Courage of Conviction

Arguements can be fun, especially in political or policy debates.  It’s been fun watching the arguements surrounding the retention votes of judges for this year.  Groups from all sides are making arguments on why you should or shouldn’t vote for the retention of judges.  They all claim to have some mantle of authority.  I think the best arguement by far was just made by Russ Diamond in his most recent top ten list to vote no.  It really cuts to the heart of the matter and is by far the arguement that speaks to the common man the best.  Russ is not only well versed in the Constitution, but also very good at marketing and delivering his message to his audience.  Compare this to the PA Lawyers who think they are making legal arguements in a courtroom.  Given this match up, they don’t have a prayer - the voters will decide this arguement and I’ll put my money on Russ’ efforts winning to some degree.  I don’t think we’ll see all the judges ousted, but I’ll bet that we’ll see some who lose their retention races. 

As promised, below is Russ’ e-mail to his list on the number 1 reason to vote no.  Again, look at this from a marketing standpoint - the message is well stated and easy to understand. 

 Reason #1: We Don’t Need No Stinking Reasons

From the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:

Article I, Section 2

“All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.” [Emphasis added.]

We are the sovereign People. As sovereigns, we are entitled to vote in any way we choose for any reason we see fit. We do not need the permission of judges. We do not need the approval of legislators. We do not need a note from the Governor.

We especially don’t need to read some handbook on “How To Vote” produced by a bunch of lawyers at the Pennsylvania Bar Association who have a vested interest in maintaining business-as-usual. And we don’t need them to infer that a retention vote is somehow too complicated for us to understand.

We do not live under Lords. We do not follow the mantra of some High Priest. Judges are not better than us. They are our servants, and we can choose to fire them at will. They are not automatically entitled to another term.

Year after year, the Republican Party infers that we’d be much better off if all elections were won by Republicans. The Democratic Party fights to elect all Democrats to office. Rational Pennsylvanians know that neither of these arguments hold water, yet we have an election system that provides a ‘party lever’ at the polling place to allow people to make such blanket votes.

This year, PACleanSweep is advocating a ‘no’ vote on most (not all) judges up for retention not to place power in the hands of some political party, but to return power to the People. All three branches of government have failed to defend the plain meaning of the Constitution. When they fail, the people must step up to the plate or risk losing all their rights.

We’ve heard a lot of reasons to vote a certain way in any given election: Because he’s a Democrat. Because she’s NOT a Democrat. Because he’s rich and famous. Because she has the best hair. Because he’s the best looking. Because she cheated on her husband. Because we need to send a message to Harrisburg.

The fact is, all these reasons - regardless of how silly some of them may sound - are perfectly viable reasons to vote for or against any candidate. There is no handbook on the proper way to vote. There is no right or wrong reason. It is up to each individual voter to make up their own mind in their own way. This is why We the People are sovereign - because ultimately, we can make any choice we like.

We don’t need no stinking reasons. Really, we don’t. Despite not needing any, PACleanSweep has provided a number of rational reasons in our Top Ten Reasons to Vote NO list. The most important of those reasons is to defend our most fundamental law, the Constitution. Government has utterly failed us in this area - despite every single elected official having sworn an oath to the document - so we must act on our own behalf.

It is not just our right; it is our duty and responsibility.

A ‘yes’ vote on retentions is a vote for continuing the culture of arrogance, greed and corruption in Pennsylvania. A ‘no’ vote applies the brakes and helps turn the Commonwealth in a new and better direction.

The choice is clear. And that choice is ours to make - in private, without anyone looking over our shoulders.

We don’t need no stinking reasons.

 

Top Ten Reasons to Vote ‘NO’

I’ve had a pretty full schedule lately - hence, not much time to post anything.  I didn’t want you to think I had fallen off the face of the earth.  I’ll write more soon.

I’ll be doing a booksigning today for my newest book - Speaking of Success.  The booksigning will be taking place at Cornerstone Coffeehouse at Techport.  Cornerstone is located at 421 Friendship Rd., Harrisburg, PA  17111.  I’ll be there from noon until 2pm.  Stop by and say hi and join me for some conversation on EADD.  Not sure what EADD is?  That’s all the more reason to stop by.

I completed my fifth marathon on Saturday - the Baltimore Marathon.  I finished in 4:58:10.  Not my fastest marathon by any means, but not my slowest either.  Actually, I was really pleased considering I have been dealing with a lagging injury to my hip.  It bothered me between mile 16 and 23, but I pushed through anyway. 

Here’s a neat story about the marathon.  I was wearing my Maring Corp Marathon shirt from a couple of years ago when I ran the Marine Corp marathon.  On the back of the shirt is the Marine Corp seal.  One of the other runners came up to me after the race and said that I kept him going.  I had passed him near the end of the race.  He saw the seal and thought about our troops overseas and what they must go through each day - the least he could do would be to finish this race and finish strong, which is exactly what he did.  He thanked me for wearing the shirt.  I told him that his story is exactly what doing a marathon is all about - all the runners helping each other to push ourselves to be the best we can be.  If you’ve ever run a distance race, you know what I’m talking about.  It’s not about beating the guy running next to you - it’s about pushing yourself to see what you are made of. 

Next Tuesday, Oct. 16th from 1pm to 2pm, I’ll be featured in an interview with Michelle Ulrich from The Virtual Nation.  Michelle will be asking me about EADD - Entrepreneurial Attention Deficit Disorder. 

The teleclass is free, you just have to register for it.  You can do that by clicking here.

Enjoy.

The newest podcast of The Keystone Report is now available at http://pa.goodpoliticsradio.com/?p=46.  I decided to interview PA State Rep. Eugene DePasquale, D-York.  he recently introduced legislation that would ban “texting while driving-” or the practice of a driver reading or writing text messages while driving.  the subject caught my eye last week and I appreciate the Represenative’s time to come on the show, tell the listeners about the bill - what it does and what it doesn’t do.  Enjoy.

You’ve got to give Russ Diamond credit - He’s made it a possibility that more judges will be non-retained on election day.  Russ is a great example of what entrepreneurism is all about.  How you ask?  Think about what an entrepreneur does - takes an idea that others think is impossible and finds a way to make it reality. 

What Russ is doing is a great lesson in marketing as well.  Having taken on and beaten incumbents before, I can say that the most important thing for an underdog candidate to do is to get the incumbent to respond to your candidate.  Russ is making this part look easy.  Take a look at just the past couple of days.  He appears on SmartTalk on WITF to debate the head of the PA Lawyers Association, and wins that debate.  Why do I say he won - Russ is a walking encyclopedia on the constitution, legislative process, and judicial history.  The other guy attempted to argue points but came up short on each occasion - Russ just embarassed a lawyer on TV.  The lawyer had to resort to saying that Russ’ message was irresponsible, more of an insult than a logical arguement. 

Then today I read GOP State Chairman Rob Gleason is criticizing Russ for wanting to non-retain all but one judge.  His argument is based on political necessity - “we don’t want to lose all those Republican judges.”  Russ is now a threat to not only lawyers who have an interest in the status quo, but also the political parties who have an interest in the status quo. 

The big win for Russ is the criticism by former Gov. Tom Ridge.  Talk about snagging a huge credibility boost.  About the only way to gain more credibility is if the President came out and criticized Russ for something. 

Here’s the effect - what is everyone talking about?  The possibility of not retaining 67 judges.  Who’s message is that?  Russ Diamond and PACleanSweep’s that’s who.  Guess whose winning? 

And don’t worry that I’m giving the establishment any kind of advice on how to deal with Russ by not responding - they wouldn’t lower themselves to read this blog anyway. 

Great job Russ!