Rohrer camp issues memo on upcoming PA Republican State Committee endorsement vote…
Rohrer camp issues memo on upcoming PA Republican State Committee endorsement vote…
|
Comment Commandments:
1) No Personal Attacks. (Debating is encouraged, but be respectful). 2) No Sexual Discussion (unless it specifically pertains to a cited story). 3) No Profanity (Let’s all behave like adults). |
GOLDEN RULE:
Be civil and statesmanlike. You can disagree without being disagreeable. Annoying trolls who break these rules will be blocked from commenting. ***Please don't disable anonymous commenting for everyone else*** |
NOTE TO COMMENTERS: CREATE AN INTENSE DEBATE ACCOUNT
|
-vote comments up or down
-email notifications when someone replies |
-pick a profile picture
-promote your website or blog |
***TOPIC FORUM: 50 STORIES LAST COMMENTED ON***
***LIST OF TOP 50 COMMENTERS***
***LIST OF 50 MOST COMMENTED ON STORIES***
***LIST OF 50 LAST COMMENTS***
.
67 Comments
http://www.NoMoreInsiders.com
Maybe we've reached the tipping point in PA with grassroots manpower and technology where the party is not effective as it used to be?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/po...
It is not the responsibility of the state Republican party to endorse–and thereby assist–any candidate prior to a primary. In fact this policy is an affront to the people and should be abolished IMMEDIATELY. It is this sort of activity that leads to the nomination of people like DeDe Scozzafava in New York's 23rd District special election…and we all know how well THAT turned out. This practice stinks to the high Heavens and must be abolished.
Let the people running for office campaign on their own merits and let the people of the state decide who they want to have representing them. Once that choice is made it's fine for the party to step up their efforts toward getting their candidate elected. The problem is that prior to the conclusion of the primary, the simple fact is that they have no candidate and should therefore be supporting NOBODY.
The Fayette Patriots (Tea Party-affiliated) organization wants the state Republican party to know that this is our official position; we will not be happy with any endorsement of any candidate in any race prior to the conclusion of the primary election. The Pennsylvania Republican Party knows the state of Republican politics in Fayette County, PA; I can personally assure them that these fortunes will not improve and will in fact deteriorate if the GOP in this state fails to heed the message the people are delivering. This is not to say the Republican brand will not fare better; it will, thanks to our efforts. The message here is that the Republican MACHINE will suffer greatly if they forget that WE THE PEOPLE are the energy behind the turning of the GOP wheel. To a man, we are fed up with machine-driven politics anyway. Doubt our resolve, or our ability to be effective agents of change, at your peril.
J. Cooley –
Nice try – big talker, but we've heard it all before. Tom Corbett will be the endorsed candidate, and you and your tea-party nut-jobs will need to just deal with it. OOOOHHH!!!! "we will doubt you at our own peril"…give me a break. Big talk – Tea partiers are only cowards who are afraid to speak up alone, so they need to work in a crowd for cover. Please don't make me laugh at your stupidity.
Actually, my name is attached to my post together with the name and location of the organization I represent; you are the one hiding behind an alias. Who is the coward? Moreover, we are the "crowd" called the American people, and more specifically the citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and even more specifically the majority of us are what remains of the Republican party in this state…so yeah, ignore us at your (party's) peril.
Which, incidentally, would suit me and the rest of the Tea Party membership I represent just fine.
Is this guy really a Corbett supporter? Or another troll designed to whip people into a frenzy? My money is on troll.
It seems pretty clear that Tom will take the endorsement, and that Sam will continue his campaign without it. I'm sure if Sam was leading in the endorsement count, we would be hearing another story.
J, I hope you do take your own recommendation and actually look and decide between the two candidates and their accomplishments, rather than whether or not someone was endorsed by the party. I have, and I stand behind Corbett.
This is what is wrong with the Republican Party the no brain, can"t think for themselves Republicans are just a bunch of followers instead of leaders . It is the same kind of thinking that toke them down in the last election. They just cannot rid themselves of the old machine that sides in with the Democrats rather than stand on principle and think for themselves just like the original party organizers did. Again they are positioning themselves to be slaves to the Masters of the Republican party before the time is right. Go willing slave Republicans, just go for your minute of popularity. This is the reason things will not change with the two-party system. The two parties followers just like being slaves to the Masters of their own Parties. Leave the best man and message win the primary without the endorsement of their party Masters! isn't that a novel idea in todays politics.
I personally back the tea party movement and think that in the long run it will positive for PA. However, I agree with the post above that states that the tea party groups need to view both GOP candidates and their records before jumping to conclusions.
First – Just because a candidate is endorsed by the Republican State Committee does not mean they are not conservative and fiscally responsible.
Second – Just because someone is running around telling you they are a true conservative doesn't make it true. I.E. 2005 Pay raise vote and 2001? Pension vote.
Your exceedingly biased "comparison" forgot to mention that the 2nd candidate has done so much campaigning that he has failed miserably at doing his elected job. His Bonusgate investigation is a joke at best, he has allowed the PSP and local municipalities to run roughshod all over the Second Amendment and the Uniform Firearms Act. The list goes on…
Former Senator Rick Santorum who received 797,000 fewer votes in 2006 than in 20000 and who, if he had simply retained his base voters from 2000 would still be Senator, thought pretty much as TomWillWin said.
Tom Corbett Friend of Felons is very vulnerable on corruption issues and knows little of governance and budget shortfalls and pension bombs.
This election is, in part, about jobs and about those who produce the tax revenues which government, cavalierly, redistributes to political supporters.
Biased comparison? Corbett has the funds to shape the debate. Whether its biased or not, this is going to be the choice put to the electorate simply because Rohrer lacks the funds and already existing name ID to shape the debate.
You should be more careful in checking your facts. According to exits polls Santorum received 86% of all Republican votes and over 80% of all conservative votes despite running against a Pro-life Democrat in a state where a significant number of Democrats identify themselves as conservative. It would be incorrect to imply the base did not vote for Santorum.
Can Rohrer shape the debate on those terms? Probably not seeing Corbett has a strong financial and institutional advantage. Corbett is going to be the tough on crime candidate versus the no name entity who voted for the Pay Raise. If Gerlach with more financial resources could not get traction attacking Corbett on corruption, Rohrer does not have a chance either.
Bob… your analysis of Santorum's loss fails to take into account that Santorum lost most of his votes in the Philly suburbs. Most if not all the 100,000 votes he lost came from Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, Berks and Bucks, all counties he held in 2000. Corbett performed well there in 2008. There is no reason to doubt he will not do better against someone like Onorato or Wagner whose social views negate any Democrat culture issue advantage.
The math is simple. No Republican wins statewide without winning three of the five SEPA suburban counties. In 1994 and 2000, Santorum won all five of them. In 2006, he lost all five of them. Corbett won three of the five and lost two of them by around 2000 votes in 2008. He won the same 3 in 2004, but actually improved his numbers in Delaware and Montgomery in 2008.
In fact, a Republican that wins 3 of the 5 Philly suburban counties is almost guaranteed victory statewide. Only two Republicans in the last decade have lost while winning at least 3 of the 5 Philly suburban counties: Orie Melvin in 2003 and Peters in 2004. Other than that, every Republican that has won at least 3 of the 5 Philly suburban counties wins statewide.
Explain the shift of 797,000 votes. As I said, had he received the same votes he did in 2000, he would still be Senator. Who deserted him? The Liberals? The Moderates? Democrats?
797,000 of those who voted for him in 2000 did not vote for him in 2006 because he morphed from Reagan Republican when he ran in 1994 to Bush Big Government Big Spending Republican in 2006.
The logic is that Tom Corbett running for Attorney General is analogous to Tom Corbett running for governor. Many things have changed including Tea Party movement and Tom Corbett is business as usual Earmarking Establishment Insider Incumbent. Not the place to be in 2010. John Morganelli was ineffective in demonstrating Tom Corbett's support from felons and gamblers. I don't think he slide below the radar this time in higher profile run for governor. The grassroots is networked and Corbett's record will be out there. For all his stumbles and mistakes, Sam Rohrer is a man on integrity and will keep his promise not to raise taxes. This means he, unlike Corbett or any Democrat, is planning to confront spending, the budget revenue shortfall and the Pension Bomb head on. No other candidate is willing to do that.
Corbett is jailing more corrupt politicians and is on track to fill our jails with more politicians than ever before in history. I'm fine with Roher also. Question precisely why do other posters attack Corbett so relentlessly. Motives I don't care if the timing might help Corbett. I only care that the corrupt politicians will be behind bars. Corbett looks better than OK to me but I like Roher also. Reading posts I wonder if you won't turn on Roher too. Is no one pure enough?
Santorum got crushed in SEPA in 2006, but won there in 1994 and 2000.
Berks 2000
Santorum 78297 (59.9%)
Klink 48998 (37.5%)
Berks 2006
Casey 63915 (54.8%)
Santorum 52806 (45.2%) [LOST roughly 26000 votes]
Bucks 2000
Santorum 144711 (57.1%)
Klink 103961 (41%)
Bucks 2006
Casey 136,063 (58.5%)
Santorum 96441 (41.5%) [LOST 47000 votes]
Chester 2000
Santorum 117092 (63.3%)
Klink 63259 (34.2%)
Chester 2006
Casey 95, 293 (55.0%)
Santorum 77948 (45.0) [LOST 39000 votes]
Delaware 2000
Santorum 128768 (54.2%)
Klink 105712 (44.5%)
Delaware 2006
Casey 128052 (61.7%)
Santorum 79534 (38.3%) [LOST 39000 votes]
Montgomery 2000
Santorum 174512 (54.4%)
Klink 140507 (43.8%)
Montgomery 2006
Casey 181274 (61.9%)
Santorum 111507 (38.1%) [LOST 63000 votes]
Total vote loss from 2000 to 2006 = 214000. Those 214000 votes were a significant reason why Santorum lost to Casey. Now Santorum lost votes elsewhere, especially in the Lehigh Valley and NEPA, but the bulk of his loss came in Berks, Bucks, Chester, Delaware and Montgomery. He never did well out west so he did not lose many votes out there. He lost the SEPA base that he won twice.
It was independents and moderate democrats who had a democrat with a good name(which Klink was not) and who's name is attached to the pro-life cause even though he has since sullied that reputation….
This is a no brainer and a pathetically weak argument from you …
The public will see Corbett going after politicians, child molesters and drug dealers. Any time Rohrer claims Corbett is corrupt, he will just say well you voted for the pay raise… the same pay raise soon to be felon Mike Veon engineered. Rohrer will be defined as a pay raiser and Corbett's ties to Asher will mean nothing.
What is the electorate going to eat up more? Corbett being tied to a person who committed a felony in the 1980s or Rorher voting for a pay raise engineered by soon to be felons in 2005? Rohrer cannot win on the corruption issue. He can only win if this debate is about the economy. Attacking Corbett on corruption is a losing cause… ask Gerlach about that one. Rohrer is making the same mistake as Gerlach did. Corbett's weakness is the economy. Talking about corruption only feeds into Corbett's strengths and does not hurt him.
Tom Corbett lost the first Bonusgate trial and he has not jailed anyone on corruption charges.
Are you saying that Moderates and Independent Democrats voted for Rick Santorum in 2000 and not in 2006 because independent and moderate Democrat Bob Casey was on the ballot? As I recall, Rick Santorum lost in every single county in Pennsylvania, southeast, southwest, everywhere! Those who voted for him in 2000 did not vote for him in 2006 and there is a reason for that and it is Rick Santorum's own record and his own arrogance and his own embracing of Big Governnment rather than the Reaganesque principles he ran on in 1994 96 08 and 2000. Betraying the principles for which the voters voted is not a winning strategy.
Corbett seems to have a lot of politicos pleading guilty. Either Corbett has done a reasonable job or many politicians just started going to church.
Attacking Corbett is not going to win this race for Rohrer. The polling consistently shows that Corbett has a really good favorable to unfavorable ratio. The last Rasmussen poll had it somewhere around 3 to 1 if I remember correctly. The public has a set view of him when it comes to crime and its overwhelmingly positive. This is something the more militant Rohrer people do not get. Attacking Corbett for being corrupt is a lost cause because Corbett has already won that debate. He can reflect any and all corruption claims by saying Rohrer is a pay-raiser and Rohrer has no response that does not sound bad. Corbett just says I am going after the pay-raiser while my opponent is one of them. If Rohrer wants to make this about corruption, Corbett will happily accept it and crush him like a bug.
If Rohrer really wants to win, he needs to get this debate focused on the economy. Corbett is a blank slate on the economy and its weakness. The economy is the issue that will help him drive the tea party groups to his side and against Corbett. Economic issues level the playing field, but Rohrer's people seem to be focused on corruption when the public has already decided that issue.
and none have gone to jail…maybe in the future. We shall see. The Veon Cott Trial is the test and then John Perzel Brian Preski trial.
Santorum did not lose every single county. Santorum actually won the majority of counties.
It was almost exclusively Dems and Ind. that moved away. Santorum got about the same percent of Republican vote in 2006 and 2000. Also, Pennsylvania became a much more Dem registered state over the 6 years.
Sam Rohrer is talking about the budget, about property taxes hammering homeowners on fixed income, about revenue shortfalls, about restraining spending, about jobs and the economy. He has a very positive program focused on The Forgotten Taxpayer and, in particular, The Forgotten Taxpayer who is owns a home, or more dramatically, rents the home from government which raises rent, taxes, on a whim to feed its friends. Sam Rohrer is clearly The Friend of the Forgotten Taxpayer. He supports the Taxpayer Protection Amendment requiring taxpayer approval for taxes abover rate of inflation and population growth.
I think the pro-life thing did not help Casey. Klink won SWPA in 2000. Waffold won SWPA in1994. Santorum never did well in SWPA. Santorum got clobbered because he lost so many votes in SEPA. Once the debate shifted from economic to social issues for Santorum, he lost. Being a social conservative firebrand is politically toxic in SEPA. You could have ran Hoeffel against Santorum in SEPA and Santorum would have still lost.
Thank you for the detailed analysis.
What counties did Rick Santorum do better in 2006 than in 2000?
What counties did he win over Casey in 2006? My recollection may be off but I thought he lost votes between 2000 and 2006 in every county. I may be wrong. I,also, thought he lost all counties to Casey. I could be wrong. I am not wrong about 797,000 votes and you have accounted for 214,000 in counties around Philadelphia leaving about 580,000 from elsewhere in Penna. Where did those losses come from?
Which counties did he win? I think, though, that he did worse in every county from 2000 to 2006. Is that not correct. Every county people who voted for him in 2000 did not vote for him in 2006. 797,000 fewer votes from 2000 to 2006 with declines in all counties.
Did not Rick Santorum get 797.000 fewer votes in 2006 than 2000? Did not his endorsement of Arlen Specter and his morphing from Limited Government to Big Government GW Bush Republican have something to do with it? Could Reagan Democrats have deserted Rick Santorum because Rick Santorum deserted Reagan Principles? Is there no reason to think that?
Ryan's point is well analyzed. If Mr. Rohrer is to gain votes, he absolutely has to focus on the economy. Bill Clinton used the "It's the economy, stupid." line to great effect.
Once Rohrer starts talking about the high cost of alternative energy (50-60 times more expensive than nuclear generators and a lot less reliable), and the horrifying effect of public pensions on working families, he'll start to gain traction. Since his opponent can't very well respond in kind without shifting votes to Democrats in the general, Rohrer could gain some real ground.
Bob… the property tax proposal is not going to fly in the suburbs where most of the Republican primary voters are located. When you say they cannot use their economic advantage to have good schools any longer they will go ballistic. Rohrer lost my vote when he came up with a pandering plan that will hurt suburban school districts because old people refuse to pay their fair share. Plenty of suburbanites pay their fair share for the old to live via Social Insecurity and Medifraud, but they cannot pay property taxes?
If Rohrer was true fiscal conservative he would be targeting the out of control growth of programs for senior citizens. Rohrer is not saying anything about cutting out of control senior program growth. He is probably like many of the tea party people I have met who say we cannot cut state Medicare payments or state SSI payments. I am sick of politicians mortgaging my generation's and future generation's income to support a failed social service system for a bunch of people who failed to prepare for their later years.
He lost votes in every county, but if you break the percentages down, the shift was most drastic in the SEPA counties. His loses in rural PA were actually less than average and he lost very little votes in SWPA.
When taking that 214000 into account, you must subtract 214000 from Casey's figures. That means Casey only needed roughly 175,000 voters to switch sides in the other 62 counties! That means Santorum only had to lose 2900 votes per county in the rest of the state for Casey to win.
Go over to the PA elections site. I am not going to list off all the counties.
http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsI...
Bob you know well as I do that few cases go to trial. About 95 percent of cases plead. If they get a plea, the government won and Corbett will be able to say he got convictions. Corbett can say he has got many people to plead guilty for engineering Bonusgate while Rohrer voted himself a bonus.
Sam Rohrer is well aware of the out of control spending which is why he supports Taxpayer Protection Amendment to Constitution and Taxpayer Protection Act.
Social Security and Medicare are federal programs. Sam is running for Governor of Penna, not a federal office.
Commonwealth Foundation has identified $1.41 billion in spending cuts. ttp://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/research/detail/government-on-a-diet-spending-tips-2 Commonwealth Foundation is a gold mine of good ideas to cut the cost of spending.
Fayette County Tea Party speaks for a lot of voters who are angry, and scared, and energized to get involved where they have never gotten involved before. The Tea Party movement is real and there are many highly competent people emerging from the grassroots naturally. This is really so encouraging.
Rohrer demonstrated courage in voting Perzel out. Corbett has indicted both Republicans and Democrats. Corbett’s fundraising will far exceed Rohrer. Are primary voters angry enough about top-down politics to show up in big enough numbers to deliver the nomination to Rohrer?
Take away the names and the endorsements and put the two records side by side.
1st. 18 years in State Government, Annual COLA raises, per diems, etc, Campaign promises not delivered on. Middle of the night pay-raise vote, 50% pension increase vote.
2nd – State's chief protector of the public. Taking on corruption in State Government; both Republicans and Democrats. Improving the efficiency of his office despite budget cuts. Taking action against the ObamaCare Bill by threatening a lawsuit for the Cornhusker kickback. The list goes on.
Which one sounds like a true friend of the taxpayer? You decide.
Bob… the state has a say in Medicare. It must provide matching funds for most of Medicare and Medicaid. It has been estimated that the states on average pay 20% of their budget in Medicare/Medicaid matching funds.
This is not just about Medicare and Medicaid. Not a single senior program was cut from the PA budget. What does Rohrer want to cut? I forgot, you must be like Dolley and support Medicare and senior programs because they depend on them.
The real problem is Rohrer getting his message out. Corbett has not offended enough people for Rohrer to have that opening. Rohrer needs to pound away on the economy if he has a chance.
And what does Tom Corbett have to say about cutting Medicare and other senior programs. I think Tom Corbett has said he would raise taxes and what programs would he cut, if any. Medicare Medicaid?
What are Tom Corbett's solutions? What are the Democrats proposing? I posted the link from Commonwealth Foundation directing your attention to $1.4 billion in cuts, none of which will be pretty. Any comments.
We are at crunch time. Pulling billions more out of the private productive economy will not create more jobs or produce more goods or provide more services. Politics aside, what would you do about the budget and Pennsylvania Economy?
I am not saying Corbett is coming up with any solutions, but Rohrer is claiming that he is. The problem is that he is ignoring entitlements. We can cut all the waste out there but entitlements are the problem.
I would do five things:
1) Cut corporate and personal income taxes to 3 percent.
2) Fold the Turnpike Commission into PennDOT.
3) Regionalize public transit funding. Agencies like SEPTA should be funded exclusively by the counties that serve them.
4) 50 percent to social services including cuts.
5) Change our corporation laws to make Pennsylvania a more attractive place to incorporate. There is no reason Pennsylvania could not have corporate laws that are far more favorable to corporations than Delaware.
Sounds like a good place to start. Social Services by 50% is interesting idea.
Harrisburg spending is out of control. At least Clark Griswold gets it…
[youtube 81LxUTIsH7U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81LxUTIsH7U youtube]
It's not a question of who will vote for whom; my original point remains. It is entirely possible that Corbett is the better candidate, the candidate the people will choose, the candidate the Tea Party eventually moves behind. That isn't the point. The point is that the state party has no business endorsing a candidate prior to the primary. A primary election is the opportunity for candidates to square off to WIN their party's support. No candidate should have that support thrust upon them until after the people have had the opportunity to hear from all sides and make a decision on their own. The selection of Corbett isn't what stinks here…it's the selection of ANYBODY prior to the will of the people being taken into account. This is what is wrong with politics in general in this country (among many other things)–the "machine"–and it's what will eventually bring the parties down if they aren't exceedingly careful about how they tread upon the masses in the coming weeks and months.
J. Cooley
Fayette Patriots, Fayette County PA
It's not a question of who will vote for whom; my original point remains. It is entirely possible that Corbett is the better candidate, the candidate the people will choose, the candidate the Tea Party eventually moves behind. That isn't the point. The point is that the state party has no business endorsing a candidate prior to the primary. A primary election is the opportunity for candidates to square off to WIN their party's support. No candidate should have that support thrust upon them until after the people have had the opportunity to hear from all sides and make a decision on their own. The selection of Corbett isn't what stinks here…it's the selection of ANYBODY prior to the will of the people being taken into account. This is what is wrong with politics in general in this country (among many other things)–the "machine"–and it's what will eventually bring the parties down if they aren't exceedingly careful about how they tread upon the masses in the coming weeks and months.
J. Cooley
Fayette Patriots, Fayette County PA
I am sure that you do hope that ignorant people like tww are not really Corbett supporters. It's attitudes and comments like his that turn people off.
I am not now, nor have I even been, or expect to be a Corbett supporter.
IOW, vote for Tom.
Nice try.
Can you provide us with a list of conservative candidates that the GOP has endorsed prior to the primary. To save yourself some time, just limit the list the those in the last 20 years.
Amen Rich. And where was Tommy Boy on the pay raise?
Riding the establishment's fence on its constitutionality in public and dutifully preparing to defend it in court with nary a hint of personal conflict due to his oath of office.
I support the 50 percent cut because 1) I know there is a lot of waste in the program, and 2) we have no priorities set when it comes to social services.
Setting a high goal would shape the debate.
State Party through its rules is allowed to endorse whomever it wants. If you do not like the rules, change them. Personally, I find endorsements to be meaningless. Only the weak in the mind care about endorsements. Rejecting someone for being endorsed is just as stupid as supporting someone because they are endorsed.
Are you the same Fayette Tea Party people I saw at an event in Western PA that said we cannot cut Social Insecurity and Medifraud?
You are absolutely correct Mr./Ms. Cooley….absolutely correct.
Sounds like a good way to start the debate. In fact the DHS in Philadelphia may be a detriment to kids. I think case loads have declined in Phila. It would be good to take a closer look. Many social service programs are simply ways for some to get rich from government.
In regards to state party endorsements, I really believe that having a party system in place is a stronger way forward for the candidate that ends up winning the primary.
The whole party system is Democratic. All of the voting members of the state party system are elected. And anyone can become involved in the system. The people who are now involved in this system are true patriots, for they have given their time and energy for many years to fight for the political principles in which they believe.
So, I hope that the political passion of the people who are now trashing this system continues and they decide to continue fighting for what they believe well into future election cycles past 2010. For if they really believe the system needs to be changed, in the long term, then they can be a part of that change and make that change happen. Otherwise, the current griping about the system can only be seen as a cynical and opportunistic move.
Which candidate is getting lots of money from the PSEA and which candidate isn't? That single answer says it all for my vote.
Corbett lacks the government experience Sam Rohrer has. Democrats outnumber republicans in PA and all my D friends don't like the way Corbett handled the corruption indictments. They're not voting for Corbett for governor even though many voted for him for AG. I don't see Rohrer attacking Corbett as corrupt.
you betcha
Newspaper endorsements are meaningless; party endorsements are far from it. Unlike a silly "we like this guy" from some newspaper that nobody reads anymore anyway, the endorsement by a state party opens up avenues of fundraising, marketing and ground-troops that the non-endorsed candidates have no access to. Moreover, the state party can inject the endorsee's campaign with additional funds (or can direct their "faithful" to do so) leaving the non-endorsed out in the cold.
Nobody is saying that I, or the organization I represent, plan to reject anyone because or in spite of an endorsement. I'm not indicating any favor for any candidate at this time. NEITHER SHOULD THE STATE PARTY. That is the point.
Regarding the rules, clearly we do NOT like them, and I (together with the Patriots I represent) fully intend to put ourselves into positions whereby we can indeed change them in the very near future. I'm just giving the state party the courtesy of a "warning", if you will, that actions like this that have always been "okay" in the past are no longer acceptable to those of us who the are supposed to be representing–and unlike in the past, we no longer feel powerless to do anything about it. On the contrary, we now know PRECISELY what we need to do, and we're in the process of doing it. I daresay that in three short months members of the group I represent will have more control over the Republican party in my county than the state party has right now. The question isn't whether we're getting involved–we are–or whether we will achieve our desired effect–we will–but rather, does the state party apparatus wish to be on the side of the people, or continue running against our wishes? Do the people currently in positions of power within the party wish to remain relevant to the proceedings, or don't they? If they do, they'd better start listening to those of us on the ground, and quickly. The Tea Party isn't perturbed at Democrats and Barack Obama alone. Far from it.
Lastly, you've never heard anyone at any of our gatherings who's said that Social Security and Medicare can't be cut. Far from it. What we have generally tended to agree on is that neither of these programs should ever have been instituted; that both are broken; that neither is in any position where solvency is likely (or, in all likelihood, possible); and that spending on the two programs at this point is unsustainable and foolhardy. That said, we also understand and believe fully that we've launched this ship, and there are good Americans aboard who have paid into this system all their lives. We can't very well torpedo the boat now. We've got to locate good leaders who will make difficult decisions that can both protect those who have come to depend on these dependency-creating programs, and at the same time begin the process of winding them down and getting this nation out from under the burden of these ill-conceived albatrosses before it is too late. The shame of it is that because most politicians are only interested in their next election, they seem unwilling to actually do the hard work of making hard–and unpopular–decisions. This is why we back candidates who put FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY and LIMITED GOVERNMENT above all other things. People who carry those principles will, we expect, find ways to remove us from this untenable position without compromising those of us who have already paid into the system and are already dependent upon it for our survival.
It should be absolutely clear that those of us who are "griping" loudest at this point are very much becoming involved. If for one reason or another it isn't clear yet, it will be in short order.
I do take much issue with the idea that those who have involved themselves in this process prior to this have done so on purely altruistic motivations. I do not doubt that some have occupied positions within the party systems with good intentions, but many (and I believe most) have done so for the power, the perks and the narcissistic stimulus these kinds of activities provide. It is abundantly clear across a wide spectrum of party activities that the people involved have lost touch with the common Americans they're supposedly representing, or at the least have become so collectively apathetic, elitist or incompetent that they've rendered themselves useless to the causes of true Patriotism. Patriots in a Republic such as ours ENGAGE the public, they do not stack the deck against them. Patriots LISTEN to the people, they don't simply run up their own flags and expect the people to salute. If there is any doubt that this is happening, let's watch and see if the Republicans announce an endorsement prior to the primary. Will this not clearly indicate that they expect the rank-and-file to just blindly support their chosen candidate, damn our own opinions? The state Democrats have already done this, and are so out of touch that they endorsed Arlen Specter! Could there be any more clear demonstration of a group of political insiders who've utterly lost touch with the electorate?
I try to believe the best when considering people and their motivations, but I'm a pragmatist and I look at results, not fantasy. It's undeniable that both parties have moved far afield of our American values. It's equally clear that many of those in positions of power within these organizations have no intention of moving closer to the people they've been chosen to represent. I'm simply making it a point to remind these specific people that there is a price to be paid for ignoring the will of those of us in the trenches every day. Whether they heed this or not is entirely up to them…but I suspect strongly that we'll see an endorsement in a matter of hours, and that will pretty clearly show that as far as the state Republican party is concerned, "the will of the people, and the integrity of the system, be damned".
I'm with J. Cooley! The State Committee Members are also supposed to represent the people, however their value has become obsolete as many are now being used by the candidates to get an endorsement before the committee knows the will of the people.
I'm sickened by the State Committee Members who are accepting any gifts of tangible or intangible goods for candidates in exchange for their votes – they have ruined their value in State Government for the people. Right now they represent only themselves and their own interests, not the will of the people in the Commonwealth of PA. It is pathetic and pervasive amoungst the Republican State Committee Members! The only way to save this body is to save them from themselves. They should not be allowed to accept ANYthing from any candidate, they should only be the people's voice AFTER the primary.
The Gris and Steve Johnson campaign are Rockin! I like the video.
You seem to be saying that State party members are corrupt and only vote because they want power. If you really know the State party system, it does not afford a tremendous amount of power to the people who vote for the endorsements. They are one vote in literally hundreds and hundreds of other votes. They are involved with the party on a very very part time basis. They volunteer their time.
And I mean if you meet these people, they are just regular people from all across PA. They are people who are involved with politics because they enjoy being involved with politics. They vote based on who they believe is the best candidate. And that is it. They vote for who they believe will best represent Republicans. So, I think it is unfair to say that voting members in the party system are out of touch with the people. Because they are the people. They are quite literally your neighbors. And anyone who chooses can be involved with politics. Unfortunately, most people just choose not to.
I absolutely disagree with your accusation that Committee Members are corrupt. That is a rediculous and an unfounded accusation. The men and women who volunteer to be involved with the State Committee come from all areas of PA. And they are stand up citizens. They are your neighbors and they truly care about who represents them, that is why the are involved. That is why you are involved. It is simply not civil to accuse them of corruption just because you disagree with who they choose to vote for. Now is more of the same dirty political tricks that the Commonwealth can do without.
Aichele got what 12 out of 309 reported (w/o Chesco rigged vote) Local state committee representatives rejected Aichele statewide State committee members (other than Chesco ) seem to be doing a good job. I'm with long term approach-Get off their backs
Mr. "NoMoreInsiders" spend 67% of the $110,000 he's raised so far on an insider….Money spent for Caucuses that determine an endorsement of State Committee Candidates….also a bunch of insiders. Hypocracy is the mothers milk of failure in a campaign.