Delano's Den

PA Primary Election Aftermath

2009-05-24T14:24:00.002-04:00

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

Pennsylvania held a primary election on Tuesday, and nobody came. It still counts, of course, but the biggest news was how many people stayed home. This quick post-election edition of my PSF will focus on the results and the set-up for November – but, have no fear, my analysis of the 2010 gubernatorial and senatorial races will be out shortly. Truth be told, nobody cares about 2009 much, but never forget that one election is prelude to another!

By the way, I now tweet – as in twitter. So if you would like quick instant political snippets from me, just go to http://twitter.com/JonDelano and follow me.

Where Were the Voters?

Across the commonwealth, the weather in most areas was picture-perfect for an election. It didn’t matter. Most Democrats and Republicans didn’t bother to vote. After last November’s election, I suppose it’s easy to view a race for statewide judges, county officials, mayors, school directors, and council members as rather ho-hum.

As many of you know, I give lots of talks to organizations around the state and region, and, frankly, the topics of greatest interest lately have been the first 100 days of Barack Obama, the future of Arlen Specter, and the aftermath of Ed Rendell. Nobody seems to care who was elected judge, mayor of Pittsburgh, or district attorney of Philadelphia except the candidates and their fervent supporters.

I don’t have the full statewide figures on voter turn-out yet, but they will not be good. On the Republican side, the “hotly” contested race for Supreme Court drew just over 550,000 votes. That’s about 18% of 3.2 million Republicans. The Democrats did not have a contested race for state Supreme Court, so this measure of turn-out will not be accurate (lots of voters skip uncontested races). Nonetheless, only 530,000 Democrats cast a ballot in this race, about 12% of the state’s 4.4 million Democrats. Both numbers suggest that voter turn-out, statewide, was probably not much better than 20%.

I used to complain about voter turn-out until I realized that every voter who stays home gives my vote more power. Since like most of you, I never miss an election, I look forward to the day when just a few of us will nominate and elect public officials. Just kidding, of course, but it is amazing to me that these socalled “off year” elections seem so unimportant to so many. Who do you think raises Pennsylvania’s ignominious property taxes?

PA Supreme Court Up for Party Grabs

Put bluntly, this year’s election will determine which political party controls the state Supreme Court as we head into the reapportionment of the state’s legislative districts. That’s a subject that always seems to be litigated, and both parties would like to have an edge in any judicial decision that is rendered.

Of course, members of the Court will deny that politics plays any role in their decision-making, and this year’s candidates are likely to eschew that line, at least in public. But behind the scenes, you never know what goes on – and both parties are taking a keen interest in security the seat for their nominee.

The Republican nominee will be Superior Court Judge Joan Orie Melvin of Allegheny County. She just happens to be the sister of the third-ranking GOP senator in the state Senate, Sen. Jane Orie, the majority whip. With 55% of the GOP vote, Orie Melvin, the endorsed candidate for Supreme Court, easily defeated her opponents in the primary, Philadelphia Judge Paul Panepinto and Superior Court Judge Cheryl Lynn Allen.

To give them the 4-3 edge on the Supreme Court, the Democrats have picked Superior Court Judge Jack Panella of Northampton County (the Allentown-Bethlehem area). Panella is well-liked and highly regarded by those who know him, but he hardly has name recognition across the state.

What Panella has going for him this November is a 1.2 million Democratic voter registration edge, if the party can get those Democrats out to vote. But never underestimate the Ories! Orie Melvin will work tenaciously, and remind voters that she was the one judge who tried to turn back that infamous pay raise. You know, the big one that state lawmakers later repealed for everyone but the Supreme Court subsequently ruled could not be repealed for judges! Orie Melvin was on the side of the angels in that debate.

I think the Panella v. Orie Melvin race is going to be a lot closer than some Democrats believe. By the way, both candidates are rated “Highly Recommended” by the PA Bar Association.

Winners & Losers in Other Statewide Races

Voters don’t seem to care much about the Superior Court and Commonwealth Court, but these appellate courts are an important judicial appeal for every citizen who believes their local county courts have screwed up. This November, three new judges to Superior Court and two new judges to Commonwealth Court will be elected.

On Tuesday, Democrats picked Allegheny County Judge Robert Colville, Allegheny County Assistant District Attorney Kevin McCarthy, and Philadelphia Judge Anne Lazarus. They will face off against three Republicans, Allegheny County Judge Judith Olson, Tioga County attorney Sallie Mundy, and Allegheny County attorney Templeton Smith. With the possible exception of Colville, whose father was a highly popular District Attorney and later judge in Allegheny County, the public knows little about these candidates, although Lazarus benefits from having run statewide for Superior Court two years ago. The PA Bar Association rated all the candidates “Recommended” but gave a “Highly Recommended” to Lazarus and Olson. The Allegheny County Bar Association, which ranks judges and lawyers from the county, gave Colville, McCarthy, Olson, and Smith a “Highly Recommended” rating.

The race for Commonwealth Court could be much more interesting than expected. On Tuesday, the Democrats nominate two Pittsburgh attorneys, Barbara Behrend Ernsberger and Linda Judson, while the Republicans chose former Allegheny County Judge Patty McCullough and Dauphin County attorney Kevin Brobson.

The two best known candidates are Ernsberger and McCullough. Ernsberger was the first woman to head the City of Pittsburgh Democratic Committee and is on the Pittsburgh Planning Commission. She is hard-working and frank in her opinions, unafraid of the political old boys. McCullough was Gov. Rendell’s Republican choice for local court in 2005 but could not win election in Allegheny County. Her husband, Chuck, the former county solicitor under Jim Roddey, is a county councilman at-large, who is now on trial for theft from an elderly client. Among other things, Chuck is accused of directing unauthorized sums of his client’s money to political candidates and to Catholic Charities, where Patty served as executive director. Nobody has ever accused former Judge McCullough of any wrongdoing.

To further complicate matters, the PA Bar Association rated McCullough, Judson, and Brobson as “Recommended” for Commonwealth Court, but said Ernsberger was “Not Recommended” because of their concerns about her temperament. The Allegheny County Bar Association rated both McCullough and Judson as “Not Recommended At This Time” and called Ernsberger “Unqualified.” Remains to be seen how the voters sort through all this come November.

Ravenstahl Wins Big but Not as Big as Some Thought

It’s been like a non-stop three-year election campaign for Luke Ravenstahl, the 29-year old mayor of Pittsburgh. Taking office nearly three years ago after the death of the late Mayor Bob O’Connor, Ravenstahl faced voters twice in 2007 and again this Tuesday. If elected in November, he will – finally – get a four-year term to call his own.

From the beginning of this campaign, Ravenstahl had all the advantages, incumbency and money being chief among them. Nobody ever really thought he would lose the Democratic primary. You have to go back to the 1930s to find an incumbent Pittsburgh mayor losing in his own party. So the question all along has been how big a win would he rack up.

On Tuesday, Ravenstahl got 26,848 votes to Councilman Patrick Dowd’s 12,592 and former police sergeant Carmen Robinson’s 5,916. That’s pretty impressive in my book, a better than two-to-one victory over his nearest competitor. But Ravenstahl fell short of walloping his opponents, at least in the percentage department, where some (including yours truly) felt he could win as much as 65% to 70% of the vote. He ultimately got 59% of the Democratic vote.

Ravenstahl may have been hurt by very low voter turnout. Four years ago, Bob O’Connor won 28,812 votes (more than Luke) against much stronger opponents, Councilman Bill Peduto and now City Controller Michael Lamb plus four others. O’Connor beat both his big challengers by two-to-one (Peduto got 14,344 and Lamb got 13,114). The big difference was that 58,843 Democrats voted in the ’05 primary, compared to just 45,356 in the ’09 primary.

None of this should take away from Ravenstahl’s success. Even if 40% of the Democrats would prefer somebody else, you can’t please everyone, and I think he is well on his way to a long tenure as mayor of Pittsburgh. [During the KDKA-TV debate, Luke said he would serve out his full four-year term, if reelected, and not run for County Executive should Dan Onorato be elected governor – all of which suggests that he wisely knows his political home is in the city, not the county].

Patrick Dowd and Carmen Robinson both made names for themselves in this run. Robinson was feisty, assertive, and didn’t hold back in her attacks on the mayor. In a city where there should be more African American elected officials, Robinson opened some doors for herself, and I suspect we’ll see her on the ballot again sometime.

Dowd, of course, returns to city council. For a man who was written off by most and could scarcely raise a dime against the Ravenstahl financial juggernaut, Dowd made a strong impression for his passion, his energy, his independence, and his unfailing urge to call things exactly as he sees them.

This did not endear him to Ravenstahl, or many in established Democratic circles, including some who might have agreed with his ideas. But it is quintessential Dowd. Whether he can move on politically remains to be seen. No doubt Luke will cast about for a strong council challenger to beat Dowd in 2011.

Patrick’s charges of mayoralty corruption, pay-for-play, clearly got under Luke’s not-yet-hardened political skin. On election night, when he could have assumed the role of gracious winner, Ravenstahl never returned Dowd’s concession phone call and then on local TV accused Dowd of crossing the line and asked for his apology. He won’t get it from Dowd. There’s surprising bad blood here that threatens to last for awhile. You can watch the play-by-play on http://tinyurl.com/pc97ap.

I’ll reserve comment on the November election until later. Both Luke and Squirrel Hill native (and a real Republican) Josh Wander staged a write-in for the Republican nomination, but we don’t know who won that yet. Already, two independents have announced: Kevin Acklin and Franco “Dok” Harris. More about them later, but nobody I know (except maybe Acklin and Harris) thinks Ravenstahl will lose this November.

Mayor Loses Some Allies on City Council

While the mayor won big, Pittsburgh city council took a turn towards greater independence and youth when voters nominated Natalia Rudiak and Daniel Lavelle. Rudiak will replace Ravenstahl-stalwart Councilman Jim Motznik, who won a race for district magistrate against friend-turned-foe Michael Diven, in the South Hills council district. Ravenstahl supported Anthony Coghill to replace Motznik, but Rudiak, a 29-year old Carrick native with a Masters degree from CMU’s Heinz College, staged an impressive grassroots campaign to win.

Across town, another Ravenstahl ally, Councilwoman Tonya Payne, went down to defeat to 31-year old Schenley Heights native Daniel Lavelle. Lavelle’s family is well-known and respected in the Hill District for both its real estate and banking work, among the first African American families to break down racial barriers years ago in these key businesses. The Kent State University graduate also has prior government experience, having worked for both former councilman Sala Udin and PA state Rep. Jake Wheatley.

Both Rudiak and Lavelle are not inherently anti-Ravenstahl, even though the mayor did not back them. Both will support the mayor when his actions benefit their neighborhoods, which both believe have gotten short shrift from downtown.

Also renominated on Tuesday were incumbent Councilman Bill Peduto and Councilwoman Theresa Kail Smith. While Peduto works with the mayor when their agendas agree (i.e., certain government reform issues), he has no problem taking on City Hall. Neither do most of the others on council.

As I survey the nine likely members of council come January, Ravenstahl’s most stalwart ally appears to be Councilwoman Darlene Harris from the North Side. All the others – Council President Doug Shields, Councilman Bill Peduto, Patrick Dowd, Ricky Burgess, Bruce Kraus, Theresa Kail Smith, and newcomers Natalia Rudiak and Daniel Lavelle are not automatic Ravenstahl voters on much of anything. The mayor has some fence-mending to do in the years to come.

A Word about the Allegheny County Judges

As an attorney, a one-time member and chair of the Allegheny County Bar Association’s Judiciary Committee (that evaluates and rates candidates), and now a member of the ACBA’s board of governors, I really do care about the people we elect to the judiciary. Over the years, the public has elected some very high quality judges – and some real duds.

As voters, most of us lack the information to make informed choices. The ACBA ratings are not always perfect either. I remember years ago when Judge Ron Folino was “not recommended at this time,” and he is now considered one of the best on the bench today. He’s not the only example of lawyers screwing up their evaluations.

Lawyers run for judge for lots of reasons, some good and some pecuniary. The current salary ($158,105) is usually more than a lot (not all) of these candidates make practicing law. I also believe we need greater racial and gender diversity on the bench, and I would also argue for diversity of background. I like to see elected and appointed officials from other branches of government run for judge, along with non-traditional lawyers from the non-profit or corporate world, because these individuals have unique real-world experiences that add to the judiciary.

Unfortunately, much of these qualifications are overwhelmed by gimmicky advertising that now seems the preferred way to win a seat on the bench. I suspect 2009 will set a record locally for the amount of money spent by local judicial candidates on TV, billboards, lawn signs, and mailings.

In the end, three candidates won nominations in both parties: Susan Evashavik Dilucente, Phil Ignelzi, and Arnie Klein. Dilucente had the cleverest ads, Ignelzi spent the most money, and Klein (running for his third time at least) was the most perseverant. All three got good ratings from the ACBA and have the potential to be outstanding jurists. For the remaining two seats, it will be state Rep. Don Walko and appointed Judge Joe Williams (running as Democrats) versus attorneys Alex Bicket and Michele Zappala Peck (running as Republicans). Williams and Bicket were both rated “highly recommended” and Walko and Zappala Peck rated as “not recommended at this time.”

One final note. Did anyone notice the strange configuration of the computer ballot in the judicial races? There were two columns, and it was very easy to miss the second column because the first column did not run down to the bottom of the page. Instead, at least three lines were left blank, giving the impression that the ballot was over before it was. I have no doubt that this hurt all the candidates listed in the second column.

Well, that’s enough election analysis for today. Next week, I’ll be back with a focus on 2010. As always, I welcome your off-the-record comments and suggestions. Finally, this is Memorial Day Weekend. Please fly the American flag in memory of those men and women who have lost their lives to protect our right to vote and to debate what it all means!

March 11, 2009: Forty Days & Forty Nights

2009-05-24T14:11:00.004-04:00

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

Thanks for all the kind comments to my last PSF, the first e-newsletter I have penned in quite awhile. I really do appreciate the feedback, especially if you have an inside political 'scoop' or comment to share, always off-the-record. From your comments, I gather some of you may have had difficulty emailing me back. In the future, just use delano.jon@gmail.com, and your communication should get to me.

Curiously, my little rant about Washington's Birthday, the legal and official name for what some misguided marketers, media, and presidents incorrectly call "Presidents Day," elicited some interesting comments. A number of you thought the 1968 change that moved the federal holiday from Washington's birth date, February 22, and made it the third Monday in the month was designed to consolidate two federal holidays, one for George Washington and one for Abraham Lincoln. Nope. Believe it or not, there never has been a federal holiday for Lincoln, as southern congressmen blocked that long ago. While some northern states celebrated Lincoln's birthday as a state holiday on February 12, the reason for moving Washington's Birthday was solely to create a 3-day weekend. While some purists might dislike that move, my 'bitch' is with what we call the day and the fact that so many sheep so blindly followed Richard Nixon's silly attempt to rename the holiday so he could be included.

Your other comments were much more policy-directed, and I really welcome those. I am truly a "flaming moderate" and that often means that both those on the hard left and hard right will take issue with my characterization of events. That's fine. My goal is mostly to provide information that you may miss in the mainstream media, provoke some conversation, and have some fun in the process!

If you want to scroll around, you'll see I've touched on everything from Obama to Rooney, from Specter & Toomey to Onorato & Cunningham, and Luke-Patrick-Franco. As always, I welcome your comments. Of course, if you think this is spam, there's a button below to get off my Politically Savvy Friends' list!

BEYOND THE BELTWAY

Obama Tries to Deliver on Campaign Promises:

Forty days and forty nights in the White House is hardly enough to draw many conclusions about President Obama, but one thing seems crystal clear to me - this guy intends to shake up the status quo in Washington, just as he promised during his campaign. Unlike his Inaugural Address, which I thought was uninspired, Obama's speech to the Congress and nation last month was a home run. In an address that even got Republicans to their feet on many occasions, the president made it clear that he was in charge and that he had a plan to not only revive the economy but also to restore America's superiority in energy independence, health care delivery, and educational opportunity.

Right after that address, the CNN/Opinion Research Poll found 88% of Americans believe Obama's policies will move the country in the "right direction," up from 71% the week before. And an astounding 85% of Americans said they are "optimistic" about the future of the country under this president. Gallup found that the president's speech boosted his job approval from 59% to 67%, near his high point of 69% during his first couple days of office.

In my view, a lot of this support was wishful thinking from an electorate that is yearning for better times, likes the strength and good talk of this president, but really doesn't understand exactly what he is proposing as part of the "change" he was elected to deliver.

The most recent early March polls show some slippage. Obama's favorability is down to 57% in the Cook/RT Strategies poll, 58% in the most recent Newsweek poll, and 59% in the Quinnipiac poll.

The president's release of a $3.6 trillion 2010 federal budget has given opponents plenty of grist with which to attack him, but I was impressed with how the president is using his popularity to deliver on many of his campaign themes. Some commentators have noted that this budget, if enacted, would end the generally laissez-faire approach to national problems that characterized much of the Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush era in American politics. No doubt the belief that lower taxes on the wealthy and a government hands-off approach would "solve" problems is obviously being cast aside as a failure.

Instead, President Obama intends to spend dramatically to move the country to energy independence, to deliver health care insurance to every American, and to increase both the quality of and access to American education. And he will pay for some of it by raising taxes on the top 5% of Americans, while cutting the taxes of everyone else. It's an ambitious agenda that will require Democrats in Congress, and perhaps a Republican or two, to buy into the program.

In the end, the president is not going to get everything he wants. But he has laid down a very high marker and is essentially daring everyone to come up with something better. Because so many special interests are affected, you can be sure that lobbyists are swarming Capitol Hill, where they enjoy incredible clout among both Democratic and Republican members of Congress. Even when it comes to a popular president versus powerful special interests that fund congressional campaigns, I suspect we know who wins out in the fine print of public policy.

Republicans Search for a Response:

For a party that seems remarkably united in its opposition to President Obama's plans to stimulate the economy, the Republican Party is having a hard time finding a singular message that resonates with the public. Certainly Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal was, by almost all accounts, unable to deliver a formal response to the president's speech that anyone took seriously.

And the recent brouhaha between GOP chairman Michael Steele and conservative talk radio entrepreneur Rush Limbaugh over who really speaks for Republicans gave Democrats a perfect chance to sow more division. Obviously, Steele is the elected leader of the National Republican Party and obviously Limbaugh is a clever entertainer who knows how to keep his name out there. But Steele's rather bold attack on Limbaugh for saying he hopes Obama fails (he meant Obama's policies fail) and then quick apology and suck-up to the powerful conservative voice left one wondering who really was in charge.

Fundamentally, the problem for Republicans, as Gov. Mitt Romney said cogently at the convention of the Conservative Political Action Conference last month, is that it's not enough to just oppose something - you need concrete plans on how you would do things better. While Republican credibility on the Wall Street mess and the economy in general is about as low as it can go, Republicans need to start thinking creatively about how they would get health insurance to every American, how they would get America off its energy dependence on foreign oil, and how they would improve American schools and make higher education affordable to everyone. Whether his plans are good ones or not, Obama at least has ideas, and it's not clear - certainly it wasn't from Jindal - what the G.O.P. alternatives are.

Accusing the president of being a "socialist" or ranting on about "class warfare" will be no more effective against Obama than it was against Franklin D. Roosevelt 75 years ago. Indeed, income disparities seem just as bad today as they were in the 1930s, and reports of bankers and other corporate high-rollers giving themselves million dollar bonuses (and more) while their company's stock plummets and workers are laid off only helps Obama against such puerile attacks. When the president said, "I get it," he was speaking to the 95% of Americans who don't want another dime going to overpaid executives. The question for Republicans who voted against Obama's stimulus plan and oppose his budget is, do they "get it" too?

Don't Tax Me, Tax the Guy Behind That Tree:

Right after the election, I commented on how, in Pennsylvania, Obama won every income category (according to exit polls) except one. Those with family incomes between $100,000 and $150,000 voted for John McCain. But some 57% of those with incomes between $150,000 and $200,000 voted for Obama over McCain, and 58% of those with incomes over $200,000 voted for Obama. Given candidate Obama's frequently repeated message that those in the latter category could expect higher taxes, nobody can be surprised by his 2010 tax proposals.

In a nutshell, Obama will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for the two highest tax brackets in 2011, reinstating the Clinton tax rates of the 1990s. That means that for individuals who earn more than $200,000 and couples with more than $250,000 tax rates will go up from 33% to 36%, while taxes for those with incomes over $357,000 will rise from 35% to 39.6%. To be absolutely clear, taxes on the wealthy will not go up in 2009 or 2010, but be put off until 2011 when, presumably, the economy will have recovered.

For those who make less than $200,000 ($250,000 a couple), the president will make permanent the lower Bush tax rates, and he wants to make permanent the additional tax reductions ($400 per worker, $800 per couple) that are part of the stimulus bill for 2009 & 2010. In other words, for most Americans, Obama cuts income taxes.

Ironically, this is not some radical tax-the-rich scheme, as some conservative commentators charge. For the well-off, this just restores tax rates to where they were before George W. Bush came along, and the top rate is well below the 70% top tax rate in effect with Ronald Reagan became president. However, Obama has proposed a more controversial limiting of tax deductions for those in these high income brackets. Instead of getting the full value of these deductions, deductions would be capped as if they were at a 28% tax level.

Charities that depend on philanthropic giving from the wealthy are already expressing some concern about the impact of these limits on deductions, fearing the wealthy won't donate as much. I suspect this is one proposal that will see some modification in Congress.

The administration also wants to correct one tax loophole that the Wall Street high rollers enjoyed in recent years. Instead of paying normal income taxes like the rest of us, many executives at hedge funds and other venture capital and equity firms got to treat their portion of the firm's profit as if it were a capital gain and not ordinary income. That meant paying taxes at a 15% tax rate, instead of what normal people of their income would pay.

On the capital gains tax itself, Obama will keep it the same reduced rate introduced by his predecessor, but he proposes raising it from 15% to 20% for those in the highest two income brackets. That actually is still below what it was during the Clinton years.

On the federal estate tax, the president sounds somewhat Republican. In 2011, the amount of an estate subject to federal tax was supposed to drop back down to $1 million. In other words, the heirs of anyone with an estate over $1 million would pay federal taxes on the amount above that dollar level. Obama proposes freezing the current $3.5 million exemption, allowing a lot more (but not all) wealthy families to escape this tax. Most Americans don't worry about this kind of stuff - are you leaving more than $3.5 million to your kids? - but some Republicans denounce even these high exclusions, saying there should be no "death taxes at all" on multi-million or multi-billion dollar estates.

"There will be overwhelming opposition from the American people" to these tax changes, the third-ranking House Republican, U.S. Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana predicted last month. Somehow I doubt it. Those under $200,000 ($250,000 a couple) will actually see their taxes go down under Obama, so opponents are going to have to make middle class Americans care that the wealthy are going to pay what they did under Clinton. It will be interesting to see who wins the "spin" in this important battle. Stay tuned.

Rooney Hopes for the Luck of the Irish:

Over the last couple of months, I have done several stories on Pittsburgh Steelers chairman Dan Rooney's special relationship with President Obama and the possibility that Rooney could become the U.S. Ambassador to Ireland. While there is no official word from the White House, the speculation is growing that Rooney is number one on a short list of candidates for this job. Traditionally, this appointment is announced around St. Patrick's Day and, coincidentally, Rooney will be in Washington next Monday to receive a Lifetime Achievement Award from the American Ireland Fund (which he co-founded decades ago). On Tuesday, Rooney will be at the White House for a special St. Patrick's Day reception with Obama and the Irish Prime Minister.

Last April, Rooney broke ranks with members of his own family and the political establishment of both the region and state to endorse Barack Obama. At the time, no one of his stature had embraced Obama from Pennsylvania. (U.S. Sen. Bob Casey endorsed Obama shortly thereafter). After that, Rooney campaigned hard for Obama, raised money for him, and hosted Michelle Obama at his North Side home. Talk to the president, you quickly learn that this is a mutual admiration society.

In my view (and, admittedly I'm biased because I am a big Rooney fan), Dan has not only earned the ambassadorship the traditional political way, but he is also uniquely qualified to be ambassador because of the work he has done for so many years to promote peace and reconciliation in Ireland. If you want to learn more, check out these stories, including a Jan. 17 interview I did with Dan wherein he said he would serve in any position the President wants. http://kdka.com/video/?id=54536@kdka.dayport.com ; uncut interview http://kdka.com/video/?id=51971@kdka.dayport.com

PENNSYLVANIA:

Can Anyone Stop Onorato for Governor?

It's still more than a year until the 2010 Pennsylvania primary when voters pick the nominees for Pennsylvania's highest office. But everyone knows that these campaigns for governor cannot wait until 2010 to get started. On the Democratic side, Allegheny County executive Dan Onorato, who has a whopping $4 million in his war chest already, would like everyone to believe that he is the strongest Democrat in the field to succeed Gov. Ed Rendell, a term-limited Philadelphia Democrat.

Truth is Onorato is right. At this stage, he has got to be considered the front-runner. Even if he didn't have all this money, he has a bigger political base than any of the other candidates, and the conservative Pittsburgh Democrat arguably may be best placed to break the 50 year jinx that dictates the Republicans win the governor's mansion after eight years of Rendell.

But don't tell that to Lehigh County executive Don Cunningham, who thinks he can give Onorato a run for all that money. I had the chance to sit down with Cunningham not long ago, and he makes a case that he can raise the money and has the issues to out-flank Onorato within the more liberal Democratic Party.

Ironically, on many levels, Onorato and Cunningham are similar - both 40-somethings come from working class backgrounds, an Italian Catholic versus an Irish Catholic. Cunningham was a young mayor of Bethlehem when Bethlehem Steel shut its doors, and he says now his region is the fastest-growing part of Pennsylvania. Both are committed to practical approaches to economic development, and can point to examples of success. Indeed, they sound a lot alike when they talk about growth.

But on one social issue, there's a big difference. While Onorato is pro-life, Cunningham is pro-choice, and within the Democratic Party that could be a defining issue for some. However, Cunningham is not about to change Pennsylvania's already tough anti-abortion law (neither did pro-choice Rendell) while Onorato is hardly pushing to make the law tougher.

If that issue neutralizes for Onorato, Cunningham has no problem going after Onorato on the drink tax, the ten percent (now seven percent) levy on poured alcohol in Allegheny County. Onorato backed that tax to give public transit a dedicated source of revenue, necessary to receive federal matching dollars. The tax is unpopular among many, and Cunningham took aim at it during a recent visit to Pittsburgh, calling the tax "one of the highest, if not the highest, in Allegheny County history." No surprise, the anti-drink tax folks hosted a fund-raiser for Cunningham.

Here's my quick story on his visit: http://kdka.com/video/?id=53616@kdka.dayport.com and if you want to watch the full 18-minute interview, just click on this: http://kdka.com/video/?id=53604@kdka.dayport.com

Can Cunningham really give Onorato a run? Of course, he can, if - and it's a big if - he is able to raise enough money to get an alternative message out there. Right now, Cunningham is up for reelection as county executive in Lehigh County, and that could drain some resources. Still, in my view, it won't hurt Onorato to have some competition next spring. Many political analysts believe that's what helped Ed Rendell the most in 2002 - running against Bob Casey in the Democratic primary and forcing Rendell to campaign all over the state. By the end of that primary, everyone knew Rendell, while his Republican opponent, Attorney General Mike Fisher, was still a relatively unknown state official.

Can Anyone Beat Arlen?

After U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter voted to enact the Obama stimulus plan, Specter's arch-enemies on the right promised to take him out, politically speaking, in next spring's primary. Their biggest challenge was finding a candidate to do that, and they just might have done that.

As I opined in my last PSF, former U.S. Rep. Pat Toomey, the conservative Republican who nearly took Specter down in 2004, has always been the most popular choice among the conservative party faithful. The cum laude graduate of Harvard is now president of the Club for Growth, a conservative economic think tank that opposes President Obama's economic policies. Toomey, at first, was not inclined to take Specter on again, preferring a run for governor instead. But that seems to have changed, in part, because the outcry against Specter for supporting President Obama's recovery plan has reached pandemic proportions nationwide among Republican conservatives and their talk show allies (yes, Rush).

Toomey has some advantages in 2010 that he did not enjoy in 2004, not the least of which is Specter himself. While I've never seen a 79-year old with as much vigor and political acuity as Arlen Specter, particularly given what life has thrown at him, time has taken a toll on him, as it has on all of us. Still, Pennsylvania is an "older" state, and like our neighbors in West Virginia (who will never not reelect Robert Byrd) Specter's 80-something age next year won't be a negative as long as he keeps up that feisty campaign style that belies his age.

No, what Specter's greatest problem among Republicans is not his age but the wide-spread perception that he is not a "reliable" Republican - that he "blows with the wind" on issues important to many Republicans. What the general public sees as Specter's independent voting style, many GOPers see as a betrayal of core party principles. The senator's support for Obama's recovery plan, while certainly popular in Pennsylvania as a whole, has become a political lightening rod for the base of Specter's party.

And, arguably, it's a base that has become more conservative over the years, even in this state where moderate Republicans like Scranton, Thornburgh, and Ridge held court for so many years. Some pundits have talked about the loss moderate Rs to Ds in 2008 in order to vote in the Democratic presidential primary, and certainly that happened. It's also true that Limbaugh and others encouraged conservative Rs to do the same to play havoc with the Democrats. My guess is all this party-switching stuff is over-stated. Most voters don't think this strategically when they join a political party.

A bigger problem for Specter is that he will no longer have two powerful incumbent politicians on his side - President Bush and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum. Many believe, and I am one of them, that Bush and Santorum's support for Specter delivered the 17,000 votes that made the difference in the 2004 primary. I can't tell you the number of people I met that year who told me they were "holding their noses and voting for Specter" because Rick told them to do that. Today, Santorum has politely declined to indicate whether he still backs Specter over Toomey, but it wouldn't matter much if Rick still likes Arlen. Out of office for more than two years, Santorum no longer lives in Pennsylvania and his cadre of fervent supporters are not going to listen to him a second time anyways.

Now none of this means it's hopeless for Specter to win renomination. He should have plenty of money, and he still gets plaudits for "bringing home the bacon" to key constituencies in the state. And Specter knows how to go on offense, like his charge yesterday that Toomey was partially responsible for the Wall Street mess. In his very early years, Toomey worked for investment firms in New York City and Hong Kong.

"He's been totally in favor of deregulation, letting Wall Street run its own affairs, which has been a tremendous factor in bringing us into this current mess," Specter charged on a radio talk show in Wilkes-Barre. "So, on the basis of what he did in Congress, I think he's part of the problem." Zing. Zap.

And for some Republicans, Specter is their only hope of keeping Pennsylvania in the Republican column. With 1.1 million more Democrats than Republicans, the conservative Toomey will have to leapfrog to the middle to win a general election in the state. Of course, it's hard to handicap the 2010 general without knowing the Democrat. A Philadelphia liberal as the Dem nominee might give Toomey a fighting chance to win statewide.

But first he'll have to defeat Specter and that could get a little more complicated with the entry of Peg Luksik, the conservative pro-life activist who says she's also going to run in the Republican primary next year. The 53-year old Johnstown native, fresh off a stint as campaign manager for William Russell who lost to U.S. Rep. John Murtha, made political history in 1990 when she got 45% of the vote against then Republican state treasurer Barbara Hafer in the Republican gubernatorial primary. Four years later, she ran as an Independent for governor, garnering 13% of the vote which still stands as a record for an independent candidate.

All in all, the 2010 Senate race will be as much fun as the governor's race to watch.

Statewide Elections Are All Black Robes:

It's only natural to zoom ahead to 2010 because the 2009 off-year election, at least statewide, strikes many as boring. Voters this year will elect one member of the state Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created when Chief Justice Ralph Cappy retired, three members of the state Superior Court, and one member of the Commonwealth Court.

I daresay most voters will not have a clue who to vote for in either the May primary or the November general election. But in Pennsylvania, where judges are elected and run under the party label, which party controls the courts, particularly the highest court, can matter, particularly in redistricting and election-related matters. Right now, the state Supreme Court is controlled by the Democrats, 4-to-3. The Superior Court is controlled by the Republicans, 10-to-5, and the Republicans also control the Commonwealth Court, 5-to-4.

With the deadline for filing nominating petitions on March 10, we are beginning to get a picture of who's running for what. On the Democratic side, only one candidate appears to be running for the state Supreme Court - Superior Court Judge Jack Panella. Panella has been on this state court for five years, after serving 12 years on the Northampton Court of Common Pleas.

While the Dems seem to have united behind Panella, it looks like a true free-for-all on the Republican side. At least four candidates have filed for the Republican nomination, including three Superior Court colleagues, all women, and all from Allegheny County: Superior Court Judges Cheryl Allen, Joan Orie Melvin, and Jacqueline Shogan. The only male on the ballot is Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Paul Panepinto.

Melvin was endorsed by the state Republican Party, which comes as no surprise since her sister is Senate Majority Whip Jane Orie. Melvin has the longest judicial service, serving more than 20 years as a municipal, county, and statewide judge. But that has hardly deterred Allen, the first African American elected to the Superior Court, or Shogan, a nurse of 12 years who went back to law school (Duke) and graduated with high honors. Panepinto has served 19 years on the Philadelphia court, where the Widener law grad is in charge of complex litigation cases.

Feel Free to Buy Your Judge:

In Pennsylvania, judicial candidates can accept contributions of any amount from individuals or political committees. In addition, outside organizations have been known to dump hundreds of thousands of dollars in an effort to defeat or elect their preferred candidates. This is all quite legal, which is why the case of Caperton v. Massey Coal, argued recently before the U.S. Supreme Court, is so important. When a candidate is elected judge, at what point must he recuse himself from the cases involving those who have contributed to his campaign? Right now, it is left entirely up to the judge, some of whom appear to have no problem sitting on cases that involve their contributors.

To his credit, former Chief Justice John P. Flaherty of Pennsylvania joined 27 former chief justices and justices of 19 state supreme courts in filing a "friend of the court" brief in the Caperton case. They argued, correctly, that "substantial financial support of a judicial candidate - whether contributions to the judge's campaign committee or independent expenditures - can influence a judge's future decisions, both consciously and unconsciously." The solution is automatic recusal to protect the due process rights of the litigants who did not contribute to the judge and to avoid any appearance of impropriety. It seems obvious to me. Let's hope the U.S. Supreme Court makes the right decision.

PITTSBURGH

Luke Ravenstahl Asks for Four More Years:

If it sometimes seems like Mayor Luke Ravenstahl is in one perpetual election cycle, you can be forgiven. He has been. Propelled into office at the untimely death of the late Mayor Bob O'Connor on September 1, 2006, Ravenstahl had a primary election in May 2007 (that's the race that Councilman Bill Peduto withdrew from) and a competitive general election in 2007 (against Republican challenger Mark DeSantis). Having won that special election, Ravenstahl is now running for a full four-year term as Pittsburgh's mayor.

Now age 29, Ravenstahl ought to be a shoo-in for reelection. He has amassed a sizeable campaign war chest. He is one of the most recognized political figures in the area, and, after some stupid mistakes early on, he seems to have settled down. While he is the master of the photo op [yesterday it was "Miss Smiling Irish Eyes" & today it's "Fixing Pittsburgh's Potholes"] like most mayors, he has learned to be substantive, too.

I have known Luke since he first ran for city council - just months after graduating from Washington & Jefferson College in December 2002. I think I was the first, or at least one of the first, reporters to put him on TV right after he defeated incumbent Councilwoman Barbara Burns in May 2003 enroute to election to city council that November. I have always been intrigued and admired his political acumen in a man so young and, frankly, I have always liked Luke on a personal level, although I won't let that interfere with reporting and analyzing his actions in an honest, objective manner.

The biggest knock on Ravenstahl, it seems to me, is that he often appears to be a "caretaker" - not a vision maker for a city that is rapidly losing its population and its tax base. Feel good national news stories that rank Pittsburgh positively on some levels do not solve the city's underlying financial woes or reverse some long-term trends that began long before Ravenstahl was born in 1980. To his credit, the mayor and his aides now appear more on top of some of these issues than they did a year ago, but the failure of the first couple years - aided and abetted by youth, inexperience, and the stupid stuff - has left an opening for Ravenstahl's critics.

Patrick Dowd Tries to Shake Up the Democrats:

Enter Councilman Patrick Dowd, a 40-year old Highland Park resident, who thinks he can defeat Ravenstahl in the May 19 Democratic primary. None of the political punditocracy thinks he can do that, but Dowd has always upended expectations, defeating incumbents first for the School Board and then for City Council. [He lost his first race against PA Rep. Joe Preston].

Dowd is a quintessential outsider, and he has won elections through a grassroots campaign, rather than the political clout of a Democratic organization. With less than 10 weeks to go, Dowd's challenge is whether he has enough time to reach thousands of city Democrats who have no clue who he is.

With both a Masters degree and Ph.D. in history from the University of Pittsburgh, Dowd can be sharp, analytical, and direct. Even some of his colleagues on city council who would be his natural allies against Ravenstahl are not likely to endorse him because he's too much of a loner and not a team player, they say.

In this campaign, Dowd has attacked Ravenstahl for both lacking vision for the future and for being, as some have described the mayor, the youngest old-school machine politician in America. When he announced his candidacy, Dowd compared himself to the late Mayor Pete Flaherty, who also ran - and beat - the Democratic machine forty years ago by characterizing himself as "Nobody's Boy." But Flaherty was much better known as a council member when he ran than Dowd is today, in part because back then members of council were elected at-large, not by district.

Right now, I think Dowd will be lucky to get 40% of the Democratic primary vote and could get much less because of the entry of attorney Carmen Robinson, a former city police sergeant, into the race. Still, his candidacy forces Ravenstahl to deal with the "vision thing" - to wit, the mayor's effort to create a Renaissance III plan on Monday. And that's good for the city.

Could Dowd upset Ravenstahl in May? Of course, everything's possible in politics. But in early March, time is on the mayor's side. As the campaign develops, I'd welcome the insights of any city dwellers. To get a better glimpse of Dowd, you can check out these stories on his candidacy: http://kdka.com/video/?id=53626@kdka.dayport.com; http://kdka.com/video/?id=53425@kdka.dayport.com; http://kdka.com/video/?id=53429@kdka.dayport.com.

Franco Harris for Mayor?

Rumors have swirled for months that Franco Harris, the great Steelers Hall of Famer from yesteryear, was interested in running for office. After all, the 59-year old has been a staple on the campaign trail for Democratic candidates over the years, including Barack Obama.

But it was not this Franco Harris who tossed his hat in the ring for mayor on Monday, but rather 29-year old Franco Harris Jr., who goes by "Dok," a shortened version of his mother's maiden name. Dok Harris says he will run as an Independent against Ravenstahl, or whoever wins the Democratic and Republican primaries, this November.

I sat down with Harris this week, and besides that incredible resemblance to his dad (helped by the beard) Dok was impressive for someone who does not have political experience. He's obviously bright, a graduate of Shadyside Academy and Princeton University with a Masters Degree from Carnegie Mellon's Tepper School of Business and a Law Degree from the University of Pittsburgh. He speaks well and repeats some of Dowd's arguments against the mayor, although in softer language and with occasional compliments to Luke. But the one-time Republican, then Democrat, and now Independent knows he will have to develop and articulate a clear message for his candidacy to get off the ground.

Harris says his father's famous name will get the voters to take a look at him, but he himself must close the deal by convincing voters that he can run the city better than Ravenstahl and that he has a better prescription for the future.

In my view, if Harris can raise money, he could make things interesting this fall, but this is quite a long-shot. Pittsburgh is a five-to-one Democratic town. Four years ago, Republican Joe Weinroth (spending practically nothing) got 27% of the vote against Bob O'Connor. Two years ago, Republican Mark DeSantis (spending more than a quarter million dollars on TV) got 35% of the vote against Ravenstahl. Harris would need every Republican vote plus a whole lot of Democrats to make this competitive.

To get a better feel for this newcomer to politics, check out the story on his announcement (http://kdka.com/video/?id=54494@kdka.dayport.com) and my uncut interview with him (http://kdka.com/video/?id=54468@kdka.dayport.com).

That's more than enough for today's PSF. As always, I welcome your off-the-record comments and insights. Remember to use delano.jon@gmail.com to reach me. And for those of you in the Northeast/Midwest plagued with this never-ending winter, take solace. Spring is coming!

Feb. 26, 2009: A New Era Begins

2009-05-24T13:57:00.006-04:00

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

Yes, I'm back - and to my regular politically savvy friends, I apologize for the absence. I love writing this occasional missive, but I admit that after the unbelievably hectic schedule I had during the 2008 election year it was a bit liberating to take a break from my PSFs. But now a new era has begun with a new president, so perhaps it's timely to share some thoughts and insights with you. On some levels, this country was left in pretty sad shape by the prior administration, but some are not convinced the new guys in town have the right prescription. So that will provide great fodder for the months ahead.

As always, this is a two-way street. As a politically savvy friend, your comments and special inside tips on the national, state, or regional political scene are valuable to me, so I encourage you to keep in touch. Finally, I don't want to be spam for anyone, so if you have no interest in how politics affects your life just use that delete key down below. In the meantime, read on, enjoy, and let me hear from you.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, GEORGE!

Happy Washington's Birthday! There is no such thing as Presidents Day. I mean really - it's a hoax. George Washington was born on February 22, 1732 - 277 years ago this coming Sunday - and as the commander-in-chief who guided us to victory in the Revolution and then served eight years as the nation's first president, he deserves a special day of recognition. In 1968, Congress (always keen to meddle with things) moved the federal holiday from February 22 to the third Monday in February. Then President Richard Nixon (maybe thinking he could be included in the mix) started calling this day "Presidents Day," the silliest notion of all. The dumb calendar-makers and media followed suit. But, officially and legally, the holiday is still "Washington's Birthday." You wouldn't know that from all the marketing hoopla, mistaken calendars, and media ignorance of this fact. But I know my PSFers are smart folks, so correct the unknowing who insist that today is Presidents Day!

THE OBAMA ERA BEGINS

Four Weeks Later, Does Anyone Remember George Bush:

We've had a new president for just four weeks, and already the memory of George Bush has faded fast. To his credit, President Bush has kept his mouth shut and his face hidden, giving the new president the chance to establish himself without immediate criticism from his predecessor. That will surely come in the future, as Bush joins the ranks of Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Jimmy Carter as former presidents who always have something to say about anything. Of recent presidents, the only one I remember who said little or nothing in retirement was Ronald Reagan and that was because he suffered Alzheimer's disease. At some point, George Bush, like Richard Nixon sought to do, will try to restore his reputation. It's hard to be the most unpopular president to leave office in modern history, but now Bush is smart to put some quiet time in before attempting the image rehabilitation.

A couple PSFers took me to task last fall for wondering out loud exactly how history would judge George Bush. Apparently, I asked whether he would ultimately be viewed as one of our better presidents like Harry Truman who left office down in the polls only to be revered later in life, or be lumped in with the likes of Millard Filmore and Chester A. Arthur. Turns out President Arthur has some local fans who did not welcome the comparison. For the moment, I leave it to you and smart historians to judge the presidency of "W" - but to refresh your memory of the last 43 presidents - you might enjoy this video listing of all of them: http://www.flixxy.com/presidents-morphing.htm Feel free to email me your list of the "worst" presidents in American history. Might be fun to do on this misnamed Presidents Day!

The Inauguration of Barack Obama:

I attended the inauguration of Ronald Reagan in 1981 and Bill Clinton in 1993, and for all the pomp and glitz of those events, nothing compares to the inauguration of Barack Obama a few weeks ago. Photojournalist Dave Colabine (a KDKA-TV photographer) and I arrived in DC about midday on January 19th, where we set to work catching up to the many Pittsburgh people who were in Washington for the festivities so we could send stories back home for the evening news. Washington was certainly festive, as it always is when a new president comes to town, but the sheer number of celebrants made this extraordinary. On Inauguration Day, we got stuck underground for an hour-and-a-half on the Metro, as hundreds of thousands jammed the system. Now, normally, such crowds and delays would make people irritable, but not this day. Folks sung songs, clapped, and couldn't have been nicer to each other. In the end, two million Americans jammed the Mall that stretches two miles from the Lincoln Memorial to the Washington Monument to the U.S. Capitol. The Obama campaign clearly knew and welcomed these folks, although the same team lacked an "exit strategy" when it came time to leave - we had to walk miles to find an open Metro stop, taking more than three hours to get back to our satellite truck on Connecticut Avenue.

During the swearing-in ceremony, we were just east of the Washington Monument, about a million people away from the Capitol. The crowd was perhaps more black than white, but not overwhelmingly so. This was not a surprise to me. Washington is a majority black city, and the inauguration of the first African American president is, was, and should be a point of pride to the black community, as was the swearing-in of John F. Kennedy in 1961 to millions of Catholics who saw that religious barrier finally fall. No surprise, my TV reports showed the black crowds, which prompted some cowardly anonymous hater to send me a sick hand-written note, "You fit right in with all those niggers in D.C." Obviously, this racism isn't unique to western PA, but it's just another sad reminder that despite the election of an African American president, this country still has a segment of society that just can't get beyond the color of one's skin. What more can you say.

Standing so far away from the swearing-in itself, I watched the event on the jumbo screens placed all over the Mall. From my vantage point, the crowd was very partisan, booing loudly when President Bush was introduced and cheering for President Clinton. Despite all the controversy that accompanied the Rev. Rick Warren, his invocation prayer was well-received on the Mall, bringing tears to the eyes of many. It was hard not to catch the verbal slip-up of Chief Justice John Roberts. Why the dude didn't have a written copy of the oath of office in front of him is beyond me. This editor of the Harvard Law Review couldn't administer the oath to another editor of the Harvard Law Review? Well, at age 54, the chief justice will have plenty of future times to get it right, although he may always be remembered for this one.

As for President Obama's inaugural address, can anyone tell me what he said? I listened carefully for some memorable line and found none. To some extent, Obama was the victim of that old high expectation game. He is given to great moments of oratory, but his swearing-in was not one of them. But reading the speech later, there is plenty of meat in it, even if on the Mall it sounded awfully pessimistic about the country. One thing that caught my attention on the Mall was the president's renewed effort to reach out to the Muslim world, first by not shying away from his middle name in taking the oath, and then by reciting that America is "a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers." Actually, America is about 76% Christian, 14% non-religious, 1.3% Jewish, 0.5% Muslim, 0.5% Buddhist, 0.4% Hindu, and a smattering of some others. We are still overwhelmingly Christian, but the difference is that we have no state religion, and we welcome (or at least most of us do) the practice of all faiths (or no faith) in this country.

To me, the most important part of the Inauguration itself was the spirit of change, of starting over again, of a new chance to get things right. President Obama's campaign, of course, was predicated on this notion that he, a real outsider to Washington (unlike the Clintons and Bushes), could better mirror the peoples' desires to change the direction of the country. Whether "Change We Can Believe In" is more than just a slogan will depend on the actions of the Obama administration in the weeks ahead. But on Inauguration Day, clearly the desire for change was palpable.

All the stories I filed can be searched at www.kdka.com, but here's a wrap-up montage I did a couple hours after we got back from D.C. http://kdka.com/video/?id=52112@kdka.dayport.com

As Economy Falters, Republicans Say, It's All Yours, Dems:

Having won the White House and increased their majority in both the House and Senate in large measure because President Bush and the Republicans screwed up so badly on the economy, Democrats now have both the power and the responsibility to fix the economic misery felt by millions of Americans. In short, even though they may have inherited the problem, it's theirs now, and the Democratic Party will be judged in 2010 on whether we all feel better, or worse, about the economy.

That analysis helps explain why Republicans, for obvious political reasons, were so united in opposing the president, despite his almost obsequious effort to court them. The clearer it is that the "rescue plan" is the Democrats' plan, the easier it will be to campaign against the Dems next year if things don't get better. By voting unanimously against the stimulus package in the House and almost unanimously in the Senate, the G.O.P. is attempting to wash its hands of any responsibility for the economic mess. It's smart politics, and it just might work. This is not to say that the Republicans had no legitimate policy arguments against such a costly recovery plan. The massive government spending gave opponents lots of targets. But these objections are largely irrelevant to the broader political picture.

Of course, there's a lot in the $787 stimulus package that people will like. It's hard to argue against a $400 per person, $800 per couple (filing jointly), tax cut through a smaller withholding of taxes, even if it only amounts to about $13 per bi-weekly paycheck. And most of those who get Social Security payments will enjoy the one-time $250 check. More meaningful to the economy may be some of the other provisions, like a tax deduction of the sales tax you pay if you buy a new car or truck - or a $1,500 tax credit to offset expenses in making your home energy efficient - or the $2,500 tax credit on college tuition payments - or, if you're among the many temporarily out of work, the increase in unemployment payments and, more importantly, its extension from 26 to 46 weeks (and longer in some hard hit states), along with a 60% government subsidy of your COBRA health insurance payments.

If any of this stuff works, only President Obama and the Democrats can take credit for it, with the exception of three Republican senators, one of whom is up for reelection next year [see below]. And if the economy continues to sour, Republicans can say, we told you so.

Fixing the Wall Street Bailout:

The more we learn about last fall's $700 billion Wall Street rescue plan, the less people like it. The problem may not have been in the concept, and the infusion of funds may have actually worked to stop the stock market decline, but the plan's implementation by President Bush and then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has been sharply criticized by many. From all appearances, the Bush administration simply handed out $350 billion to the banks with no rules, no accountability, and no real paper trail of what these banks did with all these tax dollars. There's no defending the award of "bonuses" to bank executives and Wall Street financiers whose organizations were going under, whose stock prices have plummeted, and whose reckless profiteering and greed in these complicated housing finance scams wiped out at least a third of most people's retirement savings in the stock market. While Standard & Poor's, Moody's, and other ratings institutions suspended judgment to give AAA ratings to worthless financial instruments so others could make billions, the Bush administration, the Securities & Exchange Commission, and, yes, both the Republican-controlled and the Democratic-controlled Congress over the last five years turned a blind eye to appropriate regulation.

The bottom line to all this scummy behavior is that taxpayers do not want to spend one more penny on banks and their Wall Street friends. But the reality for President Obama and now-Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is that they must do just that. The remaining $350 billion needs to be spent, and many think even that won't be enough to prop up the ailing financial markets. Some economists think some banks are already insolvent or heading towards insolvency. I don't know. What I do know is that the rules should be absolutely clear and transparent to the public about how this money is to be used and what conditions are attached if a bank accepts public dollars. Banning bonuses above $500,000 seems reasonable, but corporate bonuses are not really the issue, any more than strictly limiting the use of corporate jets (although that should be done, too). Restoring confidence in our financial institutions is critical, along with a renewed effort to shore up home mortgages and to ease credit for companies and individuals, and then opening up the institution's books for regulators and the public to examine. If a bank accepts corporate welfare, there can be no more hiding how the bank's dollars are spent.

As this week begins, we don't know exactly how the Obama administration will proceed in this arena. The president seems correctly focused on the housing foreclosure problem, but that alone won't solve the banking crisis. And until banks are solvent, it is unlikely that the stock market can really begin to recover.

So What's Obama's Four-Week Report Card?

It's pretty early in the game to assess how President Obama is doing, but that doesn't stop pollsters from trying. By most accounts, Obama is still soaring. His job rating in February is 62% approval (CBS), 66% (Gallup), 69% (Ipsos/McClatchy), and 76% (CNN). An interesting Pew Research Center Poll asked respondents for one word to describe Obama: 33% picked "intelligent/intellectual" followed by "change" (17%), "honest" (16%), and "confident" (15%). The first negative word was "inexperienced" (15%) followed by "socialist" (13%).

My own take on this is that the president is doing remarkably well for someone who has had a few slip-ups in his Cabinet appointments. Most people don't seem to care about who is secretary of commerce or health & human services, as much as they want a smart, honest leader who will confront the economic challenges. I think it's also important for Obama to be perceived to represent the average working family beyond the DC Beltway and not the political in-crowd in Washington or the big financial interests on Wall Street. His town meetings in Indiana, Florida, and Virginia helped to reassure people that he understands the pain most of us are feeling to which the Bush administration could never relate. The president needs to continue these trips to "middle America" both to hear the Mrs. Hughes out there and to demonstrate that he will not become captive to Washington's governing class.

PENNSYLVANIA - THE RENDELL ERA NOT QUITE OVER

Harrisburg Struggles to Balance the Budget:

Don't tell Gov. Ed Rendell that he's a lame duck. His putative successor is already out there somewhere stirring the political waters, but it's more than fifteen months until PA Democrats and Republicans nominate the next gubernatorial candidates. That leaves Rendell still in a visible driver's seat, and the guv, along with the Republican-controlled state Senate and the Democratic-controlled state House, must confront the largest budget deficit in decades - a $2.3 billion deficit that could easily double in the next couple years.

In his Feb. 4 budget address to the legislature, the governor took credit for a degree of fiscal conservatism that makes PA not quite the economic basket case of others. Rendell was quick to compare this state's fiscal mess to that of California ($41 billion deficit), New York ($14 billion deficit), New Jersey ($4.0 billion deficit), Ohio ($3.5 billion deficit), and Massachusetts ($3.1 billion deficit). Still, Pennsylvania must balance its books. Unlike many other states, Rendell made it clear that he would not increase the state's flat income tax (3.07%), or increase the state sales tax (6%) or the gasoline tax (32.3 cents/gallon). And he will not halt his effort to (slowly) reduce business taxes in Pennsylvania. So that leaves him with cutting government spending, finding some creative new revenues, and praying that the just-approved economic stimulus package will help out the most.

To close the deficit, Rendell proposed cutting or eliminating 89% of the line items in the budget. He says he'll cut completely 20% of the line items, saving $395 million, and he'll reduce most of the others, saving $582 million. That's not enough. Rendell is counting on $1.1 billion from the Obama recovery plan to help pay for Medical Assistance (the state's version of Medicaid, health insurance for the poor). The guv also wants to raise taxes on cigarettes by a dime (up to $1.45 a pack) and impose a first-time tax on cigars and smokeless chewing tobacco. He is also freezing executive branch salaries and negotiating with state unions to scale back labor costs. The most interesting new proposal was to legalize and tax video poker machines, but Rendell is not really proposing to use this tax revenue to balance the budget. Rather, the money would subsidize a new program to allow families a rebate of up to $7,600 off annual tuition, fees, room and board when their kids attend a Pennsylvania community college or one of the PA state universities.

The Republicans, who control the state Senate, are not particularly enthusiastic about the governor's budget. If past is prologue, and it usually is in Harrisburg, watch for a lot of political posturing by both sides before the deals are cut in the backrooms around the June 30 end of the fiscal year.

Onorato Tries to Scare Opposition with Cash on Hand:

Sometime by June, Allegheny County executive Dan Onorato will announce his candidacy for governor. The Democrat hopes to break the jinx since WWII that dictates that after eight years of a Democrat in the governor's mansion it's the Republicans' turn. But before turning his attention to an election nearly 21 months away, Onorato needs to convince the state's Democrats that he's just the man to break that jinx. That's where the cash comes in.

The latest end-of-the-year campaign filings shows the conservative western PA Democrat has already raised more than $4 million in his quest to succeed Rendell. An astounding $2.2 million was raised in 2008, when most political money was being sucked up by the presidential and congressional candidates. Most of the other potential candidates on the Democratic side have nothing approaching a million bucks, let alone four million. This includes Lehigh County executive Don Cunningham, state Senate Democratic leader Bob Mellow of Scranton, Philadelphia millionaire businessman Tom Knox, and (the best known) state Auditor General Jack Wagner, who's also flirting with running for the U.S. Senate. Onorato's game plan is transparent. Scare these Dems out of the race for governor.

Coming from Pittsburgh, Onorato is not your typical Philadelphia Democrat. He is both socially and economically conservative. He is pro-life, pro-gun, and generally anti-tax, and anti-deficit spending. In five years as county executive, he has never raised county property taxes and vigorously opposed any reassessment of property in the county (a traditional back door way to raise revenue). He cut the size of Allegheny County's government by firing 700 county employees and pushing the consolidation of county elected offices from ten to four. His biggest "mistake" (according to his opponents) was the 10% alcoholic drink tax (now reduced to 7%), which Onorato pushed as a way to provide some dedicated funding for Allegheny County's public transit system. The drink tax is unpopular, and his opponents will surely use it against him. That doesn't bother Onorato at all, who has a scrappy but congenial in-your-face demeanor when it comes to his critics.

Can Onorato be defeated in a Democratic primary? Of course. He's not yet that well known outside of southwestern PA, and an opponent with money could hone in on the Pittsburgh native's conservative views, which will not be popular in Philadelphia or its suburbs where so many Democrats live. But Onorato will argue that, like U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, sometimes this is the best way for a Dem to win statewide office. We're at the early stages of this race, but I give Onorato credit for having a solid game plan and sticking to it.

Corbett Positions for the Governor's Mansion:

When the television cameras panned the crowd of legislators, elected officials, and guests gathered to hear the governor's annual budget address, one man was more than visible at the back of the House chamber: state Attorney General Tom Corbett. Corbett, who hails from suburban Pittsburgh and won a very impressive reelection last November, is the Republican heir-apparent to Rendell. When Rendell began his address by hailing the victory of the Super Bowl champion Pittsburgh Steelers, Corbett was spotted waving his Terrible Towel with gusto. History dictates that the Republicans will win in 2010, although the Dems could break that jinx because they have rarely been stronger in numbers and political clout than they are today. Whether Corbett is the right Republican to maintain tradition is a decision Republican voters will have to make next year.

Still, the attorney general, who made a name for himself by going after Democrats in the state legislature over bonuses allegedly paid to staffers for doing political work, is not the only candidate in the field. Former U.S. attorney Patrick Meehan, a suburban Philadelphian, has filed preliminary campaign papers and already raised $275,000 in his exploration of the quest. Meehan is well-known in the state's largest media market for his crime-fighting and anti-corruption cases, including the high profile case he filed (but left office before prosecuting) against former state Sen. Vincent Fumo. Meehan is no push-over for Corbett, although the political waters muddied a bit when U.S. Rep. Jim Gerlach, another suburban Philadelphian, announced he was exploring a run for governor. Gerlach, who has escaped defeat in his own congressional district a couple times, could easily split Republican votes in that region with Meehan. A fourth Republican expressing interest in the race is former U.S. Rep. Pat Toomey of Lehigh County. Toomey, who now leads the economically conservative Club for Growth, will be remembered for coming within an eyelash of knocking off Arlen Specter in the 2004 Republican primary for U.S. Senate. Toomey says he's interested in running because of the budget mess in Harrisburg, but another race against Specter could also be possible.

My own very early view is that, while Meehan and Toomey alone could each give Corbett a solid race, multiple candidates in the field only helps the southwestern PA native. How this sorts out in the months ahead is anybody's guess but, as the incumbent attorney general, Corbett alone has a statewide megaphone to act governmentally, which (by definition in this never-ending campaign season) means gubernatorially.

Arlen Specter Takes 'Em On:

Pennsylvania's senior U.S. senator is a unique piece of work. I have known him for nearly 30 years, and I have tremendous respect for the political skills of Arlen Specter, the longest-serving senator in PA history. Just when people count him out, he emerges victorious, a phoenix among the political carrion. The 79-year old senator, first elected in 1980, has no intention of retiring next year, and barring some medical calamity Specter's name will be on the ballot for a sixth 6-year term.

But, first, the Republican must engineer the shoals of his own unhappy party. Arlen Specter listens to his own drummer, which tends to march back and forth across the field rather than in any straight line. He is consistent in his unpredictability. So when he joined to two Republican senators from Maine to enact President Obama's economic recovery plan, it was not particularly surprising. But it has emboldened a number of Republicans who say, as they did in 2004, that it's time for Specter to retire - and if he won't, it's time to defeat him.

Could 2010 be the year of Specter's demise? Maybe, and maybe not. The 2004 Republican primary showed both strength and weakness in Specter's base within his own party. Pat Toomey got 513,693 votes to Specter's 530,839 that spring, with Philadelphia and its suburban counties putting Specter over the top. The key that year was also strong support for Specter from his then colleague, U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, who encouraged his conservative supporters to back Specter over Toomey. It was enough for Specter to win the nomination, and then to go on to defeat U.S. Rep. Joe Hoeffel by 10 points and nearly 600,000 votes. Specter has always been a stronger general election candidate than he is in his own party.

Specter's support for Obama has spiked renewed interest among conservative Republicans to take him on next year. Toomey would be the obvious candidate, but he seems to be more interested in running for governor than senator. That leaves the field open to others like Peg Luksik, a conservative activist from Johnstown, who is no stranger to PA politics since she first made the scene by nearly defeating then-Republican Barbara Hafer for the GOP nomination for governor back in 1990. In 1994, she ran has an independent for governor and, again in 1998, she was the Constitutional Party candidate for governor. This past year, she was the campaign manager for William Russell, a newcomer who took on U.S. Rep. John Murtha in the 12th congressional district.

Another interesting candidate is Glen Meakem, a millionaire entrepreneur who lives in suburban Pittsburgh and founded a business-to-business internet firm called FreeMarkets. Now a venture capitalist and conservative talk show host, Meakem has caught the political bug. After Specter's embrace of Obama's economics, Meakem quickly circulated a statement, boldly predicting, "There will be a Republican primary fight for Specter's Senate seat in 2010, and I am going to be actively involved in electing someone who will do what's right for Pennsylvania taxpayers, not the Washington lobbyists." I've known Meakem for a number of years, and he would be an impressive candidate. Although a solid pro-life conservative, he served as campaign chair to Bill Scranton during Scranton's short run for governor in 2006 because he liked Scranton's conservative business views and because he thought Scranton would make a stronger opponent against Ed Rendell than local Steelers star Lynn Swann. Right now, Meakem - who is Harvard educated and served in the 1991 Iraq War -- says he's not a candidate, but much will depend on whether better-known and better-funded conservatives step forward to challenge Specter in the months ahead.

The Dems Smell Blood:

With Arlen Specter under attack in his own party, there's no shortage of Democrats eyeing the 2010 senate race. MSNBC's Chris Matthews would have been the most colorful of the bunch, but he has taken himself out of the race. I've known Chris since my congressional days, and I think he could have brought national visibility to the race, to say nothing of an incredible wealth of knowledge of government and politics. That leaves the field to others, including state auditor general Jack Wagner of Pittsburgh, who many think is well-positioned for the contest. A Vietnam veteran, wounded in combat, the generally conservative Wagner has a statewide pulpit to preach fiscal responsibility. Wagner is still toying with the governor's race, and that has encouraged others to step forward for Senate. But in a crowded Democratic field for Senate, Wagner has got to be considered a strong candidate.

Joe Torsella, a 45-year old Philadelphian best known for leading the effort to construct the marvelous National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, is hardly a household name outside of southeastern PA. But earlier this month he became the first Democrat to declare his interest in running for the U.S. Senate. Torsella is no stranger to politics, serving as then-Mayor Ed Rendell's deputy mayor for policy and planning while still in his 20s. A Rhodes scholar and Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of PA, Torsella has taken one stab at electoral politics, losing by just 2100 votes in the Democratic primary against U.S. Rep. Allyson Schwartz in the 13th congressional district in Montgomery County and northeastern Philadelphia.

While Torsella seems intent on running, other Dems are toying with the idea, including two Philadelphia area members of Congress: the aforementioned Allyson Schwartz and U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy, from the 8th district which is primarily in Bucks County. Schwartz is no stranger to statewide politics. In 2000, she ran for the Democratic nomination for Senate to take on Santorum, making a lot of friends along the way. With 26% of the vote, the pro-choice Schwartz came in second to the pro-life U.S. Rep. Ron Klink of Pittsburgh who got 40% of the vote. It didn't help that four other candidates on the ballot that year came from eastern PA. Schwartz is an unapologetic advocate for women's rights and an indefatigable fundraiser, and if she gets in the race will be formidable.

Patrick Murphy is a relative newcomer to politics, having just won his second term in Congress in suburban Philly. The 35-year old lawyer is the only Iraq War veteran serving in Congress, and he was the only Pennsylvania congressman to endorse Barack Obama in the PA primary last year. During his first term, Murphy was a consistent critic of President Bush's handling of the war, and his close ties to the Obama administration could help him if he chooses to make a run for Senate.

As if three Philadelphians weren't enough, there's a fourth potential candidate from that region, state Rep. Josh Shapiro of Montgomery County. The 35-year old state rep was first elected to Harrisburg in 2004 and has already achieved some recognition in that body. He co-chaired the House commission that came up with a number of legislative reform measures, many of which were enacted. A lawyer, Shapiro began his political career on Capitol Hill in Washington where he served several members of Congress, including a stint as chief of staff to then-U.S. Rep. Joe Hoeffel.

No matter who gets the Democratic nomination, if Arlen Specter survives his primary, he's still the favorite for reelection. Having helped President Obama win his first major battle as president, watch for Specter to get a little bit of something from this White House. It's all part of the game. And few play it better than Specter, which is why a lot of folks have lost money over the years betting against him.

I've got a whole lot more Pennsylvania politics to cover, including the race for mayor of Pittsburgh, but let's leave something for my next PSF. Again, if you've got an interesting political tidbit, please send it along, knowing that I always consider your emails off-the-record! If you're lucky enough to get today off - I'm not - enjoy the day. Remember, we're celebrating the birthday of George Washington, not the less-than-luminary careers of so many of his successors.

Pennsylvania Delivers

2008-11-06T21:50:00.000-05:00

Dear Politically Savvy Friend,

In the end, he made it seem so easy. Barack Hussein Obama -- yes, a man with an Arab or Muslim middle name -- won the presidency of the United States by more than 7.5 million popular votes and an Electoral College landslide, or what certainly looks like a landslide after President Bush's narrow wins in 2000 and 2004. President-elect Obama did it the old-fashioned way -- issues, shoe leather, volunteers, and, yes, lots of money!

THE PRESIDENCY

Pennsylvania Summary:

Early Tuesday evening, it was clear to many of us that Obama’s coalition of supporters would put him over the top. Once the “must-win” state of Pennsylvania was denied to John McCain, it was difficult to envision an electoral scenario that could propel the Republican to the White House. McCain's political nail in the coffin occurred shortly thereafter when the neighboring state of Ohio cast its lot with Obama. From that moment on, it was only a matter of hours until enough electoral votes were declared to give the Democrat his victory at 11:01 pm ET. As McCain delivered his concession speech, Florida came through for Obama as well, giving him a trifecta -- three of the three must-win states.

Obama's win in this Pennsylvania was impressive. With 98% of the votes counted, Obama defeated McCain by 11 points: 3.16 million votes to 2.52 million or 55% to 44% [Ralph Nader and Bob Barr split one percent of the vote] -- or a margin of around 644,000 votes out of the 5,745,000 votes cast yesterday. The last time a presidential candidate won by that big a margin in Pennsylvania was 36 years ago when Richard Nixon defeated George McGovern in 1972 by 907,000 votes.

So how did Obama do this here? Simply put, he clobbered McCain in Philadelphia and its Republican suburbs -- and he racked up wins in the urban counties around the state like Allegheny (Pittsburgh), Cambria (Johnstown), Centre (State College),Dauphin (Harrisburg), Erie (Erie), Lackawanna (Scranton), Lehigh (Allentown), Luzerne (Wilkes-Barre), and Northampton (Bethlehem). In the end, it didn't matter that most of the rest of Pennsylvania voted Republican.

Still, in many ways, this PA election was the tale of two regions: southeastern PA and southwestern PA. Obama overwhelmed McCain in one – and performed worst than some expected in the other. His biggest win was the city of Philadelphia, where Obama did better than John Kerry, who had set the record with a 414,000-vote margin. Obama broke that record Tuesday, winning the city by a massive 458,784 votes (unofficially). While not the 500,000-vote margin the governor would have loved, it was mighty convincing! Equally important, in the four bedroom counties outside Philly, Obama swept it all, winning three suburban Republican counties. He won Bucks County by 28,000; he won Chester County by 22,000; he won Delaware County by 59,000; and he won Montgomery County by a whopping 86,000 votes.

Southwest PA Plays Hard to Get:

In southwestern PA, it was a different story. Allegheny County (Greater Pittsburgh) gave Obama his biggest victory, winning by 98,600 votes over McCain. [John Kerry won Allegheny County by 97,000 votes four years ago]. But the outlying counties were not so kind to Obama even though most are overwhelmingly Democratic. McCain actually did better than George W. Bush in 2004. McCain won Armstrong County by 7,000 votes; McCain won Beaver County by 2,500; McCain won Butler County by 23,000; McCain won Fayette County by 160 votes; McCain won Greene County by 86 votes; McCain won Indiana County by 2,500 votes; McCain won Lawrence County by 2,000 votes; McCain won Washington County by 4,400 votes; and McCain won Westmoreland County by 26,000 votes. Many of these counties have large Democratic majorities.

Was U.S. Rep. Jack Murtha right? Is it true that western PA (outside of Allegheny County and Cambria County) just couldn't vote for a bi-racial candidate for president? Well, pundits can debate that for years to come. Obviously, race plays some role. But I think a better explanation is the conservative nature of the Democratic voters in these outlying counties: pro-gun, pro-life, pro-religion, pro-small town America. Second, McCain and Palin practically lived here for the last two months with multiple visits designed to stress their identification with the concerns and lifestyle of this region.

The Obama campaign often gave the impression of ignoring southwestern PA while spreading love all over the southeast (Philadelphia). It may have been a smart strategy given limited time for their candidate. But, privately, local Democratic leaders in this region felt the Obama campaign was giving short shift to western PA. Nonetheless, the margin out of the five southeastern counties in the Philly area was an amazing 653,000 votes over McCain.

In the end, Obama did exactly what he had to do, even here in this region. When you subtract all those southwestern counties that voted against Obama from his big vote in Allegheny County, guess who's the winner? You got it. President-elect Obama still won this region, netting 30,000 votes from the 10-county area in this southwest corner of the commonwealth.

Pennsylvania Exit Polls:

So how did Obama do it, chalking up numbers unseen in 36 years of presidential politics in this state? Exit polls give some clues. On race, blacks voted for Obama 95% to 5%, but African Americans comprised only 13% of the PA electorate. What gave Obama his solid victory was a nearly even split among white voters, 48% for Obama to 51% for McCain. While Hispanics are not many in PA, Obama won 72% of them here, as well. In short, Obama did well in PA because he attracted voters of all races.

According to exit polls, Obama overwhelmingly won the young voters in Pennsylvania, winning 66% of those 18 to 24 years of age and 64% of those between 25 and 30. But the president-elect also attracted support of some of the older folks, winning 57% of those between 50 and 65. As for the coveted 65+ crowd, Obama split that group evenly, 49% to 50%
.
While some Catholic clerics tried to influence their parishioners to vote pro-life, Catholic voters – just like Protestants – split right down the middle between Obama and McCain.

Finally, on issues, it was pretty clear-cut: 58% of those who said the economy was the most important issue opted for Obama; 66% of those who said the war in Iraq was most important voted Obama; 53% who named energy as the top issue supported Obama; and 71% who put health care at the top voted Obama.

STATEWIDE ROW OFFICES

Corbett Survives the Tidal Wave:

Attorney General Tom Corbett solidified his credentials as the Republican's best hope to capture the governorship in 2010. Despite the Democratic tide, the suburban Pittsburgh Republican won a 365,000 vote margin over his Democratic opponent, Northampton district attorney John Morganelli. Corbett had double the cash and with the help of his superb media consultant, John Brabender (yes, the architect of Rick Santorum's emergence on the political scene beginning in 1990) had the best television ads. Corbett's high profile on the Bonusgate scandal, especially in this region, certainly helped. While Allegheny County was voting for Obama by nearly a hundred thousand votes, Corbett actually carried his home county by 34,000 votes -- not bad for a Republican. What also made a big difference was Corbett's wins in suburban Philadelphia, where he defied the presidential trend by winning Bucks, Chester, and Delaware Counties and only losing Montgomery County by 2,400 votes.

Wagner Positions Himself for the Future:

Auditor General Jack Wagner, a Democrat, swept to a second term, adding to his own bona fides as a potential candidate for either governor or U.S. senator in 2010. It was a landslide for Wagner who defeated Republican gazebo manufacturer Chet Beiler by 1.27 million votes. Wow! Wagner, a generally conservative Democrat, blitzed the state, winning 41 of the state's 67 counties, a remarkable achievement for a Democrat. In fact, it didn’t take Wagner’s press folks to rush out a press release touting his 3.2 million votes as the most received by any PA candidate on the ballot on Tuesday. But it’s not a record. Bob Casey got 3.3 million votes in 2004 when he was reelected state treasurer.

Enter Rob McCord:

The open seat for state Treasurer will be filled by Democrat Rob McCord who beat former Montgomery County commissioner Tom Ellis by 678,000 votes. McCord is a newcomer to the state political scene, but I suspect it won't be long before the well-spoken suburban Philadelphian makes his presence known. One sign that McCord may have some other elective desires is the fact he decided to spend election night in Pittsburgh rather than in his hometown.

PA CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION

Pennsylvania Democrats not only beat back the Republican attempt to defeat a couple of their incumbent congressmen, but they also added to their numbers from Pennsylvania. The state's 19 representatives in the 111th Congress will be 12 Democrats and 7 Republicans. There's some irony here because when the Republican-controlled state legislature and a Republican governor (Tom Ridge) gerrymandered PA's congressional districts after the 2000 census, they elected 12 Republicans from PA. Now the situation is reversed in the very same districts the Republicans created! Of course, the state now has many more Democrats than in did eight years ago.

Dahlkemper Makes History:

U.S. Rep. Phil English (3rd CD), the Erie Republican, was defeated by Erie Democrat Kathy Dahlkemper. Dahlkemper calls herself a conservative Democrat -- pro-life, pro-gun, pro-small business -- but that didn't stop House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) from pumping a lot of money into her race. In the end, she beat English by 8,300 votes. She kept it close in most of the counties, including Butler and Armstrong outside of Pittsburgh, and clinched victory with a 16,000-vote win in Erie County. Dahlkemper has told me that she wants to be more visible in the Pittsburgh media market than her predecessor. Her sister and son live in this area, and her first grandchild will soon be born in Pittsburgh, giving her plenty of "family" reasons to be around here. It will be interesting to see whether the new congresswoman is able to establish any kind of identity in the Pittsburgh media market.

Dalhkemper is only the second Democratic woman ever elected from western PA to the U.S. House of Representatives. Vera Buchanan of Pittsburgh was the first back in 1951 when she was elected in a special election to fill her husband's term. Buchanan went on to win two terms in her own right before dying in office of cancer in 1955 -- the first female Member of Congress to die in office. Dahlkemper will take office after a 54-year absence of a Democratic woman from this region in Congress.

Murtha Flexes His Political Muscle:

U.S. Rep. John Murtha (12th CD) was supposed to be in deep, deep trouble. But that was before he called in a lot of chits, raised a lot of money in two weeks, and overwhelmed his opponent, Republican William Russell, with both attack ads and a positive message of accomplishment for western PA. One month ago, Murtha took reelection in his district for granted. Then Russell, who raised a lot of money through a DC-based direct mail agency, exploited the congressman's own words about racism in western PA. A Republican-based poll suggested Russell was only four points behind Murtha, and all of sudden the nation's eyes were on this district.

In the end, Murtha beat Russell by 41,000 votes, winning a healthy 58% of the vote. Russell, who was upfront that he had moved to the district to run against Murtha, could not beat back the carpetbagger charge, especially when Murtha trumpeted all the millions of dollars his seniority has brought into the district. Murtha carried most of the nine counties through which his district stretches, including Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland Counties which were relatively new to the 12th CD.

Altmire Wins Convincingly:

It was hard to find anyone who ever thought U.S. Rep. Jason Altmire (4th CD) was really vulnerable to the Republican he had defeated two years earlier, former U.S. Rep. Melissa Hart. Rematches are always tough in politics, and Hart just didn't have the resources or the issues to plant the seed of "buyer's remorse" among the voters in this suburban Pittsburgh district.

Altmire beat Hart by 39,000 votes, considerably more than the 8,800-vote win he had two years ago, giving the freshman a double-digit victory that probably takes him off the GOP list for some years to come. Altmire beat Hart by nearly 11,000 votes in Allegheny County, 23,000 in Beaver County, 9,000 votes in Lawrence County -- and that was all she wrote!

Murphy Defines a Republican Landslide:

Local Democrats would love to beat U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy (18th CD), but they just can't find a candidate who can unseat this popular, well-funded, and politically savvy Republican. Monroeville businessman Steve O'Donnell thought he was the Democrat who could do the trick, but he ended up losing even worse than Chad Kluko, the Democrat who tried with much less resources in 2006. This time, Murphy -- who ran both positive TV ads on himself and negative attack ads on O'Donnell -- cruised to an impressive 90,000-vote win, 64% to 36%, over the Democrat. O'Donnell didn't come close in any of the four counties that make up the 18th CD, which means that thousands of Democrats (in a district with a 70,000 Democratic registration advantage) voted to give Murphy a fourth term in Congress.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Forget Bonusgate, Democrats Stay in Charge of State House:

It appears that Bonusgate had no impact on the legislative races. In this region, House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese faced a repeat challenger from Republican Greg Hopkins in his 50th legislative district. DeWeese knew what was coming and prepared well. Last February, he was out walking his district in the snow, knocking on doors, a practice he says he continued throughout the campaign. The end result was a larger win for DeWeese than two years ago, more than 2,000 votes this time. DeWeese’s return to Harrisburg does not guarantee him his top ranking spot in the Democratic Party, and concerns about his former chief of staff’s private conversations with the Attorney General about DeWeese’s role in Bonusgate trouble a lot of his colleagues. But DeWeese is nothing if not a survivor. Stay tuned.

The latest report is that the Democrats will not only retain control of the House but also add to their numbers. The current number, 102 Dems to 101 Republicans, could end up being 104 to 99. The Dems lost four seats on Tuesday, including Beaver County Rep. Vince Biancucci (15th LD) who was upset by Republican newcomer Jim Christiana and an open Westmoreland County seat (57th LD occupied by retiring Democrat Tom Tangretti) that Republican Tim Krieger won over Democrat John Boyle. The third Democratic loss was in Elk and Clearfield Counties where incumbent Rep. Dan Surra (75th LD) was upset by Republican Matt Gabler, and the fourth loss was in Bucks County where incumbent Rep. Chris King (142nd LD) was upset by Republican Frank Farry.

These four Democratic losses could have been fatal to state House control had they not picked up six seats in eastern Pennsylvania. Four Dems won open seats: Steve Santarsiero (31st LD in Bucks County), Richard Mirabito (83rd LD in Lycoming County), Paul Drucker (157th LD in Chester County), and Brendan Boyle (170th LD in Philadelphia). Two other Democrats defeated Republican incumbents on Tuesday: Democrat Tom Houghton beat Republican John Lawrence (13th LD in Chester County) and Matt Bradford defeated Jay Moyer (70th LD in Montgomery County).

The most interesting question now is whether the Democrats will be able to reach some consensus on a Democratic Speaker of the House. As the truly savvy know, two years ago the Dems picked Philadelphia Republican Dennis O’Brien to be their speaker because their top Democrat Bill DeWeese could not get the votes from his caucus. O’Brien would love to keep his job, and he’ll keep it as long as 102representatives cannot agree on someone else!

State Senate Goes Even More Republican:

You would think that with the Democratic landslide for Obama, a couple of Dems might have won some state Senate seats. Not so. The Republicans actually increased their control of the Senate, 30 to 20. In two nasty contests in western PA, Republicans managed to keep control of one seat and picked up another. In the 39th SD (Westmoreland County), county commissioner Kim Ward defeated Democratic chiropractor Tony Bompiani by 8,000 votes. Ward replaces retiring state Sen. Bob Regola, a fellow Republican. In the 47th SD (Beaver & Lawrence Counties), Republican Elder Vogel defeated Democrat Jason Petrella by 14,000 votes to replace Democratic state Sen. Gerry LaValle. The stories behind these defeats take too much time to digest, but at the beginning of this campaign year the Dems were favored to win both and managed to blow the opportunity. They were out out-foxed, out-hustled, out-negatived (yes, that too), and out-spent by the GOP, so two senate districts with more Ds than Rs now join the Republican column for four more years.

That’s a quick run-down 24 hours after the election results have come in. I welcome your insights and comments. Now it’s time for all of us to take a break, get some sleep, and start to think about Campaign 2010! Yeehaw!

Just One Day to Go

2008-11-03T07:31:00.000-05:00

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

Happy Election Day! One day to go – can you imagine? This interminable, never-ending campaign for president is just about over. Millions have already cast their ballots in the 31 states that allow “early voting,” but most of us will go to the polls on Tuesday – and later that night we shall know who the 44th president of the United States will be. No, I do not believe the vote-counting will drag on to December, and, no, this will not be another 1888 or 2000 where the winner of the popular vote loses the electoral college. Thankfully, this election will produce a clear-cut winner, one way or the other.

So, in these last minutes of Campaign ’08, let me offer some final thoughts to my politically savvy friends along with some observations of sorts. Since my last PSF a week ago, I had the chance to do one-on-one interviews with Barack Obama and Sarah Palin and a satellite interview with Joe Biden. John McCain is back in Pittsburgh this morning (Monday), but so far no word on whether he will chat with me. (I’ve talked to him twice this fall). While I am aggressive in seeking out these interviews – and scrupulously fair to all candidates – I know the reason they talk to me has very little to do with me and a great deal to do with the importance of western Pennsylvania in this campaign. Never has a region been so eagerly sought by candidates enroute to the White House! Read on for more.

BEYOND THE BELTWAY

Why Pennsylvania is So Important:

With the magic number of electoral votes being 270, RealClearPolitics now puts 238“solid” electoral votes in Obama’s column with 118 solid votes for McCain. Four states are leaning to Obama: Colorado (9 electoral votes), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), and Pennsylvania (21). If he wins the first three, but not Pennsylvania, he does not hit the magic 270. Could it really all come down to Pennsylvania? John McCain & Sarah Palin seem to think so. They have invested an incredible amount of time and resources throughout this state, and the latest SurveyUSA poll out on Sunday shows they have made some inroads: a 12-point lead for Obama last week is down to 7 points this week.

But Obama does have other options. He could become the first Democratic president since Harry Truman in 1948 to win the White House without PA. You see, RealClearPolitics now has an unbelievable 128 electoral votes still up for grabs, including Florida (27 electoral votes), Ohio (20), North Carolina (15), Georgia (15), Virginia (13), Missouri (11), Indiana (11), Arizona (10), Montana (3), and North Dakota (3). Obama can clinch the presidency with a win in Florida and Ohio without Pennsylvania.

The numbers are much more difficult for McCain. He must win all the toss-up states and then take Pennsylvania. Since Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican to carry PA back in 1860, only two Republicans have made it to the White House without the Keystone State: Richard Nixon in 1968 and George W. Bush in 2000 & 2004. If McCain loses Pennsylvania, it’s hard to see how he wins the presidency.

The Battle for Pennsylvania:

McCain and his strategists know the history lesson, which explains why he and Palin have been campaigning non-stop in this commonwealth. Since the end of the GOP Convention, McCain has made 17 campaign stops throughout the commonwealth, including one today (Monday) in Pittsburgh. For her part, Palin has made 23 campaign visits, including last Friday’s stops in Latrobe and York. That’s a lot of love from two Republicans for a state that has a million more Democrats than Republicans!

While the McCain-Palin events are smaller in crowd size than Obama-Biden, the supporters can be just as enthusiastic. This past week, it was all about Joe the Plumber, spreading the wealth, socialism, higher taxes – familiar messages on the GOP trail. And both candidates insisted that Pennsylvania was going to surprise a lot of folks on Tuesday. As I’ve opined before in earlier PSFs, PA is winnable for the Republicans if – and it’s a big if – things break for them. What are those things? First, a low turn-out in Philadelphia and a margin of victory for Obama that is under 400,000 votes in the city. Second, a break-even in the Philly suburbs, where both John Kerry & Al Gore beat George W. Bush. Third, a win or break-even in Northeast PA. Fourth, a solid victory over Obama in the center part of the state, including Democratic areas that stretch from Johnstown to York to Lancaster to Reading. Fifth, a loss in Allegheny County (Greater Pittsburgh) of under 80,000 votes – Kerry won here by 97,000. And, finally, a big GOP win in Westmoreland County (by more than 30,000 votes) and consistent wins in all the conservative-voting Democratic counties that surround Pittsburgh and swing north to Erie. Under this scenario, McCain could eke out a victory in PA.

Palin Hits Latrobe:

Dressed in jeans, a Republican “cloth” coat (anyone remember Nixon’s speech?), and a orange Halloween scarf, Sarah Palin hit the make-shift stage (festooned with pumpkins on bales of hay) at a hangar at the small Arnold Palmer Airport in Latrobe (Westmoreland County) on Friday. About 2,500 supporters welcomed her on a frigid cold morning. She was accompanied by former Gov. Tom Ridge and another western PA football Hall of Famer – Coach Mike Ditka. Ditka who told the audience he was both a Republican and a conservative, introduced Palin. Pittsburgh football fans know that Ditka, born in Carnegie and raised in Aliquippa, was a local high school player before joining the University of Pittsburgh Panthers. The rest is history. Palin’s speech was not much different than the one she delivered in Beaver County a week earlier. It didn’t have to be – her supporters love her and she gets cheers just for showing up. Anybody think “Palin in 2012”?

This was my first chance to meet the Alaskan governor in person, and I admit I like her. She’s warm, down-to-earth, and (yes, guys) easy to look at! She answered my questions without hesitation – which, admittedly, were not tough ones – and was friendly and funny. And, yes, she talks just like Tina Fey, dropping her “g’s” as in fishin’ and huntin’ and the like. Is she qualified to be Vice President or President? Well, that’s a question for you to answer. I talked to her about Ditka’s endorsement, whether she thought western PA was like Alaska, and her iconic political role. She thought it was bizarre that people were dressing up as her for Halloween, but cracked that she was going out as Tina Fey. In her speech, she called on “Casey Democrats” to vote for McCain, so I asked her who those Casey Democrats were. I also gave her the chance to tell me how she would have run the campaign differently if she was in charged. No surprise, she ducked the question. You can watch the full uncut interview here: http://kdka.com/video/?id=48238@kdka.dayport.com.

In my view, the McCain campaign did a disservice to Palin when they hid her from the local media in the early fall. She does just fine, and by refusing to let her talk, they only created the impression that she was too dumb to answer questions and needed to be protected in some way. Moreover, I tend to think that local media are more fair than the national media, or at least less likely to have an axe to grind. Palin has been a great asset to McCain in exciting the Christian evangelical base, but it’s also true that she has hurt McCain among plenty of other voters, particularly some suburban women. We’ll know Tuesday night whether Palin helped more than she hurt.

Obama Hits the ‘Burgh:

Pittsburgh supporters of Barack Obama are nothing if not passionate about their candidate. At 7 am on a very cold day last Monday (Oct. 27), they started to line up to get into the Mellon Arena – home of the Pittsburgh Penguins – when the doors were not going to open until 3 pm and the candidate wouldn’t speak until 5:30 pm. This was Obama’s last visit to western PA, and at least 16,000 (a near capacity crowd) showed up to hear his “closing speech.” He brought out the typical political entourage: Gov. Ed Rendell, Sen. Bob Casey, U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle, Allegheny County executive Dan Onorato, and Pittsburgh mayor Luke Ravenstahl. But the introduction was reserved for a man whose popularity exceeds all the politicians combined: Dan Rooney, owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers. Rooney is one of the nicest guys around, and his early endorsement of Obama last spring has had an impact. [A couple weeks ago, when Michelle Obama was in Pittsburgh, she stopped by the Rooney home on the Northside for a private fundraiser]. The crowd clearly loved it all, and I saw more than a few terrible towels being swirled around, albeit this came the day after the beloved Steelers fell to the Giants.

Before the end of Obama’s remarks, I had the chance to go back stage where I would interview Obama right after his speech. While I always enjoy interviewing the candidates, it’s a special treat to chat with some of the campaign operatives. I have talked to David Axelrod, Obama’s chief political strategist, on several occasions, and this time we had a bit more time together as Obama worked the rope line before exiting the Arena. I consider these conversations very much off-the-record, although I doubt Axelrod told me anything he hasn’t told others publicly. I like Axelrod, not only because he is a former political reporter (so he understands what it likes to be on this side of the camera), but because he is a soft-spoken, intelligent man who does not rant or rage or spin his words. In this business, that’s often rare.

Following his rousing reception, Obama was obviously revved up, if understandably a little bit tired. When I interviewed him behind a barn in Ohio in September, we had more time for chit-chat before the interview. This time it was pretty much all business. As the first reporter to talk to him since the story broke shortly before his Pittsburgh speech about those Nazi skinheads in Tennessee plotting an assassination, I had to ask him about that news item – but my general rule is to keep things Pennsylvania-focused and that’s what I did. I asked Obama about his reception in Pittsburgh, the state of the contest, the impact of racism, the skinheads, and his own safety – all in the mere two minutes I was allotted! You can check it out here: http://kdka.com/video/?id=48006@kdka.dayport.com.

While this was the Obama’s last visit to the region, both President Clinton and Senator Clinton were dispatched here for the late campaign hours. President Clinton spoke at Washington & Jefferson College on Thursday, while Senator Clinton is returning here today (Monday) after being here just a week ago Friday. Given the support the Clintons have always received in this region, it’s probably smart politics.

Intermission:

Did you miss Saturday Night Live this weekend? Check out John McCain’s great performance with Tina Fey right here: http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/mccain-qvc-open/805381/

For you “Irish rednecks” in Pennsylvania, check out this tune that acclaims Obama’s Irish ancestry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EADUQWKoVek

And for those who (like me) love the musical Les Miserables, enjoy this parody of the Obama’s campaign last day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3ijYVyhnn0

PENNSYLVANIA

Statewide Battles Unchanged:

Last week, I reviewed the three major statewide contests on the ballot tomorrow. For attorney general: incumbent Republican Tom Corbett versus Democrat John Morganelli; for state auditor general, incumbent Democrat Jack Wagner versus Republican Chet Beiler; for state treasurer, Republican Tom Ellis versus Democrat Rob McCord. The odds favor Corbett, Wagner, and McCord, but clearly Corbett is worried that a Democratic tide in PA could sink his Republican ship. He has assailed Morganelli on television and in direct mailers, although the Northampton district attorney has fought back. Voters in this state often “split” their tickets on Election Day, and my gut still gives it to Corbett. The appearance of a partisan, one-sided attack on House Democrats over “Bonusgate” – wherein both parties allegedly paid out legislative bonuses with taxpayer dollars for political campaign work done by legislative aides in the House and Senate – has hurt Corbett. But whether it’s enough to sink the political fortunes of this visible attorney general seems doubtful. I think it would take a Democratic tsunami for Morganelli to win.

PA Congressional Races Reviewed:

Most pundits think the four Democratic freshmen elected in 2006 will be returned to Congress tomorrow: U.S. Reps. Jason Altmire (4th CD), Joe Sestak (7th CD), Patrick Murphy (8th CD), and Chris Carney (10th CD). The most interesting contest of the four is former U.S. Rep. Melissa Hart’s comeback try against Altmire, but the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is so confident of Altmire’s victory that it has pulled out of the race. Nonetheless, Hart has a creative television ad (blowing up a house) that seek to blame Altmire and Nancy Pelosi for failing to take action in the current economic crisis. It’s a dramatic ad, but probably comes too late to affect the outcome. The Dems think Altmire could win by double digits.

If any Democratic incumbents are to fall tomorrow, the most likely is U.S. Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Nanticoke (11th CD). My impression from afar is that Hazelton mayor Lou Barletta, the Republican, has the 24-year incumbent Democrat on the ropes over a variety of issues, and that Kanjorski could be one of the few Democratic House incumbents to lose this year. Still, the district is Democratic and that could count for a lot in a Democratic year. And in a last-minute effort to help, President Bill Clinton will campaign for Kanjorski tonight (Monday) at Wilkes University in Wilkes-Barre. Kanjorski can still win this, but Barletta could pull an upset.

Most of the attention over the last week has been on U.S. Rep. John Murtha of Johnstown (12th CD). Murtha’s opponent is William Russell, a retired lieutenant colonel who recently moved to Pennsylvania from Virginia to take on Murtha. Nobody thought Murtha was in trouble a month ago – then Murtha put his foot in his mouth with comments about racism in western PA. Although he has apologized, Russell has hammered Murtha in TV ads on the “insult.” This week, Murtha responded with a blitzkrieg of his own, attacking Russell by name as a carpetbagger and highlighting his own success at bringing millions of dollars to western PA. And the DCCC has rushed in to help Murtha. Later today, President Clinton will campaign for Murtha. Both Russell and Murtha are social conservatives – Murtha is pro-life and has been endorsed by the National Rifle Association – but Russell has attacked Murtha for being the king of earmarks, something Murtha is proud of. The question for voters in the 12th CD is whether they are so unhappy over Murtha’s mouth that they are willing to toss him out with all his seniority and the money it brings this region. It may be close, but I think Murtha can pull this out.

The DCCC is salivating over the 3rd CD where incumbent U.S. Rep. Phil English, an Erie Republican, may lose to Kathy Dahlkemper, an Erie Democrat. English is a reasonably moderate Republican – he touts a support record of 50% for George W. Bush last year – but Dahlkemper has gone after English on trade, tax, and economic issues. The 3rd CD stretches from Erie south into some outlying counties just north of Pittsburgh: Armstrong, Butler, and Venango Counties. Both English and Dahlkemper think it may come down to these Pittsburgh-oriented counties, so the Pittsburgh media market has been flooded with television ads, mostly DCCC ads attacking English. The last time English had a close race, it was the Republican-voting Butler County that bailed him out. If it’s really close, that could happen again.

Steve O’Donnell, a Monroeville Democrat, has been attacked relentlessly by U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy (18th CD), an Upper St. Clair Republican, in television ads this past week. Citing articles from the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, Murphy says O’Donnell essentially ran a non-profit mental health group into bankruptcy, rewarding himself and his family in the process. O’Donnell denies the charges, but does not have the resources to defend himself on TV. In an interview with me this week, O’Donnell said one shot in the TV ad where O’Donnell raises his hand up in front of a camera – just like most criminal defendants do when confronted by TV news cameras – is a fake. He was never the subject of a TV news story, but rather raised his hand to protect himself when one of Murphy’s people shoved a camera in his face. Murphy’s campaign has released some raw video tape, suggesting O’Donnell actually approached the camera. Whatever the truth really is, the real question is why is an incumbent congressman engaged in what some think is political overkill when he ought to be a safe bet for reelection? Two years ago, Murphy won over an unknown Democrat by 16 points. Sure, the 18th CD has 70,000 more Dems than Republicans, but the hard-working Murphy has attracted Democratic, and labor, support over the years. So is 2008 different? Well, again, unless Dems do something this year they haven’t done before, Murphy should win another double-digit victory.

A Pet Peeve – It’s Democratic Party, not Democrat Party:

A number of years ago, I was assailed by both pro-life and pro-choice folks because I refused to accept their characterization of their opponents. Pro-lifers want me to call their opponents pro-abortion, while pro-choice people want me to call their opponents anti-choice. My rule is fairly simple: I will call you whatever you want, but you can’t impose a name on others. The official names of our two major parties are the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Over the last decade or so, some narrow-minded Republicans and their allies in the media have tried, unilaterally, to change the name of the Democratic Party to the Democrat Party. They have no right to do that, any more than Democrats can rename their opponents as the Repub Party. When you hear someone do that, it tells you a lot about their political idealogy.

Congrats to Luke & Erin:

Finally, I’m sure all my politically savvy friends join me in congratulating Pittsburgh’s 28-year old mayor, Luke Ravenstahl, and his wife Erin on the birth of their first child, son Cooper, on Friday. It’s a great reminder that amidst all the politics some things are more important – our families are really the reason that we need to elect quality individuals to public office. Little Cooper Ravenstahl cannot cast a vote until 2026, but his parents can – and you can – and it will never hurt us to think about which of the many candidates on the ballot can advance the interests of all our families in this state and nation.

This is obviously my last PSF before America votes on Tuesday. Over the next few days, I welcome your accounts of what is happening – and your own post-election analysis. I’ll share my thoughts on what happened at the end of the week. In the meantime, enjoy this most important aspect of American democracy – the right to vote in and vote out our government leaders. Good luck!

Just One Week to Go

2008-10-26T23:53:00.000-04:00

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

Greetings from a “battleground state” with just over one week to go! Admittedly, if you are in a state where the Obama and McCain political ads have dominated the airwaves – to say nothing of all those “independent” ads – you can’t wait for all this to end. Forgot all those car ads – now all we see are campaign ads, most of which attack the other guy. My gut says that the old channel changer is in overdrive these days.

The truth is that 95% of folks know exactly what they are going to do on Election Day – even here in Pennsylvania – but that, of course, is the problem. It’s not yet 100% -- and in states like this one without “early” voting the real voting is yet to come. That means all this political warfare is directed at a very few number of voters, but voters who can make the difference in whether this is a landslide for Barack Obama or a narrow come-from-behind victory for John McCain.

So, my dear politically savvy friends, one week out, here are some thoughts of mine about both the presidential contest and some of the other political fights going on here in Pennsylvania. Whether you are a new savvy friend, or a familiar seasoned one, I welcome your personal off-the-record comments on how things are going in your neck of the woods.

BEYOND THE BELTWAY

My Overview:

If you listen to the national media, you might think this race is over. But even Obama’s closest confidantes know that there is no such thing as a done deal until all the votes are counted next Tuesday night. It’s true that Obama is leading McCain in enough states to reach that magic 270 electoral votes, but leading in the polls is quite different from leading at the polls. I certainly think the odds favor an Obama-Biden victory over McCain-Palin. After all, given all the unhappiness in the direction of this country – 85% say America is headed in the wrong direction, according to the latest CBS/NYTimes poll – and the general repudiation of the current Republican in the White House – 23% job approval for President Bush in the latest Newsweek poll -- it’s surprising that any Republican candidate has kept it as close as McCain has done. That’s a personal testament to John McCain.

My friend Charlie Cook may have it right when he says that a lot of folks are just so unhappy about the way things are going they feel they have nothing to lose by giving Obama and the Democrats a chance to govern. McCain keeps trying to tell people how they might lose with Obama, but I think a lot of folks have tuned him out. While the latest “Joe the Plumber” riff wins lots of cheers at GOP rallies, it’s not resonating enough to be a deal-changer. In fact, the whole notion that Obama wants to “spread the wealth” hardly seems ominous, since most poor and middle class Americans have seen their own wealth disappear while the wealthier keep getting richer. Indeed, most middle class families – that’s most of my PSFers – have not seen their incomes rise as rapidly over the last decade as those who make the really big bucks and, lately, most middle income families have lost ground because of inflation.

So if this election really comes down to the economy, it’s hard to imagine the Democrats losing. But, again, a week can be a lifetime in politics, and we all know that a national security crisis or some other unpredictable event can change the dynamic dramatically.

Is Pennsylvania Up for Grabs?

The last time a Democrat won the White House without Pennsylvania was back in 1948 when Harry S. Truman lost the state but won the presidency. It is conceivable for Obama to lose PA and still win, but this state’s 21 electoral votes make it a coveted prize. In the last week, every poll puts Obama ahead of McCain, often by 10 points, but both John McCain and Sarah Palin have been campaigning all over PA like this is their last stand. Last week, both were in the Pittsburgh area within three days of each other. Do they know something the pollsters don’t know? In contrast, Obama has spent most of his PA campaign time back east. He makes his first public return to western PA since August 29 on Monday (today) at the Mellon Arena.

In some ways, it’s not hard to see why Obama and Biden campaign in eastern PA so much. If they can “run the numbers” in Philadelphia and its suburbs and sweep the area around Joe Biden’s “hometown” of Scranton, the lead becomes difficult for McCain to overcome elsewhere in the state. But if McCain can hold his own in the Philly suburbs and in the northeast, then victory in PA comes down to western PA. And most of the polls I’ve seen show this part of PA very much “up for grabs.”

PENNSYLVANIA:

So What’s Happening in Western PA?

As I have suggested in earlier PSFs, Allegheny County (Greater Pittsburgh) is almost certainly going to vote for Obama. Latest registration figures show approximately 586,000 Democrats to 254,000 Republicans and 101,000 independents. John Kerry beat George Bush here by 97,000 votes, a margin that Obama could exceed, especially if all the new registrants show up to vote.

Speaking of new voters, here’s an interesting statistic from a county that is often compared to Miama-Dade for the older age of its residents. The number of registered voters under age 25 has now surpassed 100,000 in Allegheny County, up to 100,162. Of course, voters 75+ still exceed that number here at 119,487. Yeah, that’s right – registered voters 75+ still outnumber those under 25, and we all know the older folks vote! Looking a bit closer, however, voters under 35 in Allegheny County now exceed those 65 and older: 261,887 youngsters to 206,817 oldsters. If Obama can turn out the youngsters, anything is possible.

It looks better for McCain outside Allegheny County. While Democrats have a 49,000 voter registration advantage in Westmoreland County, nobody thinks Obama will beat McCain there. Bush beat Kerry there by 22,000 votes. Local Dems blame Richard Mellon Scaife and his Tribune Review newspaper. I think that’s unfair. The editorially conservative newspaper has some outstanding local reporters and has been fair in its coverage of the presidential race, as far as I can see. A more accurate explanation is that Democrats in Westmoreland County are simply more conservative, both economically and socially, than Obama. Rather than blame a local newspaper, Dems would be smarter to focus on issues that might attract Democrats to their ticket.

It’s also true that Christian evangelicals are an important segment of many western PA counties. While pundits often speak of this important base within the Republican Party, there are plenty of Democrats who are religious conservatives, too. It helps explain why Bush only lost Washington County by 552 votes in 2004 when the county’s Dems outnumber Republicans by 40,000 – or why in Beaver County where Dems have a 34,000 registration edge, Kerry won by only 2,200 votes. When Palin held a rally at the Beaver Area High School stadium last week, I saw many signs and stickers identifying with her anti-abortion views and, yes, I talked to Democrats in the crowd.

McCain Volunteer Hoax:

If you google the above words, you’ll get more than you want about the bizarre story from this region last week wherein a 20-year old white female McCain volunteer from Texas concocted a story out of whole cloth about being mugged by a black male in a Pittsburgh neighborhood who etched a reverse “B” in her face because she had a McCain bumper sticker on her car. The story turned out to be completely bogus, but that didn’t stop the Drudge Report from “teasing” it or the local McCain campaign from passing along the details to local news outlets. As far as I can tell, local news people acted professionally, obtaining the police report filed by this young woman, reporting its bogus contents, along with statements from the McCain campaign and reaction from the Obama campaign. Once the facts were known, the hoax was first reported by KDKA-TV and other local media, and I daresay the hoax got a whole lot more news coverage than the initial story did. While there may be some unanswered questions to some in the blogosphere, both local campaigns say they want to move beyond this sad story of a very troubled young woman who will face criminal charges for filing a false police report.

Is Pennsylvania a Racist State?

The notion that PA is full of racist rednecks was not helped by U.S. Rep. John Murtha’s recent assertion that this region is a racist one [see below]. But to suggest that somehow this area has more racists than other parts of the state – or, indeed, that PA is more racist than Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, and New York (the states that surround us) is ludicrous. But make no mistake: race will play a role for some voters next Tuesday. Murtha suggested it may be more a problem with his generation – he’s 76 and I suppose he should know – than it is with my Babyboom generation or with the younger folks. My gut says he may be right on that point, but, again, it’s wrong to generalize, since we all know racists at every age level. The more important question, politically, is how large is the racist vote?

I don’t know how we can measure this even after the election, particularly since people often lie to pollsters. There are plenty of white Democrats who oppose Obama on issues important to them – abortion, guns, taxes, military – and to suggest they would have voted for a white Obama is crazy. Obviously, voting for McCain does not make you a racist, so you can’t draw a judgment on a vote total.

For all the talk about race, I hope that however the vote turns out in Pennsylvania and around the country, the one thing we can say is that race did not play a decisive role in the outcome. And, by the way, let’s address the canard that black folks are racist if and when they vote for Obama. First, that’s only true if they never vote for a white candidate. History suggests otherwise: African Americans have been one of the most dependable constituencies for white Democrats since Franklin D. Roosevelt. This time, the Democrat happens to be black (or at least half black). Second, every ethnic, religious, and now racial group tends to “vote for its own” when its candidate is a first-time history-maker. It’s hard to find a Catholic, for example, who did not vote for John F. Kennedy in 1960. By the time John Kerry, also a Catholic, was the standard-bearer 44 years later, that kind of religious allegiance had waned. Finally, there’s no real evidence that blacks are voting for Obama solely because he’s black any more than there is evidence that whites are voting against Obama solely because of race.

Besides the presidential race, Pennsylvanians will elect three statewide officials, 19 members of Congress, 203 members of the state House, and 25 (or one-half) of the state Senate. For those interested in these races, read on.

Attorney General Race May Be Closer Than Thought:

It’s hard to imagine anyone defeating Tom Corbett, the Republican attorney general from suburban Pittsburgh, losing reelection for a second four-year term. Corbett is a likeable, generally moderate Republican, who has strong roots in the G.O.P. He got his first position – US Attorney for Western PA – by heading up the 1988 campaign in this region for George H.W. Bush. After he was ousted by President Clinton, he was named by Gov. Tom Ridge in 1995 to fill out the term of the resigned and convicted Ernie Preate. To get confirmed, Corbett had to promise not to run for the open seat in 1996. That opened the way for another Pittsburgh suburban Republican, Mike Fisher, who narrowly election to a job that only Republicans have held since it became an elected statewide office in 1980. With Fisher term-limited, Corbett got his chance in 2004, although he had a very contentious primary against Montgomery County district attorney Bruce Castor that still has scars. He barely won the general election against Philadelphia attorney Jim Eisenhower (a distant Democratic cousin of the late Republican president), defeating the Democrat by 109,000 votes out of just over 5.4 million votes cast.
Fast forward to today. Corbett is being challenged by John Morganelli, the district attorney of Northampton County (the greater Bethelehem-Easton area). Corbett is running on a record that includes an aggressive attack on sexual predators on the internet, along with his role in charging Democratic legislators and staff people involved in “bonusgate” – shorthand for legislative leaders using tax dollars to give out big bonuses to staff people who engaged in campaign work for their party. Morganelli, who has 17 years as a criminal prosecutor and styles himself a pro-gun, pro-life, and pro-death penalty conservative Democrat, asserts that Corbett has botched the investigation, first, by not appointing an independent prosecutor who would go after wrong-doing in both political parties, and, second, by giving the Republicans time essentially to clean the books for any subsequent charges that Corbett has promised might come after his reelection. See my KDKA-TV interview with Morganelli at http://kdka.com/video/?id=47592@kdka.dayport.com for the specifics.

Now Corbett has responded with a solid television ad campaign across the commonwealth, and it’s hard to find anyone who thinks Morganelli will win except Morganelli. But Morganelli is also on television, at least in this region where nobody knows him, but Corbett has out-fundraised him, $3.3 million to $1.3 million. When Fisher was reelected in 2000, he won by 504,000 votes; but the reelections of both LeRoy Zimmerman in 1984 and Ernie Preate in 1992 were much closer, within 2% of the total vote. Corbett wants a big win next Tuesday to establish himself as the clear front-runner for the GOP nomination for governor in 2010. He can do that, but it’s just as possible, particularly given the Democratic voter registration advantage, that Morganelli keeps it close. Stay tuned.

Jack Wagner Seems a Shoo-In for Auditor General:

Quickly now, can you name the Republican running against Democratic incumbent Auditor General Jack Wagner? Probably not, which is why Wagner, a former state senator and city council president from Pittsburgh, will likely be reelected state auditor general next Tuesday. Wagner’s opponent is Chet Beiler, a Lancaster County Republican and local businessman who built a local gazebo business into one of the nation’s largest gazebo retailers. Beiler says his business experience is exactly what the state needs to audit its accounts, but he has raised only $475,000 to spread that message statewide, while the better-known Wagner has over a million bucks. Like Corbett, Wagner wants a big win as a set-up for 2010. His name is frequently on the short-list for either governor (an open seat coveted by many) or U.S. senator (against U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, who has every intention of seeking another 6-year term).

State Treasurer Office Up For Grabs:

When U.S. Sen. Bob Casey became a senator, he left vacant the office of state treasurer. This year, two newcomers to statewide politics are on the ballot – Democrat Rob McCord versus Republican Tom Ellis. Both men come from the Philadelphia suburbs and generally unknown. McCord ran a somewhat visible race for the Democratic nomination last spring, which might give him a leg up, but what really helps him is his bankroll. A venture capitalist, McCord has pumped at least $1.4 million of his own money into this race. Ellis, a former Montgomery County commissioner and bond finance lawyer, has raised about $360,000. At a time when the stock market is crashing, you might assume the candidates for this office would be getting more public attention. After all, the state treasurer manages about $100 billion in state monies (well, who knows exactly what it’s worth these days) and signs off on about 23 million checks from the state treasury each year. But this race has been about as invisible as the one for auditor general. That’s probably good news for McCord, who seems to have all the advantages in this contest.

PA Congressional Battles:

Pennsylvania was one of the key states that gave Democrats control of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate in 2006. Five Republican incumbents were ousted – U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum and U.S. Reps. Melissa Hart (4th CD), Curt Weldon (7th CD), Mike Fitzpatrick (8th CD), and Don Sherwood (10th CD) – the Democratic winners were Bob Casey and Jason Altmire, Joe Sestack, Patrick Murphy, and Chris Carney. Each of these incumbents look like winners next Tuesday, although the Republicans are not letting it go without a battle. Hart, for example, has engaged Altmire in a feisty rematch, and Carney’s district is so Republican it requires Carney to garner GOP votes (which he has done) against his challenger, Chris Hackett.

The more interesting races involve other incumbents in other districts. U.S. Rep. Phil English (3rd CD), an Erie Republican first elected in 1994, is facing a strong challenge from Democrat Kathy Dahlkemper of Erie. Some polls actually have her in the lead right now, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is pumping money into her race. The district stretches from Erie into Butler and Armstrong Counties just north of Pittsburgh. Dahlkemper is a pro-gun, pro-life, pro-business conservative Democrat, she says, but attacks English on economic and trade issues. You can check out my TV interview with her at http://kdka.com/video/?id=47842@kdka.dayport.com for more.

Could the dean of PA’s congressional delegation, U.S. Rep. Jack Murtha (12th CD) of Johnstown, seriously be in electoral trouble? Well, it didn’t help that he stated publicly to the Pittsburgh Post Gazette that “there is no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area.” Now whether you believe Murtha was right or not, it’s not the kind of talk folks like to hear from their congressman. Murtha’s comments have been lampooned on “Saturday Night Live” and are now featured in TV ads by his GOP opponent, William Russell, a retired but still young lieutenant colonel who just recently moved to Pennsylvania. Russell is a true conservative on every imaginable issue, who accuses Murtha of “aiding and abetting the enemy” in Iraq for his comments about the U.S. Marines accused, and then cleared, of murdering Iraqis in Haditha. Here’s my TV interview with Russell at http://kdka.com/video/?id=46261@kdka.dayport.com and http://kdka.com/video/?id=46263@kdka.dayport.com. This weekend, Murtha’s campaign, which has largely ignored Russell, issued a statement accusing the Republican of calling himself a “West Point graduate” on his website when, in fact, Russell was dismissed from the academy for “academic failure.” It’s true Russell flunked out of West Point, but his campaign says the website posting is from another organization. Murtha is also accusing Russell of being a Virginia carpetbagger who just moved to PA to run against him. Beside the racism hullabaloo, Murtha, a social conservative, has pumped millions of dollars in “earmarks” into this western PA district that generally likes the money enabled only because of Murtha’s incredible clout on the Appropriations Committee. The question is whether the 76-year old’s comments on racism are enough to cost him an election. Two years ago, Murtha clobbered Washington County commissioner Diana Irey with 61% of the vote. This race will almost certainly be closer. Last week, the Susquehanna Poll, published by the Tribune Review, has Murtha ahead by just four points.

Without a doubt, U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy (18th CD), a Republican from the suburbs of Pittsburgh, seems to luck out every election year. Despite a district that is overwhelmingly Democratic (by 75,000 voters at least), the moderate-to-conservative Republican wins every time. His campaign will tell you, with some accuracy, that this is because nobody works his district harder than Murphy. But it’s also true that the Democrats never quite seem to gel behind an opponent. This year, Monroeville businessman Steve O’Donnell won a contested primary (featuring the daughter of former state treasurer Barbara Hafer) to challenge Murphy. O’Donnell is trying, largely with a lawn sign, radio, and direct mail campaign – while Murphy is blitzing in all the typical ways, including lots of TV ads. Two years ago, against an opponent who did little, Murphy got 58% of the vote. This year, it will be closer, but O’Donnell is fighting the odds – and the failure of the DCCC to target this race says something. One sign that this race may be tighter than some think is that Murphy has now launched an attack ad on O’Donnell on television, surprising many since O’Donnell hasn’t been on TV. But unless the Democratic tide is overwhelming, most people still think Murphy will emerge the victor.

General Assembly Contests a Snoozer:

Gone are the days when an irate public in PA ousted some powerful incumbents because of their unrepentant vote for a massive pay increase. This year’s legislative battles have been largely overshadowed by the presidential race.

The state Senate will certainly remain in GOP control. In this region, some state senators are unopposed, while others have token opposition. PA Sen. John Pippy (37th SD), a Moon Township Republican, is being challenged by Democrat Amy Jude Schmotzer, a nurse from Whitehall who appears to have won the lawn sign battle. The district is marginally Democratic (83,000 Dems to 72,000 Republicans and 18,000 independents/other). Schmotzer has run a grassroots campaign, focusing on a reform agenda, while Pippy echoes the same. Although the Dems have no women from this region in the state Senate, it would take a perfect storm of Dems and independents voting for Schmotzer to upset Pippy.

The race to replace PA Sen. Bob Regola (39th SD), the Westmoreland County Republican who was acquitted of certain gun law violations that resulted in the death of a youngster next door, has been nasty, brutish, and long. Republican Kim Ward and Democrat Tony Bompiani have assaulted each other with accusations that each is a tax-raiser. Ward was just elected minority commissioner for Westmoreland County last year and stepped in for Regola when he suddenly resigned his nomination in August. Bompiani served as a Hempfield school director while Ward was a Hempfield supervisor, which means that both have votes to attack. The state campaign committees of both parties have invested in this battle, and I think the outcome is a toss-up.

PA Rep. Sean Ramaley was the odds-on favorite to replace PA Sen. Jerry Lavalle (47th SD) in this heavily Democratic mostly Beaver County senate district, until Corbett charged Ramaley with doing campaign work while on former state Rep. Mike Veon’s legislative payroll way back when. Democrats think these charges were trumped up, but Ramaley had little choice to step down as the party nominee. That allowed Jason Petrella, who lost in the primary to Ramaley, to get the nod from the executive committee of the Democratic Party in Harrisburg. But their choice of Petrella was at odds with a majority of local committee people in Beaver County who preferred county commissioner Joe Spanik for the nod, while the Beaver-Lawrence Labor Council wanted Bob Grotevant, former aide to Bob Casey. Now a divided Democratic Party is hoping Petrella can withstand attack from a united Republican effort behind their nominee, Elder Vogel. This seat should never go Republican, but it just might this year.

Finally, the one House battle everyone is watching in this region is the Republican effort to unseat the House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese (50th HD). Two years ago, DeWeese beat Republican Greg Hopkins by 1,039 votes. This year, Hopkins is back, but the situation is slightly different. First, DeWeese’s former chief of staff has turned state’s evidence in the Bonusgate scandal, and lots of folks think he is fingering DeWeese in the process. Second, DeWeese is running scared, unlike last time, knocking on doors throughout the district even during the snow of last February. Third, DeWeese is going after Hopkins this time, accusing him of spending most of his time in California where Hopkins coaches an arena football team and replaying on TV comments Hopkins made about the district being on welfare. In short, if DeWeese loses this time, it won’t be without a fight from the Democrat.

Well, that wraps this PSF up for the moment. I may try to get another one out before the election. In the meantime, email me your thoughts and predictions. I love hearing from you.

Three Weeks to Go & Counting

2008-10-14T07:20:00.000-04:00

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

Happy Columbus Day! While the legal holiday is observed on a Monday, it was actually October 12, 1492, that Christopher Columbus saw the Bahamas. As we all know now, he was not the first European to “discover” America, but be careful to whom you say that. I am old enough to remember the late PA Supreme Court Justice Michael A. Musmanno, a wonderfully colorful man who went on a six-week tour of the nation to defend Columbus when Yale scholars declared that Leif Ericson had landed in America first. Ironically, Musmanno died on Columbus Day!

As many of you have reminded me, it’s been weeks since I’ve taken hand to keyboard to share my thoughts about this presidential race. It’s not like I’m vacationing! Between money (read the economy and Wall Street) and politics, my two principal news beats these days, my plate has been very full indeed. Since the presidential conventions, I’ve had two interviews with Barack Obama and one with John McCain and multiple interviews with surrogates. Obviously, both campaigns know how important Pennsylvania and neighboring Ohio (just 30 miles west of me) are in this contest, and I can practically guarantee that if Pennsylvania and Ohio vote alike on November 4, that man will be president.

So, three weeks from decision day, where do we stand? Can you say President Obama? No, wait, could it be President McCain?

In this latest PSF, let me share my thoughts as someone who has spent 25 years in the political world – first, as a behind-the-scenes player, and, now, as an observer and commentator. As always, I welcome your off-the-record views. If you prefer not to get these occasional missives, there’s a button below to get off the list. Otherwise, dear Politically Savvy Friend, read on.

BEYOND THE BELTWAY

The Wall Street Mess -- Calling FDR:

A friend of mine asked me the other day where was Franklin D. Roosevelt when we needed him. The reference, of course, was to FDR’s famous call in his First Inaugural: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” In the wake of the collapse of the Stock Market, causing most of us to lose more than one-third of our retirement funds, the absence of presidential leadership has been obvious.

It’s not that President Bush isn’t trying. It’s just that nobody cares what he says. His job approval ratings are in the mid-20s, the lowest of his presidency, and most financial analysts concluded that every time he spoke to the nation last week the market dropped some more.

Of course, presidents are not economists, finance wizards, or portfolio money managers. But they do have experts around them that are or should be. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke may know a thing or two, but it’s not clear that even they know how to turn this market or the economy around. We begin this week with some hopeful signs. The stock market has resurged some 900+ points, and we are now seeing some concrete action out of Washington.

What surprised me most is that the Bush administration, having pushed so hard for its Wall Street rescue plan (or bailout, as detractors call it), seemed so unprepared to implement it, once Congress approved the bill a week ago. I would have thought the implementation plan would have been on the drawing board as the Congress debated its inevitable passage. The consequence has been delay, instead of action, and we all saw how Wall Street reacted to that. But concerted global action over this last weekend gives hope that maybe, just maybe, we can regain our footing.

Ultimately, the market will bottom out and eventually regain some, if not all, the losses over the next two years, if not sooner. At least that’s what the experts say. But all this focus on the economy demonstrates like nothing else how important it is to have a president with a team in place to make sure these meltdowns don’t occur and, if they do, to have a plan to minimize their impact on average working people. The Bush administration had neither.

It’s the Economy, Stupid:

When you’re hurting economically, it’s always about you. That’s a basic rule in politics. The candidate who can address your concerns or at least appears sympathetic to your plight will get your support. No surprise, every recent poll puts the economy and jobs as the #1 issue in this presidential race – 57% in the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. Most of us have felt a lot of economic pain in recent months – unrestrained energy and food price increases, higher unemployment, devaluation of our homes, and now the evisceration of our 401-Ks and IRAs.

Baby boomers (those born between 1946 and 1964), some 76 million of us, are particularly hurt by the latter, even if it’s just a paper loss (as long as we don’t cash in). My father’s generation had guaranteed company pensions, the so-called defined benefit plans, where the retired employee got a check every month from his employer for as long as he lived. Corporate America abandoned that approach when it became too expensive to sustain, and substituted a plan tied to the stock market wherein employees would deposit part of their own money (often matched partially by the employer) in a 401-K. Gone are those guaranteed monthly pension checks during retirement – except, of course, Social Security. Your retirement security depends on the return of your money set aside in investment accounts of your choosing and always subject to the vagaries of the stock market. That’s why everyone is so angry about what happened on Wall Street and the failure of our politicians to prevent it.

[Parenthetically, the only people left with those old-fashioned pension checks are public employees – teachers, government workers, and elected officials. We, the taxpayers, pay much of that monthly check, and I suspect that this last remnant of defined benefit will disappear in the years ahead, particularly if the typical American retiree appears to struggle while their neighbor who worked for the taxpayer enjoys a comfortable retirement.]

All this is to say that Americans hunger for a president who, not only understands all this, but appears willing to protect our jobs and restore jobs shipped overseas, raise our wages so we can (at least) stay even with inflation, provide affordable health care for all, and maintain our retirement security. It’s a very tall order.

McCain or Obama – Can Either One Make Life Better?

In their gut, most Americans don’t think either John McCain or Barack Obama can really do all that is necessary to make our lives better. Such is our cynicism that it’s easy to say that it doesn’t really matter who wins the White House, at least on the economy. But empathy is important and forced to choose, most Americans think Obama can address the economy better than McCain. In the latest Newsweek poll, those polled said Obama would do a better job on the economy and jobs than McCain by a 54% to 35% margin. Close to the same result in the Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, 50% to 30%. We see similar results on health care, 56% to 30% for Obama in the Newsweek poll and 52% to 32% in the Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll.

McCain’s initial response to Wall Street even if taken out of contest (“The fundamentals of our economy are sound.”), coupled with his short-lived suspension of his campaign and refusal to debate Obama until Congress resolved its response to the crisis, made it easy for Obama to portray him as “out-of-touch” and a bit schizophrenic. That’s not fair to McCain, but nothing is ever fair in politics.

Fundamentally, what hurts McCain, in my view, is the general sense that, at least on the economy, he is really not much different than President Bush, someone traditionally hostile to government regulation of Wall Street, generally pro-business, and much more attuned to the interests of the wealthy than working Americans. In short, in difficult economic times, it’s tough to be a Republican politician because it’s so easy for Democrats to affix a label to you.

McCain Tries to Change the Theme Line:

Democrats don’t like it, but the McCain campaign did exactly what a smart candidate does when the number one issue in a campaign is against you – change the issue. Enter Bill Ayers, a ‘60s anti-war radical who cofounded the Weathermen underground movement and participated in the bombing of the NYC police headquarters, the U.S. Capitol, and the Pentagon in the early 1970s, activities that occurred when Obama was a young kid, but actions that caused damage to public property but, fortunately, no death or injury. Not my kind of guy, that’s for sure.

Fast forward to the mid-1990s in Chicago. By this time, Ayers has become a prominent educator in that city, with multiple Masters degrees and a doctorate. Ayers, now a Distinguished Professor of Education at the University of Illinois in Chicago, worked with Chicago Mayor Richard Daley to write the so-called Chicago Annenberg Challenge, securing $49 million to reform the Chicago public schools over a five-year period. [Walter Annenberg, a Republican who died in 2002, was the billionaire Philadelphia publisher who was President Reagan’s ambassador to the United Kingdom]. Obama was an original member of the board named to distribute that money. Besides their association in this project, Obama and Ayers were board members on the Woods Fund of Chicago, an anti-poverty philanthropic group. It’s also a fact that Obama was in Ayers home when Ayers hosted an event at which then-Illinois state Sen. Alice Palmer presented Obama as her choice to succeed her in the 1996 Democratic primary.

What are we to make of all this? Obama has condemned Ayers’ illegal activity and calls McCain’s attempt to question his character through Ayers as “guilt by association.” He says he never “palled around” with Ayers, as McCain’s running-mate has charged. But McCain and his allies suggest that it’s just not believable that Obama was unaware of Ayers’ background and that he should have, if he had any decent character at all, completely excused himself from any association with this man. [This is similar, by the way, to the same argument made against Obama because of his long-time association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright whose anti-American, anti-white rhetoric was so inflammatory during the primary season].

PSF’ers can make their own judgment about what this says about Obama or McCain, for that matter. The political question is – has it worked to help McCain? Not yet, is my quick answer. Sure it’s “red meat” for the Republican base that wants McCain to attack Obama more vigorously, but the last-minute nature of the attack strikes many as “desperation” politics. The Fox News poll last week found that 61% of those polled said it made no difference to their vote. Even worse for McCain, some 51% said McCain was running a “negative” campaign for president, while only 21% said that of Obama.

So while McCain’s campaign may be right to change the issue from the economy to something else, a character assault on Obama because of his association (whatever it was) with Bill Ayers doesn’t seem to be working, at least not yet. Perhaps a better issue for McCain might be national security.

Sarah Palin (a/k/a Tina Fey) Becomes a Pop Culture Phenom:

Whether you think Gov. Sarah Palin is qualified to be President of the United States, no one can doubt that she has taken America by storm – and thanks to Tina Fey – has singlehandedly restored Saturday Night Live to “must-watch” television.

I have not met Palin, so I don’t know what she is really like in person, but her spunky style has certainly hit a chord with many. But, let’s be honest, she has also become a figure of ridicule – and, at this stage of the campaign, it’s unclear whether the strong support she gets from some trumps the shake-of-the-head others give her. The most recent Newsweek poll gives her a 49% to 45% favorable rating.

Nonetheless, McCain’s choice of Palin, in my view, did exactly what was intended. It brought the Christian conservative evangelicals back on board the Republican ticket. McCain is a social conservative, but he’s never really been comfortable with the Falwell-Robertson ideology. Palin is not only comfortable with that ideology -- she lives her beliefs. That scares some Americans, but it was those Christian conservative voters who delivered the state of Ohio to George W. Bush in 2004 and nearly delivered Pennsylvania.

Fundamentally, I don’t believe that either Joe Biden, who can quite legitimately point to his Pennsylvania roots, or Sarah Palin determines the outcome of this election. The race is between Obama and McCain, not their running-mates. The last vice presidential nominee to make a difference electorally was Lyndon Baines Johnson who delivered Texas – and the White House – to John F. Kennedy in 1960.

PENNSYLVANIA

Up for Grabs:

As the economy got worse, Barack Obama’s poll numbers got better in Pennsylvania. His lead last week over John McCain ranged from 12% (Marist poll) to 15% (SurveyUSA). Mind you, in September, Obama’s lead was well within the margin of error, ranging from 1% (Strategic Vision) to 4% (Morning Call). So is the recent double-digit bump for Obama a temporary surge, or a predictor of the final outcome?

McCain obviously believes it’s temporary, as both he and Palin criss-cross much of the state and, almost as importantly, their TV ads – and those of groups that support them – continue to run at full strength. Obama hardly thinks PA is decided yet either, as he and Biden stump the state and bring in some heavy-weights like President and Senator Clinton to campaign in Scranton this past weekend.

In short, both candidates act like this state is up for grabs, regardless of the polls. Maybe they know something we don’t know!

The Key for Victory in PA:

James Carville once described Pennsylvania as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between. It was a clever line, but not exactly right. In many ways, PA is like 50 states – urban centers, manufacturing river towns, rural deer country, agricultural heartlands, areas that identify with the east coast and other parts that are clearly Midwestern in outlook. PA has liberal Republicans and very conservative Republicans, just as it has liberal Democrats and very conservative Democrats, and both parties have Christian evangelicals. And, yes, many Pennsylvanians have guns, religion, and a small-town ethos. Bottom line, this is a hard state to categorize.

But the keys to victory are not hard to discern.

Four years ago, John Kerry just barely defeated George Bush in PA by 2.5% of the vote, or 144,000 votes out of 4.7 million votes cast. The Democratic victory began in Philadelphia where Kerry racked up a record 412,000 vote margin over Bush. In August, Gov. Ed Rendell told me that he hoped Philadelphia would beat that record for Obama this November. The latest registration figures show it possible: Philadelphia has about 852,000 Democrats, 145,000 Republicans, and 93,000 independents (or other third-party members). Could Philadelphia give Obama a 500,000 vote lead? It would be astounding, but do-able. Last Saturday’s four-stop visit within Philadelphia by Obama was designed to do just that.

The suburbs of Philadelphia used to be a sure Republican thing. No more. In 2004, Kerry carried three of the four “bedroom” counties – Montgomery (by 46,000 votes), Bucks (by 9,000 votes), and Delaware (by 42,000 votes), losing only Chester County (by 10,000 for Bush). This year, McCain thinks he can do better by stressing his “maverick” independent style. What hampers that is the growth of Democrats in these counties. Montgomery County has now turned Democratic by 19,000 votes, with only 10,000 votes separating Republicans from Democrats in Bucks County and 23,000 in Delaware County.

But even if Obama scores big in Southeastern PA like Kerry did, that does not guarantee victory in the state. Pennsylvania has important concentration of voters in the Northeast (Scranton/Wilkes-Barre), Northwest (Erie), South Central East (Harrisburg/Lancaster/York), South Central West (Johnstown, Altoona, Somerset), and the voter-rich area surrounding Pittsburgh in Southwestern PA. And I’ve left out lots other important nooks and crannies of the state.

Allegheny County (Greater Pittsburgh) is almost certainly going to vote for Obama. While not as lopsided as Philadelphia, it is overwhelmingly Democratic. Latest registration numbers have roughly 586,000 Dems here to 254,000 Republicans and 101,000 independents. In 2004, Kerry beat Bush here by 97,000 votes. In my view, Obama has the potential to win Allegheny County by more than 100,000 votes, depending on whether all the new registrants actually turn up to vote, but it is hardly a done deal.

It looks much better for McCain outside Pittsburgh and its immediate environs. Take Westmoreland County, where Democrats have a 49,000 voter registration edge over the Republicans: Four years ago, Bush beat Kerry in this county by 22,000 votes. In Washington County, Dems have a 40,000 registration edge today but Kerry only beat Bush by 552 votes. In Beaver County, Dems lead Republicans by 34,000 voters but Kerry only won by 2,200 votes. Take Lawrence County where Dems outnumber Republicans by 12,000 voters but Bush won by 551 votes. You get the picture.

The conservative Democrats in Southwestern PA can never be taken for granted by a Democratic candidate running statewide. Neither Obama nor McCain have campaigned in this region since late August – although Palin was here last Friday and Michelle Obama is expected on Thursday – but at some point the race will come down to regions west of the Susquehanna River. Both Gov. Ed Rendell and former Gov. Tom Ridge have certainly counseled their party nominees – western Pennsylvanians like retail politics, vote a higher percentage than back east, and are never predictable. In the end, while small in numbers, how Democratic counties like Beaver County and Washington County vote could well predict who wins the state of Pennsylvania.

The Role of Race in PA:

Finally, a word about race. I had a Democratic committeeman from this area come up to me a few months ago and bluntly tell me that he could never support Obama because he’s black. It’s abhorrent to me that anyone would vote for or against someone on the basis of race, gender, or religion, but we all know that it happens in every election. I have written about this in earlier PSFs. While most of us can point to stories from friends or relatives who say they know somebody who will never vote for Obama because of his race, it’s hard to measure the impact of this.

Last spring, Rendell observed that he felt in his race against an African American in Pennsylvania, the white candidate benefitted by as much as five to seven percentage points. He should know, not only as an astute politician but also as one who ran against an African American in 2006, the Pittsburgh Steelers great Lynn Swann, a Republican. If Rendell is correct, then Obama needs a double-digit lead to win PA.

But I don’t know if Rendell is right, especially when it comes to Barack Obama and John McCain. It seems to me that there are so many other legitimate reasons to vote for one or against these candidates that race is consequential only for the true racists, which I hope is less than one percent of the PA electorate, not seven percent.

Still, there is a gnawing feeling that race will play a greater role in this election than anyone wants to admit. There is not much Obama can do about this, although his recent 60-second biographical ad featuring his white mother and white grandparents was a subliminal way to deal with the issue. My gut instinct is what worries some white voters is not Obama but other African Americans like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (notice how they’ve disappeared this election season?) who appear to have made a career blaming whites for everything wrong in the black community. One white woman asked me the other day if I thought Obama would be beholden to those leaders if he won.

Obama deserves to be judged on his own, not by what people think of Jackson or Sharpton – just as John McCain deserves to be judged on his own, not by what people think of George W. Bush. But it’s the nature of politics to obfuscate rather than clarify. We won’t know the role of race in this contest until the votes are counted.

There is always much more that I can opine on, especially here in Pennsylvania. But let me save something for another PSF next week. I’m committed to doing at least one a week through and right after the election. As always, I welcome your comments – and hope to see some of you out on the campaign trail.

The Week That Was

2008-07-13T23:18:00.004-04:00

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

Last week was certainly a fascinating political week where political news – local, state, and national -- seemed to pile up on itself, and much of it involved Pittsburgh. So much for the summer doldrums. For me personally, last week week was a hectic week with one-on-one interviews with Republican presidential candidate U.S. Sen. John McCain during his visit to Pittsburgh wherein he confused the Pittsburgh Steelers with the Green Bay Packers and with Steelers chairman Dan Rooney on the future of the beloved local football team, followed by a trip to Harrisburg to cover the financial rescue plan of Don Barden’s North Shore casino (still under construction) by Chicago billionaire Neil Bluhm on the very same day that state Attorney General Tom Corbett charged 12 past and present Democratic officials and staffers with multiple felonies for using state tax dollars to reward employees for political campaign work. And let’s not forget a Westmoreland County jury acquitting state Sen. Bob Regola of perjury charges over the death of his next door neighbor’s 14-year old with a loaded handgun of Regola’s. Wow! Catch your breath.

We’ve got a lot of issues to cover in this edition of my PSF e-newsletter. As always, I welcome your off-the-record comments, or if you want to post something publicly, go to my blog at www.delanosden.blogspot.com. As always, if you prefer not to receive this occasional email, feel free to use the unsubscribe key below. I really hate to lose you, but I don’t want to be anyone’s spam! As regular PSF’ers know, I write this freebie out of love on the dubious assumption that after 14 years on Capitol Hill as chief of staff to a PA congressman and now nearly 14 years on the “other” side as a television/radio political analyst and TV reporter in “real” America outside the Capitol Beltway, my observations might be amusing, if not helpful. The honest truth is that I just like to write about politics!

BEYOND THE BELTWAY:

Did McCain Fumble in Pittsburgh?

The political blogosphere, the cable news shows, and now some of the mainstream print and broadcast media have picked up on parts of my KDKA-TV interview with John McCain last Wednesday at the Consol Energy Research facility in Pittsburgh. The essence of the story is, that in response to my questions, McCain recounted how he resisted physical torture (he calls it “pressure”) by the North Vietnamese to name his crewmates by reciting instead the names of the Steelers defensive line. Well, as many others have already pointed out, McCain’s original account of this story was that he named the Green Bay Packers, not the Steelers as he said to me. The McCain campaign says the senator just made a mistake in this Pittsburgh interview.

What Actually Happened?

As the political editor for KDKA-TV, I have wanted to do a sit-down interview with the Arizona senator for quite some time. During the PA Democratic primary, I had a number of one-on-one interviews with U.S. Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, but the Republican candidate was not available to local media when he visited Pittsburgh in April. This trip in July was different. Working with McCain’s new press person for PA & Ohio, the campaign set aside 5 minutes for me, following the senator’s tour of the Consol research facility. [The day before I was able to cover McCain’s arrival and his ‘unannounced’ visit to Primanti’s, Pittsburgh’s famous sandwich shop, wherein he joked on camera with me that Primanti’s sandwiches, known for piling on French fries and sauerkraut along with meat between two slices of bread, was actually “low cal.” It was at Primanti’s, by the way, that McCain also joked about U.S. cigarette exports to Iran killing more Iranians].

As is typical of most campaigns, I was asked to be in place about a half-hour (at least) before the one-on-one interview. My photographer, Jeff Roupe, working with the photographer from WPXI-TV, another local station getting an interview, was actually there a couple hours ahead of time, setting up lights, positioning chairs, and testing microphones. And the campaign staff had their American flag properly positioned for the camera shot. At the last minute, we were told that Cindy McCain would also be joining the senator for the interview. The photographers quickly rearranged everything!

Now my approach to these presidential interviews, especially since time is so constrained, is to keep the focus very local. The national media, who have much better daily access to the candidates than the local media does, can query Obama and McCain about the great national and international issues. I want to ask about things that are important to western Pennsylvanians, and I never ever have sufficient time to do even that.

In preparing my questions, I decided to ask McCain the same first question I asked both Obama and Clinton in my initial sit-down interviews with them last March – when you think of Pittsburgh, what do you think of? It’s a good opening question, designed to get a quick honest answer. Not surprisingly, both Obama and McCain gave the same answer – the Pittsburgh Steelers. Now this, of course, is a popular answer in football-crazed western PA, but it is also very political. What is more interesting is what they say about the Steelers. In essence, the Illinois senator told me how he did not have a football team growing up in Hawaii so he adopted the Steelers as his own, and then he proceeded to name some of the great players from the Super Bowl team of the 1970s. You can check out Obama’s answer on the KDKA-TV website at http://kdka.com/video/?id=39209@kdka.dayport.com. .

Senator McCain’s elaboration on his answer last Wednesday was even more surprising to me. Here is the text:

Jon Delano: “Senator, when you think of Pittsburgh, what’s the first thing that comes to your mind?”

Sen. McCain: “The Steelers. [Laughter]. I was a mediocre high school athlete, and I loved and adored sports, but the Steelers really made a huge impression on me, particularly in the early years. When I was first interrogated and really had to give some information because of the pressure, the physical pressures, that were on me, I named the starting lineup, the defensive line of the Pittsburgh Steelers as my squadron mates.” [Laughter].
Jon Delano: “Did you really?”

Sen. McCain: “Years ago, yes.”

Jon Delano: “In your POW camp?”

Sen. McCain: “Yes, yes, indeed.”

Jon Delano: “Could you do it today?”

Sen. McCain: “No, unfortunately, I couldn’t. But I certainly could then.”

Knowing my time limitations, I segued from this Steelers talk to ask McCain about Dan Rooney and the Steelers ownership issue, a very big front page news story in Pittsburgh, and then quickly moved on to more substantive local issues (i.e., does the senator, as a millionaire, feel the pain of average Pennsylvanians in this difficult economy – I had asked Obama the same question two weeks ago – and the use of PA coal to give us energy independence, along with the standard political questions about his chances in PA). You can watch my full interview with McCain on the KDKA-TV website at http://kdka.com/video/?id=43538@kdka.dayport.com.

The Aftermath:

At the moment McCain uttered his Steelers comment, I knew I had a story for one of our evening broadcasts – KDKA runs double the local news of the other two stations, from 4 pm to 7 pm – and I also knew McCain’s comments on the Rooneys added to its value. Smart politicians – and McCain is smart – know that framing an answer to a local audience is a guaranteed way of getting coverage.

Driving back to station after the interview, Jeff and I, along with my summer intern, reviewed what we recalled from the interview. I must admit that each of us, upon reflection, was puzzled by McCain’s comments because we all knew that the “Steel Curtain” of Super Bowl fame was a 1970s phenomenom. Did McCain really know the Steelers team during the earlier years when he was imprisoned? While I could name Greene, Greenwood, White, Holmes, and many other Steelers from the championship years, don’t ask me about those earlier teams. To be honest, we were not exactly sure when McCain was shot down either. Could McCain be making this stuff up about the Steelers?

Back at the station, after learning exactly when McCain was captured (October 26, 1967), our executive producer had the same reaction that something seemed peculiar. But none of us knew about the Green Bay Packers’ story, so the piece ran without comment, but carefully noted exactly when McCain was held captive so folks could draw their own conclusions. See http://kdka.com/video/?id=43555@kdka.dayport.com. By the next day, we all were aware that McCain’s autobiography contradicted his statements in Pittsburgh. In his 1999 book, Faith of My Fathers, he named the Green Bay Packers as the team he recited to his captors. Of course, Thursday evening we reported that, along with the McCain campaign’s view that this was simply a mistake. See http://kdka.com/video/?id=43612@kdka.dayport.com.

Since then, the story seems to have had a life of its own. I was surprised to open Saturday’s Pittsburgh Post Gazette to find the story on the front page, and I gather it has been picked up coast-to-coast in print and broadcast. Google “McCain Steelers” and you’ll get the drift.

Much Ado About Nothing?

Is this all much ado about nothing? Maybe and maybe not. Either John McCain deliberately lied to me in order to maximize local television coverage in a critical swing state, or he simply made a mistake, for whatever reason, confusing the Steelers with the Packers, perhaps because he had, just moments earlier, been presented with a special Steelers jersey and obviously had the Steelers on his mind.

I was there, and I have reviewed the original tape. I simply do not think that McCain was engaged in some deliberate, deceptive, or manipulative attempt to deceive western Pennsylvanians. Nothing about his demeanor in that portion of the interview appears calculating. Moreover, it would have been profoundly stupid to lie about something that he apparently not only wrote about in his autobiography but has also repeated orally. Whatever else the partisans may think about McCain, he is not stupid. Personally, I believe he made a mistake.

Why he made that mistake, we can only guess. I do think the jersey presentation might be part of it, but I think it was an innocent slip, nothing more. His political opponents, of course, have every right to characterize this as something more – and you know they will.

The larger question is: what impact, if any, will this have on the November election in Pennsylvania? In that regard, it may have some minor effect, but nothing fatal. True, everyone in Steelers country will know John McCain confused the Steelers and the Packers. Even if it’s an innocent mistake, it gets attention at the water cooler. McCain’s detractors will characterize this as some deliberate lie, or perhaps (almost as bad) the failings of an elderly man, but I’m not sure that will sell, at least not unless a pattern of similar behavior emerges that the public perceives. This is similar to the effort to portray Obama as a flip-flopper because he occasionally minces his words.

In the end, Pennsylvanians care a whole lot more about jobs and the economy, energy prices, health care, and the war in Iraq than they do about a slip of the tongue by either McCain or Obama.

PENNSYLVANIA

Corbett Makes His Move:

State politicians have been waiting months for Attorney General Tom Corbett to announce the results of secret grand jury investigations into what has been dubbed Bonusgate. On Thursday afternoon, Corbett, a Republican running for reelection this year and likely to run for governor in 2010, announced charges against twelve individuals, including one former high-ranking House legislator, one incumbent legislator, and ten legislative staffers and former staffers – all Democrats.

Former state Rep. Mike Veon, a Beaver County legislator defeated in 2006, was a prime target. After all, Veon was the second-ranking Democrat in the state House of Representatives. Corbett accused Veon and Mike Manzo, former chief of staff to current Democratic Majority Leader Bill DeWeese, of engineering a scheme to reward with taxpayer dollars (bonuses) those legislative staffers who worked on political campaigns or in other political efforts, like keeping presidential candidate Ralph Nader off the ballot in 2006. Corbett also claimed that a variety of political efforts, including fund-raising and opposition research, were run out of Veon’s government offices. Manzo is also charged with maintaining a ghost employee in Pittsburgh who engaged in sex with Manzo but did no legislative work for her government paycheck.

The allegations are very serious, and, if proved, could cost the defendants both massive fines and time in jail. I have known Corbett for two decades, and I have great respect for his legal skills. He says the investigations are on-going and that Republican legislators, who also handed out bonuses although not at the dollar level as the Democrats, are also targets. Time will tell.

Whither Bill DeWeese:

The most obvious remaining Democratic target is House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese, the loquacious former Marine from Greene County for whom Manzo worked. In an exclusive TV interview with me five months ago, DeWeese made it clear that, not only did he do nothing wrong and was betrayed (my words, not his) by his staffers, but he also does not expect to be charged because he himself did nothing illegal. He told me that, while he knew of traditional Christmas bonuses in the sixty to one hundred dollar range, he was as surprised as anyone to learn about the thousands of dollars of bonuses linked to campaign work. Once he knew of the scheme, he brought in outside legal counsel to review the documents, make recommendations about changes to Democratic procedures that would prevent a repeat, and then turn everything over to Corbett and cooperate fully with the grand jury. DeWeese also fired Manzo and several other senior employees.

Harrisburg insiders always believed that Veon ran the political show, so it’s more than conceivable DeWeese was not involved in Bonusgate. In my interview, he called himself the CEO of a 1,000-person operation who, like a true Marine, delegated responsibility to others in the chain. Still, some think that he must have known more than he lets on, and that Manzo may cut a deal with Corbett that brings down DeWeese. Who knows. If you want to watch my February interview with DeWeese, it’s on the KDKA website at http://kdka.com/video/?id=38563@kdka.dayport.com.

The Peculiar Case of Sean Ramaley:

The only incumbent legislator charged by Corbett last week was 33-year old state Rep. Sean Ramaley, often portrayed as one of the young reformers in the state House. The presentment against Ramaley was the biggest surprise of the day, and the one that some Harrisburg insiders think smells the most of politics. Why? Because Ramaley is the Democratic nominee for state Senate in Beaver County (and a small part of Allegheny & Lawrence Counties), an open seat because of the retirement of the incumbent state senator. The district is three-to-two Democratic, and Ramaley was the odds-on favorite to win in November. The Republican candidate is Elder Vogel.

What brought Ramaley to Corbett’s attention was apparently his connection to Veon. In 2004, Ramaley, who is a lawyer and whose wife is an assistant district attorney in Allegheny County, left his job with the U.S. Department of Labor to run for state House in an open contest. After Ramaley won the Democratic nomination, Corbett says Veon hired Ramaley for a part-time job in his Beaver Falls office, working four hours a day. Nothing wrong with that except, says Corbett, Ramaley did nothing for his legislative paycheck. Instead, Corbett accuses Ramaley of campaigning on government time and using Veon’s office equipment for campaign work. Through his attorney, Ramaley denies all the charges.

Has anyone ever met a politician who does not campaign, or politick, on government time? As long as Ramaley did something “governmental” for his weekly paycheck, that charge will be hard to sustain against him. The more difficult count for Ramaley involves using taxpayer equipment and facilities for campaign purposes. While political old-timers reading this PSF will say that, too, was standard operating procedure in the old days, the law does not permit that today, either in Washington or Harrisburg. In the 21st century, smart politicians separate their campaign staff and resources from their governmental ones. If Veon did not, and Ramaley took advantage of that, the AG’s office has a case to take to the jury.

The political challenge for Ramaley and his fellow Dems is that he is on the ballot for state Senate this November. Innocent until proved guilty, he has the right to stay on the ballot, and nobody believes this will go to trial before the election. While some local Dems think Ramaley should step down, allowing Democratic committee people to pick a new nominee, others are not sure this is fair to Ramaley, who obviously believes he did nothing wrong. The decision is solely Ramaley’s, and there’s no indication of what he will do.

Could Corbett Aim Higher?

Besides looking at whether Majority Leader Bill DeWeese violated the law, there’s buzz that Corbett may be looking at whether the Nader petition battle leads to other officials at the highest level of state government. In 2004, Ralph Nader sought to run as an independent candidate for president against Republican George Bush and Democrat John Kerry. That year, Pennsylvania required such candidates to submit petitions signed by 25,697 registered voters in order to get placed on the ballot. Nader submitted 51,273 signatures. But after his petitions were challenged, the Commonwealth Court found that nearly two-thirds of Nader’s signatures were either invalid or fraudulent.

Writing for the Court, President Judge James Colins was scathing. “I am compelled to emphasize that this signature-gathering process was the most deceitful and fraudulent exercise ever perpetrated upon this court,” wrote Colins, saying Nader’s petitions “shocked the conscience” of the court.

Getting Nader off the Pennsylvania ballot was highest priority for Gov. Ed Rendell, the Kerry campaign, and the Democratic Party in 2004, and proving the fraud of Nader’s petitions was a massive undertaking. Polls showed a very tight race between Bush and Kerry with Nader hovering around 3 percent. In the end, with Nader off the ballot, Kerry squeaked out a win in Pennsylvania with 2.5 percent of the vote.

On Thursday, Corbett, who in 1988 was the Western PA campaign director for then Vice President George H. W. Bush and who, after Bush’s victory, became U.S. Attorney for Western PA, noted that at least 50 House Democratic caucus employees were engaged in reviewing the Nader petitions on government time. In his press statement, Corbett said the grand jury found that these employees contributed “a staggering number of man-hours.” Did the order to use Democratic staffers in this effort come from someone other than Veon? Well, as Corbett says, the investigation is on-going.

Upcoming Congressional Battles:

In 2006, Pennsylvania was one of those key states that helped deliver the Congress to the Democrats. Besides Bob Casey’s win over Rick Santorum for the U.S. Senate, four incumbent Republican members of the House lost reelection here in PA to Democratic challengers. In 2008, Democrats hope to add to those numbers, while Republicans think they have a shot at regaining a couple seats.

Back to reclaim her old seat is former U.S. Rep. Melissa Hart, a Republican from Allegheny County who lost to now U.S. Rep. Jason Altmire by about 9,800 votes. The 4th C.D. is one of those swing districts in Southwestern PA that voted for Bush in 2004, Lynn Swann (for governor) and Bob Casey (for senator) in 2006. Hart thinks she lost because the public mood was sour against incumbents (it was) and she did not react quickly enough against attacks that linked her to Bush and Santorum (that’s true, too). In the rematch, Altmire has a tremendous advantage in money and has been visible, especially on veterans issues. At the moment, this is Altmire’s to lose, and nobody I talk to really thinks he will. But if anyone can make a race of this, it’s Melissa Hart.

In Delaware County, many think U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, a retired rear admiral in the U.S. Navy, should keep the 7th C.D. in Democratic hands. Sestak defeated former U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon by a whopping 33,000 votes two years ago. This year he is opposed by Republican Craig Williams, a former assistant U.S. Attorney, who served in the Marines during the Gulf War and returned to serve as legal counsel to the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the current Iraq War. Williams’ background is impressive, but nobody knows him – yet.

Not far away in the 8th C.D. in Bucks County, U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy, who narrowly defeated U.S. Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick by 1,500 votes, may have a tougher time holding onto his seat. The Republican is Tom Manion, a retired Johnson & Johnson executive whose son was killed in Iraq. Murphy himself is the only Iraq war veteran serving in Congress, and has done well in the fund-raising department. But this is a competitive district, and Republicans think Murphy can be beaten.

The fourth Democratic winner of ’06 who faces a challenge in ’08 is U.S. Rep. Chris Carney, a Democrat who defeated the morally challenged U.S. Rep. Don Sherwood by 12,000 votes in the 10th C.D. in northeast-central PA that should never elect a Democrat. This year the G.O.P. aims to prove that with its candidate, Chris Hackett, that the Carney win was a fluke because of Sherwood’s escapades with a mistress. Hackett, a wealthy entrepreneur who loaned his primary campaign some $800,000, narrowly won his G.O.P. primary but has the personal resources – and the voter registration edge – to make this competitive.

While freshman Democrats Altmire, Carney, Murphy, and Sestak have to defend their seats against Republican challengers, the Dems think they can actually pick up a couple more seats in PA. In the 3rd C.D. that stretches from Erie down into the suburbs of Pittsburgh, U.S. Rep. Phil English faces Democrat Kathy Dahlkemper, a newcomer to politics who heads up the Lake Erie Arboretum. English, who is generally regarded as one of the most moderate of PA Republicans, has breezed to victory in years past, but Dems think Dahlkemper can pull an upset. Like most of these races, much will depend on how much money she can raise to get herself better known.

Another perennial Dem target is U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy, a Republican who represents parts of three SW PA counties in the 18th C.D., including many of the southern and eastern suburbs of Pittsburgh. This year Murphy’s challenger is local businessman Steve O’Donnell who won a three-way primary in April. O’Donnell may have some personal money, but most think Murphy is going to be very tough to defeat even if he continues to have some alleged ethical issues. Murphy has been accused by some former staffers of requiring them to campaign on government time – sound familiar? – and the House Ethics Committee and the local FBI are reportedly looking into this. See http://kdka.com/video/?id=21611@kdka.dayport.com. Now this stuff was out shortly before the 2006 election and did not hurt Murphy at that time. Whether O’Donnell can make more of it this year remains to be seen. Most analysts I know think the hard-working Murphy is likely to get reelected, but O’Donnell has the potential to make this close.

While the Dems target two more incumbent Republicans, the G.O.P. thinks it has a good shot at another Dem incumbent, U.S. Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Kanjorski has represented the north-central 11th C.D. for years, and his challenger this year is a familiar one, Hazelton Mayor Lou Barletta. Six years ago, Barletta lost to Kanjorski by 22,000 votes. But since then the mayor has become an iconic political figure because of his anti-immigrant stance, including a ban on illegals working in his city. The court later struck down Barletta’s ordinance, but he would appear to be stronger today than in 2002. One problem for the G.O.P. Kanjorski is an incredibly strong fund-raiser. At the end of the first quarter, Kanjorski already had $1.8 million in cash on hand.

While Pennsylvania could provide some pick-up for the G.O.P., the more likely scenario is status quo. That means the Dems also fail in their effort to unseat G.O.P. incumbents. Of course, it’s early, and I reserve the right to revise and extend as we get closer to Labor Day.

There’s always a lot more to write about, but this is long enough for the moment. Please feel free to leave your comments on these or any other topics. In the meantime, let’s hope this coming week is just a little less politically consequential than the one just past.

Political Independence Day

2008-07-03T09:14:00.003-04:00

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

Happy Independence Day! In a political year of so many firsts, it’s easy to forget how novel this whole experiment in American democracy was 238 years ago when some wealthy white men met in Philadelphia to declare independence from an incompetent king and a despotic Parliament in Great Britain.

The notion that a colony could assert its own rights to elected representation and govern itself, separate and apart from its mother country, was mind-boggling at the time. The revolution of 1776, labeled by some historians a “conservative” revolution, clearly unleashed the “radical” belief among millions in the years that followed that political independence is a goal worth fighting – and dying – for. The killing of innocent Zimbabwe citizens by the Mugabe murder squads, when their only crime was a desire to exercise the basic democratic right to choose a new leader, demonstrates that the fight for democratic freedom begun in 1776 is still not won for many in 2008.

We should remember that as we proudly fly the flag on the Fourth of July, enjoy our family picnics, and ooh-and-aah to fireworks displays across the country.

Much has happened since my last PSF, so forgive a little bit of catch-up. As always, if you do not want to receive these political emails, just use the unsubscribe key. But I hope you will read on, and, more importantly, send me your personal comments, observations, and off-the-record opinions (and tips) about all things political. If you want to know more about me, see some of my recent TV stories, or post a public reaction, just log onto my blog at www.delanosden.blogspot.com.

BEYOND THE BELTWAY

The Summer of Our Discontent:

Nobody beyond the Washington Beltway is really happy about the direction of the country or the state of our economy these days. With four dollar a gallon gasoline, a stock market in rapid decline, a depressed housing market and growing foreclosures, and the rising costs of just about everything, family budgets are stretched beyond belief. Sometimes I wonder if the politicians in Washington really understand the pain.

In some of the latest polls in June, only 13% (LA Times/Bloomberg Poll) to 16% (Wall Street Journal/NBC Poll) of those polled think the country is heading in the “right” direction. Put another way, only 14% (both Gallup Poll and Newsweek Poll) are “satisfied” with the way things are going in this country. I can’t remember poll numbers this pessimistic.

While you have to wonder who these contented people really are, the fact is the vast, vast majority of Americans (76% to 84%) are unhappy about the state of the nation. And why not? It’s a rare family that has not seen its standard of living decline this year, as wages and salaries fail to keep even with rising costs. In short, Americans are in the dumps, both economically and emotionally.

Where is President Bush?

When it comes to dealing with the economy or addressing the energy crisis, President Bush is perceived by many Americans to be AWOL. Only 9% (LA Times/Bloomberg Poll) think Bush’s economic policies have left us better off today than we were before he took office in 2001. Some 75% say the Republican White House has made things worse.

With just six months left in office, the president is doing what many lame ducks do – escape Washington by traveling all over the world. But given how bad things are in this country and how indifferent he and his administration appear to be to problems that are stripping the value out of our wallets, it’s no surprise that his popularity is at all-time lows.

Every poll conducted in the last four weeks shows President Bush with job approvals ranging from 23% to 30%. His disapproval ranges from 64% to 73%. Unless something changes in the next few months, President Bush is likely to leave office as one of the most unpopular presidents in recent history.

Parenthetically, some have suggested to me that George W. Bush is the worst president in American history. That’s a judgment better left to historians. Lots of presidents left office deeply unpopular (like Harry Truman), only to be resurrected years later. For Bush to be the worst president in history, he would have to beat such undistinguished predecessors as Millard Filmore, James Buchanan, and Chester Arthur. Another standard to consider is that only 16 presidents of 43 were reelected to a second term: Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant, Cleveland, McKinley, Wilson, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush. Of those, three did not get to complete their second terms (Lincoln, McKinley, and Nixon). So credit President Bush with being in very rare presidential company. As for his legacy, that’s a column for later.

Where is the Congress?

The lack of presidential leadership on our major problems is matched by the seeming indifference emanating from both parties in the Congress. Only 13% to 19% in the four most recent polls (FOX/Opinion Dynamics, AP-Ipsos, Gallup, and Wall Street Journal/NBC) approve of the job Congress has done.

What’s there to approve? The partisan bickering has deadlocked the joint, and only on rare occasion (like the economic stimulus package) have both parties come together for action.

Having worked in that body for 14 years once upon a time, let me say that the Congress is inherently incapable of leadership, especially when there is little leadership out of a lame duck White House. With 535 politicians, often with separate agendas, it takes very strong House and Senate leaders to corral the troops, and I don’t see that leadership in either party right now.

It’s also unfair to blame only the Democrats who have a narrow majority in both houses right now. As a representative body, the rules allow the minority party, especially in the Senate, to block the majority’s agenda at almost every turn. The Republicans have done that, sometimes for good reasons, but it adds to the perception of inaction.

In a few months, voters will get the chance to rate the Congress by assessing their individual representative and (in some states) their senator. In early July, most pundits think the Democrats will pick up seats in both the House and Senate. If that happens, it’s not because the Democratic-controlled Congress accomplished much this last year. In truth, the public is blaming the Republicans, via unhappiness with President Bush, for the mess we’re in. Fair or not, when times are tough, the party in the White House almost always gets the blame.

The Race for the White House:

If you live in a must-win state like Pennsylvania, you are already being saturated with television ads from both John McCain and Barack Obama. People often ask me why the candidates don’t take a break this summer like they did in the old days. Well, truth is this election is up for grabs, and neither candidate can afford to let the other get a head start. So the public is doomed to a never-ending campaign on our TV screens.

With the mood so sour on President Bush, it’s a wonder that McCain is even in this race at all. But he is, in part because of his unusual background and in part because the nation is still uncertain about Obama.

Forget the national match-up polls. They are meaningless because we don’t elect presidents by popular vote [just ask Al Gore]. The presidential contest comes down to a state-by-state battle for electoral votes, and that’s what gives McCain hope that a Republican can win the White House this year.

I’ve seen one electoral college map that gives McCain 194 electoral votes to Obama’s 185, with 270 needed to win the White House. Thirteen states are up for grabs in this scenario. Another map, which allocates every state based on local opinion polls no matter how narrow the lead, gives Obama a whopping 317 votes, by awarding him states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, states in which he currently leads by single digits within the margin of polling error.

Both campaigns are much too smart to think these early electoral college maps are predictive. Here’s my all-inclusive list of early-summer “battleground” states that will determine the next president: Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Many of these 18 states may be lost to one candidate or the other by mid-September after both presidential conventions conclude. But in the meantime, watch Obama and McCain criss-cross the country with strategic stops in the states listed above.

Some Personal Reflections:

As PSF readers know, I’ve had the privilege of interviewing presidential candidates over the years. I just had my third chance this year to sit down with Barack Obama when he was in Pittsburgh last week, and I’m looking forward to my first chance for a sit-down chat with John McCain in the near future [I have interviewed McCain in one of those media scrums, but that hardly counts for creating impressions].

As a journalist and political analyst (although one of those rare ones who worked on the government and campaign side before leaping to the dark side of media), I try hard to be scrupulously objective in these encounters. Generally, the campaign gives much less time than needed – I was given 5 minutes of air time with Obama that stretched to 6 minutes, 40 seconds, because of his answers – but you do form some judgments in both their demeanor before and after the interviews, as well as the way they answer your questions.

Obama is smart, politically astute, cordial, thoughtful, and careful in his answers. In this third interview, he acted like he remembered me (although that could be good staff work), but I’m not convinced that he does (unlike Hillary Clinton who spouted off things from our earlier off-camera conversations that evidenced she really did remember). I don’t fault the candidates for this, as they meet so many local journalists that one encounter probably seems like another.

Much more importantly, Obama’s answers to my questions were direct. In particular, I asked him about whether he could relate to the pain of average Americans (after all, he’s now a millionaire) which he answered (in my view) honestly, acknowledging that his circumstances today allow him to absorb the pain at the pump (unlike most of us) but stressing that he is not far removed from his days of struggle and reflecting that he is probably the closest to a “middle class” candidate for president in a long time.

You can watch my full interview with Obama, including his answers to my questions on presidential leadership, energy (especially clean coal technology), the Pennsylvania primary and upcoming contest here, and his plan to replace the White House bowling alley with a basketball court. Just click http://kdka.com/video/?id=43059@kdka.dayport.com. I’ll give equal time to McCain in my next PSF, after I sit down with him.

PENNSYLVANIA:

Up for Grabs:

Early in the PA primary season, I wrote that Obama could beat Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania, if he did certain things, including camping out in western PA as per the Ed Rendell campaign playbook of 2002. Obama did not do this, and Clinton won the state by 9 percent. The western part of the state (indeed, almost all parts of the state outside Philadelphia) supported Clinton. While Obama won the city of Pittsburgh, he lost Allegheny County (where Pittsburgh is located) and was trounced in the neighboring southwestern counties that Democrats must win to carry the state. In Fayette County, for example, 79% of the Dems voted for Clinton over Obama.

Will these Democrats, even at Hillary’s urging, vote for Obama in November? To be absolutely honest, I don’t know. The most recent Rasmussen poll has Obama ahead by 4 points, 46 to 42. Considering that John Kerry only defeated George Bush by two points in Pennsylvania, it’s hard to consider the Keystone State as anything but a battleground in the months ahead.

What Obama has going for him is the economic mess that argues for change. Few people want a “third term” for George Bush, the very clever mantra Democratic pundits have used to frame John McCain. What he has going against him is that he is still not well known on a personal level and is subject to every suspicion and insinuation that his opponents can dredge up and that the conservative folks in this state could buy into.

And, yes, race will play a role, too. Gov. Rendell was excoriated by some when he suggested that an African American running for office in PA automatically loses five to seven percentage points because of race. Rendell cited his own campaign against former Pittsburgh Steelers great Lynn Swann, an African American Republican. Whether the governor should have played political pundit is one thing, but Rendell was absolutely correct in his observation. Race does still matter to enough people that in a close election it can make a difference.

If Obama could beef up his PA schedule, so could McCain. McCain has spent even less time in PA than Obama. The Republican visited Pittsburgh just once during the primary, and is scheduled to make his first post-primary stop here next week. He did spend a day in the eastern part of the state last week, and I suspect we shall see a lot of both nominees in the months ahead.

History is pretty clear on the importance of Pennsylvania. The last Democrat to win the White House without PA was Harry Truman in 1948, and only two Republicans in U.S. history (beginning with Lincoln’s win here in 1860) have won the presidency without Pennsylvania – Richard Nixon and George Bush.

Statewide Contests Below the Surface:

Quickly now, can you name the candidates for State Treasurer? How about the challengers to state Attorney General Tom Corbett or Auditor General Jack Wagner? Surprise! Pennsylvanians will elect its three statewide row officers this year, positions that are often stepping stones to Governor and Senator.

Republican Corbett’s opponent for the state’s top legal job is Democrat John Morganelli, the district attorney of Northhampton County (back east in Allentown, PA). Democrat Wagner’s opponent for auditor general is Republican Chet Beiler of Lancaster County, a local businessman. So far, neither Morganelli nor Beiler have been particularly visible, while the incumbents do everything they can to say in the news.

The open seat for state Treasurer, the seat given up by U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, features a race between two Philadelphians – Republican Tom Ellis, a former Montgomery County commissioner, and Democrat Rob McCord, a Montgomery County venture capitalist. McCord was much more visible in the primary because he had opponents, unlike Ellis, so perhaps has a slight leg up in this mostly invisible contest.

While there is so much other state and local political intrigue to opine on, I’m going to halt this here, asking my PSF’ers to give me the chance to pen something over the holiday weekend. If some events get rained out this weekend, I just might get Part II out on Monday! In the meantime, I hope you and your family have a terrific Fourth of July celebration. Despite our current travails, this is a great country because of the sacrifices of so many men and women. Few among us would want to live in any other nation, especially those for whom this kind of democratic debate would risk torture and death. The optimist in me knows that it won’t be long before America is back on a roll again.

PA Primary Retrospective

2008-04-26T16:50:00.003-04:00

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

The other night, I finally got 6 hours of sleep for the first time in awhile. Three days in a row of double shifts (Monday through Wednesday) does take a toll on the body, but what an exciting time to be right in the middle of this never-ending presidential battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Despite the spin on both sides, which have tended to exaggerate or minimize the importance of the Pennsylvania win for Clinton, this primary has reenergized the Hillary folks. More importantly, in my view, the nature of the Clinton win has planted seeds of doubts about Obama’s ability to win a national race against Republican John McCain.

And then there’s the resurgence of race in this contest, aided and abetted by the reappearance of Jeremiah Wright, who is doing no favors for his parishioner.

As you know, I have been scrupulously neutral in this presidential contest, reporting the facts but unafraid to tell you exactly what I think even if my friends in all three campaigns enjoy taking issue with me. In this quick PSF, let me lay out some of my post-primary thoughts. As always, you can leave public comments on my occasional blog – www.delanosden.blogspot.com – or just email me your private, off-the-record views. I love hearing from you, and now I just might have a few more minutes to respond!

PENNSYLVANIA

Just the Facts, Ma’am:

On Tuesday, nearly 55 percent of PA’s 4.2 million Democrats went to the polls, and Hillary Clinton defeated Barack Obama by 9.2 percent – 1,245,911 (54.6%) to 1,037,953 (45.4%). Correct mathematical “rounding” by the media reported this result as 55% to 45%, the so-called “double digit” lead, but the “truth” is that the win was closer to 9% than 10%. Details, perhaps, but let’s be accurate.

Clinton won 60 of the state’s 67 counties, winning 15 counties with 70 percent of the vote or more. Those included the Democrat-rich Lackawanna County (Scranton) which she won by 74% and the less populated southwestern PA county of Fayette County that delivered Clinton her best vote at 79%.

Obama carried the state’s largest county, Philadelphia, with 65% of the vote but lost two neighboring suburban counties, Montgomery County (the third largest Democratic county in the state after Allegheny) where Clinton won narrowly with 51% and Bucks County where she won with 63% of the vote.

Obama also won the city of Pittsburgh with 59% of the vote, but Clinton won the overall Allegheny County vote by 9%. Of the county’s 130 municipalities, including Pittsburgh, Obama won a couple dozen, but Clinton beat him in most communities, often by a two-to-one margin.

In the neighboring Pittsburgh area counties, Clinton easily won with double-digits, carrying Butler County by 27 points, Beaver County by 39, Westmoreland County by 39, and Washington County by 43 points over Obama.

The delegate sort is still on-going with 103 delegates elected in the 19 congressional districts and another 55 delegates allocated based on the final statewide percentage result. I have seen various reports that Clinton could pick up as many as 12 delegates over Obama to as few as 6. Nobody has the exact facts on this one yet. I’ll keep you posted as this gets figured out.

Clinton’s win was slightly bigger than the last two polls of the campaign which predicted a 6% win (Survey USA) and a 7% win (Quinnipiac) and considerably bigger than some of the late afternoon exit polls on Tuesday which suggested a narrower 4-point win for Clinton.

The Spin, For What It’s Worth:

The day after the election both campaigns went overboard in “analyzing” the Pennsylvania primary. No surprise. The Obama campaign down-played the result to nothing, while the Clintons made this sound like Hillary’s second coming.

The Obama spin was contained in an artfully written memo entitled, “A Fundamentally Unchanged Race.” Here’s an excerpt:

“Tonight, Hillary Clinton lost her last, best chance to make significant inroads in the pledged delegate count. . . .The only surprising result from Pennsylvania is that in a state considered tailor-made for Hillary Clinton that she was expected to win, Barack Obama was able to improve his standing among key voter groups since the Ohio primary. . . .As he has done in every state, Barack Obama campaigned hard to pick up as much support and as many delegates as possible and was able to stave off Clinton from achieving a significant pledged delegate gain from Pennsylvania. . . .The bottom line is that the Pennsylvania outcome does not change dynamic of this lengthy primary.”

The Clinton spin was delivered by the candidate herself in her cogent acceptance speech. Here’s an excerpt:

“I’m in this race to fight for you, to fight for everyone who has ever been counted out, for everyone fighting to pay the grocery bills or the medical bills, the credit card and mortgage payments, and the outrageous price of gas at the pump today. . . . The pundit's question whether Pennsylvanians would trust me with this charge and tonight you showed you do. . . .Today, here in Pennsylvania, you made your voices heard and because of you, the tide is turning. We were up against a formidable opponent who outspent us three to one. He broke every spending record in this state trying to knock us out of the race. Well, the people of Pennsylvania had other ideas tonight.”

In short, Obama says PA didn’t change a thing because his delegate lead is insurmountable, while Clinton says the tide has turned her way because Obama’s millions could not win him the support of middle class, working Democrats essential to victory.

Another Point of View:

Pennsylvania did matter, in my view, because it breathed important “life” into Hillary Clinton’s campaign. She has now won four of the last five primaries. Barack Obama could not deliver the knock-out punch in a critical “November” state. Moreover, Obama’s loss has raised questions about how he can win the general election when he lost some important Democratic constituencies who backed Clinton on Tuesday.

At the same time, Clinton did not get the delegate boost she needs, although everyone now knows Obama mathematically cannot win a majority of the pledged delegates either. In short, this race is now all about the 795 super delegates who will ultimately pick the nominee because the millions of Democrats who have been voting since January were unable to give either Obama or Clinton the magic 2,025 delegates needed for nomination.

That’s an important point. Pennsylvania and the remaining nine contests are really aimed at persuading the supers which candidate can win in November. And, in my view, that’s why the Pennsylvania primary has more significance than the Obama camp would wish, even if it’s not necessarily the “tide changer” Clinton believes.

How Clinton Won:

Hillary won on Tuesday because her prime constituency, women, stuck with her, while she was able to end the campaign with a majority of white men on her side. Exit polls found 68% of white women and 59% of women overall voted for Clinton. This is an important constituency when you consider that 58% of all Democratic voters in PA on Tuesday were women.

Men, who were fickle throughout most of this campaign going back and forth between Obama and Clinton, split evenly (49% to 51%). But white men, in the end, jumped back to Clinton, 57% to 43%, giving her the near double-digit lead she wanted.

Despite all the youth vote talk in this campaign, it was the older folks who turned out to vote. Some 22% of the Democratic electorate were 65 and over, while only 12% were under age 30. About six in 10 young voters backed Obama, while 63% of the larger older voting cohort supported Clinton. In short, age trumped youth.

On the religious front, Clinton beat Obama among Catholics, 70% to 30%, among Jews, 62% to 38%, and among white Protestants, 59% to 41%.

Obama did well among what some call the Democratic elites – well-educated, economically well-off liberals. In Allegheny County, for example, Obama won the Dems who live in Fox Chapel, Mt. Lebanon, Sewickley, and Pittsburgh’s 14th Ward, uniting them with the predominately African American communities of Braddock, Clairton, Duquesne, and Rankin. But for any Democrat, this is hardly a coalition for victory, especially in November. Clinton was the overwhelming favorite of the blue-collar, middle class working white, winning this vote 61% to 39%.

The stark political reality for Obama is that he cannot become president in November if he cannot win over these voters. As U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle commented this week, Obama “needs to demonstrate that he can connect with blue-collar, working class people.” Doyle is an uncommitted super delegate, whose district narrowly backed Obama. The Obama camp believes that in a race against the McCain economic issues, including rising gas prices, will keep Dems in the fold. I’m not so sure it will be that easy.

Revisiting the Role of Race:

Lots of folks are dancing around the subject of race, but when exit polls say that 16% of PA Democrats claim race played a factor in their decision, I suspect the real number is higher.

Now let’s be clear. I’m sure some African Americans voted for Obama solely because of his race, and I’m equally sure some whites voted for Clinton solely because of her race. About 90% of blacks voted for Obama. Did they all do so because of they thought he was the better candidate regardless of race? At the same time, 63% of whites voted for Clinton. Did they all do so because they thought she was the better candidate regardless of race?

Voting for or against anyone on the basis of race, gender, religion, ethnicity, or sexual preference, in my view, is an ignorant way of voting, but it’s as American as apple pie.

In Pennsylvania, Obama won one-third of the white vote and Clinton won 10% of the black vote. Clearly, these voters disregarded race. But what about the others? Again, let’s be clear. Just because a black voter votes for Obama or a white voter votes for Clinton does not automatically make them racists. That’s insulting to the vast majority of voters who have perfectly valid, non-racial reasons for backing their candidates.

But, politically, the role of race is important for Obama’s (and the Democratic Party’s) future success on Nov. 4, and here the concern is not black racists, who will vote for Obama no matter what. What concerns many in the Democratic Party, particularly some of its super delegates, is white racists who will never vote for a black.

The other day I caught this provocative diatribe on the internet from a Virginia blogger, who ascribes Clinton’s win in PA to racism:

“Hillary Clinton won Pennsylvania because she pandered to the overt racism that exists among blue collar whites as well as the latent racism in too many others. She won because the bulk of her appeal comes from the less-educated, the less-tolerant and the less-intelligent among us. If you're a stupid, illiterate, gun-totin' white hick you probably voted for Hillary. And so did your ignorant, baby-popping, big-haired wife as well as that bleached-blond bar maid that you're seeing on the side. . . . Where I come from, the guys with the John Deere hats talk about how they voted for Hillary in the Virginia Democratic primary because ‘it will be a cold day in hell before I vote for the [N-word].’"

This portrayal of Clinton supporters in PA is both insulting – “a stupid, illiterate, gun-totin’ white hick” – and dead wrong. This hardly describes the majority voters of suburban Philadelphia in Montgomery and Bucks who backed Hillary over Barack, or suburban Pittsburgh for that matter. Nonetheless, there is a kernel of truth in the notion that some whites, in every state, will simply never vote for an African American.

Political analysts must be up-front about that reality. I wish it weren’t so, but race does matter to some.

Still, to call every blue-collar, middle class worker in PA a “racist hick” is precisely the elitism that threatens to separate Obama from the base of his party. To be fair to the Illinois senator, I don’t think he has ever done that, even if some of his supporters have. But Obama’s own words in San Francisco, linking the economic unhappiness of these folks to their religion and guns, clearly cost him on April 22. To many, he came across as out-of-touch. Some 59% of those who attend church regularly voted for Clinton, along with 62% of those Pennsylvanians who have guns in the family.

Maybe I want to believe better of people, but I really don’t think the vast majority of Pennsylvanians are racist. Instead, voters were willing to let Obama make his case to them and he failed. But whether it’s latent racism or not (and I hope it’s not), Obama cannot be elected president if he is unable to connect with “regular folks” who want a president who understands them, shares their pain, and articulates a way to help them cope with the economic squeeze they feel.

Enter Jeremiah Wright:

When he could least afford it politically, Obama now has to contend with the reappearance of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who seems intent on restoring his good name without regard to the consequences on his famous parishioner. I watched Bill Moyer’s interview with Wright on PBS on Friday night, and obviously saw a different Wright than the one we have seen in those ugly video clips. That, of course, is the whole point of Wright’s speaking out, to suggest that what we saw on TV was not the “real” pastor, but a highly distorted picture. On Sunday, Wright will speak to the NAACP in Detroit, and then he addresses the National Press Club in Washington on Monday.

I understand the minister’s desire to rehabilitate his image. Who wouldn’t do that? But there is no way this can be helpful to Barack Obama. It only resurrects the old murky images of a screaming preacher and, frankly, the issue of race. And that undermines the central message of Obama’s candidacy.

At the beginning of this campaign, Obama won all-white Iowa (and many other states, too) because he transcended race. A multi-racial American, he came across to many as neither white nor black but as this uniquely transformational figure who could bridge the racial divide. But the rants of his pastor, whether fair or unfair, upended that image, at least for some Americans. This man, whom Obama called his spiritual mentor, said things from the pulpit that were not just offensive but clearly racial. Wright conjured up images of all the worst black preachers, the ones who blame whites and America for all that is wrong.

And, all of sudden, Obama is no longer a racially unifying candidate, but a black candidate who cannot disown his pastor even as he rejects the preacher’s tirades, saying they are rooted in an earlier generation of black liberation theology. The Pennsylvania primary suggests that Obama’s eloquent speech in Philadelphia on race did not work, at least not politically, with the audience he needs to reach the most.

So just when he needs to develop a strategy that can resurrect the “unifying” Obama that so many white voters embraced before Wright’s image cast across the TV screen, Wright reappears. Now he tells us that Obama’s words distancing himself from his pastor were merely the words of a “politician,” implying that Obama only said what he said in Philly because that was the political thing to do.

“He's a politician, I'm a pastor,” Wright told Moyers . “We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. But they're two different worlds. I do what I do. He does what politicians do."

Obviously, the pastor has every right to speak out and correct the record, as he sees it. But, in my view, if Wright had really wanted to help his parishioner win the presidency, he would have enjoyed his retirement and kept his mouth shut until the day after November

Moving On:

Pennsylvania is over until November where, in my view, John McCain has a good shot at winning the state, regardless of the ultimate Democratic nominee. For Clinton and Obama, of course, the race goes on.

Next Saturday, May 3, Guam will elect eight delegates to the convention, followed by Indiana (72 delegates) and North Carolina (115 delegates) on Tuesday, May 6. With one-third of its Democratic voters African American, nobody really expects Hillary to win North Carolina, but her campaign would like to keep Obama’s lead under double-digits, not unlike what Obama did in Pennsylvania.

Indiana appears up for grabs, although Obama has a slight poll lead and an advantage since the Chicago media market (where Obama calls home) overlaps into part of Indiana. In my view, Indiana is another place where those working class, blue-collar workers could make the difference. For what it’s worth, a life-time ago, nearly 30% of the Dems in Indiana voted for segregationist George C. Wallace.

Once again, the remaining nine races are all about spin and super delegates. Perhaps if Obama won nine straight, Clinton might fold. But why should she? And does anyone expect Obama to call it quits if Clinton wins the next nine? No, of course not. This race is not over until it’s over. And that won’t happen until all the super delegates weigh in with their choices because neither Obama nor Clinton will have a majority of the delegates when the last pledged delegates are elected on June 3.

Okay, folks, that’s my take on the PA presidential primary. I would welcome your views. Next week, I will review the other races in Pennsylvania, including the congressional battles where both sides dream of pick-ups. In the meantime, Pennsylvanians will enjoy a politics-free week (sort of) as it finally feels like spring! Is that a lawn mower I hear calling?

Just Hours to Go

2008-04-20T23:00:00.003-04:00

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

It all comes down to this. In just a few hours, the Democratic voters of Pennsylvania will "make or break" Hillary Clinton. A win by Barack Obama ends her campaign, virtually guaranteeing that Obama will become the Democratic nominee to face the putative Republican nominee, John McCain. But a win by Clinton of any size allows her to move forward to the remaining nine contests through June 3. And a "big" win in Pennsylvania by Clinton significantly improves her chance to be the Democratic nominee because of the message it sends to super delegates about her own electoral strengths and Obama's perceived weaknesses in an important general election state like Pennsylvania.

In this PSF, I'll share some last-minute thoughts about this presidential contest. Feel free to comment, and you can watch the news reports (scroll down on the right hand column of this blog) I have filed throughout this campaign.

PENNSYLVANIA

The Final Campaign Hours:

When you look at the schedule of the candidates over the last 48 hours, you know it takes a particularly driven individual to run for president of the United States. No reasonably thinking person would subject themselves to the brutal pace of criss-crossing a state like Pennsylvania at the pace of these candidates. As best as I can figure, from Sunday through Monday night, Hillary will hit Bethlehem, Johnstown, State College, Scranton, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia. President Clinton will join Hillary at a Market Square rally in Pittsburgh on Monday afternoon, while both Bill & Chelsea will join Hillary at UPenn's Palestra in Philadelphia tomorrow night. Barack is no different, hitting Lebanon, Reading, Scranton, Philadelphia, McKeesport, and Pittsburgh. Two Obama rallies in the Pittsburgh area on Monday, McKeesport Penn State at dinner and Pitt's Petersen Event Center later that evening, culminate the PA campaign for the Illinois senator.

A couple months ago I blogged that Pennsylvanians like candidates to engage in retail politics. They want to courted, wooed, and praised. And they don't like to be taken for granted by anyone. This state is so big, however, and so different, depending on the mountain or valley you're visiting, that statewide campaigning in a few short weeks is a challenge. James Carville once described PA as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between. It was a clever line but wrong. PA is really Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with 50 states in between, each jealous of its own identity and prerogatives.

Early on, Clinton was all over the state, and Obama was not. He has tried to make up for that in the last days of the campaign with a creative "whistle stop" tour through parts of the state. But the general impression lingers among some that Clinton wants Pennsylvania's vote more than Obama, at least if you judge by physical presence in the state. Others will say that Obama has been more visible because he has outspent Clinton 5 to 1, 4 to 1, 3 to 1 on television, depending on the week and the media market. My view is that there has been no shortage of the candidates and their surrogates, with most voters ready to cast a ballot and be left alone!

Where Are the Votes?

This contest has certainly attracted interest among voters, as much as some now wish it would just be over. The latest registration figures show 4.2 million Democrats to 3.186 million Republicans, a one million person registration advantage for Dems in the state. How many of those will switch back to the GOP the day after the election remains to be seen, but the Dems will still enjoy one of their strongest registration advantages in recent history. Both camps engaged in active voter registration drives, but the political spin is that most of these new voters are Obama recruits. We will see on Election Day.

Of the state's 67 counties, 11 counties now boast more than 100,000+ Democrats, including Philadelphia County with 799,663; Allegheny County (Greater Pittsburgh) with 567,420; Montgomery (suburban Philly) with 247,881; Bucks County (suburban Philly) with 185,407; Delaware County (suburban Philly) with 157,301; Westmoreland County (suburban Pittsburgh) with 134,122; Berks County (Reading & environs) with 114,304; Chester County (suburban Philly) with 113,315; Luzerne County (Wilkes-Barre, Hazelton & environs) with 106,816; York County (south central PA) with 104,816; and Lehigh County (Allentown & environs) with 101,763.

The next five counties with lots of Dems are just as courted by candidates, including Lackawanna County (Scranton & environs) with 98,992; Northampton County (Bethlehem & environs) with 97,002; Erie County (northwest PA) with 96,290; Lancaster County (south central PA) with 94,954; Washington County (suburban Pittsburgh) with 86,645; and Dauphin County (Harrisburg & environs) with 79,665. The remaining 51 counties have fewer than 50,000 Democrats, except for Beaver County (suburban Pittsburgh) with 68,644; Fayette County (southwest PA) with 61,935; and Cambria County (Johnstown & environs) with 55,876.

Add it all up, and one-third of the Democratic vote is in southeastern PA (Philadelphia & environs) and one-quarter of the vote is in southwestern PA (Pittsburgh & environs). That leaves a critical 40% of the vote spread across the state from Erie to Bethlehem, from Scranton to York -- Democrats that neither Clinton nor Obama can take for granted.

The Closing Arguments:

The last week is such a blur, that it's hard to know where to begin. The week began with Obama's unfortunate comments at a San Francisco fundraiser about "bitter" Pennsylvanians "clinging" to their guns, their religion, their anti-immigrant views, etc., and those words certainly gave Clinton the opening she needed to bring home her point that Obama is an "elitist" who does not "understand" working Pennsylvanians. She also sought to use the incident to validate her point that Obama is not really ready for prime-time presidential politics. Clinton rushed a commercial onto the air on the subject, driving home a not-so-subtle message that Obama had "offended" the very Democrats so needed to win both a primary and general election in this state.

My own take is that Obama is right that many Pennsylvanians are unhappy about the economy and the inability of Washington to make lives easier for average citizens. But to suggest that this is why people turn to guns and religion is nonsense. (He said later that this is not what he meant but that got lost in the political spin). Both religious faith and guns for hunting and sport are essential elements of life for many in western PA and, indeed, many areas outside the Philadelphia metro. Obama's comments clearly hurt him with some voters, but it's not clear to me that this did anything more than solidify some Clinton voters in their original view. In retrospect, it may be more of a campaign distraction that a vote-changer.

If Obama blew the guns and religion talisman of politics, he scored a coup on the holy grail of sports. In this region, the endorsement of Obama by Dan Rooney, the owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers, was a clear positive for the senator, even as the Steelers "officially" assured their Clinton & McCain fans that the team does not "officially" endorse anyone. Still, Rooney is a beloved icon in this region, as are the Steelers, so his endorsement along with that of former Steelers Franco Harris, Dwight White, J.T. Thomas, Robin Cole, Edmund Nelson and Larry Brown made for nice headlines. Nonetheless, it probably won't change many votes.

The great debate in Philadelphia attracted viewers all across the state, but not everyone. Here in this region, more people tuned in to watch the Pittsburgh Penguins win their first hockey playoff series - 175,000 households - than watched the presidential debate - 118,000 households, according to Neilsen. No surprise. We love our sports.

I was at the Wednesday night debate and found the crowd outside the National Constitution Center to be the best part of the occasion. Wonderfully passionate supporters of Clinton and Obama mixed with those hawking their goods, yielding a cacophony of loud yelling and shouting that Joe Torsella, the CEO of the Constitution Center told me was "the music of democracy."
Inside the Center, the yelling was a bit different.

I will not pile on ABC's Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulus for their first round of questions, first, because everyone else has already done so and, second, because I have asked lots of questions at candidate debates and appreciate the challenge of asking both relevant and entertaining questions. Candidates always get asked questions they don't like, and the sign of a good candidate is the ability to deflect the question. Both Obama and Clinton should have expected questions about Pastor Jeremiah Wright, sniper fire in Bosnia, and the "bitter in PA" comments. These were legitimate questions. The lapel pin question struck me as bizarre, although a question on the Flag Amendment might have been in order. Fundamentally, if I had been asking questions, I would have mixed up the serious policy questions about the economy, the war, and trade (nobody asked about that) with these other topics. Going 45 or 55 minutes into a two-hour debate without a "substantive" policy question made the debate appear rather petty.

After the debate, spin alley was full of surrogates spinning away. Gov. Ed Rendell, a Clinton supporter, objected to the debate questions, saying essentially that PA voters were cheated of a debate on important issues to the state. U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah, an Obama supporter, echoed Rendell's comments. In short, both camps seemed unhappy about the first questions, but, predictably, both thought their candidates out-performed the other. My own sense was that there were no knock-outs, Clinton was on her game, Obama seemed taken aback by the ABC assault, and nothing really changed.

In the waning days of this PA primary, both candidates have returned to their basic message, while attacking each other relentlessly. For Obama, it's all about change, while for Clinton, it's action not words. She stresses her life-time of experience and qualifications and her ability to get things done - while he focuses on changing the culture in Washington and a future that brings people together. Nothing new in these messages, but sometimes I think these themes have gotten lost in all the attacks each have inflicted on the other.

So Who Wins PA?

Predicting this election is like grabbing a handful of jello - it changes almost instantly. You can find a poll to suit your fancy. The common consensus is that Clinton is ahead by a few points, perhaps more, but nobody really knows. The Obama team has elevated lower expectations to an art form, suggesting privately that they expect a double digit loss and that if they come within 10 points of Hillary it will be a major upset. When I sat down a week ago with David Plouffe, the Obama campaign manager, he strenuously avoided predicting any kind of victory in PA, but had no problem setting a very high "victory" threshold for Clinton. The Clinton team says a win is a win, but knows that an Ohio-style victory (a 10.4% margin) is what the New York senator needs to gain any kind of momentum for the remaining contests.

On election night, I will be looking at both ends of the state. If women in suburban Philadelphia vote gender, Hillary can hit double digits, assuming a strong performance elsewhere. If those same women identify with Obama (as many well-off, educated folks have been doing in other states), then this race will be close. Similarly, western PA has been Clinton country from the beginning of this campaign, but Obama is making a strong close here. I will watch to see if students and younger voters show up in greater numbers than normal around here, and will look to see if Obama takes some of the more affluent suburbs (North Hills and South Hills) away from Clinton.

The desire for change is real, and that is Obama's true strength. But some PA Dems are not convinced that he brings the same skills and experience to the top job as Clinton does. She has worked hard to make that argument, obviously, and I will watch to see if it's resonating, especially among the Dems who live outside our urban centers. Early on, Rendell opined that African Americans running statewide lose 7 points because of their race, citing his own battle against Lynn Swann. PA has its fair share of racists, of all races, who will vote for or against a candidate based on the color of his/her skin. While I have heard comments from white males that they could never vote for a black, I have also heard from other males who will never vote for a woman. In the privacy of the secret ballot, all prejudices are allowed even if we would never sanction them in public.

In the end, gender and race may make the difference. While African Americans are expected to vote for Obama, will Pennsylvania women do the same for Clinton? On the answer to that question rests this election.

Pennsylvania Won't Be the Decider:

Absent a victory by Obama over Clinton, something the Obama people are not predicting, this race goes on. Assuming Clinton wins PA, unless the race is a total blow-out, she is unlikely to end up with more than a 10 to 15 vote delegate advantage over Obama. The proportionality rule guarantees that Obama will get his percentage share of the 158 delegates determined on April 22. Greg Giroux and Jonathan Allen at Congressional Quarterly did an interesting analysis
of the delegate battle, and they predict of the 103 delegates elected in the 19 congressional districts Clinton will get 53 to Obama's 50. Of course, a double-digit landslaide by Clinton changes that. Another 55 delegates will be apportioned based on the statewide percentage the winner gets. If Clinton gets 55% of the statewide vote, for example, she would get 30 of those 55 delegates, leaving 25 for Obama. In short, whatever happens in the popular vote, the delegate contest is likely to remain close.

Here's something most people don't know. Not every congressional district elects the same number of delegates, since delegates are awarded based on Democratic registration and Democratic performance. One district -- the 2nd (Philadelphia) -- gets 9 delegates. Five districts get 7 delegates - the 1st (Philadelphia), the 7th (Delaware County), the 8th (Bucks County), the 13th (Northeast Philly), and the 14th (Pittsburgh). One district - the 6th (Southeast PA) - gets 6 delegates. Six districts get 5 delegates - the 3rd (Northwest PA), the 4th (Pittsburgh suburbs), the 11th (Northeast PA), the 12th (Southwest PA), the 15th (Allentown/Bethlehem), and the 18th (Pittsburgh suburbs). The remaining congressional districts get just four delegates each.

After all is said and done, this race moves on to Guam on May 3, Indiana and North Carolina on May 6, West Virginia on May 13, Kentucky and Oregon on May 20, Puerto Rico on June 1, and Montana and South Dakota on June 3.

When it's all over on June 3, neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton will have a majority of pledged delegates to get the nomination. Until all the uncommitted super delegates make up their minds - and local super delegates think that will happen before the Fourth of July - the Democratic Party will not have a presidential nominee.

Just some quick thoughts on a Sunday night. As you know, I welcome yours. Have a Happy Election Day!

Two Weeks to Go

2008-04-07T09:26:00.002-04:00

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

Two weeks from tomorrow, some 4 million+ Pennsylvania Democrats will have the chance to choose a nominee for president. The polls are showing an expected tightening of the race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. No surprise there. Nobody, including the Clinton campaign, ever believed that Pennsylvania would roll over easily for any candidate. We are too ornery, too diverse, too independent, too smart to be taken for granted.

In this edition of my PSF, I examine the current state of the presidential race, along with some other PA races that will be on the April 22 ballot. As always, I welcome your comments and off-the-record tips.

But, first, a personal comment. I have very good friends on both sides of this Democratic battle, and several of them have taken me to task for not adopting their view of political events. That’s fine. I can take it. One of my friends deeply involved with one of the campaigns jokingly opined the other day: “The problem with you, Jon Delano, is that you’re too fair and even-handed.” He meant it as a criticism, but I’ll take it as a compliment. I am scrupulously neutral in political races, but I’m not afraid to tell you exactly what I think. So now, sit back and read on, my politically savvy friends.

ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE THROUGH PENNSYLVANIA

Obama Steps Up His Campaign:

In my last PSF email (March 23), I opined that, despite double digit leads in all the polls at the time for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama could still win the state. (I think I was among the very few PA analysts at the time to say that). But I injected a very big IF – he could only win if he started to take the state seriously and campaign, full-time, on a retail level all across the commonwealth. A few days later, the Obama campaign announced their “Six Day” bus tour through Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvanians want their candidates to care about them, and the challenge is that this is a very big state with different politics depending on which valley, mountain top, or rolling plain you happen to visit. The Clintons know that, and the Clinton campaign has been going non-stop, back and forth, across Pennsylvania, picking up endorsements from countless local elected officials. On the ground, they are running a perfectly solid campaign.

But without the local political connections enjoyed by the Clintons, the Obama campaign seemed to struggle to get started, depending much more on volunteers and with some early campaign missteps, like “dissing” the state in a memorandum and a candidate who seemed to prefer being in other states. All that seems to have changed, and the poll numbers reflect it.

In polls conducted last week, SurveyUSA found the Clinton lead down to 12 points, Quinnipiac puts her lead at 9 points, and Rasmussen gives Clinton a 5 point lead. One poll, Public Policy Polling, calls it a dead heat with Obama ahead of Clinton by 2 points.

Now I’ve been through this polling nonsense for decades, and there are times when I would just toss all polls out the window. I usually suggest averaging all the polls for a better result, and then treating even that number with lots of grains of salt. In this case, the only conclusion is the obvious one: the race for Pennsylvania is not a done deal for anyone.

Clinton Fights Back:

The odds still favor Clinton for whom PA is a must-win state. As I noted in March, if Obama beats her in Pennsylvania, her campaign is over. Dead. Clinton knows that, and she is working this state hard, just like she won over skeptical New York state voters in 2000 when she ran for the U.S. Senate in her adopted state. She never stops. Hardly a day goes by that Hillary, Bill, or Chelsea aren’t stumping for votes here. With the political expertise of Gov. Ed Rendell and much of his political team, she doesn’t seem to miss a beat.

Her “economic summit” in Pittsburgh last Wednesday was classic, a mix of academia, labor, and business leaders exchanging views with her around a table, allowing Clinton to use her obvious intelligence to spin each comment into an observation about government failure in Washington and how her proposals would ameliorate the problem. The more you see Hillary in action, the more you appreciate how sharp this woman really is.

She does seem to have a cash problem, judging by the overwhelming Obama television ads now on the air. It’s not scientific, but I bet I see three or four of his ads to every one of hers. The Obama ads are very good, focusing on his bio, the American dream, and high gasoline prices. The latest Clinton ad is a take-off on her 3 am phone call ad, but this one focuses on the economy. All polls suggest the economy is the number one issue for Pennsylvanians, and it is a strong suit for her, as people think she is better qualified to turn the economy around, no doubt aided by memories of the good economic times presided over by her husband in the 1990s. But unless Clinton gets up on TV in some sort of visible way, she will be drowned out by the classy Obama commercials. That could make a difference.

Gender Gap Growing in PA:

What I have found striking thus far in the PA presidential primary is the growing gender gap between men and women. When Hillary was leading Barack by double-digits, she was winning both males and females. As the race tightens, it is largely because men are switching from Clinton to Obama. In the SurveyUSA poll, Clinton’s 5-point lead among men three weeks ago became a 7-point lead for Obama this week.

But what has kept the New York senator in the overall lead is women voters. The same poll showed a whopping 28-point lead for Clinton among women. Indeed, Clinton’s 62 percent of women voters was unchanged, while Obama just moved two points from 32 percent to 34 percent. In a state where women outvote men, Obama cannot win Pennsylvania unless he convinces more women to back his candidacy.

When I had the chance to interview Michelle Obama last week, I asked her about this gender problem. Her response was that it’s really just a question of women getting to know Barack better. She emphasized that Obama grew up among strong women, like his mother, his grandmother, and (of course) his wife and is comfortable among strong women and very cognizant of women’s needs. To be honest, I was impressed with Michelle and think the Obama campaign could make better use of her obvious talents to address the gender gap. So far, she has campaigned just once in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

In the end, identity politics may be hard to overcome. Just as African Americans have rallied to Obama, despite Clinton’s strong civil rights record, so also women may be inclined to support Clinton, the first woman with a real shot at the White House, no matter how good Obama’s record on women’s issues.

Casey Shows a Risky Side:

U.S. Sen. Bob Casey is the last person one imagines to take a political risk, so his endorsement of Obama last Friday was a bit of a political shocker. In early March, Pennsylvania’s soft-spoken, laid-back, conservative Democratic senator was insistent in both private and public conversations with me that he would not endorse either candidate until after the April 22 primary. So what changed?

Bottom line is pretty simple. Shortly before Easter, while on a family vacation, Casey reached the personal conclusion that he would vote for Obama on April 22. He says he was very impressed by Obama’s race speech in Philadelphia, and he acknowledges that his three daughters are strong Obama fans. But the question of going public with his decision to vote for Obama was a deeply personal one, made without consulting his political supporters.

Casey made the decision on Easter Sunday, called Obama and Clinton, and went public last Friday in Pittsburgh, surprising many in the political community. Will it make a difference for Obama? Hard to tell. Clinton has strong family ties to Northeast PA where Casey lives, and it may not change a lot there. One interesting impact, however, could be among Pennsylvania’s many pro-life Democrats for whom the Casey name is iconic. Now there’s no difference at all between Clinton and Obama on the abortion issue – both are pro-choice – but Casey’s support for Obama could be enough to convince pro-lifers that, if forced to choose between the two, Obama is preferable.

The SurveyUSA poll may offer some substantiation of my theory. Four weeks ago, pro-life Democrats backed Clinton, 53 to 36 percent. After the Casey endorsement, Obama picked up eight points here with Clinton ahead only 50 to 44. Now abortion is hardly an issue in this Democratic primary, but in a close election pro-life Dems could make the difference. This is especially important because Catholic Dems are critical in PA, and the Clintons have always done well among this constituency.

After Pennsylvania, What Happens?

Assuming Clinton wins PA, unless the race is a total blow-out, she is unlikely to end up with more than a 10 to 20 vote delegate advantage over Obama. The proportionality rule guarantees that Obama will get his percentage share of the 158 delegates determined on April 22. The race then moves on to Guam on May 3, Indiana and North Carolina on May 6, West Virginia on May 13, Kentucky and Oregon on May 20, Puerto Rico on June 1, and Montana and South Dakota on June 3.

When it’s all over on June 3, neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton will have a majority of pledged delegates to get the nomination.

Now some Obama supporters and their media allies are spinning that it’s all over and Clinton should drop out now. That’s preposterous. Why should she drop out when he hasn’t won it yet? It’s not over until all the votes are counted, and besides the states listed above the Democratic Party has to resolve the Michigan and Florida issue, at least if they want every vote to count.

Right now, before PA and the nine others vote, Obama leads among the delegates chosen in primaries and caucuses, 1414 to 1252. Not counting Michigan and Florida, there are 793 super-delegates. Some 221 of them have “endorsed” Obama and 251 have “endorsed” Clinton, giving Obama 1635 to Clinton’s 1503, a lead of just 132 delegates. It now takes 2,024 delegates to win the nomination. More delegates will be chosen in the remaining contests, and there are 331 super-delegates still uncommitted, including most of the PA Democratic members of Congress. Everybody expects these super-delegates to make the final decision, unless Clinton or Obama drop out, and nobody expects that. With the race so close, the appropriate time to call for people to “drop out” is after we know who has won! In the end, neither Obama nor Clinton can become the party nominee without super-delegates!

Pennsylvania will not be the “decider” unless Obama goes all out and defeats Clinton here. Looks like he returns to the state on Thursday (Philadelphia), while Clinton is back here on Wednesday (Pittsburgh), but these schedules could change. And next week, John McCain is planning a PA trip, just to prove he’s not forgotten. (By the way, both Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee are still on the PA Republican primary ballot). Most polls suggest in November, this state is up for grabs with McCain a strong contender against either Clinton or Obama. In short, this presidential campaign is hardly over.

PENNSYLVANIA’S OTHER RACES

Does Anyone Care about PA Treasurer?

Three statewide offices are on the ballot this year, but two of them won’t really be the focus of this April 22 primary. Two incumbents, Attorney General Tom Corbett, a Republican, and Auditor General Jack Wagner, a Democrat, face no opposition until the fall when Northampton District Attorney John Morganelli takes on Corbett and Lancaster County businessman Chet Beiler takes on Wagner. Primary voters have no choices here.

But the Democratic race for state treasurer has prompted four Dems to compete for the job once held by Bob Casey. In ballot order, Dems choose among John Cordisco, Rob McCord, Dennis Morrison-Wesley, and Jennifer Mann. McCord, a wealthy venture capitalist from Montgomery County, is the most visible candidate so far, running TV ads with the help of $1 million he pumped into his own campaign. Cordisco is a former legislator from Bucks County and an attorney, while Mann is a state legislator from Lehigh County who is vice chair of the House Finance Committee. Morrison-Wesley is an investment advisor from Harrisburg who most recently worked for Comcast.

All four claim qualifications to manage the investment of the state’s $12 billion in revenues, and all four come from “back east” as far as western PA is concerned. Mann is the only woman on the ballot, while Morrison-Wesley is the only African-American. How much this will count, I suppose, depends on how much Clinton and Obama voters engage in identity politics. The Democratic winner will face bond attorney and former Montgomery County commissioner Tom Ellis, a Republican.

Congressional Battles Hard to Find this Spring:

Pennsylvania elects 19 members to the U.S. House of Representatives, but most of the real battles are on November 4. Indeed, two candidates are unopposed even then (U.S. Reps. Jack Murtha of Johnstown and Mike Doyle of Pittsburgh) unless a write-in surfaces on April 22.

Only four of the 19 congressional districts have primary battles and none are against an incumbent. In the 3rd District in northwestern PA (Erie south to Butler County), U.S. Rep. Phil English, a Republican, has no party opposition, but four Dems would like to have at him in November. They include Lake Erie Arboretum director Kathy Dahlkemper, Erie County councilman Kyle Foust, Erie attorney Tom Myers, and Erie lay minister Mike Waltner. Foust is the only candidate with an electoral base, but Dahlkemper has more money (largely her own). Dems have coveted this district for years, but English, who occasionally casts votes against his own party, is a visible and hard-working incumbent. He will be tough to defeat no matter who the Dems nominate.

In the state’s largest geographic congressional district in northwest and north central PA (the 5th District), three Dems and nine Republicans want to take the seat of retiring incumbent, U.S. Rep. John Peterson, a Republican. One candidate, 28-year old Matt Shaner has attracted media attention because he has spent more personal money on this race than any other candidate running for the House in America -- $1.22 million so far. Shaner heads up Shaner Investments in State College (Centre County). His opponents naturally accuse him of trying to “buy” the GOP nomination. Other Republicans include former Centre County commissioner Chris Exarchos, former Pine Creek Township (Clinton) supervisor John Krupa, Elk County coroner Lou Radkowski, Clarion Baptist pastor Keith Richardson, Woodward Township (Lycoming) supervisor Jeff Stroehman, Clarion mayor John Stroup, Centre County Republican chairman Glenn Thompson, and Bigler (Clearfield) financial consultant Derek Walker. Hard to figure out what’s going to happen in this race.

On the Democratic side, the candidates include Centre County native, Iraqi War veteran and former news correspondent Bill Cahir, Clearfield County commissioner Mark McCracken, and Lock Haven Mayor Rick Vilello. This district is solidly Republican, but the Dems think a blood bath on the GOP side gives them an opportunity, particularly if the state trends Democratic this fall.

Besides the 5th District, two Republicans are battling to take on U.S. Rep. Chris Carney, a Democrat, in the 10th District in north central and northeast PA, near Scranton/Wilkes Barre. Carney represents one of those districts nobody thought would go Democratic in 2006 but did, largely because of marital indiscretions of the GOP incumbent. Now the Republicans want it back, and Chris Hackett and Dan Meuser are battling for the privilege of beating Carney. Both are businessmen and both say they are conservatives. Hackett got some press when he had to fire an illegal immigrant who did housekeeping for his family, while the company Meuser owns is under attack for having to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines for such things as software piracy. In short, both candidates are bruising up each other, which could have benefits for Carney later this year.

The only other congressional primary battle is in the 18th District in suburban Pittsburgh, where U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy, a Republican, is always thought to be vulnerable until he wins big. This year three Dems are vying to take him on: Steve O’Donnell of Monroeville, Beth Hafer of Mt. Lebanon, and Brien Wall of Upper St. Clair. For residents in the district (yes, I’m one of them), the contest has been largely invisible, although O’Donnell, the party endorsed Dem, has pumped out a mailing or two. Hafer, the daughter of former state treasurer Barbara Hafer, arguably has the greatest name recognition, while Wall says he has the best relationship with selected labor unions. At this stage, the race is probably a toss-up in the primary, although Murphy is clearly favored in the fall unless the ongoing FBI and Ethics Committee investigation into his use of staff for political purposes in 2006 turns up something before Nov. 4.

I’m going to stop here, reserving some comments about a few contested state Senate and state House races until later. As always, I welcome your comments. If you’re thinking ahead to the 2010 governor’s race, I recommend a piece I wrote for the April edition of Pittsburgh Magazine on Allegheny County executive Dan Onorato. It’s mostly biographical about the politician many think is the heir-apparent to Ed Rendell. Check it out. Spring seems to have finally hit western PA, so take a break from politics and enjoy the good weather!

Four Weeks to Go

2008-03-22T22:31:00.003-04:00

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

As “Week Four” begins in Pennsylvania – the four week countdown to Primary Election Day -- most analysts seem to think that only an incredible gaffe by Hillary Clinton can cost her the Pennsylvania Primary on April 22. Depending on the poll you prefer, she leads Barack Obama from anywhere from 12 points (Quinnipiac Poll) to 16 points (Keystone Poll) to 19 points (SurveyUSA). Call me whacky, but I’m one of the few political analysts who think Obama can win Pennsylvania, if he plays it right, knowing that Clinton won’t make it easy for him. In this Politically Savvy Friends e-newsletter, let me share a few thoughts after covering this campaign in PA over the last couple of weeks. By the way, if you want to see my video stories or interviews with the candidates, just look for the “Recent News Stories” in the right column on this blog page.

Kicking Off in PA:

On March 11, Obama began his PA campaign in the suburbs of Philadelphia at the Gamesa wind turbine plant, once a U.S. Steel facility, in Bucks County. Unlike his traditional events where he attracts thousands and delivers a rousing, if repetitive, address to the faithful, this “town hall” kick-off was short on rhetoric and long on thoughtful answers to questions from the 150 Gamesa employees. Having seen the “other” Obama at rallies in neighboring Ohio, this Q&A format revealed a highly intelligent, empathetic politician who wasn’t afraid to challenge the assumptions of his questioners. I was impressed. That, of course, was the intended result, as the Obama campaign has felt the need to counteract the Clinton assertion that Obama is all speech and no substance. Town meetings allow Obama to prove otherwise.

While western PA hates when candidates start their campaigns in the east, Obama must win big in southeastern PA to win the state. Right now, all the polls suggest this is the region where he is doing the best, and it makes sense to go to your base of strength for a kick-off event. But an event closed to his supporters probably missed an early opportunity to gin up the faithful.

Clinton chose to start her campaign with a three-prong attack on the northeast, southeast, and southwest. Immediately after the Ohio and Texas victories, Chelsea did a Q&A visit with students at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, with Hillary hitting Scranton the following Monday, March 10, and President Clinton speaking in southwestern PA on Tuesday, the same day as Obama’s event back east. That same Tuesday, Hillary hit Philadelphia for an evening rally, vying with Obama for media coverage in the important Philadelphia media market.

The choice of Scranton for Hillary’s kick-off might strike some as odd, but Clinton has roots in this part of the state where her father grew up and where she visited her grandparents as a child. By the end of this primary campaign, all Pennsylvanians are likely to hear about her favorite ice cream place, along with tales of her father driving across the state from Chicago to Scranton, detouring to show the family important sites in PA.

Heading Westward:

As I opined in an earlier PSF, while PA campaigns often begin in the Philadelphia region, they don’t end there. Indeed, only one-third of the Democrats live in southeastern PA, which means a smart candidate better look elsewhere for votes in a tight contest. Some 25 percent of the Dems live in the Greater Pittsburgh area, with the remaining 40 percent scattered across hundreds of miles of mountains and valleys in this state. The candidate who thinks Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are all that counts will surely lose. Nonetheless, southwestern PA is important, and right now the general perception is that Clinton cares a lot more about this region than Obama.

In truth, Obama was scheduled to hit Pittsburgh before Clinton on March 13, but Senate votes on the budget required all three presidential contenders to be in Washington and Obama canceled his Pittsburgh trip. That allowed Clinton to capitalize. She scheduled a two-day swing in Pittsburgh on Friday, March 14, with first a press conference at a gas station in the Bloomfield section of Pittsburgh to decry high gasoline prices and then held a rally at Soldiers & Sailors Memorial where some 2,000 supporters cheered her enthusiastically as she delivered her typical stump speech. Gov. Ed Rendell, her biggest cheerleader, was at her side (as he seems to be everywhere in PA), along with two new supporters, Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato and Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl. Clinton spent the night in Pittsburgh so she could march the next morning in the nation’s second largest St. Patrick’s Day Parade, where she walked the route shaking lots of hands to a reportedly positive response from the quarter million residents in attendance, after which she flew out in time to march in a smaller parade in Scranton.

Obama’s campaign quickly rescheduled his visit to the Pittsburgh region, where this past Monday he spoke to about 1,800 people at the Community College of Beaver County in Monaca before flying to Scranton for dinner with the Society of Irish Ladies. Once again, this Pittsburgh area event was not a rally, but a town meeting, although Obama did give an abbreviated version of his stump speech, followed by six questions about health care, veterans, abortion, crime, and the like. The event was well-covered, aided by interest in the Reverend Jeremiah Wright story. The Obama visit to western PA was important even if his mind was on his growing pastor problem, an issue that ultimately forced him back to Philadelphia for one of his most compelling campaign speeches delivered last Tuesday.

Obama’s Pastor Problem:

I don’t know Jeremiah Wright, and probably never will, although I would love the chance to sit down with him. People whom I respect who do know him say he’s not like he’s being portrayed and that he is a good Christian who does not harbor racist, anti-white, anti-American feelings. But that’s certainly NOT the impression you get when you hear him preach on Youtube his version of the Gospel. This guy’s rants against whites, the government, and the Clintons were flawed and offensive and so contrary to the message of Barack Obama that you cannot help wonder what in the world Obama has in common with Wright.

And, fundamentally, that’s the problem. The disconnect. While Obama has tried to transcend race, bridging white and black (because he, himself, is both half-white and half-black), Wright appeared to use race as a wedge between whites and blacks. While Obama has preached personal responsibility (indeed, his life reflects that), Wright seemed to excuse bad behavior like drug abuse by blaming the government. While Obama’s very candidacy is the epitome of the potential of the American dream of racial inclusion, Wright’s sermons (as revealed in those selective tapes) reminded many voters of a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton diatribe where everything wrong in the black community is the fault of evil white people.

Given all that, how could Obama have anything to do with someone like Wright for twenty years and still claim to be the one candidate who can unify both the Democratic Party and the United States of America?

That was the question Obama had to answer in powerful and well-written speech last Tuesday. I watched and then re-read the speech carefully. It was an excellent address on race, always a difficult subject for Americans to imbibe. Sure, you can quibble with parts of it, but, fundamentally, Obama reasserted his own view that the America that Jeremiah Wright portrayed was not his own America. To me, the most significant part of the speech was where Obama decried Wright for being mired in the past, for not recognizing that even a member of his own congregation could reach the presidency. Here is my favorite passage: “The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black, Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.”

I don’t know whether Obama has fully answered the question of his connection to Wright to the satisfaction of Americans. His refusal, while understandable in his context, to “disown” Wright will no doubt be seen by many as unfortunate, a political compromise to keep the African American community on board his candidacy. Of course, had he disowned the pastor, others would have claimed he was just doing what a typical politician does in a time of crisis – toss someone overboard. It’s a no-win situation.

The real question is whether his speech allows him to move on, beyond racial issues to the other more resonating points of his campaign. To some extent, that will depend on Obama. His description the next day on radio of his grandmother as a “typical white” was very jarring and off-message. What is a typical white? What is a typical black? I suspect he regrets his choice of words, but it shows how deep within us we harbor racial stereotypes. There is not a black person or white person alive who doesn’t conjure something in the mind when we think of the “typical” member of another race. Beyond Obama’s own subsequent words, it remains to be seen whether race is going to be a “hot topic” for the remainder of the primary season. I doubt that “the speech” is going to change a whole lot of opinions of voters who have already made up their minds, but if it puts the Wright controversy behind, then it has clearly accomplished its intended purpose.

PA a Must-Win State for Whom?

Conventional wisdom is that Pennsylvania is a must-win state for Clinton. It is. And she intends to win with a double digit popular vote that, the campaign hopes, will translate into a pick-up of delegates that closes the current gap with Obama. On April 22, 103 delegates will be elected in 19 congressional districts with some Democratic districts getting more delegates than others. Another 35 at-large delegates and 20 pledged party leaders and elected officials will be allocated to the Obama and Clinton campaign based on their percentage vote in the primary. That means 158 delegates are at stake on that Tuesday. [Just FYI, Pennsylvania has 30 unpledged super delegates].

Using CNN’s delegate count, Obama now has 1,622 delegates (which includes 209 super delegates), 403 delegates short of the nomination. Clinton has 1,485 delegates (which includes 243 super delegates), 540 delegates short of the nomination. Only 137 delegates separate the two candidates. Because of the proportionality rule that guarantees at least some delegates to the losing candidate, mathematical experts say that there is no way for either Obama or Clinton to win the nomination through delegates elected in Pennsylvania on April 21, Guam on May 3, Indiana and North Carolina on May 6, West Virginia on May 13, Kentucky and Oregon on May 20, Puerto Rico on June 1, and Montana and South Dakota on June 3.

In other words, both candidates have fallen short in winning the nomination through the elected delegate process. That means one of two things: either one of the two candidates is going to “drop out” of the race willingly or, ultimately, the votes of the super delegates will put one candidate over the top to the nomination.

As long as only 150 votes or so separate the candidates, I doubt very much that anyone will drop out, and why should they? After all, from the beginning, everyone knew the rules that super delegates (who are the Democratic members of Congress, Democratic governors, and elected members of the Democratic National Committee) would get a vote at the convention. There is nothing sinister about this. It’s been this way for decades. And the votes are public, not behind some closed doors. Both sides are trying to spin arguments to woo these super delegates. Obama supporters are saying super delegates should vote the candidate who has the most popular vote and/or the most elected delegates even if short of the majority. Clinton supporters are saying super delegates should vote for the candidate who has won the “must-win” states (like California, Ohio, Florida, etc.) important for victory in November and support the candidate who can beat John McCain. Both these arguments are credible, and allow both Clinton and Obama to soldier on until one of them gets the magic 2,025 delegates.

But if Obama really wants to secure the nomination quickly, then he ought to go all out to beat Clinton in Pennsylvania. If Clinton loses this state, her candidacy is over. So to avoid a protracted super delegate battle, I would argue that Pennsylvania is also a must-win state for Obama. By winning PA, he not only locks Clinton out of the nomination, but he also proves that he, too, can carry a must-win state. Perhaps he and his senior campaign advisors don’t see it this way, but to me it’s obvious. If he wants to unite the party and get on with the battle against McCain, he must defeat Clinton in the state that she has staked out as her own.

Yes, Obama Can Beat Clinton in Pennsylvania:

As I proffered at the beginning of this epistle, I am one of the few who believe Obama can win Pennsylvania. It will not be easy, and it will take more of a candidate commitment than he has given to Pennsylvania to date. I begin with the assumption that no matter how hard Hillary Clinton works this state – and, believe me, she is working PA very hard indeed (back in Philly and the Pittsburgh area this Monday and Tuesday), Obama is likely to get a minimum of 38 to 40 percent of the vote by doing hardly anything at all.

But to hit 50.1 percent, Obama must win Philadelphia and its suburbs big-time. Right now, most polls show him even or slightly ahead of Clinton in southeastern PA. That’s not enough. He must run up the numbers over 60 to 65 percent, all quite do-able in a nearly African American city and suburban counties with the kinds of white elites that have flocked to his campaign in other states. A big win in that region is essential but not sufficient. Obama must camp out in western PA, not only in Pittsburgh where he has the potential to win with the help of the universities here but also in the suburbs where, again, his kind of Dems reside. Finally, I would argue that the 40 percent of Dems who live outside the state’s two big regions are not automatically Hillary voters. PA has not been kind to women candidates, and race may trump gender as the lesser political “disability” in many quarters. While I wish voters would cast a ballot without regard to race and gender, I think it’s naïve to think otherwise. As I have written before, women candidates have a tougher time here than African American candidates.

Having said all this, Clinton is campaigning in PA like this is the only state left on the ballot. Obama needs to demonstrate the same drive and desire for PA votes as she has. When his campaign suggests in a memo that PA is “only one of 10 contests” left, that is true but inapt. Minimizing PA publicly only adds to the perception that Obama doesn’t care about PA. I think he does care, but only he can show it. Absent his visible presence here, Clinton wins PA, just as the polls predict.

First Person Reflections:

I have had the pleasure of meeting both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during the first two weeks of the PA primary campaign, and I am looking forward to meeting John McCain (hopefully) when he comes to Pittsburgh in April. I say “pleasure” because I always enjoy meeting politicians of whatever stripes seeking whatever office. Call it an addiction, an affliction, a hang-up, but I like seeing them up close and personal (well, as personal as they allow). In the last 25 years and especially in the last 10, I have met hundreds of political leaders and candidates for public office. I try hard not to form snap judgments about them, and I am always open to modifying my perceptions based on subsequent meetings.

The Democrats are fortunate to have two very talented candidates for president. [I’ll hold comments on McCain until I meet him]. I’ve interviewed Obama twice in the last two weeks, and he is affable, sharp, intelligent, and engaging. In conversation, his speaking style is a bit deliberative, as he ponders his answers, not the oratorical flourishes that characterize his stump speeches. He has an incredible smile, and laughs easily. He is also all business, which may be why some people think he is a bit aloof or reserved. And he is so tightly scheduled that you don’t feel he is as relaxed as he could be. I would enjoy the chance to just sit down and talk policy with him sometime, as I sense that there’s a lot more expertise from this Harvard lawyer than gets revealed in a sound-bite. All in all, I found Obama to be absolutely genuine, not some phony politician taken with himself, but the real deal and someone I hope to get to know better in the weeks ahead.

The most surprising thing about Hillary Clinton is how nice she is in person. I don’t mean that disrespectfully. It’s just that the camera does not do her justice. On TV, Clinton sometimes comes across as argumentative, perhaps shrill, although clearly knowledgeable. In person, she laughs and jokes and seems to be having fun despite a grueling schedule. She comes across as someone you would enjoy being around more. Just as you expect from a Yale lawyer, she gives intelligent answers to questions and, like Obama, knows how to tailor answers to a PA audience. You also know she’s in charge, allowing me more time to chat with her than her campaign expected. So far, I’ve only interviewed Clinton once, so I want to be careful in drawing too many conclusions. But my first impressions were absolutely positive – again, like Obama, nothing struck me as phony or artificial about her. And, clearly, I hope to have more time to spend with her as the campaign unfolds.

Well, that’s enough for this PSF. As always, I welcome your personal, off-the-record comments. I am writing this over Easter weekend, so let me wish my Christian friends a very Happy & Blessed Easter! Despite the cold weather this early Easter, this is the season for renewal and rebirth. As we celebrate the Resurrection in our churches and our belief in life after death through faith, I am struck that it is faith that also drives our politics in America.

Politics requires constant affirmation, perhaps because our political leaders so often disappoint us. But most of us have faith that, for better or worse, this political system works better than most, and we keep coming back for more. Optimist that I am, I want to believe that every new generation of political leaders will be better than the ones they succeed and that can only mean good things for this country.

Happy Easter! Happy Spring! Happy Election Year!

One on One with the Candidates

2008-03-17T07:55:00.002-04:00

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

This past week I had the opportunity to meet both Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton. While I had interviewed Obama last year and the year before, it was my first chance to talk to Clinton. Later this week, I hope to post some reflections on all this -- and where the PA campaign stands right now. In the meantime, I have posted on this page my TV interviews and stories written from these interviews. Take a look at them, and feel free to comment. I'll be back with more later. Right now, it's out the door to cover the Obama event in Beaver County!

Pennsylvania? Hillary's Last Stand

2008-02-29T06:06:00.002-05:00

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

Reproduced below is my op-ed piece written for The Washington Times and published on February 19, 2008. You can link to it at http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080219/EDITORIAL/747783494/0/EDITORIAL04.

HILLARY'S LAST STAND
by Jon Delano

The Keystone State of Pennsylvania is increasingly looking like Sen. Hillary Clinton's last stand in her quest for the Democratic nomination for president of the United States. And, by all accounts, it should be friendly territory. But as other candidates have learned to their peril, Pennsylvania is politically complicated and never to be taken for granted.

With nearly 3.9 million Democrats and six media markets, Pennsylvania is home to the fourth-largest delegation to the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Most of the state's 188 delegates will be elected in the 19 congressional districts or apportioned based on the statewide presidential vote, with the remaining 30 superdelegates comprised of Gov. Ed Rendell, Sen. Robert Casey, the 11 Democratic members of Congress, state party leaders and 12 members of the Democratic National Committee.

All in all, Pennsylvania is a prize worth fighting over.

But the state is a Pennsylvania Dutch quilt of hues and textures that defy quick characterization or easy campaigning. One-third of the state's Democrats live in the city of Philadelphia and its three bedroom counties, but they are about as different as you can imagine from the Democrats 300 miles away in Pittsburgh and southwestern Pennsylvania where just under one million Democrats reside.And that still leaves 40 percent of the state's Democrats who live in Pennsylvania's industrial valleys, rural plains and scenic mountains from Erie to Johnstown to York/Lancaster/Reading to Wilkes Barre/Scranton to Allentown/Bethlehem — and lots of places in between.

But if campaigns don't end in Philadelphia, they usually begin there.The city of brotherly love may not show much sisterly affection to Mrs. Clinton. Philadelphia Democrats are 46 percent African American, a perfect target for Sen. Barack Obama.Mrs. Clinton is helped by support from both Mr. Rendell and the city's popular new African American mayor, Michael Nutter.If she is to carry Pennsylvania, Mrs. Clinton must cut into the identity voting that has understandably helped Mr. Obama among African Americans, while boosting her own support among women, particularly suburban women.

The Philadelphia suburbs are notoriously schizophrenic, voting for Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore and the re-election of incumbent Republican Sen. Rick Santorum at the same time in 2000. And these same suburbs are never predictable. Despite Mrs. Clinton's appeal there as an intelligent woman and a pro-choice feminist, Mr. Obama will certainly find support among Philadelphia's economically well-off and intellectual elites. He will do better in southeastern Pennsylvania than many expect.

Ironically, Mrs. Clinton's greatest source of electoral support could come from the other end of the state, a region that President Bush nearly carried despite a preponderance of Democrats.Geographically within 30 miles of Ohio, Pittsburgh and its surrounding counties are more Midwestern grit than East Coast chic. Here, the Democrats are socially conservative but often allied with a labor union in the belief that Democrats better understand the challenges of working Americans.

Labor is still important in many parts of the state, and Mrs. Clinton and her husband have enjoyed very strong ties to Pennsylvania's unions, which is why a number of local labor leaders are running as Clinton delegates in the April 22 primary. Over the years, Hillary and husband Bill have been visible throughout the commonwealth, especially Western Pennsylvania.In contrast, Mr. Obama has not yet campaigned here and is still unfamiliar to many. One African American woman in Pittsburgh, who is a superdelegate and supporting Mrs. Clinton, told me she has never had a phone call from Mr. Obama even when he stopped by the city to raise money last year.

A week ago, the Allegheny County (Greater Pittsburgh) Democratic committee people, who are elected in more than 1,300 precincts, voted 837-453 to endorse Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Obama. It was a nonbinding vote, but a signal nonetheless of Mrs. Clinton's strength among the party faithful.To win on April 22, she must maintain that support by being the more conservative of the two candidates on economic, social and military issues. And, for heaven's sakes, don't utter the words gun control. In all parts of the state, except Philadelphia, every other person has a hunter in the family, making the Second Amendment sacrosanct.

Throughout Pennsylvania, the 60-year old Mrs. Clinton also has a potential advantage because of the age of the voting population. The elderly vote here, and they swing elections. More than half of the voters who never miss an election are 60 years of age and older. I recall a recent Democratic primary in Pittsburgh where 30 percent of the voters who turned out were 70 and older. If the charismatic Illinois senator is making inroads among this older constituency, Pennsylvania will be his true test.

Pennsylvania has a lot of university students, young professionals, anti-war liberals and passionate progressives who admire Mr. Obama, and getting these folks to the polls, as he has had elsewhere, will be key to the Keystone State.

Finally, Pennsylvania likes winners. No Democrat has won the White House since 1948 without carrying the state of Pennsylvania. If one candidate appears to be on a roll to victory by late April, don't look for Pennsylvania to stand in the way. But if it's still a contest, Pennsylvania is up for grabs.

Jon Delano, who teaches at Carnegie Mellon University's H. John Heinz School of Public Policy, has lived in both Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. He was chief of staff to a Pennsylvania congressman for 14 years.

Copyright 2007 The Washington Times

On to Pennsylvania

2008-02-06T10:00:00.000-05:00

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

Pennsylvania, here we come.

The morning after Super Duper Tuesday leaves only one conclusion – it’s not over ‘til it’s over – and it ain’t over yet.

That is certainly true for the Democrats, where Barack Obama won the most states but Hillary Clinton won the most delegates and bragging rights to California, where one out of eight Americans live. But neither candidate is even half-way there to the 2,025 delegates needed to nominate, with (depending on whose numbers you use) Clinton at 825 and Obama at 732 and John Edwards still has his 26. One caveat: the delegate numbers are not all in yet from Super Tuesday.

The Republicans seem to have conferred “front runner” status on John McCain, and he now has more than half the delegates needed to win the GOP nomination. He has been helped tremendously by the split between his opponents: Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and even Ron Paul. With conservatives deeply divided, the more liberal (on a few things) McCain has taken advantage. Today, McCain has 615 delegates, Romney has 268, Huckabee has 169, and Paul has 16. It takes 1,191 to nominate.

While, arguably, McCain has it in the bag, unless GOP conservatives anoint one of the two main challengers, the Democratic race is wide open – and that increases the likelihood that Pennsylvania with its April primary just might have a seat at the decision-making table.

Here’s what to expect next.

This Saturday, Louisiana, Nevada, and Washington elect a total of 205 delegates followed by Maine on Sunday with 38 delegates. Next Tuesday, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia choose 240 delegates. Hawaii, Washington, and Wisconsin (with a total 121 delegates) vote on Tuesday, February 19.

If one candidate really dominates the other through this process, then it is mathematically possible for the winner to come close to nomination with a sweep on Tuesday, March 4. But don’t count on it. That’s when two biggies, Ohio and Texas, vote along with Rhode Island and Vermont. On that date, 444 delegates will be chosen.

After that, there’s only Wyoming and Misissippi in March before the April 22 Pennsylvania Primary.

Assuming a continued deadlock on the Democratic side, Pennsylvania with the fourth largest number of delegates (188) at the 2008 Democratic Convention will be the decider. If not, in May, voters in Indiana, North Carolina, and West Virginia will have the last say. And, of course, if neither Obama or Clinton have 2,025 delegates by then, it’s on to a “brokered” convention.

The battle in Pennsylvania will be intense. Earlier polls have had Clinton leading Obama by 20 points, but nobody believes that’s true today. Clinton enjoys strong support from Gov. Ed Rendell and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, a rising African American star, while Obama has support from U.S. Reps. Chaka Fattah and Patrick Murphy (both in the Philadelphia area) and former U.S. Sen. Harris Wofford, a long-time Kennedy protégé. Most of PA’s members of Congress, including U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, have made no endorsement. Last night, Casey told me he was not likely to endorse anyone before the primary.

Like most states, PA has a convoluted way of apportioning its 188 delegates with the majority of delegates determined by the vote in each of the 19 congressional delegates. Rendell, Casey, and the 11 Democratic members of Congress are “super delegates”, along with the state’s members of the Democratic National Committee. After the primary, more delegates will be chosen among other leading elected officials (like mayors, statewide officials, and county executives), as well as others to secure gender and racial balance, but these delegates will be pledged to support Clinton or Obama, depending on their vote in the state. If it sounds complicated, it is.

What is not complicated to understand is that Pennsylvania is up for grabs for the first time since 1976 when Democrats gave Jimmy Carter the edge over Morris Udall. Both candidates have been in this state over the past year, but always to raise money. Clinton has not been in Pittsburgh in more than a year or so, although she was in Philadelphia recently to get endorsed by Rendell and Nutter. Obama’s last trek to this part of the state was last year to raise money when he got some notoriety for meeting with the local press for exactly 120 seconds. All that is likely to change, especially after the March 4 contests.

Pennsylvania, with its six media markets and very diverse population, is not an easy state to traverse. But voters here like retail politics, whether it’s gobbling down a Philly cheesesteak or having an IC light and Primanti’s sandwich here in the ‘Burgh, and the smart candidate (and both Clinton and Obama are smart) does more than just a quick airport media stop.

While one of the two Democrats could “suspend” his or her campaign before the April 22 primary, I’m betting not. The road to the presidential convention in Denver clearly leads through the Keystone State, and Pennsylvania voters are waiting to be courted!

If you have any thoughts or comments, please email me at delano.jon@gmail.com. And let me know what you’re hearing out there on the political trail.

SuperDuperTuesday

2008-02-04T07:01:00.000-05:00

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

Next Tuesday, February 5, is Super Duper Tuesday when millions of Americans will go to the polls to pick the Republican and Democratic nominees for president. Unfortunately, millions of others – including those of us in Pennsylvania – will not be part of this “national” primary. And, regrettably again, because of the impact of the earlier caucuses and primaries, those Americans who do get a vote on Tuesday will not get a full selection of candidates. In my view, this is a fundamentally flawed system by which to choose a president.

In an earlier PSF, I reviewed the presidential race as I saw it then. After a brief update, let’s move on to Pennsylvania politics. First, my thanks for so many wonderful comments to my last PSF. I love getting them, and I always treat them as “off-the-record” comments. My apologies if you get some scary automated comment when you hit the “reply” button. I think you can avoid that by initiating a “new” email to me at delano.jon@gmail.com. In any case, don’t be a stranger, especially if you have some new tidbit to share with me or our politically savvy friends. If you feel like commenting publicly, there is a “comment” section on my blog at http://delanosden.blogspot.com/. Just be respectful of all.

BEYOND THE BELTWAY

Presidential Update:

And then there were two, sort of.

Barack Obama versus Hillary Clinton. Barring the unexpected, the Democratic nominee for president will either be a woman or an African American. In both cases, Americans will be asked to do something never asked before, at least at this level of a campaign. I opined earlier that I think the gender barrier may actually be tougher to break than the racial barrier, but both candidates ask voters to think beyond our traditional prejudices.

One PSFer suggested that for every white who will never vote for a black, there is a man (and in some cases, a woman) who will never support a woman for president. This year we will have a chance to test these anecdotal political theories. I hope that whatever happens America can look back with pride on the 2008 general election campaign. We shall see.

I was disappointed that John Edwards suspended his campaign so unexpectedly, not because of any personal preference or belief that he would win. Rather, Edwards played an important role in the race by keeping the candidates focused on important issues, especially health care and poverty. I have interviewed both Edwards and his wife Elizabeth on a number of occasions, and I have always been impressed with his sincerity and commitment to his causes. As for Elizabeth, given her family roots in western PA – yes, her dad graduated from Brownsville High School in 1938 – how can I not help but be enamored by her grace and passion.

So far, Edwards has shown no desire to endorse anyone, and I would be surprised if he did. The rumor that he could be either Obama’s or Clinton’s attorney general will drive the corporate and defense attorneys crazy, but it is an intriguing notion. At least we know where he stands on waterboarding!

John McCain versus Mitt Romney. Well, not exactly. There’s also Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. McCain seems to be racking up endorsements after his Florida win and he’s peddling the belief that he is the only Republican who can beat the Democratic nominee. McCain does have an appeal beyond traditional GOP lines, and there’s no doubt in my mind he could win the presidency. [See my last PSF posted on my blog at http://delanosden.blogspot.com/ for my view that the Republicans can win the White House in 2008]. But McCain’s strengths outside his party are weaknesses within his party, and both Romney and Huckabee have moved to exploit them. Romney is hurt by Huckabee’s presence on so many ballots, as he does give true conservatives another candidate to support. But the real question is whether this has become a two-person race such that Republicans who dislike McCain’s stands on immigration, taxes, campaign reform, etc., etc. opt for Romney as the only credible alternative. We shall see.

I was taken to task for leaving Ron Paul out of my last PSF. My apologies to the Paul fans, and there are a lot of them. I have not met Ron Paul, but it’s hard not to be impressed with the fervor with which he articulates his views, especially his belief that American foreign policy in Iraq contravenes traditional conservative values. While Paul has not broken into the top tier of candidates – his supporters blame the mainstream media for that – he has consistently attracted from 3 percent (Florida) to 14 percent (Nevada) of the vote. Moreover, his ability to raise money on-line has been awesome. He’s not a factor in this election, but he does give anti-war Republicans a candidate to support.

A Brokered Convention:

Despite all the media play about a brokered convention in Denver and Minneapolis, it now appears much less likely of that occurring. Still, if it’s a very close delegate race between Obama and Clinton and/or McCain and Romney, February 5 will not settle things. That pushes decision-making into the later primaries. Kansas, Louisiana, and Washington votes on February 9, with Maryland and Virginia on February 12. Hawaii and Wisconsin vote later in the month, with March 4 another big delegate day with contests in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Because the state Senate blocked a bill to move the Pennsylvania primary to February 12, this commonwealth will almost certainly not be part of the primary sweepstakes. But, if no one has a majority of the delegates after March 4, Pennsylvania on April 22 would be the kingmaker – or queenmaker! I know we’re ready to decide, if the other states can’t make it final!

PENNSYLVANIA

Impacting the Delegate Battle:

Even though PA is not yet a player in the delegate sweepstakes, that hasn’t stopped the state’s most senior politician from making an endorsement. Gov. Ed Rendell told me a few weeks ago that he was not planning to endorse any candidate for president until closer to the April 22 primary. That changed when, sources tell me, the Clintons asked Rendell to endorse Hillary before the South Carolina primary. There was never any real surprise who Rendell would back. He has been close to both Clintons for years, serving as chair of the Democratic National Committee during the presidency of President Clinton. The state’s other senior Democrat, U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, has not endorsed either Obama or Clinton, telling me that both of them supported his campaign in 2006 to unseat former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum. One former U.S. senator from PA, Harris Wofford, told me last August that he was backing Obama because he found Obama to be inspiring like John F. Kennedy in whose White House Wofford once worked many years ago.

Speaking of Santorum, the state’s most prominent conservative endorsed Romney on Friday, saying true conservatives cannot sit on the sidelines and declaring that Romney “has fought for life, marriage, tax cuts and a stronger national defense. In the coming days, I look forward to working with him as we fight for our party's conservative foundations." McCain has already picked up support from former Gov. Tom Ridge, and just added support from the PA Republican Party chair, Robert Gleason. As far as I know, U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter has endorsed no one.

Pennsylvania has the fourth largest concentration of Democratic delegates – 188 – and the fifth largest collection of GOP delegates – 74 – but it may well be over before voters in each of the state’s 19 congressional districts pick the delegates pledged to particular candidates.

State Row Offices Up for Grabs:

This spring and fall, Pennsylvanians will also elect 19 members of Congress, 203 members of the PA House of Representatives, 25 members of the state Senate, and three statewide elected officials – Attorney General, Auditor General, and State Treasurer – offices frequently used as a springboard for other more prominent state office like Governor and U.S. Senator.

Attorney General Tom Corbett, a suburban Pittsburgh Republican, is asking voters for another four years as AG. Corbett, who has deep political roots going back to his days as the local campaign chair for George H. W. Bush (for which he was rewarded by being named U.S. Attorney for Western PA), will be difficult for the Democrats to beat, in my view. He has been a very visible AG, focusing on internet child pornography and drug busts. But his greater notoriety will come later this year as he investigates “Bonusgate” among Democratic and Republican legislators in Harrisburg – see below – with charges expected against some prominent leaders.

Democratic Party leaders have endorsed Northampton District Attorney John Morganelli to challenge Corbett, and Morganelli brings 16 years of DA experience to the task. Morganelli has run for this office before, and is well known among law enforcement officials, having served as president of the state’s DA association and on the state’s Crime Commission. Can Morganelli defeat Corbett? Yes, absolutely, if the stars align correctly during this presidential year. But since the office became elective in 1980, the Republicans have won every contest. Morganelli trumpets an internal campaign poll that shows him at 34 percent, Corbett at 37 percent, and a whopping 29 percent undecided. Morganelli believes he can showcase his tough anti-crime record as a DA, and he calls for an “independent counsel” to investigate Bonusgate, saying a Republican politico like Corbett cannot be trusted to investigate Republican legislators.

Auditor General Jack Wagner, a Pittsburgh Democrat, hopes for an easy cruise to reelection in 2008. He just might get it. Wagner, a former Pittsburgh city councilman and state senator, is no stranger to PA politics. He was picked by then State Treasurer Bob Casey to be his running-mate for Lieutenant Governor in 2002. Both Casey and Wagner lost those nomination battles, but Wagner parlayed that into a statewide run for Auditor General, winning big in 2004. A Vietnam veteran often recognized for his work on behalf of veterans, Wagner has used his office to conduct visible state audits that attract local media attention around the state.

Many Republicans had hoped that David Sanko, chief of staff to former Gov. Mark Schweiker and later Rendell’s PEMA (PA Emergency Management) director, would take on Wagner. But Sanko, who had returned home to Bucks County to be that county’s chief operating officer, announced this week that he would not run for public office, citing bad timing for him personally. That leaves Chet Beiler, the Republican chair of Lancaster County, as the only announced challenger. Beiler is a successful businessman who grew up on family farm in Amish country and built a company called Amish Country Gazebos that was featured on an episode of the TV show “Extreme Makeover Home Edition.” Beiler has sought public office before, like Auditor General and State Senate, but it looks like he now has the GOP nomination to himself. He comes from an increasingly important part of the state, but Beiler will need an infusion of cash to become better known in the populace southeastern and southwestern ends of the state.

When former State Treasurer Bob Casey resigned his office last year to take the oath as a U.S. Senator, the governor appointed a state treasurer, Robin Weissmann, who pledged not to seek office in 2008. That gives both parties a chance to win an “open” statewide seat. On the Democratic side, four candidates are vying for the nomination: John Cordisco, the Democratic chair of Bucks County; State Rep. Jennifer Mann, a Lehigh County legislator; Rob McCord, a venture capitalist from Montgomery County; and Dennis Morrison-Wesley, an African American cable TV salesman in Harrisburg who once worked for Merrill Lynch until, he says, he was fired for supporting Casey over Santorum, charges denied by the company.

Arguably, Mann from Allentown is the best known of the bunch, although she is hardly a statewide figure. She is generally regarded as a pro-business centrist Democrat who supports abortion rights, and, as the only woman (so far) in the race she can capitalize on the absence of any woman running statewide in 2008. McCord is the money candidate. The suburban Philly businessman reportedly has the ability, and the desire, to pump more than a million of his own dollars into the campaign. Cordisco, a former Bucks County state legislator, has already had word battles with his fellow Philadelphian, accusing McCord of taking money from those who want to manage monies handled by the Treasurer. McCord says Cordisco voted for legislative pay raises when he was in the state House and is, therefore, unelectable. Absent from the crowded ballot is any candidate from west of the Susquehanna River. Allegheny County Treasurer John Weinstein has toyed with the idea, but no formal announcement yet from someone who is generally well-known in this region. Another potential candidate with a strong base and lots of money is former Philadelphia mayoral candidate Tom Knox. Stay tuned. This race hasn’t yet jelled.

The Republicans seem to have their candidate for State Treasurer: former Montgomery County commissioner Thomas Jay Ellis. Ellis is a bond attorney, who is now caught up in a politically-charged civil lawsuit involving rival tax collection companies, one of which was hired on a no-bid basis by the Montgomery commissioners to replace the other. While Ellis has not been sued himself, the losing company wants to take his sworn deposition. He has refused, arguing a conflict of interest, but a federal judge appears to think otherwise, especially since Ellis is no longer a commissioner.

State House Could Party Switch:

The Democrats control the State House by just one vote, 102 to 101, and that margin of control could be in great jeopardy this year. [The State Senate is 29 Republican to 21 Democrats, and nobody thinks that will change much in 2008]. Last time I checked, about 24 legislators were retiring this year, including five senators: Gib Armstrong, a Lancaster County Republican; Jerry LaValle, a Beaver County Democrat; Roger Madigan, a Bradford County Republican; Terry Punt, a Franklin County Republican; and Connie Williams, a Montgomery County Democrat. The first four seats are likely to stay in the same party, but the Williams’ seat in suburban Philadelphia could be a real battleground with both parties seeking to field strong candidates.

On the House side, 19 representatives are stepping down, some to run for the state Senate like Sean Ramaley (D/Beaver), Daylin Leach (D/Mongtomery), and Steven Cappelli (R/Lycoming). Democrats think they have a shot at three House seats held by Republicans who are retiring in Bucks (David Steil) and Chester Counties (Arthur Hershey & Carole Rubley), while Republicans think they can retake Leach’s seat and the seat held by Tom Tangretti (D/Westmoreland). After the dust settles on April 22, other seats could be in play as well, including that of the House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese (D/Greene). Bottom line is that the state House is up for grabs.

The most surprising retirement announcement this last month was that of Lisa Bennington, a 31-year old freshman Democratic legislator from Pittsburgh, who (along with Chelsa Wagner and Deberah Kula) returned women to the House from southwestern PA in 2006. Bennington says she underestimated the wasted time in Harrisburg and, frankly, would just prefer to grow her family law practice. Ironically, the man she beat in the Democratic primary, Frank Pistella, is trying to make a comeback, although lots of other candidates are circulating petitions as well.

By way of comparison, in 2006 some 31 incumbents decided not to seek reelection (compared to 24 this year) and another 24 incumbents were defeated at the polls in the wake of the pay raise controversy. That ushered in 55 new legislators (out of the 253), a better than 20 percent change. Nobody expects that kind of turnover in 2008.

Could “Bonusgate” Alter the Political Equation:

The media is calling it Bonusgate, the use of taxpayer dollars to reward legislative staff for the political work they did on a variety of campaigns in 2006. This, of course, is illegal. While the law back then allowed for bonus dollars to reward legislative work, there is no question that senior legislators could not use these dollars to “thank” staffers for their campaign work. After their successful take-over of the House, House Democratic leaders awarded $1.9 million in bonus money to 717 employees, while the House Republicans gave out $270,000 to 45 staffers. Senate Republicans gave out $180,000 in bonuses to 16 employees, while Senate Democrats gave out $38,000 to 12 staffers.

Did senior House and Senate legislative leaders hand out bonuses to reward staffers for their political work? Nobody knows, but Attorney General Corbett has convened a grand jury to investigate. Corbett says he’s looking at all four caucuses, but some Democrats don’t believe it. They think Corbett will target Democrats to improve his reelection chances and to position himself for a gubernatorial run in 2010. Corbett’s Democratic opponent this year, John Morganelli, says legislative corruption needs to be investigated fully without regard to politics, and he argues that an independent special counsel should be named to conduct such an investigation.

Most of the public attention has been on the House Democrats, who did dole out more than double the cash of their GOP counterparts. House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese has suggested that he was really not in the loop on these bonus awards in 2006. But whether intended or not, that implicitly suggests that it was the work of then second-ranking Democrat, former state Rep. Mike Veon of Beaver County, who was defeated in 2006 and senior staffers. After the public furor broke over the bonuses, DeWeese brought in former Philadelphia assistant DA William Chadwick to review operations, sort through what happened, and cooperate with Corbett and the grand jury on the investigation.

In November, DeWeese fired seven senior Democratic staff people, including Mike Manzo, his chief of staff, and Scott Brubaker, director of staffing and administration, both of whom appear to have been involved in the bonus awards.

Nobody really knows how this will all play out, although speculation is hot in Harrisburg that charges are soon-to-come. For his part, DeWeese says he is running for reelection for a 17th term – and, so far at least, House Democrats have not stripped him of his position as their leader. Republican Greg Hopkins of Greene County, who nearly upended DeWeese in 2006, is running again. Hopkins is a 36-year old assistant football coach for the Los Angeles Avengers, an Arena Football League, where he was star player for a number of years. He was also a football player at Waynesburg Central High School and Slippery Rock University, and got 8,994 votes to DeWeese’s 10,035, the closest race for DeWeese in a long time.

Whether any other Democratic legislators are implicated by Bonusgate remains to be seen. And there is also the possibility that some Republican legislators could be affected as well, if Corbett follows through with his stated intention to let the chips fall where they may. But right now, it’s all just speculation and radio talk show fodder.

Republicans Attempt a Congressional Comeback:

Once upon a time, Melissa Hart was the Republican darling of PA politics. The first GOP woman elected to Congress from the state, Hart always upended her naysayers, winning races when no one expected it. Her GOP colleagues in Washington embraced her, giving her visible leadership positions and coming to her aid when asked. Then in 2006 along came Jason Altmire, a pro-life, pro-gun, anti-Bush, anti-war Democrat, who rather suddenly attracted hundreds of thousands of dollars from those smelling blood. In the end, Altmire defeated Hart by 8,500 votes out of 254,000 cast. Now Hart wants a rematch, always difficult to do. But history teaches that Melissa Hart is never to be underestimated.

Pennsylvania was a congressional disaster for Republicans in 2006. Dems targeted five incumbent Republicans and defeated four out of five. Hart, who represented parts of six counties north and west of Pittsburgh, was one of them. The other Democratic winners: Patrick Murphy (who won by 1,500 votes) and Joe Sestak (who won by 33,000 votes) in suburban Philadelphia and Chris Carney (who won by 12,000 votes) in northeast/north central PA.

Republicans dream of retaking these seats, although Altmire-Hart is the only rerun of the last show. Murphy has four GOP challengers looking to take him on: Tom Lingenfelter, Jeff Madden, Tom Manion, and Joseph Montone. A former Marine, Manion, who lost a son in Iraq, is a strong supporter of the war and has the support of the congressman Murphy defeated, former U.S. Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick. Sestak has two challengers, Wendell Craig Williams and Joe Breslin. Williams has been endorsed by Delaware County GOP leaders and has an impressive resume as an assistant U.S. attorney and Gulf War veteran. Carney has four opponents right now, including Chris Hackett, David Haire, Dan Meuser, and Paul Swiderski. Insiders tell me Meuser and Hackett are the leading challengers at the moment.

Can these four freshman Democrats be defeated? Of course. But they each start the year with big cash advantages over their prospective challengers and the likelihood that more Democrats will turn out to vote during a presidential election year. But we’ll keep our eyes on these seats throughout the year.

Republicans also hope to defeat another incumbent Democratic congressman. Despite at least a public reticence to say he’s running, Republicans are trying to get Hazelton Mayor Lou Barletta to run against U.S. Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Barletta has attracted national attention for his strong stand against illegal immigrants. Barletta could give Kanjorski a real race. Stay tuned.

The surprise retirement of U.S. Rep. John Peterson, a Republican from one of the largest geographic districts that stretches across northern PA, gives some Democrats hope they can win an open seat. But don’t count on it. Nonetheless, a lot of candidates in both parties have caught the bug. Among the Republicans, seven candidates are in the running: former Centre County commissioner Chris Exarchos, Elk County coroner Lou Radkowski, State College businessman Matt Shaner, Woodward Township (Lycoming) supervisor Jeff Stroehman, Clarion mayor John Stroup, Centre County Republican chairman G. T. Thompson, and Bigler (Clearfield) financial consultant Derek Walker. On the Democratic side, the candidates include Centre County native, Iraqi War veteran and former news correspondent Bill Cahir, Clearfield County commissioner Mark McCracken, and Lock Haven Mayor Rick Vilello.

Democrats are lining up to take on two Republican incumbents who represent Democratic-leaning districts, but at this stage nobody is predicting any upsets. U.S. Rep. Phil English, an Erie Republican, will face one of four Democrats in his northwestern PA district: Lake Erie Arboretum director Kathy Dahlkemper, Erie County councilman Kyle Foust, Erie attorney Tom Myers, and Erie lay minister Mike Waltner. In southwestern PA, U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy, a suburban Pittsburgh Republican, will end up being challenged by Army Reserve Col. Wayne Dudding of Robinson, Mt. Lebanon consultant and former teacher Beth Hafer (daughter of Barbara Hafer), Monroeville businessman Steve O’Donnell, Penn Hills school director Erin Vecchio, and Upper St. Clair insurance executive Brien Wall. As these and other congressional races shape up – after the February 12 deadline for filing nominating petitions – I’ll have much more on these battles.

There is always much more to write about – politics in Allegheny County and the City of Pittsburgh, for example – but let’s bring this PSF to an end until another day. It’s almost time for the Super Bowl, which cannot be as super as it might have been had the Steelers been in it. Once again, if you have any comments (off the record) to share with me, please do get back in touch. Enjoy Super Duper Tuesday!

A Presidential Rundown

2008-01-29T18:23:00.000-05:00

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

When you were growing up, your parents probably told you that in polite conversation, stay away from three topics: race, religion, and politics. In a campaign for the White House, you expect politics to be front and center, so let's substitute the word gender. I have never seen an election for any office that has been so dominated by race, religion, and gender - and despite all the good words about "rising above" this stuff, the subterranean noise about this threatens to undermine the much more important debate about which candidate is the most qualified to move the United States ahead in the next four years.

In this first PSF ("Politically Savvy Friends") email in many months, I will touch on that subject and more from my "Beyond the Washington DC Beltway" perspective and then comment on this year's upcoming political battles in Pennsylvania. As many of you know, I spent fourteen years on Capitol Hill as chief of staff to a PA congressman - and then I returned home where I have the pleasure of wearing lots of hats in academia, the private sector, and the media. I do a lot of public speaking to organizations throughout the year, and this PSF e-letter helps synthesize my thoughts and hopefully gives you some cocktail talk.

Most of you on this mailing list have received PSFs in the past and (judging by your emails back to me) seem to welcome them, but if you prefer not to get them, use the unsubscribe key below. I don't want to be anyone's SPAM. More importantly, I welcome your comments back - and I especially appreciate a "hot tip" now and then about something "political." Email me at delano.jon@gmail.com. Thanks for being my eyes and ears out there.

BEYOND THE BELTWAY

The Race for the White House:

This has been an extraordinary political season in so many ways, and maybe that's not surprising. This is the first time since 1952 that we don't have a previously nationally elected figure running for president. Despite what some Democrats say, this race is wide open. That's because I don't believe that George W. Bush is really the issue in 2008. Most Americans, regardless of party, are ready to move on - and, if the Republicans play this right, they can retain the White House on November 4. And Democrats are fully capable of self-destructing over the stupidest things - to wit, this picayune tantrum (as seen on CNN's recent debate) by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

In the end, remember this election depends on electoral votes, not the popular vote. We learned that well in 2000 when George Bush became the first president since Benjamin Harrison in 1888 to win without the popular vote -- and it could have been repeated in 2004 when John Kerry would have been president, with a minority of the popular vote, had he just carried the state of Ohio - a switch of 60,000 votes would have made the difference.

As I look at the electoral vote in 2008, it's pretty hard for the Republican candidate, whoever he is, not to be ahead right now of whatever Democrat gets the nod. That's because Republican voting states (the "red" states) outnumber Democratic voting states (the "blue" states). One calculation I saw has the GOP already at 213 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House. Such a scenario brings the battle back to the states that typically decide these elections: Florida (27 electoral votes), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Wisconsin (10), Colorado (9), Oregon (7), Iowa (7), Nevada (5), and New Mexico (5). Of course, depending on the nominee, other states could be up for grabs like New Jersey (15) and Missouri (11).

My point is not to predict the winner but to suggest that it's not a done deal for the Democrats by any stretch. This election is just getting started.

The Republican Battle Goes On and On and On:

It's hard to remember the last time when Republican voters had such a wide choice of candidates with no clear front-runner at this stage of the campaign. John McCain has won New Hampshire and South Carolina, giving him 38 delegates, while Mitt Romney has won Wyoming, Michigan, and Nevada giving him 66 delegates. Mike Huckabee, the Iowa winner, has 25 delegates. Considering there are 2,380 Republican delegates and only 156 have been chosen, this race is hardly over.

Toss in Rudy Giuliani, who has 1 delegate so far, and you have a foursome that is competing vigorously for delegates in Florida on January 29. By the way, in the delegate battle, some states in the GOP race are winner-take-all, such as Florida. That means the Republican who wins Florida gets all 57 delegates (the state lost half its delegates because it jumped ahead of Super Duper Tuesday, February 5). Other upcoming winner-take-all states include New York, Missouri, Arizona, New Jersey, Utah, Connecticut, etc. (The Democrats forbid winner-take-all, apportioning almost all their delegates).

While the media seems to have blessed McCain as the front-runner, it's pretty hard to draw that conclusion so far. After 21 states vote on February 5, the picture should be a lot clearer, although I still don't think any candidate will have a majority of delegates to win nomination at the end of that evening. By the way, 975 delegates will be chosen that day, about 41 percent of the total.

The Democratic Battle Gets Closer:

The Democratic nomination fight is down to three candidates, although many dismiss John Edwards, preferring a knockdown between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Obama won Iowa and South Carolina, while Clinton won New Hampshire and Nevada. Michigan, won by Clinton, was stripped of all its delegates for starting early. But the proportionality rules of the Democratic Party (awarding pledged delegates generally through congressional districts) give Obama 57 delegates, Clinton 45 delegates, and Edwards 20 delegates. This does not count "super delegates," Democratic elected officials (like governors and members of Congress) some of whom have already picked their candidates and give Clinton the delegate lead right now. Of course, it takes 2,025 delegates to win nomination, so this is all so early.

South Carolina, with its sizeable African American vote, gave an easy win this Saturday to Obama. That sets up a major battle on Super Duper Tuesday (February 5) when 22 states from New York to California go to the polls. Forget Florida, which lost all its delegates because it jumped the queue. On Feb. 5, some 1,681 delegates are at stake, about 51 percent of all elected delegates. Wow.

Ironically, John Edwards can play a key role in this battle, if he wins enough votes to earn delegates. There's talk of him being a "king maker" at the convention, but that will require him to continue to get around 20 percent of the vote in the battles ahead. Will he? Still, after Super Duper Tuesday, it's very unlikely that either Clinton or Obama will have a majority of the delegate votes. Other big states like Virginia, Ohio, and Texas will vote later in February and early March. Pennsylvania with its 188 delegates does not vote until April 22.

Religion, Race & Gender:

(1) Religion Takes Front Stage

Americans always take religion seriously, or at least we say so. But the common mantra has been that religion should not a barrier to any individual's entry into politics. On the presidential level, however, the White House has almost always been a Protestant enclave, with only one Catholic ever elected president.

When John F. Kennedy campaigned, he had to assure folks that he would not take orders from a foreign pope. This year, Mitt Romney has had to make a similar pledge that the Mormon Church would not dictate his government decisions. Arguably, Romney has had a more difficult challenge than Kennedy. By 1960, Catholics were well accepted as mainstream Christians. For some, that is not yet true of Mormons, a religion difficult for many to understand, in part because of its own secrecy rules, its earlier (and now rejected) views on polygamy, race, and gender, and its peculiar origins (frankly, something one could say about most religions) through founder Joseph Smith's assertion in the 1820s that the angel Moroni led him to tablets of the Book of Mormon, which Mormons believe is Holy Scripture, along with the Bible. Although Mormons call themselves Christians, many Christians do not agree, some even calling it a sect.

Politically, Romney has had to assert that his church leaders will not dictate to him and, at the same time, reaffirm that he is a Christian, even a fundamentalist with whom Christian evangelicals in the Republican Party should feel comfortable. It's a difficult balancing act, but there's some evidence, so far at least, that Romney's religion has not been a barrier to winning primary votes.

The other religious aspect to Campaign 2008 has been Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, who has no problem making references to his strong religious views. Now being a clergyman and a politician is hardly a new thing. When I worked in the Congress, I recall Cong. Robert Drinan (D/MA) was a Catholic priest, Cong. Bob Edgar (D/PA) was a Methodist minister, and Sen. John Danforth (R/MO) was an Episcopal priest. There may have been others, although the Vatican ordered Drinan to quit the House (which he did) so, as far as I know, no Catholic priests now serve in elected public positions.

Politically, Huckabee is the most culturally conservative candidate in the GOP race - and would seem a natural for Christian conservatives. But his populist economic policies, including support for some tax increases when he was governor of Arkansas, are sometimes at odds with "true" conservatives. While a clergyman running for public office troubles some, it's hardly unusual - and I suspect Huckabee will rise and fall on his views and personality, not his religion.

On the Democratic front, Barack Obama has had to fight an email attack that he is really a Muslim based on claims that he attended a Muslim school as a child in Indonesia. I first saw these emails months ago and dismissed them as nonsense. [The charges first surfaced when Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in Illinois in 2002]. Obama's father was a Luo from Kenya, apparently a non-practicing Muslim who had no real impact on his son's religious upbringing since he separated from Obama's mother when Obama was two, and later returned home to Kenya. Obama's mother then married an Indonesian foreign student, a Muslim, and the family moved to Jakarta when Obama was six. Obama did attend both a Catholic school and a public school there until he was ten, but his campaign insists it was not a Muslim religious school, a so-called madrassa where Muslims are taught to hate non-Muslims as infidels.

More importantly, at age ten, Obama returned home to Hawaii to live with his white maternal grandparents and attend a private, non-sectarian college prep school in Honolulu founded by Christian missionaries. In recent years, Obama has acknowledged that he didn't grow up in any particular religious faith but came to Jesus Christ in his 20s where he was baptized and has remained a congregant at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

Politically, Obama and his campaign have shot back at the subterranean internet emails that link him to Islam. That his middle name is Hussein thickens the alleged cover-up of his Muslim roots, but the fact that Obama shares Saddam's name is of no more relevance than that my middle name ("William") is shared by plenty of scurrilous people. [By the way, most of us don't get to name ourselves, so no one should ever be blamed for that]. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that Obama is anything but what he says he is - a committed believing Christian. Moreover, even if Obama were a Muslim (which he is not), why would that be a "political issue" any more than Kennedy's Catholicism or Romney's Mormonism? Let's move on.

(2) Race Rears Its Color:

Nothing offends me more than the notion that race motivates voters, but none of us is naove. Almost all Americans take pride that this year an African American - well, actually he's half white and half black - is a major contender for the presidency of the United States. Win or lose, Barack Obama's political success this year is a monumental testament to America's political maturity.

Few things are more divisive than race, and when candidates (black or white) appeal for support on racial lines, it can cause earthquakes in the political groundscape. At the beginning of this campaign, the Democratic candidates did all they could to avoid any references to race. It didn't hurt that Hillary Clinton and her husband has always had strong ties to the black community.

So what changed? Well, some think the increasingly competitive race between Obama and Clinton encouraged both sides to find some advantage in racial politics. For Obama, he wanted to consolidate black voters behind his campaign where, early on, Clinton was beating him overwhelmingly. In a number of states, African Americans are a key to the Democratic nomination, and Obama needs those voters.

The trick for Obama is how to appeal to black voters without losing white voters. South Carolina was the first real test of that where half the Democratic voters were black. Exit polls showed that Obama has accomplished what he wanted - nearly 80 percent of African American voters in that state voted for Obama, but in the process he lost 76 percent of the white votes, something he cannot afford to do in upcoming primaries.

For Clinton, the challenge has been equally difficult. She needs African Americans in the primary for sure, but she needs those voters even more in November. After Obama accused Hillary and Bill Clinton of injecting race into this campaign, the anti-Clinton media has had a field day attacking the Clintons. It's hard to pin-point anything overtly racial in Bill Clinton's comments, but it probably doesn't matter since enough folks were convinced that he was playing a "race card" to win white votes for Hillary that it hurt her among black voters and probably some whites, too.

In my view, both candidates need to step back from this racial precipice. It's perfectly legitimate to criticize Obama for abstaining on votes in the Illinois legislature, or for being anti-war and then pro-war, or for carrying water for a slum landlord, just as it's legitimate to criticize Clinton for being pro-war before she was anti-war, or for being on Wal-Mart's board of directors, or for being cozy with Washington lobbyists. Better still, how about a debate on who's best on the economy, health care, education, and jobs? Yeah, I know. I'm asking too much.

(3) Gender Politics at Work:

For millions of women, including members of my own family, the fact that a woman could be the next president of the United States is decidedly liberating. Just as we should take pride in an African American's progress on this front, so do most Americans welcome the possible breaking of America's most formidable glass ceiling. Of course, just as some ask if Obama is the "right" black candidate, many ask the same of Clinton.

Although women make up a slight majority of the population and an even larger percentage of the voting public, only 13 of 100 senators is female and 61 of 435 members of the House are female. That's about 14 percent when women represent 51 percent of the nation. This, of course, is a huge improvement over twenty years ago, but hardly proportionate to the number of women in the population. In contrast, African Americans are doing much better politically (although not there yet), now numbering 43 in the Congress, about 8 percent of the body when their percentage of the total population is about 13 percent.

For Hillary Clinton, women appear to make up a large percentage of her supporters, although Obama beat her among women voters in both Iowa and South Carolina. Her challenge has been to attract women to her camp, without alienating men. When at an early debate before New Hampshire, Obama and Edwards appeared to team up against her - and then some in the media went ballistic went she appeared "emotional" in response to a town meeting question - many women and some men, too, saw a "double standard" at work.

Some people tell me that it is easier to break a racial barrier than a gender one. I don't know because I cannot speak from experience in either case. But for Clinton to become the first woman president, she is going to have to win women voters just as Obama appears to be winning black voters. The verdict is out on that.

PENNSYLVANIA - to be continued.

This PSF is long enough, so allow me to hold my Pennsylvania political update until the next one, after today's Florida primary and hopefully before Super Tuesday next week.

As always, I welcome your comments, so please do email me (delano.jon@gmail.com) with your take on things. And, again, if you hear something interesting on the political front, drop me a note.

Cavorting with the PA Society

2007-12-07T12:44:00.000-05:00

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

Don't try to find a prominent Pennsylvania politician in their hometowns this weekend. That's because most of them are in New York City to schmooze with each other and the "wheelers and dealers" from Pittsburgh industry. It's call the annual Pennsylvania Society dinner at the Waldorf Astoria, but it's an excuse for politicians to enjoy each other and the money people while in the delightful environs of Manhattan during the Christmas season.

Now I admit I have attended some of those dinners (and other related events) over the years -- and, yes, it's great fun -- but there is something a little peculiar about Pennsylvania politicians and business leaders leaving the commonwealth in order to "make contacts" and "enjoy" each other's company.

The history of this weekend is fascinating to political insiders. Back in the late 1800s when Pennsylvania was solidly Republican, the PA Society gathering in New York was when the railroad, steel, and coal barons gathered, privately, to name their Republican candidates for state office.

This weekend's gathering is much more ecumenical, as it has been for decades, with Democrats just as visible as Republicans. Gone are the days when industry moguls named candidates for public office. Of course, they still play an important role -- money! So politicians flock to the Waldorf in hopes of connecting with the big money donors who will help fund their campaigns in the months ahead.

Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato is hosting an event (not a fundraiser) in NYC, as he done in past years, to "meet and greet" the state's business leaders, especially from Philadelphia, who can help boost his candidacy for governor in 2010. I am told that Onorato expects 300 to 500 people to drop by for his liquor and hors d'oevres. But just in case someone is NOT going to NYC this weekend, Onorato mailed invitations to around 8,000 people, including government leaders in all 67 counties of the state. Hmmmm, does anyone think he's not running for governor?

Of course, Dan is not the only one taking advantage of the gathering to spread around some holiday good will. But one thing is certain -- those that are hope to have a future in Pennsylvania politics. As for the rest of us, enjoy the snow this weekend!

Is the Election Over or Just Beginning?

2007-11-05T10:04:00.000-05:00

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

Election Day 2007 may prove to be anti-climatic, particularly since almost everyone thinks Luke Ravenstahl will win election to serve out the term of the late Mayor Bob O'Connor as mayor of Pittsburgh.

Republican Mark DeSantis, however, has surprised almost everyone with a stronger-than-expected campaign, rooted both in some Democratic discontent with Ravenstahl's performance and DeSantis' own articulate position on issues. On economic issues, DeSantis is clearly the more conservative of the two candidates, but he is much more liberal on hot-button social issues than Ravenstahl.

That makes DeSantis a serious challenger in certain parts of the city like Squirrel Hill, Shadyside, and Point Breeze where Democrats like their Democrats to be pro-choice and pro-gay rights. But carrying the 14th Ward and even the 7th or 11th Wards would hardly be enough for DeSantis to win the mayor's office.

DeSantis needs two things to happen: traditional Democrats (many socially conservative) need to reject Luke by either voting for Mark or skipping this race and Republicans (nearly 25,000 of them) need to show up to vote, something they do not often do in this overwhelmingly Democratic city.

The most likely outcome is that Luke wins, but here the issue becomes: Is the Election Over or Just Beginning?

By all accounts, Ravenstahl should do at least as well as Bob O'Connor did two years ago. After all, O'Connor coming off a divisive Democratic primary against two strong Democrats, Bill Peduto and Michael Lamb, cruised to a 67% win in November 2005. Ravenstahl, who had no Democratic opposition last spring, should get at least that.

If Luke gets more than 67% -- indeed, if he breaks into the 70% range where many of us thought he would be last spring -- then he sends a strong signal to fellow Democrats that the NEXT real election (the Democratic mayoral primary) 18 months from now is going to be pretty solid for Ravenstahl.

In contrast, the closer DeSantis holds Ravenstahl's margin to 60%, the greater the likelihood that the next 18 months will be all about which Dems are positioned to take Luke on in May 2009. If Luke falls below 60%, watch for the spin to be that he really lost by winning, setting himself up for opposition for the next two years, perhaps even a rematch against DeSantis in 2009.

I cannot predict this election. Bad weather might keep only the most hearty and devoted voter from voting -- but does that favor Ravenstahl with support from traditional Democrats who always vote or DeSantis whose voters, arguably, are more committed than Luke's? Stay tuned, but surely as the sun comes up on Wednesday, we will have a story to tell.

DeSantis Campaign Ads Previewed

2007-10-11T08:02:00.000-04:00

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

If you missed my story last night on KDKA-TV, feel free to click http://kdka.com/video/?id=32817@kdka.dayport.com to see a sneak preview of Mark DeSantis' campaign ads. DeSantis allowed me to watch and listen to several of his campaign ads, as long as I didn't air the entire ads in advance of their publication. That was fair, since in a 90-second TV story I couldn't post the entire ad anyway.

Judge for yourself, but my take is that his approach for an initial kick-off ad makes some sense, although I think all of this may be too little, too late. DeSantis has decided to take head on the fundamental question of whether a Republican has a chance of getting elected in the city of Pittsburgh where something like 147,000 Democrats outnumber 29,000 Republicans and 25,000 Independents. The theme of these first radio and TV ads, simply put, is that DeSantis does have a chance and that if the "no chance crowd" had won we would not have had Renaissance I and II and great city fathers like David L. Lawrence and Richard S. Caliguiri.

Getting people to believe that a vote for DeSantis is not a total waste of a vote is a critical first step. The voting public likes to vote for winners, and right now Luke Ravenstahl, despite all the miscues, looks like the November 6 winner. One series of ads won't turn that around, but it's a start.

The next step for DeSantis is to convince Democrats that he is worthy of their vote. His campaign mailing to Democrats this week suggests that sometimes the candidate who best reflects Democratic values "isn't always a Democrat." It's a clever approach, but it requires Democrats to buy into the notion that Ravenstahl is really an ultra-conservative, anti-gay, anti-choice, pro-war clone of George W. Bush. I don't think it will sell, except to the most liberal of Democrats who already object to Luke on other grounds.

None of the DeSantis ads that I previewed over at Kolbrener, the ad agency that is making its first real foray into political campaigns, directly attack Luke Ravenstahl. That defies conventional wisdom, which would suggest some hard-hitting attack ads are needed to shake Democrats from their comfort level with Luke. Maybe they have something in the works, but for the moment it's all positive about Mark.

If DeSantis had money for a 10-week ad campaign, introducing the candidate in a positive way before going after the incumbent is always the best approach. But this campaign is down to just 3+ weeks. The few TV and radio ads I saw, while creative and well done, may not be enough to turn things around for DeSantis in such a short period of time. Still, I give the Republican a lot of credit for trying. It's good to see a race for mayor in November 2007 when most people in town think the real race is 18 months away in the Democratic primary of May 2009.

And that's exactly what the Ravenstahl team thinks, too, which helps explain why they do not (yet) plan to run radio and TV ads this fall, although look for plenty of lawn signs and some direct mail. The Ravenstahl theory is sound. If you're going to win anyways and don't really care whether the margin is 60% or 70%, why not save your million bucks for the battle that really counts. Any Democrat looking to take on Ravenstahl will have to think real hard if the incumbent has that kind of money in his warchest before the campaign even begins.

Bottom line. DeSantis' campaign ads have the potential to make this race more visible among rank-and-file Pittsburgh voters -- all 50,000 or 60,000 that will bother to vote -- but it may all be prelude to political battles ahead.

Apology Issued to Luke from ICMA

2007-10-09T18:01:00.000-04:00

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

Ho-hum. Believe it or not, we have an election four weeks from today. Yes, a few lawn signs have started to sprout around the region, but the radio and television airwaves have been surprisingly quiet. That won't last for long. I understand the DeSantis for Mayor campaign will launch its radio commercials later this week with television ads soon to follow, probably early next week.

Last night, I watched the Post Gazette editorial board's mayoral debate between Luke Ravenstahl and Mark DeSantis (along with a Libertarian and Socialist Worker). The format did not lend itself to a back-and-forth between the two major candidates, but both did manage to get a lick in on each other. Truthfully, I was not overwhelmed by either -- and that, ultimately, turns out to be a plus for Ravenstahl. DeSantis needs a stronger performance if he's to have any chance in upsetting the incumbent. (Of course, who watches these debates but us junkies).

On an unrelated note, Luke deserved -- and got -- an apology from the International City/County Management Association for, inaccurately, confirming that the mayor had snubbed 4,000 city and county managers gathered in Pittsburgh this week for their national convention. Early this year, the ICMA invited Luke to give brief remarks at their opening session on Sunday (same time as the Steelers game). When Luke didn't show, Marty Griffin of KDKA Radio heard from a city source that the mayor was a no-show, pissing off a lot of folks at the convention.

On Monday, Michele Frisby from the ICMA confirmed Marty's source (through me) and he reported it on his morning show on Tuesday. Later that morning, Ravenstahl called in to dispute the charge and pointed to an email his office sent on September 7 declining the invitation. Turns out the mayor is right. Here's the text of the apology sent directly to the mayor's office: "I am writing to acknowledge that at no time did Pittsburgh Mayor Ravenstahl formally agree to provide greetings during the conference opening general session of ICMA, the International City/County Management Association. The information I provided Jon Delano earlier this week was incorrect, and I apologize for any inconvenience it may have caused the mayor’s office." Michele called me personally and apologized to me. In reality, the apology is owed the mayor, and I am pleased the ICMA apologized to him.

In the scheme of things, this is hardly an important issue. The mayor should be free to choose what events he wants to attend or not. He told Marty that he was not at the Steelers game but spending some quiet time with his wife. I'm all for that, too!

The larger issues of Pittsburgh -- its financial health, its lack of jobs, its crime and vandalism, its management, and its future -- these are the legitimate items to debate, not whether the mayor attends a particular conference. So let the real debate begin. Pittsburgh deserves it.

Six Weeks to Go

2007-09-25T08:26:00.000-04:00

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

Well, give Mark DeSantis some credit for trying to stir the political waters this last week. The guy's been mighty aggressive attacking Luke Ravenstahl over the last 10 days, going after him on ethics, crime, finances, and now most recently attacking Ravenstahl for having a bloated personal office staff [see TV story on right]. The problem for DeSantis, of course, is that there's no indication that anyone is listening to him. The mayor just keeps doing his mayoral thing, ignoring his opponent, and acting like DeSantis is some pesky insect that he must endure for a season until cold weather knocks him out.

It's tempting to say this election is all over with the only question being how big Luke wins -- 60%, 70%, 80%. But don't tell DeSantis that. Where some people think the voting public has already decided to "give the kid a chance" for at least another two years -- yes, we go through this again in 2009 -- DeSantis thinks at least 50% of the voters are still uncertain about Ravenstahl's qualifications to guide the city through tough times ahead. Even if that were true, I don't think the public is sold on DeSantis to do the guiding instead. After all, nobody really knows who he is.

DeSantis is expected to begin his campaign ads shortly. Maybe the ads will be so extraordinary that the public will give him a look-see, but don't bet on it. Part of the problem is that Luke preaches the always popular "good times are here" sermon, while Mark is into that "gloom and doom" message. My 25+ years in the political world -- take it for what it's worth -- have taught me repeatedly that, unless life is personally unbearable for people or something angers them deeply, the positive always sells better than the negative. For now at least, the "feel good" message of Luke resonates far stronger than Mark's "warnings" about the future. It may be as simple as that.

Six weeks can be an eternity in politics, and I've seen no reliable independent polls in the race for mayor of Pittsburgh. But nothing persuades me that an upset is in the making. Taking on an incumbent is always challenging, especially when as mayor Ravenstahl dominates the print and broadcast news media. The local media has given DeSantis more time and space than any other Republican candidate for mayor, but add up the column inches and the airtime and Luke the incumbent still dominates the media four-to-one. Challengers always complain to me about that, but, hey, the "news" business is supposed to report the "news" and incumbent office-holders "make" news far more than challengers. Still, most responsible journalists are now seeking DeSantis out for his "reaction" when the mayor makes a policy pronouncement of some sort because that is the right thing to do in the midst of a campaign. But after election day passes, it's back to the incumbent all the time!

If readers see anything unusual or interesting on the campaign trail, please do email me. Back and forth press conferences get pretty boring! And stay alert. If the campaign for mayor, so far, has put you to sleep, I suspect the rhetoric will only get hotter in the weeks remaining. Let's hope so!

Seven Weeks to Go

2007-09-18T09:17:00.000-04:00

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

Seven weeks from today, voters in Pennsylvania will stay home. I would be surprised if more than 20 to 25% of registered voters bothered to cast a ballot. Of course, that gives more power to those of us who do vote -- but it also puts a premium on those campaigns that can best organize their get-out-the-vote efforts.

The Pittsburgh mayor's race is relatively boring, despite Mark DeSantis' best effort to engage Luke Ravenstahl. As you can see if you click on the stories to the right, last week Ravenstahl announced that he was keeping most of the city directors that he asked to resign 90 days ago. DeSantis derided that exercise, but the mayor ignored him. This week, DeSantis attempted to stake a stronger ethics position -- again see the story posted to the right -- and, this time, Ravenstahl just welcomed DeSantis to the cause.

This race for mayor probably won't get close until we see some television ads that really trashes Luke -- and, even then, it's still hard to imagine an upset of Ravenstahl. Still, give DeSantis credit for attempting to create fire when most people don't even see smoke.

What may wake some people up in Campaign 2007 will be the judge races. Well, maybe not exactly wake you up, but at least get your attention. It will be hard to miss all the TV ads we expect in October. Add to that the fact that PA Clean Sweep is urging a NO vote against all seven statewide judges running for reelection. That includes State Supreme Court Justice Tom Saylor. The anti-pay raise group also wants a NO vote against the local judges up for retention, too. Their sin? Accepting the double-digit pay raise that the state Supreme Court ruled the legislature could NOT repeal for judges.

It's not clear to me that the pay raise issue still has legs, but in any case I believe the anti-pay raise groups have overplayed their hand by urging a NO vote on every single judge in Pennsylvania. It's one thing to go against a state supreme court justice -- like they did successfully against former Justice Russell Nigro in 2005 -- but it's quite another to urge voters to reject every judge even if they had no connection whatsover with the pay raise controversy. In my view, it makes PA Clean Sweep look just a wee bit unreasonable, particularly since (as I know from personal experience) many of these judges are extraordinarily good.

Unlike 2005, there will be organized efforts to urge voters to vote YES for many of these judges, both by the judges themselves and their supporters in the legal community. In an exclusive interview posted to the right, Superior Court President Judge Kate Ford Elliott sat down with me, on camera, to speak out on this issue. Sitting judges rarely go on camera, let alone talk politics. Obviously, this issue is being felt very deeply in the judicial system.

Campaign 2008 is just around the corner chronologically, even if it began months ago. Last week, Rudy Giuliani was in town to raise big bucks in Washington County, but (as we've learned from earlier visits) Rudy likes to sample the local fare. This time it was Sarris candy in Canonsburg. But after the schmooze, the former New York mayor launched into a major attack on Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for not "denouncing" Move-On.Org, the liberal group that asked whether General Petraeus would become General Betray-Us. Giuliani's attack on Clinton is one way that he can win over Republican voters who disdain the Clintons, and he couples it with the somewhat legitimate argument that he's the one Republican who can take it to Clinton in moderate states lilke Pennsylvania.

Given the irrelevance of Pennsylvania in the primary season -- the PA primary is not until April 22 when the nominees should have pretty much been decided -- it's still nice to see a few of the presidential candidates traipse through our area, even if it's only for our money and food! Pierogis, anyone?

Campaign 2007 -- Does Anyone Care?

2007-09-06T07:30:00.001-04:00

Dear Politically Savvy Friend,

I'm back! Yes, it's been a long summer and, yes, I did take a bit of a hiatus from this sport of blogging. Truth be told, it's not easy to blog every day -- which has only increased my tremendous admiration for those bloggers who manage to find time every single day to write something. You are an amazing group of people, either very sick or very determined, but in either case highly focused on meeting a self-imposed blog deadline much the way I must meet a TV or newspaper deadline. Props to y'inz, y'all, and you!

Campaign 2007 sometimes seems to be overwhelmed by Campaign 2008, but Republican candidate Mark DeSantis is -- slowly -- beginning to demonstrate some life in his steep uphill battle to unseat incumbent Democrat Luke Ravenstahl in the race for mayor of Pittsburgh. Of course, it's questionable how many people care about this race.

The best guess is that no more than 60,000 people will vote. Some pundits think 50,000 is closer to reality. And nobody really thinks Luke will lose this. Two years ago, Republican Joe Weinroth got 27 percent of the vote with about 6 percent splitting among some third party candidates. Democrat Bob O'Connor got the rest -- a whopping 67%.

But, hold on. Ravenstahl could actually do better than O'Connor. In 2005, O'Connor still had some negative residue from supporters of Democrats Michael Lamb and Bill Peduto (both of whom challenged him in the primary), although both Lamb and Peduto endorsed O'Connor in the fall. In 2007, among Democrats (and, let's face it, they're the ones who count in Pittsburgh) at least, Ravenstahl does NOT have 50 percent of his own party on record as voting AGAINST him in the spring primary. In my view, that gives him the potential to win more than 67 percent of the vote on November 6.

Now, it is true that Peduto has NOT endorsed Luke and is not likely to do so. But Peduto has not endorsed DeSantis either. In fact, no high profile Democrat has endorsed DeSantis as far as I know. And DeSantis can only make this close by attracting hundreds of Democrats to his cause.

That has not stopped the Republican candidate from stepping up his rhetoric against Ravenstahl in the last two weeks, accusing Ravenstahl of being the photo op candidate more interested in celebrities than city finances, a man with no accomplishments despite a year in office, and an old school politician who is more than a little ethically challenged.

The news media and the blogosphere, of course, will enjoy reporting a good old-fashioned slugfest between these two, but I'm not convinced that the vast majority of Pittsburgh residents are tuned in to any of this. I talk to a lot of folks on the streets -- many just come up to me -- and while some have doubsts about Luke, most know nothing about DeSantis and seem perfectly content to give the mayor another two years to demonstrate he has what it takes. Perhaps that will change once DeSantis hits the TV and radio airwaves, but even if DeSantis gets 20,000 votes, I'm still betting Ravensahl wins in a typical Democratic landslide.

Other races are on the ballot, but I'll hold for another post. In the meantime, I welcome your comments, and click on to some of my TV stories over on the right. It feels good to be back.

When Presidents-to-Be Come to Town

2007-06-30T08:44:00.000-04:00

Dear Politically Savvy Friend,

This week I met former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani when he campaigned in Pittsburgh’s Strip District (for out-of-towners, that’s a funky old-fashioned market place, not what the name suggests), and I must admit I was impressed with the guy.

Forget his political positions for the moment. In person, Giuliani comes across as a regular guy, not one of those stiff politicians who look over your shoulder to see whom else they should ignore. Maybe it was the venue – for an Italian American like Rudy, visiting Jimmy and Nino Sunseri’s Italian market to sample the cheese, the pasta, and the pizza must have been a bit like heaven.

Giuliani was relaxed, shaking hands with the locals, joking with kids about being off school, kissing a 10-month old baby who had the most gorgeous smile, sharing family history with another Giuliani (who spells her maiden name Guiliani), and walking the Strip to feel the ambience of Pittsburgh’s old-country market district.

Giuliani was in Pittsburgh to raise money at two separate fund raising events, but kudos to the Giuliani campaign for scheduling this hour-long effort to meet real Pittsburgh folks and make himself available to the local media for Q&A. Contrast that to Senator Barack Obama’s quick visit to Pittsburgh a week earlier, where the goal was solely to raise money, not to meet ordinary schleps or talk to the press. But thanks to some very smart Obama supporters here in Pittsburgh – kudos to them – Barack did stop by a gaggle of reporters for at least 120 seconds. Still, it was not particularly satisfying when, after opening comments, he would not take any questions.

The irony is that, on the central issue of our time – the war in Iraq – Obama’s message will resonate with more Americans than Giuliani’s. Obama has opposed the war from the beginning, while Giuliani is absolutely certain that Iraq is where we need to confront the terrorists. But as we learned in 2000 and 2004 in the race for the White House, personality will trump issues almost all the time. When candidates come to Pittsburgh and fail to mix it up with average folks, they miss a tremendous opportunity to show us what they’re like.

You can watch what we capture of the presidential candidates by looking through the “Recent News Stories” link on this page.

Luke at Oakmont

2007-06-16T21:25:00.000-04:00

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

The big story locally this week has been the U.S. Open out at the exclusive Oakmont Country Club, fifteen miles north of the City of Pittsburgh. So maybe it’s no surprise that the top story, politically, has been Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl’s successful effort to get into an invitation-only private event to watch Tiger Woods practice on the challenging course back in late April.

Afficionados of this story have had a field day on radio talk shows and in the blogosphere, dissecting Luke’s every move and motive. The story developed “legs” when the mayor decided to go on radio with WDVE’s Jimmy Krenn and Randy Baumann and KDKA’s Fred Honsberger and Dom Giordano (sitting in for Marty Griffin), followed on Thursday with an on-camera interview with WTAE’s Bob Mayo.

Now, as Luke has been quick to tell everybody, KDKA-TV was the first to break the story on Monday night. His repeated use of KDKA and my name in subsequent media appearances [“I have great respect for Jon Delano but . . . .”] made this a little awkward, since I am a journalist and the messenger of the story, not the source of the facts. Still, he has every right to state his version of events. In fact [see below], I wish he had done that on Monday so I could have included them in my story. Nonetheless, by consistently referencing KDKA in his response, I found myself getting invited by responsible journalists to restate the facts as KDKA learned them – thus prolonging the story beyond its normal life cycle.

First off, I really didn’t break this news story.

Let’s give credit where credit is due. The Pittsburgh Tribune Review first broke the story back on May 6 in its “Whispers” column. Under the headline, “Luke Crashes Tiger’s Party,” the anonymous columnist wrote: “The story making the rounds in political circles has Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl getting the folks at the Oakmont Country Club upset recently after Tiger Woods played a round of golf there. Seems that after Woods was done practicing for next month's U.S. Open at Oakmont he attended a private party sponsored by American Express. Political insiders say Ravenstahl showed up at the event uninvited and angered folks by worming his way into pictures with Woods and others. Country club officials would neither confirm nor deny they were perturbed at the young mayor. Nor would they comment on whether Ravenstahl was able to secure Woods' autograph.”

As far as I know, the mayor never responded publicly to the Trib’s story, although I understand that some of the investigative reporters (print and broadcast) in town may have pursued the mayor on this. I was not among them, and the story was largely dropped by the MSM (mainstream media).

That changed on Monday when the first practice rounds of the U.S. Open began and everybody was looking for Open-related stories. At KDKA, the “crash” story was recalled, and I was assigned by the news managers to see what I could find out. This assignment would have probably fallen to KDKA’s two investigative reporters, not me, except one was on vacation and the other was already assigned. No problem. That’s the way it works in TV-land. You do what the boss says!

It did not take long to confirm the basics of the story. When Mayor Ravenstahl learned that Tiger Woods was going to be out at the Oakmont Country Club, he tried to secure an invitation to see him. His staff called out there, and later on radio, Luke said he himself also called. KDKA sources told me that Luke was told that this was a private event, and, as the mayor later acknowledged on radio, his subsequent appearance did “anger” some at the Club.

American Express officials told me that Ravenstahl was not on the list of 82 people attending their special luncheon and golf outing scheduled for the same day that Tiger Woods was practicing on the links. The event, for which AmEx charged $900 a head, included a surprise: Woods would appear at the private luncheon and give some golf tips out on the course for the participants.

Even though he was not on the AmEx list or a member of the Oakmont County Club, Ravenstahl and two body guards drove out to the Club in hopes of fulfilling “a life long dream” of meeting the golfing great. Once out there, Luke insists he was “welcomed.” I guess that depends on whom you talk to, as both the company and the club were put in a very awkward position. Kick the mayor off the property and risk adverse publicity and whatever other consequences might follow – or let him in and try to contain the situation.

As KDKA reported Monday night, Ravenstahl got into the club and was invited to dine with members of the club’s board of directors. KDKA sources also reported that the mayor was again told that the AmEx event was a private affair. What exactly happened next is unclear. KDKA reported Monday that Luke “got his hands on an American Express golf shirt.” That was true. In subsequent interviews, Ravenstahl says the company, perhaps like the club, decided to “welcome” him and gave him the shirt (along with shirts for his body guards). I have no reason to disbelieve the mayor on this, but American Express won’t confirm or deny that.

Again, as KDKA correctly reported Monday night and now confirmed by Ravenstahl, the mayor was, however, told not to approach or interfere with Tiger on the links. He says that he respected that warning, but that an ESPN anchor volunteered to introduce him to Tiger and, ultimately, Ravenstahl got a minute or two with Woods, who, sources tell me, was in a great mood that day and friendly with everyone. In a DVD released by American Express out at their hospitality tent this week, you can see brief pictures of the mayor among the crowd, clearly enjoying himself. Who wouldn’t? It must have been a great experience.

I will leave the analysis of the mayor’s behavior to the radio talk show hosts, sports commentators, and bloggers. As for me, I do regret that Luke himself was not part of the initial story on Monday night. But as a journalist, I did try to get his take shortly after I was assigned the story late Monday morning. I called his office and requested time to talk to the mayor. At the same time, his office was pitching their own story, a follow-up on the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s piece about Luke’s billboards and using the U.S. Open to promote Pittsburgh – all quite legitimate and of interest to me. But I was also clear that I wanted to talk about the Oakmont incident. Their response – the mayor was not available on Monday because he was spending the day with the mayor of San Diego, although he could talk to me the next day. When the news managers decided to run the piece on Monday with or without Luke, I did the next best thing. I got a statement from his office and used it, accurately, in my tag.

Throughout the week, KDKA continued to offer Luke time to give his version of events. As I always do, I would have posted the entire unedited, uncut Q&A of that interview on the KDKA website. I do that so people will know that I do not engage in selective editing to make a politician look bad, and it also protects the politician from being taken out of context. The mayor and I had a private telephone conversation on Wednesday, which I will keep private, except to say that he thought he had said everything there was to say on this subject on radio and that it was time to end the story. [Luke and I have known each other since before he was elected to city council. I believe I was the first local TV reporter to put him on television, and we share a mutual respect, even if on this story we “agree to disagree” on the facts].

As I said above, in my view, this story was never more than a 24-hour piece, but as late as Friday, I was still hearing snippets on radio about it. Some are suggesting that the mayor’s announcement of another shake-up at City Hall was timed to get off the Oakmont story. I don’t really believe that because the story was over anyways.

Finally, despite what some radio talk show hosts and bloggers may have opined, this was never Luke versus KDKA. It was about the facts. I laid them out as best I could, and the mayor disagrees. Okay, that’s cool by me. I have been in this business a long time – on both sides as an aide to an elected official doing damage control and pitching stories – as well as on the media side seeking to get the truth out to the public.

Nobody is perfect, and we -- politicians and journalists alike -- all make mistakes. I work hard to be accurate in everything I report, but if I make a substantive error, I will be the first to correct it. This story relied on “sources” because, especially during the U.S. Open, people in the know, including those present on April 23 at the club, were not willing to go on camera. That doesn’t make their statement of the facts wrong, any more than someone on camera always speaks the truth. And, so far, I’ve seen no evidence that contradicts the basic story.

I am deeply grateful for the many emails, phone calls, and expressions of support that I received from my colleagues in the media and many others in the community. But I was only doing my job – like most of you do – albeit in a somewhat more visible way. And unless someone has something more to add, the “Luke at Oakmont” story is over. Now let’s move on.

Immigration -- Legalizing Illegals

2007-06-06T06:36:00.000-04:00

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

When Emma Lazarus wrote her famous poem for the 1886 dedication of the Statue of Liberty, nobody quite envisioned the current debate over illegal aliens. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

This idyllic view of America as the great refuge for those from other lands has always been a bit overstated and hardly reality. After all, the USA has had substantial quotas on immigrants for decades, and even when a respectful concern for human rights might have dictated otherwise, we denied refugee entry to many Asians, Jews, and now Iraqis.

Still, Americans are conflicted on immigration. We (almost all of us) are descendant from immigrants, and we know it’s only fair to treat current would-be immigrants the same way our grandparents were retreated. The problem, of course, is that President Bush and the Congress are wrestling with a different kind of problem – illegal immigrants who did not follow the rules to get into this country.

A recent CBS/NYTimes poll highlights how schizophrenic Americans are on this issue. When asked if illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay if they pay a $5,000 fine, have a clean work record, and pass a criminal background check, some 67% say yes while only 28% say deport them – and a similar number support the proposed guest worker program. But if asked directly if illegal immigrants should be prosecuted and deported home, 69% say deport them and only 24% would not.

Because these people are illegals – not traditional immigrants -- the government really has no idea of how many people we’re talking about. U.S. immigration officials think the illegal influx amounts to about 500,000 people a year, and they estimate about 9 to 10 million illegals in the USA. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates the number at 11.5 million to 12.0 million. Others put the number of illegals closer to 20 million.

Even if the number is closer to 10 million than 20 million, how can the United States realistically capture and deport that many men, women, and children? And is that really the best solution when many (but obviously not all) of these individuals work hard and contribute to the American economy?

Congress is wrestling with a solution amidst a political cacophony from those who think any form of recognition of illegals constitutes amnesty and those who think these illegals, mostly Hispanics, should be given all the rights of traditional immigrants. In my view, both are wrong.

Here’s my proposal. First, anyone who entered this country illegally should be permanently barred from ever becoming a citizen of this nation. They broke the law, and that should mean something. Second, it’s in the best interest of this nation to encourage illegals to step forward, register as guest workers, pay some sort of restitution, and be allowed to stay (without forcing them go back home for one year or some other back-and-forth scheme) – so long as they are employed, have no crime record, and learn to speak English. Those who fail to step forward should remain subject to capture and deportation under the law.

Third, we should crack down hard on companies that hire illegal aliens, driving them out of business if need be because they are the catalyst that attracts illegals to this country. Fourth, border security is an important priority. While I am skeptical that building fences will really secure the border, we should not short-change law enforcement at the borders, as we do today. The last report I saw we had 11,000 border patrol agents monitoring the nation’s 19,000 miles of border. Sounds pretty spotty to me. Fifth, we should adopt a sensible immigration system that welcomes all those with something to offer without some artificial (and inherently racist or ethnically biased) nation-by-nation quota system. And those who enter lawfully should be encouraged to earn American citizenship.

Who knows what will come out of the Congress on this issue. My hunch is that the issue may still be too hot for a reasonable compromise to be enacted.

This "blog" was part of a much larger PSF newsletter I sent out the other day to my Politically Savvy Friends. If you would like to get that free newsletter, just click on the subscriber button found on this page. I would welcome you as a PSFer.

PSFs Return

2007-06-02T14:20:00.000-04:00

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

It has been months since I took fingers to keyboard to send you one of my periodic e-newsletters. Many of you have wondered what happened to that PSF (“Politically Savvy Friend”) missive that I sent out every couple of weeks, while a few of you are receiving this PSF for the very first time. So an explanation is in order.

Computer problems (what else!) plagued my life at the end of last year. That, coupled with a PSF list that has grown into the thousands, made the process of sending PSFs a nightmare. Today, thanks to an upgraded home computer system and the help of one of my Carnegie Mellon graduate students, we are inaugurating a better way to communicate with you.

First, those of you on this special PSF list will receive an occasional e-mail from me about all things political and governmental at the national, state, and local level from the perspective of someone who spent years inside the Capitol Beltway as well as time out where “real” Americans work and live. As one of my Politically Savvy Friends, I welcome your personal (and off-the-record) insights and comments back, along with any hot tips you have.

Second, you can now visit my web blog called Delano’s Den where I will post publicly (1) an abbreviated version of the PSFs, (2) links to some of my TV news stories and interviews (which you can watch) and print articles, (3) the audio podcasts that I will be renewing at TalkShoe (which I hope you will participate in or listen to later), (4) links to blogs, websites, and candidate homepages, and (5) the obligatory bio of yours truly. I hope you will check all this out and add Delano’s Den to your favorites.

Third, as many of you know, I do all this for fun at my own expense without charging my PSFers for anything. I don’t expect us to agree about everything. Indeed, my PSFers come from all political stripes – super conservative to very liberal – while most of the time I am a “flaming” moderate. My point is to share news, information, and perspective, not to persuade you. As you will hear me say often, this is a great country because of the diversity of our viewpoints. We need to respect that more often.

So, welcome back, PSFers!