The missing Political Middle; the loss of American governance

Thank you, Jeb Bush for putting into words what I have been thinking for quite some time!  How exactly to express my frustration with a National Leadership that is getting absolutely nothing done.  Nothing fair, nothing honest … simply nothing at all.

Washington, D.C. is broken.  And while Jeb Bush touched on one aspect of the problem – the severe hyper-partisan divide, my frustration is centered on another cause of this political stagnation.

What has happened to the Moderate Middle in American politics?!?

First off, allow me to lay the basis of my beliefs for this post:

  • Hyper-partisanism is a problem with BOTH political parties.  The Democrats in Washington are just as hyper-partisan as the Republicans.  A point which former Florida Governor Jeb Bush acknowledged in his e-mail to The Associated Press this week. 
  • There is no such thing as RINOs (Republican In Name Only) or DINOs (Democrat-INO).   

I have a HUGE issue with this blatant misrepresentation, intended to do nothing more than silence all but those on the extreme Right or Left of the political parties.  This is also problem relevant to BOTH parties, although RINO seems to get much more play than DINO.  In my opinion, Liberal Dems are simply more subtle in their efforts to trample over The Middle.

There was a time when the Democrats included conservative elements, such as those in The South known as Dixie Democrats.  There was also a time when there were Liberal Republicans, those who were more liberal on social issues while sticking to the economic virtues extolled by established GOP Conservatives. 

Barry Goldwater, a stalwart Conservative Republican in the ’60s and ’70s was more tolerant in his views on social issues.  Goldwater even appreciated the need for Liberal viewpoints as a counterweight to conservatism.  Anticipating that Somewhere in the Middle the two would meet!

Well, that’s simply not happening anymore …

  • The true and proper context for these misleading labels – assuming we even need them – is CINO (Conservative In Name Only) or LINO (Liberal-INO)
  • The Political Middle is the real issue here.  Moderate political viewpoints and participation serves as a buffer to the far edges of the political spectrum.  And it offers a middle ground for the germination of political compromise. 
  • The problem?  The Political Middle has all but disappeared in this country!

I consider myself a Moderate Republican with conservative leanings.  I believe in Smaller Government, reduced Government spending, and a strong National Defense.  But I also hold more moderate views on Social Issues (e.g. poverty, illegal immigration, LGBT lifestyles, education, and women’s rights).  I believe there are times when increased Government spending is both necessary and unavoidable (e.g. economic crises, natural disaster, military conflict, international leadership). 

I have a pragmatic view about taxes.  I hate like hell paying them.  I despise paying more of them.  But at times you simply have to cringe and bear it.  And yes, some people should pay more if their financial means allow for it, especially when the condition of the fiscal house rivals an EPA Superfund site.

The spread of views I possess apparently classifies me for the title RINO.  Not that I care …

Yet this explains exactly how we have gotten to the point in this country where no National Leader will dare make compromise or reach “across the aisle” to work towards solutions to our very real problems. 

  • It led to President Obama’s decision to throw his own debt reduction plan – Simpson-Bowles Commission – under the bus, because – God forbid – we can’t deal with the specter of social benefit reductions at a time when the federal deficit is roiling out of control!  Don’t want to get on the wrong side of the Liberal political base!
  • It led to the recent attempt to recall Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker for nothing more than his desire to reign in state spending and break the cycle of union-politician cronyism.    
  • It led to the rejection by every single Republican Presidential candidate of the very pragmatic suggestion of increasing tax revenues by $1 for every $10 reduction in government expenditures.  Because – ya know – you don’t want to piss off the Tea Party or Grover Norquist …  

I wholeheartedly agree with Jeb Bush’s statement, “If you could bring to me a majority of people to say that we’re going to have $10 in spending cuts for $1 of revenue enhancement — put me in, coach.” 

Dealing in absolutes in politics is a recipe for stagnation.  Stagnation in Leadership, stagnation in developing solutions to real problems, stagnation in progress, stagnation in a much-needed, too long developing economic recovery.  What you get – what we have now – are both the Left and the Right burrowing down and digging in behind jingoism and intransigence. 

So how did we get here? 

In essence, the Political Middle has abandoned the political field of play to both political extremes.  It’s simple really to understand.  Most people disdain or – perhaps more accurately – are apathetic towards politics, especially given its hateful tone in recent years.  For those with no hard and fast anchors on the more edgy political and social questions of the day, politics are just nasty, dirty, aggravating … a waste of time better spent elsewhere.  In some ways, it’s hard to blame The Middle for its retreat.

On the other hand, those individuals who possess solid political and social issues anchors, see politics as a Means to their Ends.  And this is magnified in those who willingly describe themselves as Ultra-Liberals or Right Wing Conservatives.  For instance, they recognize the importance of the primary vetting process for weeding out Presidential candidates they perceive as weak on their respective anchor issues.  This is why the early primaries in Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire receive such out-of-proportion attention.  By the time those of us in Pennsylvania get the chance to cast a primary vote, the candidate list has been pared down to one or two candidates.  Indeed they will simply be the candidates who could repeat their talking points without making the Left or the Right throw up in their mouths.  

This explains how we so often find our National political choices limited to Evil and The Lesser of Two.  It explains why many well-qualified individuals will forego involvement in politics and the responsibility of civic leadership.  They simply won’t subject themselves to cannibalization by those on the edges of the political spectrum.   

 Yet few of those who survive this vetting ordeal can be elected without the votes of the Political Middle.  And so we see, as soon as the primary process ends, the rush by the annointed candidates to appeal to The Moderate Middle.  Their sole objective: to win a general election so they can continue to pander to the only segments who will pay attention to what they do and say afterwards – The Left and The Right.

And so the cycle repeats.    

What has happened to the Political Middle? 

I guess they think they have better, more important things to do.  They do not appreciate that crucial decisions on issues and problems that could potentially affect them for years are being made without their input, long before they – The Middle – even realizes another Election Day is coming.  And these decisions are not limited to the social issues that drive stalwart Liberals and Conservatives to action.  They include decisions critical to the economy, to education, to fuel and energy prices, the environment, the deficit, and ultimately their futures and the futures of their children. 

The Middle’s political apathy is – mildly put – mind-boggling! 

So while we wait for America’s Political Middle to wake up to today’s reality, the partisans dig in and refuse to budge, refuse to solve, refuse to govern.  The economy continues to falter; the federal deficit continues to grow.  We wait for yet another Presidential election where our choices are weak and uninspiring; all the while knowing, nothing’s going to change regardless of the outcome.

Jeb Bush recognizes part of the problem.  When will we recognize the solution is a formidable, continuous presence of Moderate political voices?

The evolution of a President?!?

It is refreshing to witness President Obama‘s “evolution” on the issue of gay marriage.

His Darwinesque mutation took only three years!!  That’s just the three years he spent in The White House.  Should you discount his two years as an active U.S. Senator, his seven years as a State Senator, and his years serving as a community organizer?  Perhaps gay marriage was never an important issue to him or a conscious thought that simply never crossed his mind.

Interesting that Evolve has suddenly found its way into President Obama’s skill set at a time when so many Liberals choose the very same word as a snarky suggestion to Conservatives who come down on the wrong side of social issues.  Apparently Conservatives weren’t the only ones needing to “evolve”.

Well, at least we can take comfort in knowing this was not a politically motivated “coming out”!  It’s not like he …

  • wanted to avert all eyes from the Economy during a re-election year, or
  • needed a Vice President and Press Secretary to stick their heads up out of the foxhole first to see if it was safe, or
  • was headed for a HUGE George Clooney-organized Hollywood fund-raiser …

George Clooney‘s Obama fundraiser …. oops!

Oh, c’mon … That couldn’t be the reason why this was announced now … in a re-election year … on the eve of a night with deep pocketed, gay and gay-supporting Hollywood types … Could it?!?  Nah ….

The best part is that our Brave, Forward-Thinking, Ground-Breaking President has once again given the objective media chills … be they up Chris Matthews leg or down Robin Roberts back!

I’m just thankful this evolution was totally the result of careful introspection and the need to lead the Nation in the right direction, completely devoid of any political motivation whatsoever!

Next up … Fixing the Economy!!

Now I can get back to figuring out how to help that Nigerian Finance Minister rescue that £150 million …

Lights .. Camera .. Now what was I going to say?

The above title fairly summarizes the level of anxiety I was feeling as the lights came up and the lump in my throat refused my orders to “cease and desist” as I made my first foray into the world of taped-live political TV!  My brain refused to disengage from a memory bank containing several sweat-filled, bumbling presentations before live audiences during my school years or from time-to-time in my early work career.

Those conditions have gotten better over time and with real-life practice; yet it’s not easy to shake those nagging fears. 

Would I freeze in mid-sentence for what seemed like minutes as my speech faculty searched for a word I know I have used thousands of time before, but which is now playing hide-‘n-seek with my panic-addled brain?  Would my facial expression betray a panicked state?  Would I mumble, stumble, take a tumble?

Well, it all panned out rather nicely on Tuesday night in a small, nondescript recording studio in Glenside, PA. 

The cast of characters … Hatboro Mike is second from right.

I think I avoided sounding like an incoherent babbling brook.  I did not spray spittle on camera.  I was able to keep it together.  Then again, I haven’t seen the tape yet …

You always … at least I do … look at your performance in these situations with a hyper-critical eye.  I think I was a bit too stiff; reluctant to “go for the throat” as one co-commentator did; maybe a little over-prepared … to many talking points, not enough free-thinking give ‘n take.

Oh well … This was my first exposure to this medium.  So we’ll chalk it up to a first-time experience and look to improve our stage presence!. 

Abington News and Views will air Off the Record (The title might be changed due to its use elsewhere.) Friday, May 11 at 7:00 PM EDT.

What qualifies one to serve as Pennsylvania’s Attorney General?

As a registered Republican voter and local committeeman, I tend to stay out of Democrat primary contests.  But I appreciate the benefit of having Minority Party participation in positions like Attorney General and Comptroller.  In my opinion, such an arrangement – regardless of which party is in the majority – ensures a system of checks-and-balances that instills confidence in Government. 

 There is no better firewall from the abuses of power than having someone from your opposing party holding onto the purse strings or being the Chief Law Enforcer.  Even if you inherently don’t trust Government, you should find comfort in such arrangements.  

So with this in mind, I must ask the following question …

How is Patrick Murphy qualified to be Pennsylvania’s Attorney General?

Patrick Murphy

Patrick Murphy

Not a problem is Murphy”s failure to take the Pennsylvania Bar Exam.  Lawyers may take the bar in one state and get licensed by other states based on the out-of-state test results.  Murphy claims to have taken Wisconsin’s Bar Exam simply because Wisconsin was known for releasing Bar Exam results faster than other states. including Pennsylvania.  One caveat I add here is the extent to which the PA Bar might be tailored to cover Pennsylvania-specific laws, guidelines, and requirements.

What is an issue is that Patrick Murphy has NEVER prosecuted a criminal case in Pennsylvania!  This is a MAJOR ISSUE!  How does one present themselves as AG material having NEVER experienced a Pennsylvania criminal court.  He’s never been before the judges; never worked with public defenders; never worked with, perhaps never even met the Commonwealth’s AG personnel; has never been a part of PA Justice system’s political network.

I don’t get it.  It’s very difficult to conclude that Murphy would be the Most Qualified to fill the Attorney General’s office.  To me, it smacks of a politician simply look for a paycheck and a place to hang his hat until something better comes along.  Murphy joined other AG candidates in promising to serve their full terms; yet he’s already violated one promise to avoid negative campaign ads just days after making it.  So go figure …

I do not profess to know what Patrick Murphy’s eyes are on.  But I doubt it’s staying on as Pennsylvania’s Attorney General if a more sexy political opportunity arose. 

Kathleen Kane

Kathleen Kane, on the other hand, has served as an Assistant District Attorney for Lackawanna County.  She has fought crime, insurance fraud, sexual abuse and murderers here in Pennsylvania!

A far better choice … if you ask me … as an interested outsider who appreciates the benefits of a highly qualified investigative and enforcement watchdog.

Although I applaud Murphy’s service in the U.S. Army – in Bosnia and Iraq – and the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps.  I just do not believe that experience makes him The Best Choice for Attorney General.  As a Republican, I could see myself voting for Kathleen Kane, not so Patrick Murphy.

The Republican Party has settled on David Freed, current Cumberland County District Attorney since 2006 with DA experience in York and Cumberland County since 1997.  He is obviously well qualified! 

Donald A. Bailey, a civil rights lawyer and perennial Pennsylvania political candidate – for everything from Congressional Representative to Governor – is also running as an independent. 

No Democrat has held the office of Attorney General in Pennsylvania since it became an elected office in 1980.

You read it in the Sunday papers.

This is a regular feature … as in regular, not weekly … of Cranky Man’s Lawn, where we look at – and comment on –  a few articles that catch our eye during my regular … as in weekly … Sunday morning coffee’n paper lounge-about.  My regular Sunday morning read is The Philadelphia Inquirer.  But if you do not get The Inqy delivered to your door, links to the applicable articles are provided as the header to each discussion.

.

Need a watch “dog”?  You can get one for less than $5

Parts of Texas and northwest Louisiana are in the grips of a long-lasting drought.  When drought strikes, it means cattle and sheep cannot be sustained in a way that’s profitable for ranchers.  Aggravating the situation even further is the ragged, slow state of the economy which affects the costs of everything including the price of hay, which is used to feed the herds.  As a result, ranchers have been forced to unload their livestock in order to reduce the financial footprint of the ranching operation.

One unusual consequence of the situation in this region of the country is the releasing of hundreds of donkeys by ranchers who can no longer afford to maintain them, nor can they find buyers when the animals are put on the market.

Apparently, donkeys make exceptional watchmen!   They are able to provide a passive security of sorts for the herds they accompany as they – the donkeys – eat, sleep and live among the cattle and sheep.  The ranchers use FEMALE donkeys to provide security for herds located in isolated pastures on the very large ranches located in this region.  The donkeys are naturally hostile towards wolves and coyotes.  They will even go to lengths to attack them should they come into close proximity!

The problem is that they eat the same hay that the herds eat; so if you are not feeding livestock you don’t have, you don’t need the donkeys or the costs of feeding them.  So what happens is the donkeys are simply set loose or are pushed onto the lands of other ranches … a sort of reverse rustling.

The shame is that the animals are abandoned and left to fend for themselves.  Animal rescue organizations are overwhelmed, their valuable resources used to clean up an unfortunate mess.  So if you could use a sentry animal or a decent burro around your spread, check into acquiring a Watch Donkey.  They’re going cheap!

.

Reading the minds of Supreme Court Justices

This has become a favorite activity of cable and television commentators, political bloggers and analysts, State and Federal officials, and health insurance executives over the past week.  Three days of unprecedented testimony was held this week over the challenge by 26 states, including Pennsylvania over the mandates set forth in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare).

We have seen this coming as early as the day former House Speaker (I still enjoy saying that!) Nancy Pelosi stated that to find out what’s in the bill, Congress would have to pass it!

It was an amazing admission of just how rushed and ill-conceived the Obamacare package really was.  With so much power concentrated in the hands of the Democrats in their heady days when Hope and Change were the agenda, they stupidly threw together a terribly complex and pork laden bill (like Nebraska’s special Medicaid deal to land Senator Ben Nelson’s support) and shoved it down the Legislature’s – and America’s – throat.  Even its favorable and sensible aspects, like covering dependent children until age 26 and ending exclusions for people with pre-existing conditions, may be lost because of the short-sighted hubris of the Democrats.

In The Sunday Inqy’s Business section Chris Mondics Law Review column took a look at the comments and questioning that emanated from the Supreme Court Justices to gauge their leanings on the law.  His take was not good news for the Democrats.

There is no surprise that Justice Antonin Scalia was pointed, sarcastic, and a bit testy with U.S. Solicitors representing the Administration’s case in favor of the law.  But the questioning coming from Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy were much more troubling for the Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress.  Both Roberts and Kennedy have been seen as the only hope for a majority decision in favor of Obamacare; yet neither seemed impressed with the Administration’s arguments.  Worse yet for the besieged healthcare law, both also seemed unlikely to let separate parts of the bill stand if the central buttress – the individual mandate – gets overturned.

The Democrats should have seen this coming the moment Nancy Pelosi opened her mouth!

The funny thing is, if the Democrats had framed the healthcare law as a tax to pay for national coverage, similar to Medicaid, it most likely would have passed muster with the Supreme Court.  But no, they were not committed enough to covering the uninsured to go to that great length.  Why?  Because they KNEW the word “TAX” would have cost them enormous political capital and a few elections along the way.  I guess being in power and staying there was just a tad more important than universal healthcare, eh?

By the way, if you have ever had a meltdown speaking in front of an audience during an important presentation, listen to find audio of Soliciter General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. hemming and hawing; uhing and duhing; gulping copious amounts of water; and rambling barely coherently during his presentation on the individual mandate.  It goes on and on for much, much longer than presented in the link.  One wonders if he suddenly realized as he began his presentation, “Sh*t, this law really is unconstitutional!”

.

U.S. Navy and environmental pollution

Seems the U.S. Navy has been getting a lot of attention from environmental groups over it SINKEX program, under which they tow old out-of-commission ships to sea and allow Navy ships to hit them with bombs, torpedos, and missiles until the sink.  They do this quite naturally to give its sailors the chance to use the same weapons they will be called upon to use in a real ocean conflict.

The problem?  The ships often contain unacceptable levels of toxins from PCBs to asbestos.

I won’t get into the rest of the article, which makes a lot of good points about sinking toxins in the ocean.  Instead I wanted to address the work being done by the Navy in its efforts to REDUCE the environmental footprint it leaves on the oceans it travels through and operates in.

For several years I have worked with a group responsible for environmental policies applicable to all Navy ships, though I have not worked directly in any of these programs.  The Navy has spent a lot of money on reducing the amounts and types of garbage they eject from their ships every day.  All ships do this, from those luxury cruise ships you like to travel on to those tankers and cargo vessels our economies rely upon.

Garbage in the form of biodegradables like foods, some paper products, and human waste generally present no harm to the ocean environment provided they are treated in some way before disposal.  Other trash like plastics, styrofoam, caustic solutions and industrial products are another story altogether, and should never be dumped into the seas.

The Navy has been working deliberately and diligently to eliminate the dumping of any non-biodegradable substances into the oceans.  The fleet is under strict guidelines to prevent to eliminate the need to dump dangerous substances into the ocean.  The Navy has re-engineered the way it collects, handles, and removes harmful substances that are unavoidably generated by ships holding hundreds – if not thousands – of sailors along with their weapons, aircraft, and equipment.

I have worked for a short time on one program that dealt with the handling and disposal of trash generated aboard nuclear submarines as they spend upwards of six months cruising – non-stop at times – around the world’s oceans.  You can not grasp the difficulty of this effort to reduce ocean pollutants until you appreciate the problems faced with the mess that gets created aboard a cramped, closed system – essentially a tube filled with people, electronic equipment, and war fighting capability.

Suffice it to say, the U.S. Navy has been doing a heck of a job in getting on top of their waste issue and in its efforts to eliminate to the extent possible its fleet’s impact on the ocean environment!

.

Generation Y is having a difficult time with life after college.

This post is already getting a bit too “wordy” as my friend, Bob likes to remind me; so I’ll leave you to read the specifics of the series in The Inqy that started on Sunday about the problems college graduates are having finding work  in a stifled economy.

I have one son just out of Millersville University and exploring the job market.  But he just completed his requirements in December, so he’s fairly new to the market.  And my youngest is a freshman now at Temple University.  So the details of Generation Y’s post-college job market frustrations is of particular interest.

I was not really sure how to take the stories provided in The Inquirer article.  I guess I hope that these are the worst case scenarios.  But as a parent you worry.  You want the best for them.  Who wouldn’t?

So my message to my sons – all three of them – is to make sure you are making the right decisions as you build your background and your resume’.  Don’t take shortcuts.  Don’t blow off classes.  Don’t be satisfied with “OK grades”.  Maintain your flexibility when it comes to future employment opportunities and career choices, unless you are truly fixed on a very specific field of study and profession.  Don’t limit yourself to specific jobs to certain employers in limited geographic areas.

The reality is that you could do everything right and still not land a suitable opportunity.  But a well-developed resume’ and maximum personal flexibility should give you the best chance of getting a job of which you can be proud.

Good luck to them and to all who are searching for a fair post-college opportunity!

“Game Change”, HBO’s new Democrat-umentary

democratumentary – (def) a media production presented as a “documentary” when it really only addresses issues and events from a subjective point-of-view favorable to the Democratic Party. 

I try not to be a cynic.  I really do.  But when it comes to politics, I am no longer a match for the machinations of those on the National political stage.  And when they are joined by willing sycophants in the media and entertainment industries, it’s about all I can stand without blowing a Cranky Man gasket! 

My latest migraine comes courtesy of the abomination made by HBO of the best-selling book Game Change, authored by John Heileman and Mark Halperin following the 2008 presidential election. 

If you happened to watch this HBO democratumentary this past Sunday (I didn’t, and won’t; and why will become obvious to you as you read this.), please take a moment and read my review of the book Game Change, written for this blog back in January 2011.  And as you read my review, see if you can identify what was left out of the HBO democratumentary.

(Cranky hums the Jeopardy theme song as he patiently waits for his readers as they enjoy another brilliant Cranky Man piece.)

That’s right!  Not a single mention, character casting, or on-screen appearance of any significance by any Democrat that participated in that 2008 presidential election!  Not a single one …

This despite that the dominant theme of Game Change – the book –  was the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama battle in the Democrat primaries, and the harrowing details of John Edwards’ disastrous campaign and failing marriage! 

Not a peep …

I had seen several of the teasers and promos for the HBO democratumentary, and kept wondering where was the Clinton-Obama characters?  What about the confrontation between the two on the tarmac of Reagan National Airport?  Where was the controversy over the Clinton campaign’s speculation on past drug use by Obama and rumors of his Muslim roots?  Where was the grab-you-by-the-collar stories of John and Elizabeth Edwards’ constant fights and dysfunction?      

Nowhere, that’s where …

It’s gets even uglier – as in Rielle ugly – when you peruse the political donations of the cast and production executives that worked on the democratumentary. 

Tom Hanks, producer well over $100, 000 to the DNC since 1994, $36,500 to liberal causes like SEN Al Franken’s Midwest Values.  Republicans: not a dime

Ed Harris (SEN John McCain), $9500 to Democratic candidates, $11,975 to liberal special-interest groups like MoveOn.org.  Republicans: squat, nada, nil

Woody Harrelson (Steve Schmidt, McCain-Palin chief strategist), $4,300 to Democratic candidates, $3,500 to liberal causes like GreenVote.  Republicans: zip, zero, zilch

Jay Roach, director/co-executive producer, $15,800 to Democrats; Republicans?  You should be recognizing the theme by now!

Julianne Moore (Sarah Palin), $2,250 to Democrats, $7,500 to DNC, Democratic White House Victory Fund and special-interest groups.  Republicans: Everybody join in!

Danny Strong, co-executive producer, $2500 to Obama Victory Fund.  Republicans: a big wet willie 

You don’t need someone to draw the picture for you.  It’s just sitting there plain as day.

You would think the movie-based-on-the-book would have at least addressed in some way the REAL Game Change in 2008, Barack Obama as the first African-American President.  But that story had to be ignored, to avoid the ugliness of the Democrats’ 2008 campaign and to maximize the spotlight on the Republican-Sarah Palin debacle.

Afterall, you never want to beat the horse you’re betting on.      

(Shout out to reader Mark D for tipping me to the donation information.)

Lady Allyson of the 1%

Democracy can be a tough nut to crack.  But it gets so much harder in this day and age if you have neither the power nor the money that your opponent can muster and use to keep you at bay.

Nate Kleinman

This was the lesson Nate Kleinman learned this week in his bid to challenge Representative Allyson Schwartz for the Democratic nomination in the Pennsylvania 13th Congressional District.

Kleinman is a human rights activist and political organizer within the Democratic Party.  He has worked for President Obama and Joe Sestak in his failed U.S. Senate bid.  He is also considered the first Occupy Wall Street political candidate.  But he really had no chance against the very well-financed, very well-connected Schwartz.

REP Allyson Schwartz (D-PA 13)

REP Allyson Schwartz (D-PA 13)

Allyson Schwartz, currently serving her fourth term, has always been a savvy fund-raiser, and is reported to have in excess of $2.3 million in her war chest.  Her only Republican challenger is Joe Rooney, a former U.S. Marine fighter pilot and current resident of Ardsley.

Schwartz’s funding for the 2011-12 election cycle came primarily from large individual contributors (57%) and Political Action Committees (38%), only 3% came from small individual contributors.  Her biggest corporate and association sponsors include Comcast Corp, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and the American Association of  Orthopaedic Surgeons.  Her top industry support comes from lawyers, health professionals, pharmaceuticals and insurance companies.

Not exactly residents of the 99%

You would think that with all that fire power behind her, the last thing Allyson Schwartz needed was the appearance that she was insensitive to the interests of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Yet when it came to Nate Kleinman, Allyson Schwartz went for the throat.  She could out spend, out fund-raise, out network, and out wait just about any in-party challenge with one hand tied behind her back.  Not to mention the difficulty such an insurgent Democrat faces in getting any form of support from within The Establishment of the DNC when running against such a successful incumbent.

Challenging the validity of nomination petition signatures (required to qualify to appear on Election Day ballots) has become a regular tool for suppressing political opposition.  It’s the quick and dirty way to score a knockout; yet it rarely works to the satisfaction of the petition challenger.

The petition challenge has become one of the accepted political practices with which I have a problem.  When did it became acceptable to silence opposition in the public square?  It smacks of fear for open debate.  It makes a candidate look petty, aloof, and overbearing.  But as bad as that looks, it gets even worse when the conqueror decides to machine-gun the life rafts.

And this is the part of the Kleinman episode that makes Allyson Schwartz look ruthless and more than a little afraid.

Last week, Kleinman decided to withdraw his name from the ballot as a formal challenger to Schwartz’s Congressional seat.  Instead he decided to continue his candidacy by seeking to win the April 24 primary via write-in ballots.

As if Democracy wasn’t already hard enough.

The reason Kleinman decided to throw his lot with the Hail Mary of write-in ballots is the tortured hell that Schwartz’s campaign intended to put Kleinman through just to keep his candidacy hidden from the Democratic voters of the PA 13th.  In a move reminiscent of Richard Nixon-esque dirty tricks, the Allyson Schwartz campaign pushed the nominating petition issue to the extent that Kleinman, who has no real political organization, would have had to spend weeks of his own time sitting down with Schwartz’s rather ample campaign staff to go over each and every individual petition signature to prove their validity or to rehabilitate questionable entries.

In other words, keep Mr. Kleinman penned up in a conference room, off the street, out of the public’s view, and away from any potential media attention.

And just when Nate Kleinman was standing there like a deer in the headlights, the Schwartz campaign pulled out the napalm by filing a claim that would have required Kleinman to pay the legal costs incurred by the Schwartz campaign!  It’s a legal option for the campaign to request that Nate Kleinman pay legal fees,” says Rachel Magnuson, Rep. Allyson Schwartz’s Chief of Staff.

Nice …

And since Kleinman’s “campaign war chest” totals just $10-15,000., as compared to Schwartz’s $2.3 million, it’s not hard to see what that move was all about.  It was an attempt to threaten Nate Kleinman with personal financial retribution for having dared to challenge Lady Allyson of the 1%!

Cranky Man for America!

I struggled with this post for the better part of a week.  I wanted to try something different … a bit tongue-in-cheek.  A chance to spout off a bit about the current GOP primary cycle.  But I couldn’t come up with the right tone through this “brainstorm” of mine that would help generate a healthy debate over the woeful state of our national politics.

Here follows the first part of the drafted post. 

It is with Pride in America and Commitment to its Fundamental Beliefs that I announce my availability for Nomination as the Republican Party’s candidate for President of the United States of America! 

I stand ready to serve should The Party remain uncommitted and un-commitable to its current slate of candidates.

I cannot describe this effort as a “run” for the Presidency. 

As one with the 99%, I neither possess the funds nor the connections to launch a full throttle charge for the Nation’s Highest Office.  This will be more like a Stroll Towards Pennsylvania Avenue.  And – as befits a man who writes a blog dedicated in part to his Passion for Lawn Turf, this will have to succeed as a true Grass Roots Movement!

The post went on and on – much more so than I am willing to admit – as if I was half-heartedly tossing my hat in the ring, hoping to be carried into The Oval Office on the shoulders of the 99%. 

But even as I intended it as a humorous verbal assault on Hubris and the failings of Political Ambition, I realized I sounded politically ambitious and full of hubris.  Go figure!

I also came to realize, it’s not really all that funny.  And it’s certainly not limited to this cycle’s waning stable of GOP candidates, or even just the Presidential part of our National Politics. 

And so, like a few other blog ideas that sounded great as they bounced around in my head, I have abandoned that effort and decided on a more direct discussion of why National Politics in America Suck … is so frustrating. 

Maybe you all can help me figure out why.

More on this later.  Right now I’ve got to take a shower and get this icky feeling off me!

Rick Santorum, Values over Politics

I have always admired Rick Santorum as a politician.  You know what he believes; what he values; and more importantly where he will stand next week, next month, next year.  He can not sneak up on anyone.  His positions are well-known; and he sticks to what he believes regardless of how unpopular those views and values are with certain segments of the electorate.

From a political point-of-view, Rick Santorum is a breath of fresh air. 

That is why this moderate Pennsylvania Republican has always found Santorum to be a sound choice among state and national politicians.  Santorum’s stance on social issues – whether you agree or vehemently disagree  – are honest to a fault; based on a foundation of personal belief; and never affected by the expediencies of political popularity. 

This is important because I have become disgusted with the nature of National Politics and National Politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle.  The vitriol, the skullduggery, the deliberate efforts to undermine progress on the National Agenda has exceeded my patience.  It has gotten to the point that I prefer to limit my political interests and activities to local issues and offices. 

So when it comes to politics on the National Level, I’ll take predictable, principled, and reliable over swaying with the breeze of Public Opinion.  The Best Man should win over The Best Politician every time!

You do not see this principled approach from Mitt Romney, who is universally recognized as a politician that moves effortlessly from one position to another depending on how the political winds blow.  

You will not see President Obama taking politically unpopular positions on issues such as gay marriage – despite his steep Liberal Inclinations – or the sacrifices needed to save Social Security and the National Budget in a re-election year.  Remember the Simpson-Bowles Deficit Commission???  President Obama wishes you wouldn’t. 

Many fear Rick Santorum for the personal values he holds and the potential for how those values would play out in the realm of social issues.  This anxiety is not new.  Every conservative candidate for President has been feared by their liberal counterparts for their stance on social issues.  In Santorum’s case, the reaction is more visceral because he will not abandon those positions when campaigning.  He did it in his unsuccessful bid to win re-election to The Senate in 2006; and he is doing it now as well.  

But Fear of Santorum is misplaced based on what I would refer to as The Oval Office Effect.

  • The Presidency changes you.  Just ask President Obama.  Examine what happened to his pledges to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as he entered The Office, or how quickly his promise to empty Guantanamo Bay of terrorists in order to try them on U.S. soil went by the wayside.  Then ask yourself, what did he learn in the intervening months of transition that undoubtably changed his “hard and fast” campaign positions?   
  • When one ascends to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, layers and layers of National Responsibility are revealed and the weight of those charges is enough to make any President mindful of ALL the People he is bound to protect and serve.
  • John F. Kennedy‘s candidacy in 1960 faced some of the same fears of Religious Influence.  Many in the country feared his ties to the Vatican – solely because he was an active, practicing Catholic – as an open door for The Pope to influence U.S. policy and international relations.  Those fears were never realized.
  • A President is a National Leader, yet he controls only one-third of the Government’s check-and-balance structure.  All Presidents enter The Office with their own sets of values, priorities, and bases of power … be they Liberal or Conservative, religious or secular, progressive or populist.  The effects these positions have on public policy are limited through parlays with the House and Senate, as well as the challenge of running the gauntlet of Judicial Review.        
  • Mid-term elections in the House of Representatives offer the possibility of drastically changing political coalitions.  The threat that an entire National Agenda can be waylaid by such shifts in the political orientation of Congress tends to reign in the more controversial tendencies of any President.

None of this would reflect a change in Santorum’s long-held values.  But it does speak to the practical political reality of affecting sweeping changes to social policy based on those values.  

This rationalization will mean nothing to those on the opposite end of the Political Spectrum from Rick Santorum.  But for those who are more moderate in their politics and in their views on social issues, it is important to consider the political realities of National Leadership and to resist the temptation to toss aside such a principled politician as Rick Santorum simply because his position on social issues is seen as controversial or unpopular.

Joe Rooney for Pennsylvania’s 13th Congressional District

If you are a Republican living in the Pennsylvania 13th Congressional District***and have been waiting for a fiscally conservative candidate to mount a serious challenge to the liberal Allyson Schwartz, this could be your year.  Joe Rooney, a former U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot, is the lone candidate seeking to take on Schwartz this November.  His message of fiscal responsibility and American optimism will play well from Northeast Philly to Lansdale and King of Prussia.

As background, I went to my first Congressional meet ‘n greet in 2010 as a member of the Horsham Republican Committee (HRC).  That year the MontCo and Philly GOP organizations entertained a slate of four or five candidates running to oppose Ms. Schwartz, a popular and well-financed liberal Democrat Congresswoman.  I remember a long, long evening of seemingly endless, rambling monologues that failed to connect, let alone inspire.  I knew that night Schwartz would have little trouble winning re-election.

But at this year’s meet ‘n greet Joe Rooney turned out to be a pleasant, refreshing surprise for the 2012 election cycle.  His background, leadership, and values will play well to both moderates and conservatives concerned about the economic future of the country.  His home page offers a hint to Mr. Rooney’s motivation in representing the people of the 13th:

“America is the most powerful nation in the world.  However, we are in danger of damaging the future of this great nation by blatantly ignoring the ongoing fiscal crisis.”

It’s a message with which any hard-working head-of-household, retiree, unemployed worker or mortgage holder can empathize.  National fiscal health results in a robust economy that begets more job opportunities, better wages and a safe, secure path into the future.  And Rooney’s background is indicative of strong leadership that makes tough decisions and possesses the strength and commitment to see them through.

Joe served for twenty-three years as Marine Corps pilot of F-4 Phantoms and the F-18 Hornets, retiring as a Lt. Colonel.  And as good a pilot as he was, Beth – his wife of  25 years – was one of the Navy’s first female pilots and just the second woman to graduate from the prestigious US Navy Test Pilot School!

In person, Joe Rooney is a direct, no-nonsense speaker with a genuine populist message.  I found Joe to be personable, intelligent, and focused on the message he believes is important both to the people of Pennsylvania and to America’s future.  He is also well aware of the difficulties he faces in trying to unseat a popular Congressional Democrat with a huge campaign war chest. 

Joe Rooney is an American Optimist. 

 “The American economy can be the engine that drives the rest of the world out of the economic hole that currently exists.”   –  Joe Rooney

When Joe addressed our group, he referred to the view of America as that “Shining City on a Hill” – made popular by President Ronald Reagan – that portrays America as a land for Hope, Progress and Leadership.  The above quote illustrates his view that America can lead the global economy to recovery so long as we can get our own fiscal house in order.   

The Rooney’s live in Ardsley, PA and have five children, including a daughter currently serving in the US Navy aboard the USS KLAKRING and a son attending the US Air Force Academy, studying to become a fighter pilot.  Joe, who graduated from Bishop McDevitt High School, flies and captains B737s for Delta Airlines.

The biggest obstacle to a successful run by Joe Rooney in the PA 13th is FINANCIAL!  Allyson Schwartz is a deeply rooted, popular liberal Congresswoman, with a staggering financial advantage.  So please take a good look at Joe Rooney’s message and consider contributing to – or volunteering for –  the Joe Rooney for Congress campaign!

***  Important Note:  The judicial decision that threw a wrench into Pennsylvania’s attempt to redraw state legislative voting districts DOES NOT affect the redistricting of national Congressional Districts.  So the redrawn boundaries for the 13th Congressional District will be used for the 2012 primary and general elections.  Click the link to see if your vote will be included in the new PA 13th.