Category: 2010 Election

Eric is a little understandably frustrated the GOP could have had Pelosi’s health care bill dead as a doornail if they had just not floated the Stupak Amendment to restrict abortion coverage in the bill. By voting for Stupak, the GOP allowed the Dems to pick up a number of key votes they needed in order to pass. I also wonder whether Stupak was strategically smart for the purpose of stopping Pelosicare, but I’m also aware that it’s not a guarantee the bill would have been stopped, and that the GOP has to consider what pro-life voters are going to think.

It’s a tough position for the GOP to be in. Imagine if there had been an assault weapons ban attached to the health care bill? Would we have forgiven the GOP for just letting it happen? Probably not. The GOP did what it had to do to placate an important constituency that votes in large numbers. I’m sympathetic to arguments that they could have used the abortion issue to kill health care entirely, possibly by voting “present” on the bill. But can you imagine the backlash if that had happened, and Pelosi managed to pick up the votes for passage anyway? Pelosi barely passed this bill, but I wouldn’t make the mistake of believing she didn’t have several other Blue Dog Dems who were willing to switch their votes to yes if needed. She got as many votes as she needed to pass, and then let the other Blue Dogs save their seats by voting no.

I am with Eric on the abortion issue, as it does not rank that high on my list of issues, and I don’t advocate it being illegal. But I’m also aware it’s a powerful issue for driving votes. While neither Bitter nor I are anti-abortion activists, my anti-gun Congressman, Patrick Murphy, voted in favor of Pelosicare and against the Stupak Amendment, while claiming to be a good Catholic. Come election time, I will have no compunction about going around to the catholic churches in the neighborhoods during mass, and doing lit drops to let people know how Murphy voted. Any chair in a bar fight.

Just received this via e-mail:

I want to personally invite you to a special Townhall on Tuesday, November 17 at the Spring Township Fire Department, 2301 Monroe Avenue in West Lawn, PA.  I’m organizing this forum to announce the decision on the race for governor, and begin a statewide conversation about the challenges and real opportunities facing Pennsylvania.

I’m going to guess that’s going to be an announcement that he’s running. I like Representative Rohrer, but as I’ve said, it’s without historical precedent for a state rep to make the leap to Governor. He’s a champion of limited government, and for that I admire him, but he’s going up against Attorney General Tom Corbett, who’s a proven winner in a statewide race, and Jim Gerlach, who is a U.S. Congressman, and has proven repeatedly he can win very tough elections in a swing district.

I’d much rather support Sam Rohrer for a higher office like State Senator, Auditor General, or some other state wide office. I suspect Rep. Rohrer is just trying to get his name out there, and get some of his ideas into the debate. That’s good. I will lend support to his candidacy. But it’s quite a long shot, and at the end of the day we can’t afford another 8 years of the same kind of things we’ve seen with Governor Ed.

A few days ago Politico ran a story about how Lieberman was going to block Harry Reid’s plan on Health Care, and now he says he’s going to back Republicans in the 2010 elections. Someone in the Dem leadership or in the White House must have pissed in his Wheaties for him to take it this far.

Not much I agree with Andrew Sullivan on these days, but I agree with what he says here:

If I were a GOP strategist, I’d obviously urge an independent-focused message based on skepticism of government mixed with a real practical agenda for change. I’d focus on the Congress, not Obama. […] On social issues, the emerging pattern is clear: Americans are increasingly troubled by abortion on demand (although a plurality clearly favors legal abortion), they are increasingly hostile to gun control, and they are increasingly supportive of gay equality. These trends appear to be real and holding over time. It makes me feel quite the centrist. For the GOP, the message is pretty clear: mellow a little (but not much) on abortion. stick to your, er, gins on the Second Amendment, and for goodness’s sake, stop the gay-bashing.

That’s an agenda I’d buy into. But is the GOP listening?

pa2010.com is reporting that Sam Rohrer is going to throw his hat into the GOP primary for Governor. I am a big fan of Rep. Rohrer. He is the sponsor of the Pennsylvania Firearms Freedom Act, and stands up for the 10th Amendment. I can’t help but admire a state rep willing to give the proverbial middle finger toward Washington, even if it’s a relatively symbolic one.

But as much as I might want to see him make the big leap someday, trying it from State Representative is a bit too ambitious, historically, for I have to go back to 1858 before I can find someone who went from State Representative to Governor, and he was a Speaker of the House at that.

So I want to encourage Rep. Rohrer to think about a better position from which to make the great leap:

• State Senator
• US Congressman
• Federal Appointed High Office
• Civil War General

We regret that the last option is likely closed to Representative Rohrer, but Pennsylvania elected no less than three consecutive Civil War Generals to that high office, one of which later went on to become a territorial Governor of Kansas, and then the first Mayor of San Francisco. Talk about an eclectic political career.

Of course, if Civil War general is a great ticket to the Governor’s Mansion, it makes me question how serious Rohrer is about State Sovereignty and the Tenth Amendment. You know, Sam, we could always have another go at it. How would you look in epaulets?

I suppose State Senate, or even Congress, is probably an easier path to executive state office, but if you want to think about raising up a Grand Army of the Susquehanna, and storming down to the Potomac, give me a call. We’ll do lunch. Congress is an overrated stepping stone anyway.

Very interesting news item [from the shakedown artists over at] Las Vegas Review-Journal, about the gun record of Tarkanian, a GOP candidate looking to run against Harry Reid [here used to be a link, but I have removed it because I do not wish to promote extortion]:

[An excerpt of blah used to appear here from the sewer of a newspaper Las Vegas Review-Journal and Extortion about the Tarkanian campaign noting an e-mail campaign pointing out his “?” on his NRA questionnaire, and former “F” grade from the Association]

A question mark means he didn’t answer his questionnaire.  The F means he answered it poorly.

[Here was a statement excerpted from the rag newspaper, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, that likes to sue bloggers for copyright infringements rather than try to work things out nicely first. That statement was from Tarkanian’s campaign, saying that they never received the questionnaire, so surely NRA thought they were just ignoring them.]

NRA sends a questionnaire to every candidate for office.  In fact, NRA sends multiple questionnaires if they don’t get an answer back.  This is what we would call a lame excuse.

[Here that rag of a newspaper, the Las Vegas Review-Lawsuit was excerpted, and told of Tarkanian’s previous “C” and “F” grades, the latter of which came from a Brady endorsement Tarkanian claims he never asked for.]

Just a misunderstanding, you see.  Harry Reid is far from perfect, and I will admit that his squirrely nature worries me in terms of what he’s going to do when he can coast for the next six years, but if gun owners in Nevada are pinning their hopes on this challenger, I think they are making a mistake.

UPDATE 7/22/2010: This article was changed from the original, because the Las Vegas Review-Journal will get no more free links from this blog. Here’s why.

Over on the site Bitter and I maintain for EVC purposes, we talk about why the 2010 elections are going to be vitally important, despite it being a midterm.  Why?  Because the people you elect at the state level are going to get to decide how your state gets redistricted after the 2010 census.  In Pennsylvania, we have a paper thin Democratic Majority in the House, and a Republican majority in the Senate.  After the 2000 census, Pennsylvania lost two seats, which lead to the elimination of two Democratic seats, and the creation of the sixth district, which is now occupied by Jim Gerlach.  We are expected to lose at least another seat in the 2010 census.  All else being equal, I’d prefer the Republicans to decide the new districts rather than the Democrats, which would easily cement Pennsylvania as a true-blue state.