Courage of Conviction

Check out this news story below.  I’m willing to bet to that this happens in more places than Texas - like PA for example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG6X-xtVask.  Enjoy!

It’s been awhile since I did any political commentary - so here goes:

Here are my thoughts about the state of the Presidential primaries.  First off, I can now confirm that I am out of touch with the rest of the Republican Party, which is why I’m glad I became an Independent after the 2006 election.  Why do I say this?  Over 60% of the South Carolina votes went to McCain and Huckabee.  So here we have a situation in which Republicans, allegedly the party of small government, are supporting one candidate who will use government to take away your First Amendment rights and another candidate which will tax you for “bad behavior,” as defined by his religion.  Since when did the Republican party start standing for any of that. 

Second thought - there is a real possiblity that we could have two candidates who will have trouble getting support of their own party members.  On the D side - Hillary Clinton.  I personally know several Democrats who not only won’t vote for her, but would change their party registration if she is the nominee.  It ranges in reason from not wanting Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, to just not liking her because she’s arrogant.  On the Republican side - John McCain.  I know plenty of Republicans who just won’t vote for the guy for plenty of reasons. 

So what happens?  Voters can either decide to vote for the lesser of two evils, or they can vote for someone they like - third party, write-in a name, etc., but know that who they vote for will not win.  The last presidential race that I can remember that seems like a similar situation was in 1996 - Dole vs. Clinton.  I didn’t vote for either - I did a write-in.  I’m not crazy about the “it was Dole’s turn” argument.  Want to blame me for the second four years of Clinton - fine by me, but it’s the candidate’s job to win over voters, not my job to just fall in line like a lemming and vote for a Republican, because the candidate has an R after their name.   I know the argument of not making the perfect the enemy of the good.  But gee - given a choice between one candidate who will mandate your health and who knows what and another candidate who will mandate your speech and education, I’m having a hard time seeing any good.

Everyone’s talking about the Caucus results, and so will I.  First off, why is this tiny state given so much weight in the primary process?  Same goes for New Hampshire.  We have the oddest election system I can think of where two tiny states have such a major role in determining who the nominations are for the rest of the country.

Let’s start with the Democrats.  Obama won big.  As everyone said, change won last night - on both sides.  Obama has been underestimated since the beginning by so many people.  I think he has a good chance.  He’s likeable, speaks from his heart, and is authentically a change agent.  If he does happen to become the Democrat nominee, (which is still no where close to being resolved yet) my prediction is that he will win in the fall.  One positive of that would be the political death of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.  Americans have moved passed racial differences, it’s time for the conversation to change. 

Edwards got a boost last night beating Hillary.  He still has to do well in New Hampshire to stay alive. 

Hillary is still very much alive and could still sustain a third place finish in New Hampshire.  She’ll have to start winning some states after that though to stay viable.

On the Republican side - God help us if Mike Huckabee wins the nomination.  I don’t think that’s likely.  Huckabee appeals to one group - Evangelical socially conservative Christians.   That’s not going to take you to the White House by itself.  Once we get past New Hampshire, we’ll start to see some real results on the Republican side.  In one sense I glad that Pennsylvania doesn’t have a primary until April, because there is so much wrong with so many of the Republican candidates. 

One last comment - I was amused by the coverage of the results last night.  I watched both ABCnews and Charlie Rose.  The contempt that Huckabee raises among the elite media is amusing to watch.  Not the same treatment of Obama or any of the D’s who they clearly saw as “real” candidates. 

I know, I know, it’s an odd title.  I’m referring to all the high drama that goes on every day within the inner circle of politics.  Just go to any major news site - grassrootspa.com is one of my favorites - you’ll see “important” people grandstanding on (insert your favorite policy issue here).  Interested in guns or gun control, just watch self-important legislators walk off the floor of the state house.  Does it really accomplish anything beyond generating some PR?  not really.  Or take a look at some ridiculous “zero tolerance” policy.  Who cares what we are not tolerating anymore - does it really solve a problem - more than likely no - it deals with some effect.  All this does is create more problems, which of course we’ll need government to come in and solve.  But gee, it makes some great PR doesn’t it?

No, on this day, I’m grateful that I have been on an information diet.  What does that mean?  It means I haven’t been paying attention to all the “news” that is going on.  Think about the overwhelming amount of information we are all innundated with each day.  Taking some time off from the madness is refreshing and can be a bit addictive.  It also is productive.  I’m more focused than I have been in along time.  I’m focused on my goals and accomplishing my goals.  Plus, how much of the news is positive anyway - not much.  So really, you aren’t missing much.  Besides, it’s like this - if “important” people walk off the floor of the House and no one cares…

I’m also grateful to be in the private sector.  It is in the private sector that great things happen - fortunes made, people actually assisted and helped, courage tested, risk, etc.  Here people don’t just do things for PR, there is a deeper reason for doing anything.  Each person’s reason may be differently, but PR is nice, but not the goal.  In the private sector results are important - why?  Simply this, without results, no one gets paid. 

I’m talking about the automatic payraise that State Legislators will receive on Dec. 1.  My question is for what?  I know it’s hard work resisting change and reform, but does this work warrant a pay raise?  Or maybe the pay raise if for all the hard work of keeping government closed - as in hiding consultant fees, keeping e-mails privates, allowing nespotism, etc. 

If you are into jealously over pay, feel free to read the article.  Otherwise, just know that we pay these people too much.  The job isn’t worth the amount we pay them and they don’t bring anywhere close to the value of what we pay them. 

I’ll still hold onto my version what the ideal legislature would look like - they would be in session 3 months every other year, get paid a minimal amount - like $5,000 for their time, have no district offices, and hence no staff (they can rely on committee staff for legislative advice, and wouldn’t need distric staff since they would no longer be the ones offering government services - just legislating)  Be fined $100 for every day they go over without a passed budget, limited benefits - only health insurance while they are in session and pay for them to get to and from the state capitol. 

I interviewed Brett Lieberman of the Harrisburg Patriot-News about the election results from Tuesday’s election, November 6.  We discussed the state-wide judicial retention races, the changes in the county courthouses, highlights of the races in the south eastern part of the state, and the impact that this year’s election will have on the elections in 2008.

Brett has been the Washington correspondent for The Patriot-News since 1995 and has been covering Pennsylvania politics and issues since 1992. He also writes the Pennsyltucky Politics blog and a weekly politics column for the newspaper.  You can find his blog at http://blog.pennlive.com/pennsyltucky/. Brett has also covered presidential, senate and congressional elections, and has appeared on PCN, C-Span, and BBC.

You can hear the Keystone Report podcast here. 

Well, the judges held on - pretty well actually.  I’m a bit surprised by the margin to be honest.

In Carlisle, the results are listed below.  The top four vote getters are bolded.  I’m pleased with the results, especially since I provided strategy advice to Sean.  Even I’m a pleasantly surprised that Sean was the top vote getter in this race.  He worked hard and campaigned well for the position.  Congrats to all the winners. 

SEAN M SHULTZ (DEM) .  .  .  .  .  .  .      1,457   15.56%

FRANKLIN L RANKIN (REP).  .  .  .  .  .      1,390   14.85%

WILLIAM M KRONENBERG (REP).  .  .  .  .      1,349   14.41%

DONALD GRELL (REP)  .  .  .  .  .  .  .      1,296   13.84%

KENNETH E GOSSERT (REP).  .  .  .  .  .      1,157   12.36%

SUSAN A C HOEFLER (DEM).  .  .  .  .  .      1,018   10.87%

DOROTHY LAUDERBAUGH (DEM) .  .  .  .  .        852    9.10%

KARL MARCHUT (DEM)  .  .  .  .  .  .  .        785    8.38%

WRITE-IN.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .         58     .62%

I’ve had some time to think about what will happen tomorrow.  Here’s my predictions - no one in their right mind can possibly say what is going to happen with the statewide races.  How mad are voters and will they take out their frustration on judges by actually going to the polls to vote in the retention - it’s anybody’s guess.  I’ll say this much, PACleanSweep has done a good job of pushing their message.  It wouldn’t surprise me if Justice Saylor gets voted down, and a few other judges do not make the retention vote, but it also wouldn’t surprise me if they did win retention.  Alot will depend on turnout - in this case - how many angry voters from the T get out to vote versus voters in the Pittsburgh and Philly areas.  The advantage here goes to the T voters for one reason only - the Philly and Pittsburgh mayoral races seem to be blowouts, so the logic is why go to vote?

On the local level here in Cumberland County, I would guess that there will not be a whole lot of change.  Commissoner’s Barclay, Eichelberger and Rovegno will most likely be re-elected - it’s just a matter of what order they come in.  The commissioners’ race was unusually quiet this fall.  Here in Carlisle, we have four Borough Council seats, with nine candidates running - 4 D’s, 4 R’s, and 1 Green.  It looks like Frank Rankin and Doc Kronenberg will easily get re-elected.  That means there is a three man race for two other seats.  The three that have a shot for two of these seats are Democrat Sean Shultz, Republicans Don Grell and Ken Gossert.  I’ll make a prediction here and say that Sean Shultz comes in third, followed by Don Grell.  Ken Gossert has a history of getting through the primary, but not being able to win in the general election.  Sean Shultz has run a good campaign doing lots of door-to-door and created a great organization of volunteers to help him.  He lost by 15 votes two years ago and I’d say he has more than made up for that loss this time. 

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’

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!