Courage of Conviction

The folks over at Swannblog attempted to refute the idea that Swann candidacy was not handpicked by the current Republican establishment.  In the post they referred to an article in the Herald Standard.  I’m not going to argue about whether Swann was handpicked or not - that part is over in my mind - it’s like rehashing something you can’t change, so why bother talking about it. 

My beef can be summed up in the first sentence of the Herald’s article:

GOP gubernatorial hopeful Lynn Swann insisted Tuesday he was not handpicked by the state’s Republican establishment and would maintain an independent voice against a Legislature under his party’s control.

The idea that Swann will be an independent voice against a Republican Legislature is ridiculous in my mind.  How could that possibly be considering that he has surrounded himself with people who have a long history of working for these same legislators.  These are the same people reformers have been attempting to make unemployed in Harrisburg.  Why do you think Swann’s reform in dealing with the legislative process is the way it is?  His idea is to impose a 72-hour waiting period before the governor signs a bill into law. 

This protects the legislature - gee I wonder who came up with that idea - probably someone who has worked for the legislature and will be going back to their regular job when the campaign is over.  When a bill reaches the governor’s desk, it’s too late for public comment.  a 72-hour waiting period would not have stopped Rendell from signing the pay raise into law.  It was the legislature who violated the Constitution in the way they passed the bill and by using unvouchered expenses.  How would a 72-hour waiting period have changed that?  It wouldn’t have.  The pressure needs to fall back on the legislature to abide by the Constitution each member swears to uphold.  It wasn’t the governor who violated constitutional process, it was the legislature.  Should he have signed the bill into law?  No, but that’s not the point.  The point is that the reform needs to happen in the legislature first - Swann’s proposal falls far short. 

The next few days I’ll be in Chicago.  I’ll be running in the Chicago Marathon this Sunday.  This will be my fourth marathon, and my first visit to Chicago.  I’m looking forward to going.  I’ll blog on my experience over the next few days.  I may even have pictures soon after the marathon.

Paul Weyrich wrote a great article on the New Republican Party.  I think the timing of this piece could not be better. 

At a time when Republicans are not proud to be Republicans, or atleast conservatives are not proud to be Republicans, this article is a great reminder - a reminder that we are not Republicans first.  Reagan, the president so many of look up to, stated this clearly:

Reagan then pronounced respect for those who wanted to form a completely new political party. But he said after much consideration, he believed we could best achieve our principles through the Republican Party. Then he argued for a first new version of the GOP.

He slammed country-club Republicans and said the new Republican Party could not be seen merely as the party of big business. He said the reason he wanted to stick with the Republican Party was because the majority of conservatives were found there. “It makes more sense to build on that grouping than to break it up and start over.”

Which brings me to my real point in all this - a true debate that conservatives are having right now - one that we must make a decision on over the next 20 or so days.

Do we vote to remove the Republican majority we have created in the many levels of government because the people there have lost touch, become arrogant, and broken our trust by not staying true to the principles they were frist elected on,

or do we continue to vote for the Republican majority with the idea that they are not perfect, but that they are moving us forward, just not at the pace we conservatives would like to go.

There is much to consider in each of these thoughts - first, how do we win by losing? Can we win by losing?  That is, will our cause advance in the long run by voting out those we have put in office who claim to be for conservative ideals, but clearly are not following those ideals?  How will this affect our national security, our taxes, and other government intrusions?   These are big questions - which tells me that much is at stake this year.  Never have I see a nation so divided - it seems worse than the 2000 election.  The rhetoric has reached ridiculous porportions.  The attacks between parties.  I would predict that turnout will be high this year - and that’s not necessarily a good thing. 

Here’s a theory that some support - a high turnout is a bad thing.  I can already hear the whining and the “but voting is a good thing Matt, how dare you criticize people for voting.”  Yeah, yeah, yeah. I’ve heard all that before.  Here’s why it isn’t always a good thing. 

Imagine you lived in a country where your way of life could change significantly if one party wins over the other.  Do you think you would vote?  Would you vote if it meant that one party would imprison the other party members if the first party wins.  Would you vote then?  In countries where that is the case, wouldn’t you agree that they have high turnouts? 

Look at the voting patterns in our country.  They are on the rise.  Is it any surprise that the rhetoric between the parties has risen also.  Fear is a tactic that is effectively employed by both Republicans and Democrats to increase voter turnout.  Democrats scare people into voting by talking about Republicans taking away their Social Security, or making the rich richer, or some other nonsense.  Republicans scare people into voting by talking about national security, business taxes, abortion, gay marriage, etc. 

If we look through our nation’s history, whether one party is in power or the other hasn’t had a huge impact on people’s lives - that’s the truth. Sure some policies change here or there.  Government intrudes a little less or a little more, but really, the quality of your life is not dependent on the government in th end.  The rhetoric we are hearing now though makes it sound like voting for one party over the other will lead to the land of Paradise or that you will be risking your life.  This causes people who really don’t know anything about important issues to go an vote when in fact, they shouldn’t.  People who are ignorant of the issues in an election should not insult informed voters by voting. 

So where does this leave us - how does this all tie together?  I’m not totally sure.  I know this much - we do need a new Republican Party, one made of people who actually work to bring about the principles they claim to support.  I’m tired of spineless Republicans who turn their backs on the same people that got them elected.  Are there other Republicans like me who want a change within their party - you bet.  I believe that these Republicans will be the ones that determine this election.  We’ll know the answer on Nov. 8th as to whether Republicans are going to keep voting for the people who have been turning their back on them, or if Republicans will take a loss and turn their back on their elected Republicans in order to create a new Republican Party - one that actually stands for what it believes in.  If you couldn’t tell by now, I’m one who will be turning my back on those who have long since turned their back to me.  This doesn’t me that I go into the voting booth and vote a straight Democrat party ticket.  It does mean that I consider each race individually.  I know this much, I’ll be supporting Sen. Santorum.  Other races are really up in the air for me.  I’m not crazy about all of the options - I may just vote none of the above, or I may vote for a third party candidate, or I may even vote for a Democrat.  One thing is for sure - I’ll decide before I go into the voting booth.  And whatever my decision is, I know this much, I won’t regret my decision, and I will sleep soundly on the evening of Nov. 7th. 

So I guess according to Pete Matthews, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 33, those of us who support Sen. Santorum are Satanists. 

You can always tell when we are coming to the close of a campaign, the rhetoric heats up, just as Mr. Matthews shows us here. 

What’s interesting in my mind is that once you can call someone the Anti-Christ, or Satan, what does that leave you with?  There’s still something like 20 days left before the election.  Any other name-calling just isn’t going to reach this level.  I mean seriously, after being referred to as the spawn of all evilness, the prince of darkness, nothing else can possibly compare.

It kind of reminds me of kindergardeners who call each other names.  They start out calling each other “dummies” and go to “poopie-heads” and such.  At some point one kid calls the other something really bad, or insults the other kids mother.  After you’ve gone there, you really run out of options.  You know what happens don’t you?  Since they have no other option, they go back to the beginning - “yeah, well, you’re a dummy!”

 That’s what this whole thing reminds me of.  Mr. Matthews, I feel no choice but to ask you to write on the chalkboard “I will not call Mr. Santorum names”  100 times.  Now be a good boy and and do that and if you do, you’ll get a lollypop.

The Patriot ran an article about GOP fears that their time in power might be over on Nov. 7th. 

State GOP Chairman Rob Gleason got this one right when he said:

“We have a platform, but our guys didn’t read it. They lost their way,” Gleason said as he mentioned the pay raise, state budgets, approval of slot machine gambling, expansion of government and this year’s vote to raise the minimum wage as a few examples.

This may be one of the few times I actually applaud Gleason.  In this case, he’s absolutely right. 

The sad part about the GOP most likely losing control of power is that it is their own doing.  You can’t blame the Democrats - they haven’t a clue what they stand for politically.  Seriously, does anyone thing that Rep. DeWeese got some major political insight in the last couple of months that improved his chances of being the next Speaker?  This is the guy that Republicans have cleared the way for to ensure that he stays in charge of the Dems for the reason that he hasn’t been able to close the gap in the House. 

No, the GOP got greedy - mostly its legislative leadership too.  They got greedy, arrogant and comfortable.  They started to get out of touch, started taking personal benefit from the positions they were elected to serve the public with, and started convincing themselves that they are really, really important.  Then they started telling everyone else how important they are.  That’s when people like me started to get upset.  But then these same legislators started telling us we had no place to go on election day. 

A voter can only take so much arrogance.  When a legislator, or group of legislators have crossed the line, broken trust, Republican voters are wiling to vote to remove the disease that has infected the legislative body.  Is it because they support what the Democrats are about - hell no.  these voters, who actually care about the what it means to be a Republican willing to suffer for a couple of years to get rid of the deadwood - then go back to voting for newer, more-in-touch Republicans. 

I want to take a moment and thank Lowman Henry for inviting me to be on his radio show this morning with Chirs Lilik for a bloggers’ forum on the elections - I had a great time. 

We spent a great deal of time talking about the Senate election and a bit less time on the Governor’s race.  Chris gave some great insight into the Senate leadership race that will ensue after the general election.  It should be interesting. 

I hope you had a chance to tune in.  Lowman always has interesting guests.  His show can be heard on WHYL 960 AM in Central PA. 

Those are the words spoken by Mr. Casey during the second US Senate debate yesterday.  I find those words interesting.  Sen. Santorum was pressing Casey on the fact that Casey doesn’t show up to work about half the time.  Santorum did a great job of sticking on message for this line of questioning. 

Casey’s answer says alot more than he realizes.  Casey did not answer the question, because he knew it would not look good.  It’s human nature to not want to look bad.  What we do in response to that is typically point the finger at someone else, blame them, and hence make ourselves a victim.  That’s what Casey did with that answer.  He wasn’t able to tough it out with someone who would not relent in his questioning, who would not stray from his message.  Mr. Casey became weak. 

Is that someone who we really want in the US Senate?  Do we Pennsylvanians want a Senator who will back down, blame someone else, and start name calling when the going gets tough.  Politics is a contact sport, someone famous once said.  It really is too.  Why, because politics and policies matter - they directly affect people’s lives.  We’re talking about people and their freedom here. 

Santorum understands this and that is why he is as passionate as he is.  He understands that politics and policies have an impact on people’s lives.  And so, you have to be passionate when you dealing with people’s lives - you have to fight, sometimes verbally with your opponents to ensure that the people you represent do not get screwed.  Being nice is fine for a party - but holding your ground and being able to look someone in the eye and fight with them for what you believe is right is a strength in the arena of politics.  You have to have a backbone and take the onslought that will be thrown against you and come back with both barrels loaded and ready to fire.  We have too many politicians who are more concerned with being nice and being liked than we have who come to Washington, or Harrisburg who are more interested in actually making some changes and willing to fight for the people they represent.  And yes, they are in both parties - I can think of a few that represent me in various levels of government.

What Sen. Santorum showed in the debate was that he gets it.  Mr. Casey showed that he doesn’t.  Mr. Santorum is ready to go back to Washington to get things done for the people of Pennsylvania.  Mr. Casey is ready to go to some cocktail parties with other elitists in DC and be liked. 

The choice is yours now Pennsylvania.  Choose wisely.

The Sentinel covered the candidate debate last night for the 199th State House race.  I was unable to attend, but did get some feedback from people in attendance.  The Sentinel actually did a decent job of covering the story, although it sounds like they missed a few quotes, but nothing major. 

I’d be curious to hear some feedback from anyone who was in attendence at the debate.  All comments are welcome.

Just an FYI - for all my fans, and for those who are not - I’ve been invited to be on Lowman Henry’s show this Saturday from 9 -10am.  Lowman asked me to be on the bloggers’ forum for this weekend.  Chris Lilik will also be on the show.  We’ll be discussing our thoughts on the upcoming election.  You can hear Lowman’s show on several stations throughout Cental PA and locally on WHYL 960 AM.  If you have a chance, tune in, call in, give your thoughts in advance if you like. 

Welcome to my new blog.  I am looking forward to this journey.  Besides having a unique web address, there are so many more options available with this blog.  Stay tuned as I make changes and improvements.  Also, take the survey - I’ll have a regular survey up on a regular basis - I’d love to hear your thoughts.