Tomorrow is Election Day in the Commonwealth. Now that the presidential race is largely locked up, attention focuses on our Senate primary to take on Sen. Bob Casey. For those of you who only loosely follow politics in the Keystone State, this is a great article summing up the problems the GOP has created for itself in this race.
For those who don’t follow Pennsylvania politics, well, the state Republican Party powers that be endorsed a guy who wanted to host a fundraiser for very liberal (and extremely anti-gun) Joe Sestak and was a Democrat who voted for Obama in 2008. In the lead is a guy who was a Democrat for 40 years and hasn’t even been a Republican long enough to have voted in a GOP primary before. Somewhere between those two is Sam Rohrer who has already shown he’s not so great at running a statewide campaign when he made bizarre campaign investments in his failed gubernatorial race.
So you might see why Republicans in Pennsylvania are kinda “eh” about the whole thing. Here are a few funny quotes I’ve found in the media surrounding the race:
Welch [the GOP endorsed former Democrat] is hoping the high amount of undecided voters — even in Smith’s own most recently released survey, about a third of the Republican electorate was undecided — will gravitate to him.
I love the logic of this businessman. If a voter tells a pollster they are undecided, they will come to me! Unfortunately, that’s flawed logic. We’re undecided, but I know my indecision is over which non-Welch candidate will get my vote. I will not reward the state party officials who handpicked pretty much the worst possible candidate. It will be a blow to the party, and maybe a few more county leaders will oppose the endorsement process all together next time.
Next is the view of a voter:
“Most of the time, it’s Election Day before I make up my mind,†said Richard Beard, a dinner attendee from nearby Chambersburg, Pa., who couldn’t name the Republican candidates.
What dinner was he attending? The area GOP dinner. This is someone who cares enough about the party to show up to dinners with potential presidential candidates. Yet he can’t name any of the GOP candidates in the primary, much less the party-backed candidate. Yes, that my friends is what we call enthusiasm. And that’s what awaits us for November.
That said, we will both be at the doors to the school as soon as they open tomorrow morning. Make sure you know which Congressional district you are in this year since those maps changed. NRA is endorsing in the primaries in the new PA-4 (old PA-19), PA-17 (dramatically redrawn), and PA-18.
I’ve been somewhat active in the Romney campaign, and, until today, really didn’t know much about the senatorial campaign. It doesn’t seem as if the Republican party has been concentrating on this one much, but I would certainly agree that beating Obama in November is job #1. Still it’s important to have people friendly to the Second Amendment in Congress and the Senate as well. Thanks for your blog. A friend in California just sent the link to me. :)
I’ll be happily voting for a nominee for President who is the best candidate out there: Ron Paul. And we’ll see if the presidential race is really locked up.
Ive been active in the 39th district campaign, where we have Rick Saccone (co-sponsor of Constitutional Carry+) being challenged by Shaunna DeLessandro, who has been accused by democrats of running to be interference or drop out if she wins, so former rep (and anti-gun unless you are a hunter) Levdansky can sail to victory in Nov, if he is to win.
If you would like to see who is favorable to firearms rights in PA, you should see the FOAC endorsement list. The questionnaire is much more detailed than the NRA’s.
http://www.foac-pac.org/
I respect FOAC for all the hard work they perform and did belong to FOAC at one time but endorsing Ron Paul for President? Really? Seriously?
This guy likes to bury his head in the sand regarding Foreign Policy (see UN meeting this summer to ‘try’ to ban individuals right to keep arms) and his stance regarding our Armed Forces leaves much to be desired.
http://www.foac-pac.org/component/content/article/43-guides/50-zone5
I would not trust him with any of my rights.
Well, he is the only candidate that has a full understanding of the Second Amendment. He would do everything in his power to repeal pretty much all gun control laws. If you care about gun rights, he pretty much is your only choice in the presidential election.
As for his foreign policy- he wouldn’t even have the US be a member of the UN, so they would have no power to ban arms in this country. As for his stance on our Armed Forces- he wants to keep our troops alive and defending our country by bringing them home. There is a reason his top 3 donors are active members of the US Army, US Air Force, and US Navy.
And you’re crazy if you don’t trust him with your rights, since he’s the only one of the candidates the actually cares about rights and liberty.
Beyond the issue of your ideal candidate, just how to do you think endorsing a candidate who cannot win the GOP nomination is a good use of political capital? I don’t mean he can’t win because people won’t vote for him today or in coming weeks, I mean that he can’t win due to the rules he agreed to play by – delegate counts and winning at least one state.
Well, given that he already won two states, and that he does have a possibility of winning the delegate count, I think its a good use. And he favors positively against Obama in polling.
Honestly, I hate the electability argument, because its self-fulfing. Let’s decide on candidates positions, not their electability.
If we did that, maybe we wouldn’t get junk like Romney who will be just as bad as Obama (just in a different way).
Show me the math on how 75 delegates (according to the WSJ) turns into 1,144 delegates. And which states are you claiming he won? I don’t see a single one on the winner maps, and I would be shocked if I missed those headlines.
He has won the majority of delegates in Iowa and Minnesota.
His strategy has always been that delegates count. Yes, he only has 75 pledged right now, but over 1,000 delegates have yet to be pledged. And Santorum’s delegates are there. And Newt may drop out, and his delegates may be there. And if Romney can’t secure 1,144 delegates on the first ballot, the pledge delegates can vote for who ever they want.
Is it a small chance? Probably. But its still chance. The convention is going to be very interesting.
According to WSJ, Iowa’s delegate split went like this: 13 to Santorum & Romney (each) and 1 to Paul. 1 < 13 Same source for Minnesota: 19 for Santorum, 17 for Paul, 1 to Newt & Mitt (each). 17 < 19 None of your facts match the record. Not to mention, Newt has already said he won't drop out and he's taking his delegates to the convention. He's clearly done campaigning since he was spotted having dinner last night outside of DC while ignoring his campaign here in Pennsylvania, but he's not giving up his delegates.
Then you need to look harder. A simple search for Ron Paul Minnesota gets you what you need. But here’s a link:
http://twitter.com/#!/patandersonmn/status/193855672230739968
Ron Paul gets 20-24 delegates in Minnesota.
WSJ’s site is just an estimate based on the popular vote. But you need to read up on how the delegate process actually works. Its crazy. Iowa’s actually delegates haven’t even been selected yet.
Patrick H,
I respect your opinion and thoughts on Ron Paul. However, gun rights are an important issue for me…but not the only issue I consider when voting for any candidate. Ron Paul does not fit my qualifications in the reality of today’s world in the grand scheme of things.
Let’s take a look at some facts regarding Ron Paul:
1.)Assumed office as a US Congressman in Texas (overall speaking a huge 2A and conservative state) first in Jan 1979. With his on/off status as a US Congressman, he has served a total of approximately 21/22 years.
2.) Has never been elected to any higher office Governor, US Senator, etc.) in Texas than a local Congressman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
These facts – in a very Red state – tells me something. And this is my own opinion of course, that even in a very Red State state as Texas, he has not taken that next step for higher position shows for whatever reason is unwilling to take that next step. This would indicate to me he has not lead a larger group of constituants nor as large leadership experience. Case in point – our current debacle of a President.
Yes, he resigned from the Republican party in 1987 and ran on the Libertarian ticket…and well, the rest is history on that election result.
OK, so let’s take a look at his history then in the 22 or so years as a US Congressman. Here’s another interesting fact from the wikipedia article:
“TenureLegislation
Main article:
List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul
Of the 620 bills that Paul had sponsored through December 2011, over a period of more than 22 years in Congress, only one had been signed into law – a lifetime success rate of less than 0.3%.[48] The sole measure authored by Paul that was ultimately enacted allowed for a federal customhouse to be sold to a local historic preservation society (H.R. 2121 in 2009).[48]”
These facts stated above and several of his responses during the various Republican debates tells me all I need to know about Ron Paul.
Not to mention, he’s happy to use pork spending to stay in office.
Not that trope again. This is like somebody still arguing that Zimmerman wasn’t injured at all by Martin.
There is nothing wrong with Paul using pork spending to stay in office. He consistently votes against the spending bills. Since they are already passed, and he believes that the money should never have left his constituents anyway, there is nothing wrong with ensuring that they at least benefit from that money.
Let me get this straight. You’re saying that because I consider pork to be a bad thing, and Ron Paul embraces pork spending, that it’s just like me arguing the exact facts of a self-defense case? I can’t even say that’s apples and oranges because that’s like comparing apples and Pluto – either the dog or the former planet.
I’ve often said that the biggest hurdle Ron Paul (and Sam Rohrer in the old gubernatorial race/current Senate race) has is his supporters. When you start making really wild comparisons like that, it doesn’t do anything to support your candidate.
I’m saying that its not fair to attack Ron Paul on pork spending just like its not fair to say that Zimmerman was injured. The facts clearly don’t justify either.
Again- he doesn’t support the spending of money on those things that he gets for his district. He votes against them every single time. If he was for them, wouldn’t he vote for them? BUT since the money is going to be spent anyway, instead of letting his constituents get screwed out of the money (that he didn’t want to be taken in the first place), he helps bring as much as that money back. So at least they will get something out it.
Now tell me, what is exactly wrong with that? Nothing. Its straw man that people like use to “prove” Ron Paul is bad, while ignoring the many, many, many other good things he supports.
The biggest hurdle to Ron Paul is people who don’t understand him, and attack his supporters for making logical arguments.
Facts do line up on the Ron Paul situation. There are earmarks with his name on them. That means he sponsored them. That’s pretty clear evidence.
But that says nothing at all really. And he votes against the bill despite that.
The fact is still that the money will still be spent, even after he votes against them. So all he is doing is getting that money back.
Really, what is wrong with that?
This argument is a red herring.
I’m sorry, but this doesn’t wash. Money from the Federal Government is Bribe Money, pure and simple. Half of it is wasted on Bureaucrats, to boot, and accepting it increases dependency on Government that destroys your moral character.
While I’m not so principled that I haven’t yet turned down an unearned income credit (besides which, I justify it as a way to cancell out all those taxes and fees Gov’t foists on me), I still feel slimy and icky accepting it.
Even if Ron Paul votes against that spending, he’s still just as guilty of bribing people with money taken from them at gunpoint, and this reason alone tells me Paul is yet another politician just playing The Game.
(Besides which, how is this all that different from Gingrich’s House of Reps, who voted five times for term limits, so that all the Republicans could say they voted for it, even though ultimately the amendment never passed?)
He doesn’t support it- at all. He votes against it.
But that money is going to be spent anyway. Should he just let others take the money that he didn’t want to give them? Or should he try to get some of it back for his constituents?
He’s not playing the Game, he’s doing the best he can for his people. He knows it would be better for the money to never have left, but he can at least try to get it back.
And besides, even if I accept this one little thing he does (and I don’t), the rest of his record MORE than makes up for it.
For starters, he is the only Congressmen to consistently RETURN money from his office budget.
Really? This is why you don’t like Ron Paul? He has run for President three times, and each time garnered more and more support. It has taken time for his message to reach the votes. Before the internet, it was very hard to get it out. Now that it is a major part of life, he is getting 20% or more of the vote in every race. His biggest supports are the young and military- aka the future of this country.
As for his voting record- he has consistently voted against every single gun control measure out there, as well as sponsoring many many others. And that’s just on gun rights, not to mention other rights. Nobody comes CLOSE to his voting record. And just because he cannot get bills past doesn’t mean that he didn’t do a good job. Its not his fault that the rest of Congress (that’s to people who voted them in are “electability” reasons) don’t care about the people and their rights.
So now we will be possibly stuck with somebody who created ObamaCare and loves gun control. Great.
All I can say is thank God that the NC GOP can’t officially endorse a candidate. While it does make the party much less important than in states like PA, at least the guy or gal that wins the primary got there on their own.
I like Utah’s Caucus system for similar reasons. Even if the Party opposes a given candidate, with enough legwork, you can convince delegates to vote for you, and go against the grain.
While not perfect, it certainly reduces the power of the Party Establishment!