Courage of Conviction

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!

By now, anyone who delves into politics has heard this rumor.  Chris Lilik at GrassrootsPA posted it on his blog first from an article in the American Spectator. 

The comment section on GrassrootsPA has been active with all sorts of comments both positive and negative.  I love the idea of floating a rumor like this out there, regardless of who is considering running.  First off it gets people talking about it.  It doesn’t matter if the chatter is good or bad, it gets people talking about it - which creates credibility. 

The other thing it does is that it allows Santorum and his advisors to see what areas he would need to work on.  There are still a segment of the conservative base that is ticked off at him for his support of Specter’s re-election.  And there are those that are upset at him for what they perceive to be his lack of fiscal conservativism.  He’ll never get the support of the first group - that’s a once and done crowd.  The problem with holding a grudge like that is pretty soon everyone “screws up” and you are left with no one. 

As for the second group - there’s still hope for Santorum.  His opportunity is to listen to their concerns and determine if making any changes is worth the return on investment. 

Overall, smart move throughing the idea and rumor out there. 

Unless you live under a rock, you’ve heard about Moveon.org’s ad in the New York Times.  Forget about the content of the ad and what the ad is about - there are some great lessons to be learned from this whole episode. 

Lesson 1 - You’ve got to hand it to the Moveon.org people - they succeeded in getting the entire country talking about the issue they care about - that’s not a small feat. 

Lesson 2 - They established themselves as the legitimate anti-war voice.  How can I say that.  How many other organizations out there are able to get the US Senate to do something about an ad that is produced.  If the US Senate feels threatened by such an organization enough to pass a resolution, then I’m impressed.  Besides, all the US Senate did was give Moveon.org a huge credibility boost.  The US Senate committed a huge political error in responding to anything that Moveon.org does.  Now the US Senate has an obligation to continue to respond to further Moveon.org ads and antics. 

Lesson 3 - Moveon.org was able to get their critics to respond to them.  Again, amazing.  One of the things I’ve learned from my years of campaigning for underdog campaigns is that the easiest way to gain credibility and be seen as a legitimate candidate is to get your opponent, the incumbent, to respond to you.  That’s exactly what conservative commentators did - they legitimized Moveon.org as a force to be dealt with. 

Overall, very impressive work.  And great lessons in gaining credibility and making sure people will listen to you in the future. 

The latest edition of The Keystone Report is now available here.  I interviewed Russ Diamond, founder of PA Clean Sweep about the organization’s new campaign for the voters to vote no on all 67 judicial retention races in the Commonwealth.  We discussed the reasons for such a campaign and Russ addressed some of the critics’ claims about the campaign.  Russ also explained the top 10 list that the organization will be unveiling which gives reasons to vote against retention of judges.  They also discussed the general mood of the voters being unsatisfied with the rate of reform in Harrisburg and what could be done about that. 

Further discussion surrounded Supreme Court Chief Justice Ralph Cappy’s announcement last week that he will retire at the end of the year.

You can learn more about PA Clean Sweep by visiting their website at www.pacleansweep.com

To listen to this podcast click here.

I received an e-mail today about another GOP Presidential debate.  This one is sponsored by WorldNetDaily.  It’s supposed to be a Values Voters Debate.  What’s interesting about this one is the whining that the sponsor is doing because the first-tier candidates are going to be no-shows.  

Which leads to a nice concise set of lessons I’ll share with you about how to get candidates to ignore you. 

Lesson 1 - Criticize the top-tier candidates.  That’s right, that’s the easiest way for candidates to ignore you in the future.  Why would anyone in their right mind decide to show up at the last minute after you just called them a “gutless wonder?”

Lesson 2 - Contradict your own values.  This is supposed to be a “values voters” debate.  Is name-calling now a new family value?  Doesn’t that seem a bit childish?

Lesson 3 - Make your debate announcement more about the moderator than the candidates and debate.  I’m not stretching it here, but atleast one-third of the debate announcement was about the moderator Joseph Farah - his background, a sales pitch for his latest book, etc.  When you include quotes by Mr. Farah, atleast half of the announcement is about Mr. Farah and not about the candidates or the debate.

Lesson 4 - Inadvertently downplay the candidates who decide to participate.  The announcement identifies the top-tier candidates, which means the other candidates are what - second-tier at best, or not to be taken seriously at worst.  Why not thank the candidates who are deciding to participate and raise them up.  I don’t know, maybe something to the effect that “this debate will give the candidates who particpate a platform and an opportunity to set themselves apart from the crowd.” 

Lesson 5 - Make the debate into a gameshow.  I’m not kidding here.  Here’s the quote from the announcement:

Organizers are promising “rapid-fire action” in Round Two of the debate, “where the first of its kind podium design will allow questions to be asked and answered by all seven candidates in under a minute.”  They also say “wildcard minutes” will be given to every candidate to use whenever they want, however they want – from challenging another candidate to interrupting a round of questions. 

There’s just way too much to comment on there.  So I’ll leave it for you to poke holes in it.

Lesson 6 - Make the debate as long as possible.  The debate is set to begin at 7:30pm and run for three hours according to the announcement.  You saw that correctly, three hours.  I pity the candidates who are participating.  Debates aren’t supposed be as long as some faster runners take to finish a marathon. 

Given all this, is it any wonder that the top-tier candidates decided they had better things to do? 

I’m usually all that impressed with polls - especially presidential polls months out from any kind of real election.  I came across one poll though that I thought was interesting.  It’s a poll that Unity ‘08 put out on our current political selection process.  When you look at the demographics, it’s got a pretty good mix of D’s, R’s and I’s.  No suprises on the big questions - no one likes any of the candidates.  Some surprises though on some of the other questions.  It’s worth a few minutes of your time to take a look.  Find it here.

I’ve been receiving Richard Viguerie’s e-mails for awhile.  I’ve found him to be rather, how should I put it, rigid.  I’ve been truly enjoying the last few e-mails over the last couple of months.  He’s been attacking Fred Thompson.  If I were on the Thompson campaign I’d be rejoicing.  Here’s why:

First off, when someone who is either a leader, or self-proclaimed leader, of a movement or part of a movement attacks you, you are a threat and more importantly, a legitimate threat.  That means someone who has, or thinks they have credibility thinks you have credibility.  Forget what the attack is about - it doesn’t matter.  The benefits far outweigh the negatives.  In this case, Thompson is the focus and the topic - not what Viguerie’s message is.  He should know better, he’s supposedly an expert on messaging. 

Secondly, Viguerie is giving Thompson plenty of fundraising material.  I can just see the fundraising letters now - I’m being attacked as …  Just fill in the blank.  It’s the same thing that Hillary Clinton does to boost her fundraising.  You think she wants to be loved by everyone - hell no.  If you are loved by everyone, then there is no need, in the current state of poilitics to give you money.  Politics is about fighting, not love.  You have to be up against something or someone.  That’s what politics is about.  Look at the great leaders - they fought against great odds and great opponents.  Reagan against the Evil Empire, FDR against tthe Nazis, Lincoln against teh South and Slavery, Washington against the oppressive British.  That’s how it works. 

Bush tried this approach, but the problem is that terrorism isn’t restricted to a geographical location with boundaries, unlike the other great enemies we’ve faced. 

Here’s a personal example for me of all this in play - When I did Jessica Brewbaker’s District Judge race, I was thrilled when I learned that someone had taken some of our yard signs, ripped them into pieces and shoved them into people’s mailslots on their front doors.  Yes, someone actually got that upset - amazing.  It thrilled me because it rallied our supporters, helped us raise some last minute, much needed funds to finish the campaign, and showed me that our message was working. 

Thompson’s campaign should be loving the criticism - it means he’s doing the right thing.