANY attempt to respond.
Congresswoman Dahlkemper made an attempt but she lost interest
and focus quickly. The “hot potato” was completely
hers and she failed to handle it. She is no leader.
Candidates Steve Fisher and Mike Kelly stepped up to show that
they are not afraid of questions. They both made clear statements
of who they are and what they believe. I would be willing to give
either one a shot at being my Congressman.
Candidate Ed Franz is a really nice guy. I'd have coffee with
him any time. He failed, however, to illustrate his ability to
lead or make hard decisions. He'd make a great buddy, but I don't
know that he's ready to be a Congressman.
What about the other candidates? I ask you "What other candidates?"
Today is March 15th. Today is also my 44th birthday. As an annual
tradition, I have the pleasure of posting a selfish little blog
. . . because I am the Editor. My comments today aren’t
about politics (well, not specifically any way). I’ll give
the Google and Yahoo search engines a break today and I won’t
mention any of the typical HOT TOPICS like:
Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper (soon to be referred
to as former Congresswoman and Millionaire Kathy Dahlkemper)
Senator Bob Robbins (a.k.a. Coconut Bob or Bob
“I never met a payraise I didn’t like” Robbins)
Representative Michele Brooks (a.k.a. “they
can’t stand me but they know they can’t beat me”
Brooks)
Representative Mark Longietti (a.k.a. “I
can make better decisions for my constituents than they can make
for themselves” Longietti)
Representative Dick Stevenson (a.k.a. “don’t
send me email messages” Dick)
Mercer County Commissioners Ken Ammann, Brian Beader,
or John Lechner (a.k.a. Moe, Larry, and Curly)
or Farm Subsidies (and the “greedy and
corrupt” people that take them)
Today’s blog is NOT about those people
(but Google and Yahoo will have a blast sorting out my references
to them today).
Today’s blog is simply a set of two musical references for
your enjoyment. For those of you that have followed this blog
over the past year and a half, you know that I like to toss in
musical references from time to time as a matter of personal therapy.
I share my very personal thoughts with you so that you may gain
an understanding of what makes me tick. Today is one of those
“times”.
God is Great, Beer is Good, and People are Crazy
The first is a little ditty that I have really grown to love.
I added it to my iPod a few months back, and I smile every time
my playlist cycles through to it. The song is “God is Great,
Beer is Good, and People are Crazy” by Billy Currington.
There is nothing specific in the lyrics that needs to be highlighted.
Instead, the simple title alone says it all. There are times when
I think back at some of the crazy (and crazed) people that I’ve
met over the past year, and this song simply helps to put it all
in perspective. Sometimes there is no way to explain people or
their behavior. There are situations in life when you just have
to say “people are crazy”.
HERE is
a link to the full video on YouTube if you’d care to indulge.
It's the Climb
Second is a song that I never thought much about until last week.
Did you ever hear a song a hundred times and never really think
much of it . . . but then one day you hear the lyrics and they
are different some how? It is as though words and music suddenly
BECAME something that they never were before. I heard this song
on the radio just last week, and it wasn’t until about half
way through that I actually listened to the words. It was at that
moment I saw the meaning in the song and how it applied to me.
The song is “It’s the Climb” by Miley Cyrus.
Allow me to quote the specific portion of the lyrics that made
me stop and think:
There's always gonna be another mountain
I'm always gonna wanna make it move
Always gonna be a uphill battle
Sometimes I'm gonna have to lose
Ain't about how fast I get there
Ain't about what's waiting on the other side
It's the climb
The words “There’s always gonna be another mountain,
I’m always gonna wanna make it move” applies to me
specifically because when I run into a mountain I don’t
try to find a way around it. I’d rather move the whole darn
thing. In politics, that has made me quite the hot potato in Mercer
County, but I pride myself on my determination and my unique ability
to think outside of the box. I'm a bit of a renegade in that way.
The words “Always gonna be an uphill battle, Sometimes I’m
gonna have to lose” were the words that got my attention
and made me take pause. In the political scene I have
lost, but it is important to understand that doing so was simply
an inevitable part of the big picture. In much the same thought
as "what does not kill us makes us stronger", the concept of embracing
"being a loser" makes us better people . . . and I like that.
Lastly, the words “Ain’t about how fast I get there,
Ain’t about what’s waiting on the other side, It’s
the climb” again applies to me in a special way. I’ve
decided that what I’m doing in my small realm of political
activism is a long journey. I may never make it to the other side,
but from this moment on I’m going to enjoy "the climb".
"My Climb" may, in fact, be my very special mission.
“Enjoy the Climb” is now my new anthem. I’ll
use it often to remind myself that winning or losing isn’t
what matters. It is more important than that . . . I do what I
do because it is bigger than just me.
Cool, huh?
HERE is
a link to the video on YouTube if you’d care to take a minute
to hear the full song.
I know that the title of this blog post seems a little mean spirited,
but I am simply providing a service. The headline quotes a news
article from GoErie.com (read
the full story HERE),
the parenthetical goes a step further to state the underlying
meaning of the first quote. Allow me to explain.
On Thursday, March 10, GoErie.com
published a story titled “Dahlkemper to honor women
in Pa. legislature on House floor”. In it they explained
that at 10am that morning Congresswoman Dahlkemper was scheduled
to speak on the House floor “to recognize the six women
in the Pennsylvania General Assembly from the 3rd Congressional
District.” The article further explained that in recognition
of Women in History Month, Congresswoman Dahlkemper was going
to recognize state Sens. Jane Earll, Jane Clare Orie and Mary
Jo White, and state Reps. Michele Brooks, Donna Oberlander and
Kathy Rapp. Furthermore, she is making this statement because
she (according to GoErie.com) “is urging more women to consider
running for office.”
That was the content of the very short story on GoErie.com. Allow
me, however, to provide the REST OF THE STORY. First, let us examine
the women that Congresswoman Dahlkemper planned on recognizing
on March 10th.
State Senator Jane Earll: 49th District, Erie
County, Republican
State Senator Jane Clare Orie: 40th District,
parts of Allegheny and Butler Counties, Republican
State Senator Mary Jo White: 21st District, Erie,
Warren, Forest, Venango, Clarion, and Butler Counties, Republican
State Representative Michele Brooks: 17th District,
Mercer, and parts of Crawford and Lawrence Counties, Republican.
[NOTE: Representative Michele Brooks has also received our Highest
Ranking on our Directory
of Fiscal Conservative Pennsylvania State Legislators]
Upon close (or not so close) review, you will find that ALL of
the six women who were being recognized are all REPUBLICANS. This
observation illustrates the important fact that Congresswoman
Dahlkemper’s 3rd District in Pennsylvania is CONSERVATIVE.
I make this point specifically for those Democrats that have recently
argued that point with me. Contrary to the beliefs of some Mercer
County Democrats, the 3rd Congressional District is NOT even remotely
similar to Nancy Pelosi's district in San Francisco. It also goes
to show that perhaps Congresswoman Dahlkemper does have an understanding
of who she needs to pander to in this election year, which is
refreshing.
The “line” in the article that states that Congresswoman
Dahlkemper “is urging more women to consider running for
office” makes me laugh, though. The statement is disingenuous.
When the Congresswoman had an opportunity to support a fellow
fiscal conservative running for office last year, she ran for
the hills. She also has a clear opportunity to support a woman,
Martha Moore, that is running in her district THIS year . . .
but I’ll bet you all a dozen donuts that she has not welcomed
her into the political ring. Why? Because Martha Moore is a woman
running for office . . . Mrs. Dahlkemper’s office. Dr. Martha
Moore is running for Congress in the 3rd District.
The truth is that Mrs. Dahlkemper honored these 6 women on the
floor of House yesterday as a personal Thank You to each
of them for NOT running against her this year. It has nothing
to do with “women supporting women”.
As a personal note to State Senators Jane Earll, Jane Clare Orie
and Mary Jo White, and State Representatives Michele Brooks, Donna
Oberlander and Kathy Rapp, I’d like to extend a SINCERE
thank you for representing WOMEN and ALL people in our area graciously.
Furthermore, I would like to urge each and every one of you to
consider making a move to the U.S. Congress in 2012 as each of
you are perfectly qualified and deserving (this is something that
Mrs. Dahlkemper would never tell you).
In my March 1st article titled “Taking
Bets: Will Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper Be a One Hit Wonder?”
I made reference to legislation that was put forth by Congresswoman
Kathy Dahlkemper in 2009. The proposed legislation makes it possible
for young adults to be covered on their parent’s health
care coverage plans until the age of 26. The legislation was basically
a copy of State Representative Mark Longietti’s legislation
that was passed by the PA General Assembly in 2009 (read details
about Representative Longietti’s Bill HERE).
In Pennsylvania, Representative Longietti’s legislation
was referred to as “Failure to Launch”. Congresswoman
Dahlkemper’s legislation has received a new nickname all
its own.
On Saturday, March 13, 2010, the financial experts on Fox’s
“Forbes on Fox” referred to the legislation as a “Slacker
Mandate”. During the panel discussion, Steve Forbes went
as far as to describe the legislation as “putting lipstick
on a pig called Obama Care.” I am a loyal follower of the
financial block on Saturday mornings on Fox News (“Bulls
and Bears” and “Forbes on Fox”) as the financial
discussions are intelligent and fair. While I’ve always
found this piece of legislation troubling (at both the State and
Federal level), I found it especially interesting to find that
top financial and political analysts are equally concerned.
I just thought it was a funny “shout out” that was
worth mentioning.
Tuesday, March 9th was the last day to file nomination petitions
in Pennsylvania. Individuals wishing to run as a major party candidate
needed to gather a pre-determined number of signatures in order
for their names to appear on the Primary Ballot in May for their
respective parties. There are several state-wide and regional races
of note, and the candidates in those races are numerous. All of
the petitions that were filed are listed HERE
for your review.
U.S. Senator
In the race for US Senator, three Democrats will fight for Arlen
Specter’s seat.
SPECTER, ARLEN
SESTAK, JOE
VODVARKA, JOSEPH
In the Republican race for US Senator, two Republicans will battle
it out for the opportunity to take Arlen Specter’s seat.
TOOMEY, PAT
LUKSIK, PEG
Details:
The candidates in the race for US Senator were required to gather
2000 signatures on their petitions, and they needed to submit a
$200.00 filing fee for the privilege of running for office.
My Comments:
We are all looking forward to seeing Arlen Specter lose. At this
point it is a matter of whether he loses in the Primary or in the
General Election. I wish I had a preference, but I do not. Anytime
will be a good time to see Arlen Specter retire.
Pennsylvania Governor
In the race for Governor, four Democrats are taking on the challenge
to fill Ed Rendell’s very capable shoes (that was a joke,
of course).
WAGNER, JACK
ONORATO, DAN
HOEFFEL, JOSEPH
WILLIAMS, ANTHONY HARDY
On the Republican side, there are two options for the Republican
Gubernatorial candidate.
CORBETT, TOM
ROHRER, SAMUEL
Details:
The candidates that wished to run for the office of Governor of
Pennsylvania were required to gather 2000 signatures and pay a $200.00
filing fee. The 2000 signatures needed to include at least 100 signatures
from each of at least 10 counties.
My Comments:
I have favorites from both the Republican and Democrat tickets in
this race. For the Democrats, I have a special respect and admiration
for Jack Wagner. I like Jack and I feel that he would make a fine
Governor. In the Republican column, I am a fan of Sam Rohrer. In
2009, I published my own “Directory
of Fiscally Conservative PA Legislators”. The list was
based on the participation of the legislators in specific fiscally
conservative events. Representative Rohrer faired very well in my
unscientific poll, and, therefore, tops my list of preferred candidates.
Representative in Congress,
3rd District
To focus more closely on the Northwest Region of Pennsylvania, I’d
like to discuss the race for Representative in Congress in the 3rd
District.
On the Democrat ticket, current incumbent, Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper
has an opponent.
DAHLKEMPER, KATHY
MARIN, MEL
On the Republican ticket, six candidates have stepped up to send
Mrs. Dahlkemper back home to Erie.
FRANZ, ED
KELLY, MIKE
HUBER, PAUL
GRABB, CLAYTON
FISHER, STEVEN
MOORE, MARTHA
Details:
Candidates running for the much coveted position of Representative
in Congress needed to collect 1000 signatures and pay a $150.00
filing fee.
My Comments:
First, I’m very excited to see that Mrs. Dahlkemper has a
Democrat opponent. I wish Mel Marin the best of luck.
The field of six Republicans is interesting. I’m impressed
by two of the Republican candidates. Steven Fisher seems very intelligent
and hard-working. I had a brief email conversation with him last
week regarding the recent problems within Mrs. Dahlkemper’s
office (read the full story HERE,
and I will publish details regarding Mr. Fisher’s comments
within the next week). Mr. Fisher was quick to personally respond
to my query, and I respect that in any one that is seeking a position
in public service. I’ve also had the pleasure of meeting with
candidate Ed Franz. Mr. Franz was kind enough to devote time to
a personal discussion with me at a meet and greet earlier this week.
Mr. Franz is also a hard worker, and he seems to have the best interests
of the people of the 3rd District in the correct perspective. Candidates
Kelly, Huber, Grabb, and Moore have not responded to my personal
queries. I, therefore, cannot offer a positive testimonial regarding
their ability to serve the people of my congressional district.
2010 Election in Mercer
County decided by Petitions
As a resident and concerned citizen of Mercer County, I always attempt
to focus on the races that directly impact our local area. Unfortunately,
it appears that ALL of the races for Senator and Representatives
in the General Assembly have already been determined.
Senator in the General Assembly, 50th
Incumbent Senator Bob Robbins (R) was simply required to receive
500 signatures and pay a $100 filing fee to guarantee is re-election.
At this point it appears that he will have NO opponent. The Mercer
County Incumbent Party wins this election by a landslide (based
on 500 signatures and $100).
Representative in the General Assembly, 7th
Incumbent Representative Mark Longietti (D) was simply required
to receive 300 signatures and pay a $100 filing fee to guarantee
re-election. At this point it appears that he will have NO opponent.
The Mercer County Incumbent Party wins this election by a landslide
(based on 300 signatures and $100).
Representative in the General Assembly, 8th
Incumbent Representative Dick Stevenson (R) was simply required
to receive 300 signatures and pay a $100 filing fee to guarantee
re-election. At this point it appears that he will have NO opponent.
The Mercer County Incumbent Party wins this election by a landslide
(based on 300 signatures and $100).
Are you seeing the trend here? Well, it wouldn’t be complete
unless . . . yes . . .
Representative in the General Assembly, 17th
Incumbent Representative Michele Brooks (R) was simply required
to receive 300 signatures and pay a $100 filing fee to guarantee
re-election. At this point it appears that he will have NO opponent.
The Mercer County Incumbent Party wins this election by a landslide
(based on 300 signatures and $100).
But does it stop there? Oh Gosh NO.
Member of the Democrat State Committee (43rd)
Mark Longietti (State Rep.) and Liz Fair (Mercer County Prothonotary)
will again both run against no other candidates for the two seats.
100 signatures each and a $25 filing fee allows the two of them
to walk into the positions unopposed. The Mercer County Incumbent
Party wins this election by a landslide.
Member of the Republican State Committee (43rd)
Cindy Robbins (wife of State Senator, and chairwoman of the Mercer
County Incumbent Party), Walter Richardson (husband of Mercer County
Treasurer, and husband of the co-chairwoman of the Mercer County
Incumbent Party), and Scott Boyd (newcomer and Tea Party organizer)
will all run together with no other challengers for the three seats.
100 signatures each and a $25 filing fee allows the three of them
to walk into the positions unopposed. The Mercer County Incumbent
Party wins two seats and will do everything that they can to discourage
all activity by Scott Boyd.
My Comments:
Once again, no one in Mercer County (with the exception of Scott
Boyd) wants to step up to challenge the Mercer County Incumbent
Party. Democrats are watching the backs of Republicans, and Republicans
are watching the backs of Democrats. In the end, the incumbents
run unopposed and everything remains business as usual in Mercer
County.
I would be remiss if I did not point out that it is NOT TOO LATE
to challenge the incumbents. If you have the nerve, it is possible
to run against Senator Bob Robbins and Representatives Stevenson,
Longietti, and Brooks. “How?”, you ask.
Third party, minority party candidates, and non-affiliated candidates
can run for ANY of these offices. To do so, interested parties
need to file nomination papers by early August. Until that time,
interested candidates would need to begin gathering signatures
in the quantities required by the State. That number is calculated
by determining “2% of the largest entire vote cast for an
elected candidate at the last election within the district”.
Those numbers are computed below:
To run against State Senator Bob Robbins, third party
candidates must gather 826 signatures in 6 months (41,302 x .02).
To run against Representative Mark Longietti, third party candidates
must gather 519 signatures in 6 months (25,941 x .02).
To run against Representative Dick Stevenson, third party candidates
must gather 488 signatures in 6 months (24,389 x .02).
To run against Representative Michele Brooks, third party candidates
must gather 337 signatures in 6 months (16,844 x .02).
Races of Note from a
Conservative Perspective
As I referenced earlier in this article, in 2009 I published my
own “Directory
of Fiscally Conservative PA Legislators”. The list was
based on the participation of the legislators in specific fiscally
conservative events. The full list can be viewed HERE.
I decided to take a look at the list to see how our conservative
legislators are doing in their respective races this year. Of
the legislators that are on the list, the following are considered
the MOST FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE by my rankings. I’ve also
noted the status of their political races this year:
Bradley Roae (6th) – running unopposed
in November
Daryl Metcalfe (12th)* -- will have a Democrat
opponent in November, but Rep. Metcalfe is also running for the
office of Lt. Governor
Michele Brooks (17th)* -- running unopposed in
November
Mike Turzai (28th)* -- will have a Democrat opponent
in November.
Thomas Creighton (37th)* -- will have a Republican
opponent in the Primary.
Scott Hutchinson (64th)* -- running unopposed
in November
Kathy Rapp (65th)* -- running unopposed in November
Jerry Stern (80th)* -- running unopposed in November
Rob Kauffman (89th) – running unopposed
in November
Todd Rock (90th) ) – running unopposed
in November
Dan Moul (91st)* )* -- will have a Democrat opponent
in November.
Stanley Saylor (94th)* -- will have a Democrat
opponent in November.
Rosemarie Swanger (102nd) -- will have a Republican
opponent in the Primary.
Karen Boback (117th) -- will have a Democrat
opponent in November.
Samuel Rohrer (128th) – running for the
office of Governor of Pennsylvania.
Jim Cox (129th) – running unopposed in
November
Paul Clymer (145th) -- will have a Democrat opponent
in November.
Bob Mensch (147th) – running for the office
of State Senator.
Curt Schroder (155th)* -- will have a Democrat
opponent in November.
* - an asterisk designates that the individual received my highest
rating for fiscal conservative legislators in 2009.
In Closing
So, there you have it . . . a summary of the interesting races
in 2010 as of today, Wednesday, March 10, 2010. As we all know,
however, the dynamics of these races could change on a dime in
the coming days, weeks, and months.
I’ve always made it clear that I support fiscally conservative
candidates. The list above is a summary of “who needs your
help” this year. I intend on offering my assistance to any
fiscally conservative candidate that is willing to accept my help
(regardless of the location of their voting district).
I’ve also made my thoughts regarding the importance of running
for public office very clear. Competition and opposition during
an election is healthy. It draws attention to the importance of
elected office, and it forces our elected officials to defend
their territory. I give credit to all of the candidates that have
taken the step to run in 2010, and I encourage concerned citizens
to get involved in the process. If ANYONE in Mercer County is
interested in running as a third party candidate for any of the
legislative positions outlined above, feel free to contact me
at roberta.in.mercer@gmail.com.
I am willing to offer assistance, guidance, and support in your
endeavor.
I get plenty of traffic to my numerous blogs. I’m currently publishing
my comments through several different forums and I receive traffic from
all of them. The traffic patterns are always interesting to look at.
I receive local traffic throughout Mercer County, I receive traffic
from throughout Pennsylvania (Harrisburg, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh,
and Erie), and I receive steady traffic from Washington DC. I understand
that there are plenty of people “keeping an eye” on bloggers
(especially the conservative ones), and I’m entertained by their
diligence. Today, however, I experienced something new, and I feel that
it should be discussed publicly as it exemplifies a problem with “the
system”.
The "Dahlkemper Post"
I published a blog post yesterday titled “Taking
Bets: Will Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper Be a One Hit Wonder?”.
It was a simple piece explaining why I think that Congresswoman Dahlkemper
will lose her seat in Congress in 2010. As soon as the post was published
it began to receive traffic nationwide. It also received quick comments
through the supplied discussion forum.
I believe in free speech, and I like the comment feature because
it gives everyone an opportunity to join in the conversation. I accept
the criticisms that are shot my way and I publish all comments and
respond accordingly.
This morning I received an interesting comment that attempted to criticize
me personally, and also attempted to “prop up Mrs. Dahlkemper”
using this public forum. The comment read as follows (or you may read
the comment HERE):
We do think a lot of ourselves don't we? Much as i thought, you
have no clue as to how one becomes a "Blue Dog". You have to be
invited to join the group, you can't just announce it. Be asked
to join means that you meet a certain criteria the group has.
Perhaps research is not your strong suit.'
I also noticed you skipped over the the pro-life issue which
you in your original is informed rant inferred that she was not.
Again making things up will only fool the ignorant. The facts
will make your bet the sucker bet.
By the way, I'll see your acquaintances and raise you mine that
Dahlkemper has more personalty in her pinky than you do in your
entire body. Do you think that your obvious disdain for 'them
thar LIBrals' might have something to do with the fact that Dahlkemper
did not fawn over you? Again, you do think a lot of yourselve
don't you. Did you win by a landslide in your race? Oh that's
right you lost.
I found the comment to be particularly angry, but still eager to
"campaign" on behalf of Mrs. Dahlkemper. I was curious, and a quick
glance at the origination of the published comment was startling.
My Findings?
It seems that a FEDERAL EMPLOYEE that works in
a U.S. House of Representatives Office was posting
the comment using US TAX PAYER DOLLARS on a computer
and internet connection that were PAID FOR by the
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and US TAX PAYER DOLLARS.
The Details
The individual logged in from IP address 143.228.129.9. A simple
search on that IP address through on-line sources (in this case http://cqcounter.com/whois/)
proved that the comment was posted on March 2nd, 2010 at 9:13:41 AM
by a PC that is using a US House of Representatives computer and internet
connection. The data regarding IP address 143.228.129.9 is displayed
below.
My
experiences with these types of visits (and I have seen many during
the past year and a half) have shown that the IP address may show up
as Washington DC, but the physical connection itself can be anywhere.
The same goes for Pennsylvania State Government connections that are
labeled “Harrisburg PA”. The physical connection may well
be in Mercer County.
The internet connection being used in this case is clearly paid for,
installed on behalf of, and maintained by the Federal government via
the U.S. House of Representatives in Washington DC, but the actual visit
may have occurred from a PC in a different location (like Hermitage,
PA, for instance). I’m sure that a Federal review of the IP address
would probably provide additional information in this case.
My point is . . .
I understand that it may be the job of Federal employees to monitor
blog activity regarding elected officials. Such monitoring might actually
provide elected officials with the most accurate account of what concerned
citizens are thinking, and that is a good thing. However, when a Federal
employee makes use of the time and equipment that is paid for
by the Federal government (and thus the tax payers) to grind
a personal axe or to attempt to promote “their candidate”
on MY DIME, I become VERY VERY CONCERNED.
Perhaps this incident should be investigated a bit.
With little political activity in Mercer County this year, we are left
to focus on the one big race that faces Mercer Countians and voters
in the Northwest corner of PA . . . the race for the much coveted seat
in the 3rd Congressional District. The race is shaping up to be one
featuring the current incumbent, Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper, against
any one of many Republican challengers. Regardless of which Republican
ends up on top after the Primary, the final result will be the same.
I’m willing to bet my bottom dollar that Congresswoman Dahlkemper
will lose her seat after only one lack-luster term in the U.S. House
of Representatives . . . and rightly so.
To examine why the results are so simple to predict, we need to examine
a few issues . . . the past, the present, and the future.
The Past (2008)
First, let us examine the past . . . long past. Let us take a time machine
trip back to 2008 when Mrs. Dahlkemper ran against long-time incumbent
Phil English. It is first important to understand that Mrs. Dahlkemper
didn’t win against Phil English because she was the best possible
candidate. No way . . . not by a long shot. Mrs. Dahlkemper won against
Phil English because conservatives wanted Phil English OUT.
The chatter before the 2008 General Election was that conservatives
would vote for Dahlkemper just to boot Phil’s rear-end out of
Washington and to the curb. The idea was to get rid of Phil English
so that he could be replaced with a “real” conservative
in 2010. It was a chance that Mercer Conservatives were willing to take
(Clarification: in this case, “Mercer Conservatives” is
not referring to me, but to the body of conservative voters in Mercer
County as a whole). Mrs. Dahlkemper won the 3rd District because conservatives
LET her win.
In 2008, Mrs. Dahlkemper ran against a non-existent Phil English campaign
in Mercer County. There were NO English signs displayed in the County
(even though it is my understanding that there were hundreds available),
and there were no visible efforts by those in charge of the English
campaign to fight Mrs. Dahlkemper. There has been some speculation that
this downplaying of the Republican support was part of the backroom
dealings in the “Mercer County Incumbent Party”, but regardless
of WHY it happened, Mrs. Dahlkemper won Mercer County.
The Past (2009)
Rather than understanding HOW she got there, Mrs. Dahlkemper went on
to make more mistakes by listening to the Democratic leadership in Mercer
County. They insisted that “they” were the reason for Mrs.
Dahlkemper’s 2008 win, and they insisted that the Congresswoman
“owed” the Progressive wing of Mercer County politics some
level of payback. While Mrs. Dahlkemper had the right idea by announcing
her “Blue Dog” affiliation early in 2009, she was also quick
to abandon those values when pressured by Progressive Democrats. She
has taken bad advice from Mercer County Democrats and members of her
own staff, and she is left looking spineless and lacking leadership
abilities.
The Present
Let us examine the present as it applies to Congresswoman Dahlkemper.
She finds herself at the center of the health care debate in Washington.
While she “promised” to support health care reform, she
also “promised” to be pro-life. She promised to be a fiscal
conservative, but also promised to support one of the most fiscally
irresponsible health care bills in our country’s history. (Sidebar:
Don’t get me wrong . . . I support the idea of health care reform,
but this 2000+ page Bill isn’t what I was looking for.) Mrs. Dahlkemper
seems to have made too many promises that she simply cannot keep. In
the end, she attempted to be all things to all people but ultimately
she stands for absolutely nothing.
In addition to her decision making problems, Mrs. Dahlkemper simply
isn’t a good “people person”. I’ve met her numerous
times. I’ve been introduced to her (and have been introduced)
so many times that I cannot even count the instances. Yet, Mrs. Dahlkemper
wouldn’t know me if I walked up to her at an event with a name
tag on. I’ve written numerous letters and email messages to her
office in Erie, and I have never received so much as a courtesy response.
She has no people skills. She has no personality. She seems to be a
bit of a “muppet” with an interesting “deer in the
headlights” look to her. I don’t mean to be unkind, I’m
simply stating it like I see it . . .Congresswoman Dahlkemper gives
the impression of being a very empty suit.
The Future
Lastly, when we examine the future we see that “Millionaire”
Kathy Dahlkemper doesn’t have enough time or money to re-invent
herself before November of 2010. She spent the last year taking advantage
of photo-ops but has managed to make no real or substantial impact in
Washington. Her most important piece of legislation was simply a photocopy
of Rep. Longietti’s “failure to launch” Bill. It is
a Bill that makes it possible for parents to cover their “children”
on their heath insurance policies until their “children”
are nearing retirement age (I exaggerate, but I simply think that 30
years old is simply too old to continue to be covered by your parents
insurance). The bill seems ridiculous at the State level and is even
more so at the Federal level.
The Congresswoman has shown her true colors, and it will be impossible
for her to re-paint herself as a fiscal conservative between now and
November. She will have NO support from Mercer County Democrats because
Mercer County Democrats are all too busy watching out for themselves.
Additionally, the leadership of the Mercer County Democrat Committee
made clear statements last year that Mrs. Dahlkemper’s “Blue
Dog” roots make her “as bad as a Republican”. I’m
sure that isn’t the glowing endorsement that she would be hoping
for. The Mercer County Republicans will be of no assistance to Mrs.
Dahlkemper this time around either as they have too many deals that
require payback after the 2009 election. Ginny Richardson, Bob Robbins,
and Dave King made some hefty promises to the state GOP last year that
will require their very serious involvement in ousting Mrs. Dahlkemper
this year. If the Congresswoman is looking for help, she will need to
find it in Crawford County or Erie, but she will be wasting her time
in Mercer County as a whole.
In Closing
Based on her experiences in the past, present, and future, Congresswoman
Dahlkemper will undoubtedly be a “one-hit wonder”. With
any luck, a “Conservative” will win the seat in the 3rd
Congressional District and Mrs. Dahlkemper will have served her purpose
well. She will go down in history as the temporary placeholder that
got rid of Phil English.
The Mercer County Conservatives website was modified slightly last year.
The changes were made for two reasons. The first reason is that I was
devoting my energy toward my political campaign and removed portions
of the site that required time-consuming maintenance. Second, I modified
the site in an effort to diffuse some of the rhetoric that was surfacing
from both sides of the aisle in local politics. Many articles were temporarily
suspended from public viewing, and the “comment” feature
was turned off to prevent ugly arguments. My political campaign last
year triggered lots of emotions from Republicans and Democrats alike,
and I couldn’t keep up with the constant arguing between politicians
while also managing my own campaign for public office. I toned things
down a bit in an effort to get through the campaign with my sanity intact.
Now that the campaign is squarely behind me, I’ve taken a look
at Mercer County Conservatives and have decided to once again let out
all of the stops. The changes are numerous, but here is a brief overview:
Our standard website at http://www.mercerconservatives.com/
has been re-initialized and re-tooled. The purpose of the site is to
provide some structure to our blog and to make our content available
to people and search engines in a simple HTML format. You can continue
to access our blog through the mercerconservatives.blogspot.com
address, but as an alternative you can access the blog through our
standard web page at http://www.mercerconservatives.com/.
It is an easier address to remember and it serves as a jump off point
for our many activities.
Site Update #1: Most Popular Topics
The MercerConservatives.com site now offers an exciting summary area
which provides easy access to our most popular topics. According to
our web statistics, we receive the most traffic from individuals searching
on the following topics through the standard search engines (Google,
Yahoo, other). I’ve provided a brief opinion of why each topic
is of interest.
The single most popular search query that points people to our many
websites is the name of Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper. The Congresswoman’s
personality creates quite a bit of curiosity amongst the electorate.
While on the exterior Mrs. Dahlkemper carries herself in a distinguished
manner, when you get an opportunity to talk to her she comes off more
like a wet blanket than a U.S. Congressperson.
Congresswoman Dahlkemper is an anomaly to the educated politico. She
is neither Republican nor Democrat. She is neither conservative nor
liberal. She is neither “Blue Dog” nor Progressive. She
attempts to be all things to all people, and yet manages to stand for
nothing (I will expand upon this topic with a full blog post later this
week). People are intrigued by her in much the same way that we ponder
the age old question of “why do tornados always manage to find
a trailer park to destroy”. Those in “the know” wonder
about Mrs. Dahlkemper and they seek information in one of the few places
that it is available . . . the internet. The internet is still one of
the few places where freedom of speech is exercised on a daily basis.
It is no wonder that she is our #1 topic of interest (nationwide, statewide,
and countywide).
People seek information regarding State Representative Michele Brooks
from our site for numerous reasons. On the state-wide front, there are
fiscal conservatives that watch the activities of Ms. Brooks and others
in hopes of someday turning around the budgetary problems of the Commonwealth.
Ms. Brooks has become an important member of a fiscal conservative movement
in Harrisburg that is watched closely by many groups that support good
government. Rep. Brooks also draws web traffic from her numerous enemies
on the left who are just waiting for her to trip and fall in the public
arena.
Running unopposed this year, Rep. Brooks finds herself in the cat-bird
seat (a comfortable position that is also shared by Reps. Stevenson
and Longietti and Senator Robbins). Unfortunately for her, the uncontrollable
tendency to put friends, supporters, and concerned citizens on the backburner
until she decides that needs them again may be a mistake in the long
run. The “incumbent attitude” may eventually leave some
former supporters with a sense that she is no different than the rest.
For now, however, Rep. Brooks is at the top of her game, and she gets
the web traffic that proves it.
I’m quite sure that the reason people come to our site in search
of information regarding “our fine Senator” is that we are
the only place on the internet that validates that “Coconut Bob”
is, in fact, still alive and kicking. His inability to understand technology
leaves his web presence well below zero. He rarely if ever publishes
information about his accomplishments on the web. It may be because
he doesn’t think it is important . . . or it is probably because
he has no accomplishments to publicize. Yes, he still holds office,
but only because he has made the position look so uninteresting that
no one else wants it. State Senator "Coconut Bob" Robbins holds spot
#3 in our most popular blog topics.
In the top of the pack of search queries, we find "Roberta Biros". Yep,
that’s me.
While I’m currently nothing more than a concerned citizen, I draw
attention from all corners of the state and county. While it is not
unusual to receive daily visits to our sites from Mercer Countians looking
for information about me and my very public opinions, I find it amazing
when folks from Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh are typing
my name into Google to learn more about me and my blog topics. Perhaps
I should consider more activities statewide in the future?
These two topics rate almost equal in web search queries. Searches regarding
Commissioners John Lechner, Ken Ammann, and Brian Beader (a.k.a. Moe,
Larry, and Curly) are frequent throughout Mercer County. It is no doubt
that the reason for the frequent searches is the disgust and dissatisfaction
that many Mercer Countians have with our three stooges. The common link
to Farm Subsidies is interesting as this issue of corruption is only
tied to one of our fine Commissioners (Mr. Ammann), but many people
in Mercer County and across the state link the two topics together.
I find that very interesting.
Rounding out the bottom of our most popular web queries are Representative
Longietti and Representative Dick Stevenson. These two legislators receive
an almost equal number of queries on a monthly basis. Both legislators
fail to stand out in any positive way. They generally follow partisan
straight-party politics, and they leave many political enthusiasts in
the state looking for more substance. Unfortunately, it is an impossible
task as these legislators are an unexciting as watching paint dry. Web
visitors may be looking for more, but I simply don’t have anything
to offer as both are simply politicians whose main concern is their
own political well-being.
Site Update #2: Comments are Back ON
MercerConservatives.com
has always been about sharing ideas and talking about current issues.
The center of the conversation was our blog “comment” feature.
Last year (during my campaign) I suspended “comments” as
I simply didn’t have the time to moderate or respond to the many
conversations that were going on. Now that we are back on track, I’ve
re-initialized comments on the site so that we can get back to discussing
the business of Mercer County politics. In making the change, I’ve
also made available all of our past on-line conversations regarding
farm subsidies, past County corruption and scandals, and examples of
poor character in local politics. All of that information is back on-line
and available for your review. Enjoy!
Site Update #3: The Gloves are Off
As a last update to MercerConservatives.com,
I’ve given up on all attempts to “fit in” politically.
I will no longer try to fit my square peg into any round holes that
have been created in Mercer County. Instead, I will open up the flood
gates and talk about EVERY ISSUE without any need to hold back or stifle
my more controversial opinions. Everyone is an open target, and I will
direct my comments (both good and bad) equally in all directions.
So there you have it. Our goals of providing the Mercer County electorate
with information about good government, fiscal responsibility, and worthy
public servants are back on track and ready to roll. Our comments and
commentary will be unfiltered . . . non-partisan . . . and honest. We
will share our opinions and we invite you to join in the conversation.
Welcome to the official unveiling of Mercer County Conservatives
2.0!
Representative
Michele Brooks organizes a delegation from the I-80 corridor to visit
Washington DC on Thursday, December 17, 2009
Written by Roberta Biros
The possible tolling of I-80 has been an issue in Pennsylvania for too
long now. Attempts by the Turnpike Commission to push through an application
with the Federal Highway Commission has been denied, but the Rendell
administration seems to think that that one more try with a more “friendly
administration” in Washington is worth another shot.
The argument is a simple one. Those that support the tolling of Interstate
80 argue that the proposed tolling was originally part of planned funding
for statewide transportation costs, and that funding is still needed.
To that argument, the federal government has stated that revenue from
the tolling of I-80 can only be used to maintain the same I-80. It is
for that reason that the application has been denied. It seems like
this should have been a “done deal” back in 2008, but those
that support the tolling of the highway keep beating the same dead horse
in hopes that the leadership in Washington will eventually see things
through a new set of rose colored glasses.
Understanding the Two Sides of
the Coin
The battle over the tolling of Interstate 80 has become a simple conflict
between the urban areas of Pennsylvania and the rural areas along the
I-80 corridor in the northern tier of the Commonwealth. Perhaps it has
become a matter of David vs. Goliath, but those of us along the I-80
corridor haven’t given up hope.
To understand both sides of the argument, I would suggest that you watch
the two videos supplied below. The first video offers the “against
tolling” argument which is offered by State Representative Matt
Gabler (R-Elk/Clearfield) [watch the full video on YouTube HERE].
The second offers the “for tolling” argument, and it is
offered by State Representative Ron Miller (R-York) [watch the full
video on YouTube HERE].
Summary of Representative Matt Gabler’s Video
Like most of the legislators that represent districts along the I-80
corridor, Representative Gabler is concerned about how tolls on Interstate
80 will affect his constituents. He is, however, also concerned about
recent controversies that have brought the credibility of the Turnpike
Commission into question.
His first concern is a recent analysis performed by Provident Capital
Advisors. The Louisiana based group was contracted by the Pennsylvania
Turnpike Commission to provide an analysis of the tolling scheme for
the Interstate. It seems, however, that Provident Capital may have been
part of a shady deal. They were hired for the task although they had
never before been involved in a valuation analysis of highways in the
past. Their experiences have been in health care, prisons, and juvenile
detention facilities, but nothing was mentioned about highways or toll
roads. It made some (including Representative Gabler) wonder if the
company was simply hired as a political favor in order for the turnpike
commission to get the results that they wanted.
The second problem occurred recently when the House Republican Policy
Committee held a hearing on the I-80 tolling proposal. According to
Rep. Gabler:
“What is really disappointing is that the policy committee
had invited both the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation as
well as the Pennsylvania Turnpike
Commission to come testify. We have concerns about the plan and we
have for a long time, and we think it would have been a great opportunity
for them to fill in some of the holes that we think exist in the plan.
They initially acted like they were going to come, and at the last
minute they said ‘no we aren’t going to come.’ We
were not able to hear any sort of reassurance that this plan does
not have the holes we think we have in it. I’m very disappointed
that they weren’t willing to be transparent with the taxpayers
of the state that are going to be left holding the bag on this plan.”
During the interview, Rep. Gabler makes a particularly interesting point.
Supporters of the tolling of I-80 argue that Pennsylvania shouldn’t
be giving tractor trailers a free ride across the state. When asked
the question, Rep. Gabler points out the following:
“There are a number of laws out there pertaining to
heavy use vehicles such as tractor trailers. They are required to
keep a mileage log, they are required to keep track of how many miles
they run on what road in what state, and then they have to remit a
payment mile-by-mile to the State of Pennsylvania for all 312 miles
that they run across Interstate 80. A toll would take place on top
of that. They would continue to pay their heavy use fees and they
would continue to then additionally start paying tolls.”
Summary of Representative Ron Miller’s Video
As a supporter of the tolling of I-80, Representative Miller has a little
different point of view. Unlike those Representatives in the I-80 corridor,
Rep. Miller is not concerned about the negative impact of the tolling
on local economies. He sees I-80 as a source of funding, but doesn’t
acknowledge that tolling would impact ANY Pennsylvanians in a negative
way. When addressing the exact same question as Rep. Gabler regarding
some drivers getting a free ride across Pennsylvania, Rep. Miller says
“they have a valid point”.
The Issues of Concern for Mercer
County
Representative Michele Brooks (R-17-Mercer, Crawford, Lawrence Counties)
recently participated in a roundtable discussion / radio address where
she outlined the issues regarding the tolling of I-80 and highlighted
the concerns of the people of Mercer County and other taxpayers along
the I-80 corridor.
The roundtable discussion included David Taylor (Pennsylvania Manufacturers
Association), Kevin Shivers (Pennsylvania Chapter of the National Association
of Independent Businesses), along with Representative Michele Brooks.
You can listen to the full 30 minute radio address HERE.
Rep. Brooks first explained:
“What we’re concerned about, first and foremost,
is the tolling of I-80, but also how Act 44 came into fruition. This
piece of legislation was railroaded through the House of Representatives
and the Senate during a late budget without any appropriate public
vetting. That is an illustration of what is partially wrong with government
today. They push things through that effect everyday people and everyday
jobs without any type of public vetting or transparency. That is our
first concern. Our second concern is the economic impact of tolling
this road. And third, we are not aware of any interstate in the history
of the United States that has not been originally constructed as a
toll road that has been successfully converted to a toll road.”
Regarding the economic impact on the local economy, Rep. Brooks states:
“It’s going to hurt our manufacturing, its going
to hurt our small businesses, its going to hurt our family farms.
Along the I-80 corridor there are real families and there is going
to be real job loss. It is going to hurt our agricultural industry
and our family farms.”
When asked the question “is this a problem of revenue when it
comes to funding for our roads, bridges, and highways or is this an
issue of spending?,” Representative Brooks responded:
“It’s an issue of spending.”
She went on to explain:
“Infrastructure is critically important to our businesses
and our residents, but so are their jobs. If we are going to decimate
an economy in order to build roads, have we really gained anything?”
To point out an issue of irony, Representative Brooks said:
“(We are) at a time when the federal government has
spent hundreds of billions of dollars attempting to spur the economy,
yet a decision by the federal government to toll I-80 would contradict
that goal. This decision would have a devastating impact on our local
economy.”
Specifically regarding the impact on jobs and the economy, Representative
Brooks offers a few examples.
“I’m going to mention Hodge Foundry located
in Greenville, Pennsylvania. 30% of their business is large wind turbines.
If the tolling of I-80 goes through it will increase their transportation
costs nearly 50%.” She adds, “we are not at a point in
our economy where you can increase costs, so you’re going to
lay off employees or you’ll reduce benefits to make up that
additional money.”
Additionally, she explains:
“(We) have a local granary. It will cost him an additional
$50,000 to $70,000 for transportation of grain. That’s going
to effect food costs. That’s one local granary. It is going
to impact our small family owned businesses as well as our manufacturers.”
Regarding the fact that this is the second attempt to toll I-80, Representative
Brooks is concerned that this has simply turned into an issue of “politics”
rather than good government. In response to other comments made during
the roundtable discussion, Rep. Brooks stated:
“Under the Bush Administration (I-80 tolling) was
rejected, but there have been several comments made by the Governor
and the Turnpike Commission that they feel the current administration
is a ‘friendly administration’ toward this application.
That is politics at its worst. There should be no politics played
in this decision. There are strict guidelines on why this application
should be approved and that is what should be followed.”
It is the “politics” of the situation that has Rep. Brooks
particularly concerned. In response to the controversies related to
Provident Capital Advisors (the vendor that was hired to do the valuation
analysis), Representative Brooks states “(in our letter to the
highway administration we pointed out) that this is too significant
of a decision that effects way too many lives . . . this decision can’t
be made on questionable information from an entity that has no transportation
related background at all.”
In an effort to get past the “politics”, Rep. Brooks has
organization a delegation to take the concerns regarding the tolling
of I-80 directly to Washington DC. She stated:
“One of our goals in visiting Washington and talking
with the Federal Highway Administration is to give an accurate portrayal
of the hardships that the tolling will have on real families and real
farmers . . . the jobs and the businesses.”
As a criticism of government officials who have turned a deaf ear to
the concerns of the people of the I-80 corridor, Representative Brooks
said “It is ironic that some in government think that they have
the answers . . . business owners, employees, residents, and farmers
are saying ‘Stop, this is going to hurt us’ . . . yet there
are some in government that just continue to railroad things through
and think they know best . . . instead of the very people that we are
elected to represent."
Representative Brooks has worked with Congressman Thompson’s office
and Congresswoman Dahlkemper’s office to arrange a meeting with
a delegation from the State of Pennsylvania that will include State
House Members and State Senators. According to a recent update from
Representative Brooks, the meeting has been scheduled for Thursday,
December 17th.
To close her participation in the radio address, Representative Brooks
explained her goals for the Washington trip as follows:
“We have to make sure that the Federal Highway Administration
has a very clear and concise portrayal of what happened. (They need
to understand) how this legislation was railroaded through, (and)
how there is outrage among the public if this does goes through. We
are also going to point out that the merits of the application have
not changed from prior rejections, and (we will explain) why we don’t
feel that those merits have changed. We are also going to talk about
how it (will) have a devastating impact on our local economies.”
In preparation for the Washington visit, Representative Brooks will
be collecting the results of an on-line petition that was presented
on her website. She encourages concerned citizens to visit the on-line
petition to sign against the tolling of I-80. The on-line petition is
available HERE.
An Interesting Twist: Do we need
to dissolve the Turnpike Commission?
This week Representative Mike Vereb introduced a bill that proposes
the complete elimination of the Turnpike Commission. The bill would
assign all operation of the Turnpike Commission to PennDOT. State Represenatives
Matt Gabler (R-Elk/Clearfield) and Dick Stevenson (R-8-Mercer/Butler)
were co-sponsors of the bill.
In a YouTube video [view the full video HERE],
Representative Stevenson says:
“The waste, fraud, and abuse that we’ve seen
in the Turnpike Administration for years now is something that must
be addressed, and when we have the turnpike commission now trying
to take over I-80, that fills many of us with great concern. This
is an organization which has not shown a great history or a great
ability to run the road in a manageable or efficient style. Why would
we let them now takeover another major highway across Pennsylvania.”
In support of the proposed bill, Representative Kathy Rapp (R-Warren/Forest/McKean)
also made comments. In her YouTube video [view the full video HERE],
Rep. Rapp said:
“We no longer need the Turnpike Commission. Penndot
is very capable and much more responsible. . . more responsible with
the taxpayer dollars. The Turnpike Commission just overspent 80 million
dollars on an exchange in Montgomery County. It’s time to be
more responsible with taxpayer dollars. One way that we can do that
is to dissolve the Turnpike Commission (which this bill does) and
have Penndot be responsible for the transportation and the roads in
the State of Pennsylvania.”
I’m not absolutely certain that dissolving the Turnpike Commission
is the answer, but it is an interesting idea. Right now I say “one
step at a time”. I’d prefer to see the proposed tolling
of I-80 stopped first. After that, I’d be glad to entertain the
idea of dissolving as many useless government entities as possible .
. . including the Turnpike Commission.
What will the political
fate be for Con. Kathy Dahlkemper, Sen. Bob Robbins, Rep. Mark Longietti,
or Rep. Michele Brooks in 2010?
Written
by Roberta Biros
With the 2009 political season comfortably behind us, it’s time
to take a look at the political landscape for 2010. There will be plenty
written about the “big races” in Pennsylvania like the one
to replace Governor Rendell or the one to tackle Senator Specter, but
I’d like to focus on the races that will impact good ol’
Mercer County.
This is my first state-wide blog post in a while, so please bear with
me as I get back into my comfort zone. While much of what I’m
about to convey will anger many, I’m simply stating a series of
facts and political opinions based on the information that is currently
available as well as a wealth of first hand knowledge that I've gathered
from personal experiences. I feel expertly qualified to comment on the
political issues of both parties as I've experienced them all "up close
and personal". My thoughts are honest and are being offered for the
purpose of debate and conversation. I’d welcome friendly on the
matter through my personal email at Roberta.in.mercer@gmail.com.
Upon close review of the 2009 general election results in Mercer County,
one thing is absolutely clear. When the Mercer County PA GOP gets motivated
(in this case for the sake of self preservation) they can be an angry
and resourceful little mob. Similarly, when the chips are down, the
Mercer County Democrat Party is a ship without a rudder (some might
say a ‘sinking ship without a rudder’ but I’ll leave
that to the opinion of others). The political climate and outlook for
Democrats in Mercer County is poor, but the Mercer GOP still has the
same fundamental problems as one year ago . . . self-serving leadership.
Who Will the Players Be?
When determining the possible political confrontations of 2010, it is
important to determine “who in their right mind would want to
run for public office?” You would think that the political committees,
alliances, and clubs in Mercer County would be thankful for candidates
that are willing to sacrifice time, money, and energy on a campaign,
but that is simply not the case. The Mercer GOP is still only concerned
about its long standing “hierarchy”; and the leadership
of the Democrat committee is more concerned about the Florida Recounts
of 2000, Swift Boat Ads of 2004, and the “infamous Republican
flyer” of 2007. Neither party is concerned about building a future
for their party. Instead, Republicans and Democrats are concerned about
protecting the same old Republicans and Democrats.
My own experiences in running for office were met with threats and personal
assaults from the right, and attempts to remove my name from the party
slate card from the left. It seems that after I was named the Democrat
nominee in the Primary the Democrat Committee leadership made every
attempt to have my name removed from the party slate card. This is,
of course, according to Commissioner Ken Ammann who claims to have been
my ‘knight in shining armor’ as the only defender of my
candidacy. The story is an interesting one with a seemingly strange
twist, but who am I to argue.
The truth is that the leadership in both parties complain about references
to “greed and corruption”, but when their feet are held
to the fire those are the only traits that seem to stand out. The voices
that are concerned about ‘good government’ and ‘honest
public servants’ are drowned out by the Good Ol’ Boys (and
Girls) in both parties. Who in their right mind would step into this
back biting battle by choice?
I’m not quite sure who all of the players will be in 2010, but
I have a pretty good idea on where the interesting races will be and
why. Now here comes the fun part . . .
Race #1: Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper
vs. an Unnamed Republican
Probable Result: Unnamed Republican will probably win
Why?: The 2009 election proved that the Mercer GOP
can be motivated. When you threaten to cut off the head of a snake,
the snake doesn’t like it much. In their attempt to protect themselves
the Mercer GOP made some interesting friends . . . and perhaps some
interesting deals. Leading up to election day, the Mercer GOP received
slate cards for distribution throughout Mercer County that were paid
for the by PA State GOP (I have a copy in case anyone would like to
see one for themselves). It is interesting that a county race would
receive assistance from the state level, but remember that the 2009
race for County Treasurer was VERY important to the Mercer GOP (and
not so important to the Mercer Democrats). It was a direct threat to
the core leadership of the Mercer Republicans and they needed to get
support from every available source. I am guessing that the motivation
of the Mercer GOP will not stop at the win in the County Treasurer’s
race. I would suspect that the Mercer GOP and the current Treasurer
(and her friends) have ‘committed’ themselves to assisting
the PA State GOP in the next “important battle”. That would
be the take back of “Phil English’s” old seat in the
3rd Congressional District. I’m not sure who their candidate will
be, but that currently unnamed candidate will probably win handily.
If Democrats fail to show up (like they did in 2009), any Republican
candidate will have an easy task in beating Congresswoman Dahlkemper.
To make matters worse, short sighted members of the Democrat Executive
Committee actively aided the incumbent Republican Mercer County Treasurer
to retain her seat and, therefore, bolster the Mercer GOP. Mercer County
District Attorney Robert Kochems ( a Democrat) showed his support for
the REPUBLICAN incumbent for the Treasurer’s Office with no less
than three signs on his business property near downtown Mercer. [as
a side note . . . DA Kochems was recently referred to publicly as “a
prick” . . . not my words, but the words of his wife Deb Little
Kochems at a recent meeting of the Northwest Democrat Alliance . . .
I nearly fell off my chair but was glad to see that Ms. Kochems and
I finally see eye-to-eye on something] By supporting the Republican
incumbent (and secretary and “darling” of the Mercer GOP),
District Attorney Kochems directly aided in the future demise of Congresswoman
Dahlkemper (his wife’s employer). Rather than the Congresswoman
having a ‘friend’ in the County Courthouse (like a fellow
“blue dog Democrat”), she will have a pitbull who owes some
political payback. Mrs. Richardson owes her old friend, Phil English,
as well as her rich friends at the PA State GOP, and she has the people
and resources lined up to do it . . . and (ironically enough) the Mercer
County Democrat Committee helped her get there. There are many of you
that will become angered by these statements, but I challenge anyone
in the political arena to correct my facts.
I wonder . . . has State Senator Bob Robbins considered making a move
to the much coveted U.S. Congress seat? He may be so pumped up after
the 2009 election results that he ‘thinks’ that he has the
political clout to win the seat. If so, it would be a blessing for Congresswoman
Dahlkemper as Coconut Bob may be the ONLY Republican opponent that she
could beat.
[FYI: I’ve read that Republican hopefuls Steve Fisher and Brian
Lasher have already stepped up to battle Mrs. Dahlkemper . . . who will
be next?]
Race #2: State Senator Bob Robbins vs.
ANY Conservative Republican
Results: ANY Conservative Republican wins by a landslide
Why?: While Republicans managed to rally their troops
in the 2009 general election, they may still have a difficult time in
re-electing their top henchman, Senator Bob Robbins. Robbins thinks
that people forget about his late night pay raise of 2006 or his coconut-gate
comments of 2008. The truth is, however, that the people that remember
those blemishes the most are Republicans. It is, therefore, my opinion
that Senator Robbins would have the hardest time winning his own Primary.
While the Mercer GOP proved that they can get out the vote much better
in a battle of Democrats vs. Republicans, Senator Robbins might have
a hard time convincing members of his own Party to select him over any
brave conservative that would be willing to take him on in the Primary.
Believe me when I say . . . if such a person exists, they would need
to be pretty tough skinned to survive the personal beating that they
will take in the process. The GOP leadership will not take the battle
sitting down, and they won’t hesitate to use any dirty trick in
the book to retain their power. Is there a true Conservative in Mercer
County willing to take on Mr. Robbins in his own back yard?
Race #3: Mark Longietti vs. an unnamed
Republican or Independent
Result: Win or Lose, the Unnamed Republican or Independent
will do serious “damage”
Why?: Rep. Mark Longietti feels safe and secure in
his seat as State Representative representing the Valley. Unfortunately,
a quick glance at the results of the 2009 general election should be
a frightening wake up call for Mr. Longietti. If he is faced with a
Republican or Independent challenger, he could be in for a long and
expensive campaign . . . the races in Hermitage and Sharon in 2009 should
be proof of that. While he might still manage to retain his seat against
a challenger, he will suffer significant damage in the process. The
damage may be in the form of “political” damage to his image
as an “untouchable”, but it may also be in the form of financial
damage. Representative Longietti would be forced, for the first time,
to dip into his sizeable bank roll in an effort to keep pace the with
Mercer GOP machine in Mercer County. If the GOP manages to motivate
their base (and if the Mercer Democrats continue to suppress theirs),
Mr. Longietti will be in serious trouble. 2010 might be the time for
Republicans (or Independents) to strike while the iron is hot. Rep.
Longietti should be on his best behavior, and he had better hope that
other races don’t bring out the Republican votes in full force.
Race #4: Michele Brooks vs. Anyone (Republican,
Democrat, or Independent)
Result: Brooks will win, but at a significant cost
to all involved
Why?: A handful of Mercer County Democrats want to
take down Michele Brooks in the worst way. They will continue to try,
but I would guess that they will continue to be unsuccessful. In 2008,
the strategy seemed to be to find a candidate . . . any candidate .
. . that was willing to take on the “smart enough and charming
enough” Michele Brooks. The candidate that was selected was a
really nice guy . . . but a weak candidate (at best). Unfortunately
for him, he was willing to spend the time and money to try to wear Brooks
down on behalf of others. In the past year, a number of individuals
have been approached to do the same thing in 2010 (oh yes, present company
included). Anyone that takes the bait would be a fool.
While Democrats take great satisfaction in trying to wear Brooks down,
they are just playing a game with her and other people’s money.
I suspect that the truth may finally come out this year if Brooks’
true nemesis gets up enough guts and backing to run against her. That
nemesis would be Commissioner Ken Ammann. Commissioner Ammann can’t
stand Michele Brooks for a number of reasons (one being that she was
involved with his firing from the position of County’s Chief Clerk
in 2005), and his uncontrollable hate will continue to push him until
he finally attempts to take her head on.
Mr. Ammann, a Democrat, intends on going after Ms. Brooks in her own
arena . . . as a fiscal conservative. While the idea is laughable, Mr.
Ammann seriously thinks that he can take down a Republican in the very
conservative 17th District with a “D” beside his name. I’m
sorry, Ken, but in the current political climate it simply isn’t
going to happen. If Mr. Ammenn decides to hold off his attack on Brooks,
I’m certain that they will find some sacrificial lamb that is
willing to risk their own money on the venture in an effort to do financial
damage to Brooks for 2012.
My advice? (although you didn't ask for it)
I dare Ken Ammann to do it . . . and I’ll bet my last cent (and
his) that he will lose. To make the situation more interesting, Mr.
Ammann will be betting his political future on that one race. As I see
it, if he ends up with a big “L” (for loser) beside his
name at the end of a nasty battle in 2010, he will be an easy target
to be taken down in the 2011 race for County Commissioner.
As far as my advice to other potential targets, I’d run away from
this race as fast as my feet would carry me. There are far softer targets
to go after in Mercer County, and attempting to tackle Representative
Michele Brooks in an effort to settle someone else’s score is
a recipe for disaster. I say . . . “save your money” -or-
go invest it at a local casino . . . but don't throw it away on this
race.
Race #5:
Dick Stevenson vs. no one
Result: Stevenson will win again
Why?: As I said last year, "In 2010, if Dick Stevenson
chooses to run for re-election, I suspect that he will have any easy
race. He ran unopposed in 2008, and I see this as a possibility again
in 2010." Representative Dick Stevenson's seat in the 8th District simply
doesn't get much attention in Mercer County, but there is always a possibility
of an opponent surfacing from the more prominent Butler County.
In Closing
Well, that's all folks. Those were my official predictions for 2010
politics in Mercer County. Let’s just see how things begin to
take shape in the coming weeks as people and politicians (they are two
separate things after all) begin to jockey for position.
Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper has a number of public appearances scheduled
for the 3rd District in the coming weeks. The original schedule was
published as follows:
MERCER COUNTY -- Hike and Bike/Congress in the Community
When: 08/15/2009 Starts: 11:00 AM
Where: Buhl Farm Park, 730 Forker Boulevard, Shelter #2, Sharon, PA
*this event time and location
HAS CHANGED (see note below)
WARREN COUNTY -- Seniors Walk with the Congresswoman
When: 08/19/2009 Starts: 10:00 AM
Where: Warren Senior Center, 800 Pennsylvania Avenue W., Warren, PA
ARMSTRONG COUNTY -- Hike and Bike/Congress in the Community
When: 08/20/2009 Starts: 06:30 PM
Where: Armstrong Trail, Armstrong Road, Armstrong, PA
VENANGO COUNTY -- Hike and Bike/Congress in the Community
When: 09/26/2009 Starts: 11:00 AM
Where: Allegheny River Trail, 6297 Emlenton Clintonville Road,
Emlenton Trail Entrance, Emlenton, PA
* SCHEDULE CHANGE
Unfortunately, the schedule and location for the Congresswoman's
visit to Mercer County has changed. The Hike and Bike that was originally
planned for Buhl Farm Park has been moved. The gathering will now
occur at 10 a.m. Saturday, August 15 at Bicentennial Park,
275 Sterling Avenue, Sharon PA 16146. Following this event’s
conclusion at 11a.m., Congresswoman Dahlkemper will proceed to the
Rodney White Exercise Trail near Hickory High School.
It is anticipated that concerned citizens from the 3rd District
will be attending these gatherings in an effort to share their thoughts
and opinions on Health Care Reform (specifically regarding the details
of HR3200). If you are interested in attending, please make note of
the schedules published above.
I login regularly to watch the Pennsylvania House Sessions ‘live’
HERE.
I was watching this past Tuesday (August 4th) as Senate Bill 850 (a.k.a.
“the state budget”) was scheduled for final vote. I listened
as one speaker after another stood up to discuss their stand on the
budget fiasco. When I heard Rep. Mike Turzai (R-28th) stand up to speak,
I took a few minutes to watch and listen. As a fiscal conservative,
I’m always interested to hear what Rep. Turzai has to add to any
conversation regarding fiscal issues. Unfortunately, on that day, I
was a bit annoyed with Rep. Turzai. I’ve waited patiently for
the speech to be posted to YouTube so that I could share it with you
and provide my commentary. Today is that day.
Below is a link to Rep. Turzai’s speech (or click HERE):
First, I completely agree that the ‘game playing’ in Harrisburg
over the 2009-2010 budget is aggravating at best. I completely agree
that if the House was going to pass SB850 anyway, they should have done
so back in May. I agree completely with Rep. Turzai on that issue. Where
my agreement turns during the speech is when Rep. Turzai decided to
go straight for partisan politics when he talked about the Blue Dog
Democrats.
As a Blue Dog (a fiscal conservative Democrat), I find that we get criticized
from both sides of the aisle. Democrats are annoyed that we call ourselves
“conservative”, and Republicans think we are trying to steal
their brand. It is a constant uphill battle. It is for that reason that
I respect individuals that stand up and proudly proclaim that they are
“Blue Dogs”. Most recently, I’ve praised Congresswoman
Kathy Dahlkemper for officially signing onto fiscal conservatism. She
will be criticized by some for it, but she is brave in that she is attempting
to satisfy the best of both worlds by standing somewhere in the middle.
When Rep. Turzai referred to the Blue Dogs as “lap dogs”,
I lost respect for him. Partisan politics is the reason for the budget
crisis in Harrisburg, and the ONLY way that any agreement will ever
be reached is if some folks are willing to come to the center to push
up their sleeves and hammer out the details. The Blue Dogs are standing
up in Harrisburg and in Washington to do just that. They are concerned
about high taxes and uncontrolled spending, and they are trying to work
with both sides to protect the taxpayers. Rather than lashing out at
the Blue Dogs, Representative Turzai and other fiscal conservative Republicans
should be working WITH the Blue Dogs to come up with a valid and balanced
budget. Instead, Rep. Turzai is drawing a line in the sand because he
is afraid that the Blue Dogs are trying to steal the fiscal conservative
label. UGH!!
I’ve been curious about who some of these Blue Dogs are in Harrisburg.
My question was answered earlier this week when I received an email
announcement from a conservative group. The purpose of the announcement,
of course, was to criticize the Blue Dogs. I, however, was glad that
I was finally supplied with the names of those State Representatives
that now consider themselves Blue Dogs. The list (as I received it)
is provided below:
Rep. Bryan Barbin
Rep. Frank Burns
Rep. James E. Casorio
Rep. Frank Dermody
Rep. John T. Galloway
Rep. Jaret Gibbons
Rep. Neal Goodman
Rep. Gary Haluska
Rep. Michael K. Hanna
Rep. R. Ted Harhai
Rep. Tom Houghton
Rep. David R. Kessler
Rep. William C. Kortz II
Rep. Bryan R. Lentz
Rep. David K. Levdansky
Rep. Mark Longietti
Rep. Rick Mirabito
Rep. Kevin Murphy
Rep. John E. Pallone
Rep. Joseph A. Petrarca
Rep. Harry Readshaw
Rep. John P. Sabatina Jr.
Rep. Chris Sainato
Rep. Steve Santarsiero
Rep. Tim Seip
Rep. Timothy J. Solobay
Rep. Don Walko
Rep. Jesse White
I’d like to point out that I have not verified this list with
any other source. The list was published by Elizabeth Bryan of the Commonwealth
Foundation, and I trust that it is correct. There were many names on
the list that I personally recognize. I’d like to point out, however,
one Mercer County “highlight” . . . that is the name of
Representative Mark Longietti (D-7th). If the list is accurate, I’d
like to be one of the first to welcome Representative Longietti to life
on the ‘dark side’ as a Blue Dog Democrat. Representative
Longietti and I have shared many conversations regarding fiscal issues,
and I’m pleased to see that he is willing to take this brave step
and officially state that he does not support higher taxes.
If the information is accurate, State Representative Longietti, Congresswoman
Kathy Dahlkemper, and Congressman Jason Altmire (all three representing
portions of Mercer County) all now join me as Blue Dogs . . . and I
publicly applaud them all.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to remind Republicans,
however, that it would serve them well to ‘make nice’ with
the Blue Dogs. Perhaps it is time to attempt to reach across the aisle
in order to finally work for “the good of the people”. It
will only be by setting aside partisan politics that real progress can
be made. If the fiscally conservative Republicans continue to back away
(further to the right), they may find themselves ‘out the door’
in the not-to-distant future.
As a fiscal conservative, I could not support Phil English in his bid
for re-election in 2008. While I didn’t know much about his opponent,
Kathy Dahlkemper, I knew that almost anyone would be more fiscally responsible
than Mr. English. I was not disappointed to see Phil English go away.
I’ve not been completely clear on where Congresswoman Dahlkemper
stood on many issues as I was receiving some mixed signals. As I’ve
dug deeper I’ve found some statements from Mrs. Dahlkemper that
made me think that she was a bit more fiscally conservative that I had
originally thought. Most recently I found a statement regarding her
opinion on the tolling of I-80 that made me warm up to Congresswoman
Dahlkemper. According to her website:
As the issue of tolling Interstate 80 regains momentum, for Congresswoman
Kathy Dahlkemper, tolling Interstate 80 boils down to one very important
factor: clear economic benefits.
“For me, tolling Interstate 80 does not benefit tourism or
the residents who use the highway,” said Dahlkemper earlier
this year during an interview with News Now Network.
Reiterating her position this week, Dahlkemper said, “Let
me be clear, I will not support tolling Interstate 80 or leasing
the Turnpike. In fact, I believe that tolling will drive commerce
and tourism further away from Pennsylvania, as we already have the
highest diesel tax and second highest gasoline tax in the country.
“
“All that we do, must be focused on saving and creating jobs
for the 3rd District and I believe that this action will result
in the loss of Pennsylvania’s best jobs; and any hope that
we have of attracting new businesses will disappear.”
As a fellow business owner, I figured that Congresswoman Dahlkemper
probably supported fiscal responsibility, but this was the first clear
statement that supported that belief. It was refreshing to see it
in writing. It was also a uplifting to see that Congresswoman Dahlkemper
was firmly against the tolling of I-80. I filed the information away
until I learned more.
This morning I was delighted to see the following headline on GrassrootsPA.com:
According to the article (published at CQPolitics HERE),
Congresswoman Dahlkemper was quoted as saying:
She was "very pleased" to join "a group that shares my strong
belief in fiscal discipline and responsibility."
The Herald grabbed the
story today too. In the article Matt Snyder wrote:
Mrs. Dahlkemper, who campaigned as a small businesswoman
who understands the value of fiscal restraint, said she decided to
join (the ‘Blue Dog Coalition’) after meeting with the
coalition and learning more about their philosophy.
In the article, Matt Snyder made the following point:
“Some Democrats oppose the Blue Dog Coalition, but
Mrs. Dahlkemper said she wasn’t expecting too much trouble,
since the values of her district and the caucus mostly line up.”
Matt makes a good point, and I sincerely hope Mrs. Dahlkemper has
a better reception as a “fiscal conservative Democrat”
than I did.
In Closing, I’d like to welcome Congresswoman Dahlkemper to
the ‘dark side’ . . . to our small (but growing) club
of Blue Dog Democrats in Northwest Pennsylvania that are trying to
make a difference.
Like many of you in Mercer County, I received mail from Congresswoman
Kathy Dahlkemper this week. If you received it you would remember it
well . . . an "at your service" bell with the congressional logo . .
. matte finish . . . full-color foldout . . . a first-class mailer.
It was a very slick informational brochure outlining the Congresswoman’s
responsibilities and contact information. It was a very professionally
prepared and attractive marketing piece . . . without a doubt. As a
first impression, it looked “very expensive”. The most interesting
part of the piece was the simple line of text that read “This
mailing was prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense.”
Well, with that “new information”, I had to take a second
look. Since I paid for it, I’d like to see exactly what my much
needed tax dollars were used for (this is where the analyst in me takes
over . . . I apologize in advance). A close examination of the data
contained in the brochure showed that about 45% of the content was very
attractive graphics with absolutely no useful content whatsoever. 18%
of the content was a reply post card that could be used to contact the
Congresswoman. 18% of the content was used for the address area of the
mailer and contact information for the Congresswoman. The balance of
the space (roughly 19%) was dedicated to the many useful tasks that
the Congresswoman can assist me with . . . Social Security benefits,
Veterans’ benefits, Tax issues (I wonder if Congresswoman Dahlkemper
could talk to the Mercer County DA for me about a question he had about
my taxes?), Congressional Internship opportunities, Purchasing a U.S.
flag that has flown over the Capitol, Arranging for tours of the Capitol
&White House, and Presidential birthday greetings for seniors over
80. There was no mention, however, about “legislation”,
but I suppose that would have been an afterthought. Based on my analysis,
the very sleek (and very expensive) little brochure only devoted 37%
of the space to semi-useful information and contact details. The brochure
used 63% of its space to useless fluff and self promotion and 0% was
reserved to discuss LEGISLATION.
I realize that some of you will say . . . “Don’t pick on
Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper . . . it isn’t fair”. Well,
I agree. The Congresswoman is not the first elected official to spend
tax payer dollars for self-promotion and fluff, most politicians do
it . . . some more than others. The Congresswoman is still "new" and
testing the waters. I'm not picking . . . I'm just using her as an example
of a bigger problem.
Promotional tools are part of every elected officials budget. Some elected
officials use advertising space for self-promotion, and some of them
use the space to “inform”. As the watchdogs of our elected
officials, we need to keep a close eye on the decisions that they make.
I’m all about “good government” and careful fiscal
decisions. In my opinion, spending taxpayer dollars as though they are
“campaign contributions” is NOT good government. Mailers
like the one discussed above are only one example. There are others
. . .
As many of you already know, I’ve spent some time at local trade
shows and business expositions lately. I understand why people that
are running for office set up a booth at these shows to “meet
people”. The booths are paid for as a campaign expense using personal
funds or campaign donations. I have no problem with this. I do, however,
have a problem with current elected officials purchasing a both at these
shows under the guise of “public service”. Allow me to site
an example or two (or three).
State Senator and State Representative “Information Booth”
When I visited the Greenville Business Expo, I found a booth shared
by Senator Bob Robbins and Representative Michele Brooks. From what
I could tell, the booth was an “information booth” paid
for by the offices of Senator Robbins and Representative Brooks (i.e.,
“taxpayer dollars”), although I admit that this is unverified.
The idea of a booth that gives you an opportunity to speak with a State
Legislator actually seemed like a good idea to me. Unfortunately, there
were no Legislators in the booth. Huh????
I like the idea of having a booth that allows normal Joe or Jane taxpayer
to meet or talk to their elected State Legislator, but isn’t the
purpose diminished if there is no Legislator in the booth to meet? A
quick perusal of the booth showed what seemed to be tourist information
(which can be picked up at a visitor center like the one on Rt. 322
or along Rt. 80) and various freebies, but no Senator or State Representative.
I was at the show for about two and a half hours, and the booth was
never visited by Senator Robbins or Representative Brooks as far as
I could tell. I did catch a glimpse of Representative Brooks making
her rounds to other booths at the show (so she was at least there and
available for some period of time), but I never did see any sign of
our fine Senator.
My question is, did we as tax payers pay for the booth at the show so
that office staff could give out free maps and so Senator Robbins and
Representative Brooks could self promote? Was this cost effective and
good use of taxpayer dollars?
Mercer County Treasurer “Information Booth”
The Greenville Business Expo was interesting. The current Mercer County
Treasurer purchased a booth to promote the office of “County Treasurer”.
From what I could tell, the booth was an “information booth”
paid for by the office of the County Treasurer (i.e., “taxpayer
dollars”), although . . . once more . . . I admit that this is
unverified.
Again I say “Huh??? “ What was the purpose of the booth
you ask? I only stopped for a very brief visit (I did not hang around
for long for obvious reasons), but the focus of the booth seemed to
be “dog licenses”. Now understand that this is not the only
booth that the Treasurer’s offices has purchased using tax payer
dollars (as she had a booth at the recent Home Show in Hickory too).
I’d love to see a cost analysis of such an endeavor. Is this type
of promotion of a public office really necessary? Do the County Commissioners,
Prothonotary, Record of Deeds, and Controller purchase booths to promote
their offices? To be fair, I will say that the booth was at least manned
by the County Treasurer herself (rather than office staff), but was
this a good use of tax dollars?
State Senator and State Representative “Campaign Booths”
As one last example I’d like to discuss booths that were set up
at the Grove City Trade Show at the end of February. Senator Bob Robbins
and State Representative Dick Stevenson had what appeared to be “Campaign
Booths”. These booths were for the obvious promotion of the Senator
and State Representative. I assume, also, that these booths were paid
for by campaign donations (again, I have no proof). I explained earlier
that I have no problem with this type of booth as it “is what
it is” . . . obvious self-promotion at the expense of the campaign
supporters. I only bring up the example here because unlike the “Information
Booth” at the Greenville Business Expo, these booths were manned
by Senator Bob Robbins (and his wife) and State Representative Dick
Stevenson (and his wife). I find it interesting that when the booth
is used for self-promotion, the parties involved devote their day to
it (along with their spouses), but when the booth is used for “information
and public service”, there are no elected officials to be found.
My point? Pay attention to the small print. The small line on Congresswoman
Kathy Dahlkemper’s brochure read “This mailing was prepared,
published and mailed at taxpayer expense.” When you see these
words, think about how your taxpayer dollars were used. Did you receive
an informational newsletter packed with valuable information about issues
that pertain to the people of Mercer County? OR, is it just a glossy
marketing piece designed to promote a politician at the taxpayer’s
expense. When you see a booth at a trade show or a fair, ask . . . “who
paid for this booth”? If it was paid for by taxpayer funds, think
about whether YOU would spend your money that way.
Remember . . . “taxpayer dollars” are OUR dollars, and we
should have some say in how they are spent, and we should have the right
to complain when our money is spent poorly.
Written
by Roberta Biros
My
experiences with these types of visits (and I have seen many during
the past year and a half) have shown that the IP address may show up
as Washington DC, but the physical connection itself can be anywhere.
The same goes for Pennsylvania State Government connections that are
labeled “Harrisburg PA”. The physical connection may well
be in Mercer County.
