Oh! What a tangled web we weave!

Early this morning, Keystone Politics editors received and released a poll by McCulloch Research and Polling showing that Rick Santorum was within 4 points of retaining his Senate seat. Further research into McCulloch Research and Polling shows that Rod McCulloch, principal at the firm, has been indicted in voter fraud and forgery in Illinois.

Driving home from work this afternoon, I heard this poll cited on Right-wing Talk Radio. I expect it is being used to rally the troops.

If Rick Santorum comes within 5 percentage points of Bob Casey, I will not only eat my hat, but post a photo here of me eating said hat.

That doesn't mean we don't all need to turn out and vote tomorrow. There are vital races for the house (PA and US) as well as the governor's race and the larger the margin of victory, the more resounding the message we will send to Harrisburg and Washington, DC.

So, tomorrow--VOTE. Just go and vote. People all over the world have died in the past couple centuries for this right, and even if the candidates aren't 100% in line with your own politics, it's still vital that you show up and exercise your rights as a citizen in a democracy.

I think everyone should vote if they've at least taken a look at the candidates and ballot intiatives, and have an opinion.

But if you are too oblivious or cynical to have an opinion, then don't bother.
Just, also don't bother to complain about anything. Because you can talk to the hand, if you don't vote.

And don't forget--the big national races and the governor races get all the press, but the thing that MOST affects your day to day life is your very local elections.

Who will be your county commissioners? Your Sheriff?

Your township supervisors?

Your Board of Education?

Your judges?

Bonds for schools and infrastructure?

Bonuses for those who served in past conflicts?

Open Space Initiatives?

Even if you think the two-party system leaves you out in the cold--you should STILL educate yourself about the local candidates and issues. Up here, it has a lot to do with whether your streets get plowed first or last after a snow storm, whether your kid is taught creationism, psuedo-science, or evolution, whether that unsafe intersection gets a stoplight, and whether or not there will be a new 300 house development going in on that farm that's up for sale which will drive your property taxes up because they'll need to build a new high school.


VOTE!


Just do it.

Good luck to all our candidates tomorrow, and may the best candidates win.

Karen L.

Link

Lois Herr Picks Up Key Endorsements!!

Lois Herr’s commitment to preserve and protect the safety net of Social Security and Medicare has garnered endorsements from retirees and labor in her run for US Congress. Herr is vying for the 16th-District seat against five-term incumbent Joseph R. Pitts, of Chester County. Herr’s election to Congress, according to the Alliance for Retired Americans, would “enhance the quality of life for older Americans,” citing Herr’s “leadership on issues such as the need for comprehensive prescription drug benefit plan under Medicare that benefits seniors—not insurance and drug companies.” Herr has campaigned on a universal, single-payer health care system to relieve the burden of soaring health care costs, and government negotiation of prescription drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. Rep. Pitts backed the Bush Administration’s Medicare Part B legislation that has proved confusing to seniors and has left gaping holes in coverage. He has also voted against re-importation of prescription drugs that would put competitive pressure on drug costs in this country. The United Labor Council of Reading and Berks Counties, the American Postal Workers Union Local 95, and the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States joined other union organizations in supporting Herr’s candidacy. Herr favors fair trade agreements that protect workers’ rights and an increase in the federal minimum wage. The Sierra Club, the nation’s oldest and largest environmental advocacy group, also extended its endorsement for her “commitment to protecting America’s environment.”

Lois also picked up the endorsement of the Lancaster Intelligencer.

Last night, I was privileged to meet Lois again and hear her speak at the home of an Ox-Grove Democrats member. I came away even more impressed with Lois. She is sharp, an excellent listener, a lifelong student, and a good teacher. I'm relatively new to this part of the country, but I have come to appreciate what I think of as the quintessential Southeastern Pennsylvanian, and the values of those who live in this beautiful little corner of the country. I feel strongly that Lois Herr represents the values and character of the voters of our district and deserves everyone's strongest consideration and support. Joe Pitts said he wouldn't serve more than five terms, and now he has gone back on that promise by running for his sixth. Unlike Joe Pitts, she will not go to Washington and try to turn it into a career--she has already had a fine career, has retired, and is motivated to become part of the political process by her sense of civic responsibility. She is running because of her deep convictions that the current course of the country and the policies of the Bush Administration and their rubber-stamp congress are unacceptable and disastrous, and she feels strongly about changing the policies which have brought us so many things which are now deeply unpopular with Pennsylvania voters.

If you go to the polls next week to vote for Ed Rendell and Bob Casey, Jr. and we certainly hope that anyone who reads this blog will be planning to do that, it makes no sense to vote for Joe Pitts when you're done punching the Casey and Rendell buttons. If every voter in the 16th who votes for Casey and Rendell would vote for Lois, we could shock the pundits who have written us off as a safe Republican seat because of Pitts' war chest and his lack of a personal scandal a la Weldon and Don Sherwood. Wouldn't it be great to hear our district called out on Election night as a "shocker"?

Lois can do this, with your help.

Karen L.

Link

If "Mission Accomplished", then WHY are we putting MORE troops into Iraq?

Remember that?

With the US death toll in Iraq passing 100 this month and mid-term elections just days away, the Pentagon said the US force in Iraq has grown to 150,000 troops, the biggest it has been since January.

A Pentagon spokesman attributed the growth to overlapping unit rotations, but it came amid surging violence that so far this month has claimed the lives of 101 US troops and many more Iraqis.

"Several units are transitioning out as several are transitioning in," said Lieutenant Colonel Mark Ballesteros, who said that as of Monday the number of US troops in Iraq was 150,000.

A Pentagon official, who asked not to be named, said the US Army's 4th Infantry Division was near the end of its year-long rotation.

US commanders in the past have timed the overlap of troop rotations to increase the US military presence during Iraqi elections and other critical milestones in the political process.

The increase this time follows the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which US military officials anticipated would bring higher levels of violence, and comes just ahead of the November 7 congressional elections in the United States.

Pentagon officials, echoing Vice President Dick Cheney, have expressed concern in recent days that Al-Qaeda is trying to step up the violence in Iraq to influence the outcome of the US vote.

Eric Ruff, the Pentagon press secretary, said he did not know why US troops levels were climbing.

"This is news to me," Ruff told reporters. "Talk to MNF-I (Multi-National Forces-Iraq). That's General Casey's decision."

The increase is noteworthy because US troop strength in Iraq is only 10,000 under the all-time high of about 160,000 reported in January after the Iraqi elections.

It had fallen to as low as 127,000 in June when US commanders still believed they could make troop cuts this year.

Link

More Mud

For weeks now the e-mails have been arriving daily, sometimes hourly, from the Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania.

State GOP leaders, like their Democratic counterparts, are burning up cyberspace in the countdown to the Nov. 7 election, using the electronic medium to woo voters. No problem there. Every candidate deserves to be heard. It's the bedrock of democracy.

But what I do have a problem with is the snarky tone of many of the messages clogging my in-box, specifically the mean-spirited name-calling.

Gov. Rendell is regularly referred to as "Fast Eddie," as though he were a loan shark with a cigar in his teeth. "Fast Eddie wants to raise our taxes again," a recent release begins. "Fast Eddie still up to his old tricks," a headline in another blares.

State Treasurer Bob Casey Jr., the Democrat trying to unseat Republican U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, is always "Bobby" or "Bobby Jr.," an attempt to diminish the candidate and paint him as a political lightweight barely capable of wiping his own nose, riding the coattails of his famous father, former Gov. Bob Casey.

For the record, Bob Casey Jr. does not go by "Bobby" or "Junior," not even among family and close friends. The nickname "Bobby" is the creation of the state GOP to belittle and denigrate.

The issue is not that Santorum's opponent has a name which can be shortened to sound like a little boy's.

The issue is that not only has Santorum has enabled the lying neoconservative regime which has gotten us into a costly quagmire in Iraq, but he has also made PA the butt of late-night comedian jokes with his bizarre utterances. So, now we have Casey, a sensible moderate, and this is the best they can do. Playground schoolboy bully stuff.

Shameful.

Link

Weldon Sinks to New Lows

In both polls and in his own campaign's integrity and ethics, apparently:

E-mails recently forwarded to the Justice Department by a government watchdog group describe alleged efforts by staff of Congressman Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania to call Navy employees for information and negative statements about his Democratic opponent, retired Rear Admiral Joe Sestak. Two e-mails that were forwarded to the Sestak campaign by one current and one former Pentagon employee appear to detail guidance from superiors to staff not to speak with Weldon's office should it call soliciting information about Sestak; Weldon’s office is described in one e-mail as “calling everyone and his brother” in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV) about Sestak. A third e-mail written by a defense contractor to the Sestak campaign says that he had been told that Weldon's office had allegedly compiled a “hit list” of defense contractors whose officers had donated to the Sestak campaign, of which he was one, and suggested "retribution" against them. The e-mails were provided to The American Prospect by the Sestak campaign.

The Prospect has confirmed the authenticity of two of the three e-mails, speaking directly with their authors. The Sestak campaign is protecting the identity of the sender of the third e-mail, who it says is an active-duty Pentagon employee.

The Prospect has also interviewed a fourth person, Christine Fox, president of the Center for Naval Analyses, a federally funded research and development organization where Sestak briefly worked after retiring from the Navy; Fox confirms the authenticity of the e-mail written by her and forwarded by a third party to the Sestak campaign describing Weldon's office as "calling everyone and his brother” in OPNAV. But Fox downplays the e-mail, saying that her own e-mail encouraging staff at her organization CNA not to talk about Sestak with Weldon's office was preemptive in nature, based on a tip she heard at a Navy staff meeting at the Pentagon.

Link

PA Voter Registration Trends favor Dems/Independents

Pennsylvania Democrats will head into the midterm elections with a 600,000 edge among registered voters after out-gaining Republicans by some 50,000 in the past year.

The tally slightly widens the advantage Democrats had in the 2004 presidential election, when the state rolls reached a record 8.4 million registered voters and Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 580,000. The overall number fell substantially immediately after the election as the rolls were purged of inactive voters. Through Monday, the state had tallied 8.2 million registered voters.

This year's ballot features one of the most closely watched Senate races in the country, a gubernatorial election and — in several districts — tight congressional contests that could swing the balance in the U.S. House of Representatives. Both parties say they expect record turnouts for a midterm election.

Contributed by Alice Fling

Link

2006 Dynamic Echoes 1994

Terry Madonna, co-author of this piece, has spoken to our group on several occasions. The article makes the case that although most mid-term elections revolve around more local issues, this one, like 1994, is national in focus.

Something to bear in mind as we speak to the voters these last two weeks.

The tale begins in 1994, the last time the mid-term elections were largely nationalized in American politics; we can say the 1994 elections were nationalized because voters were primarily motivated by their judgments about federal issues and national politics.

The “nationalization” of congressional elections is infrequent in mid-term elections. In the more typical or “normal” mid-term, voters cast their ballots on the basis of how well their own local member of Congress is performing or on the basis of some state issue--rather than on the basis of some overriding national or international issue. This is what Tip O’Neil’s maxim really means; most of the time, voters tend to vote nationally but think locally.

But when an election becomes nationalized, it has profound significance for both national and state politics. The old rules and trite formulations no longer apply in trying to understand or analyze the election.

As historians are well aware, parallels with the past are never perfect, but sometimes they provide important clues to future events. And nowhere is this truer than with the current parallels being drawn between the 1994 midterm elections and the one currently underway. In both situations, presidents had low approval ratings, scandals were attached to the congressional majority, and nagging national issues made the voters ripe for change.

Link

Sobering Assessment of Iraq

No matter what President Bush says, the question is not whether America can win in Iraq. The only question is whether the United States can extricate itself without leaving behind an unending civil war that will spread more chaos and suffering throughout the Middle East, while spawning terrorism across the globe.

The prospect of what happens after an American pullout haunts the debate on Iraq. The administration, for all its hints about new strategies and timetables, is obviously hoping to slog along for two more years and dump the problem on Mr. Bush's successor. This fall's election debates have educated very few voters because neither side is prepared to be honest about the terrible consequences of military withdrawal and the very long odds against success if American troops remain.

This page opposed a needlessly hurried and unilateral invasion, even before it became apparent that the Bush administration was unprepared to do the job properly. But after it happened, we believed that America should stay and try to clean up the mess it had made - as long as there was any conceivable road to success.

That road is vanishing. Today we want to describe a strategy for containing the disaster as much as humanly possible. It is hardly a recipe for triumph. Americans can only look back in wonder on the days when the Bush administration believed that success would turn Iraq into a stable, wealthy democracy - a model to strike fear into the region's autocrats while inspiring a new generation of democrats. Even last fall, the White House was dividing its strategy into a series of victorious outcomes, with the short-term goal of an Iraq "making steady progress in fighting terrorists." The medium term had Iraq taking the lead in "providing its own security" and "on its way to achieving its economic potential," with the ultimate outcome being a "peaceful, united, stable and secure" nation.

If an American military occupation could ever have achieved those goals, that opportunity is gone. It is very clear that even with the best American effort, Iraq will remain at war with itself for years to come, its government weak and deeply divided, and its economy battered and still dependent on outside aid. The most the United States can do now is to try to build up Iraq's security forces so they can contain the fighting - so it neither devours Iraqi society nor spills over to Iraq's neighbors - and give Iraq's leaders a start toward the political framework they would need if they chose to try to keep their country whole.

Click on the title link to read the entire piece. IMO, William Rivers Pitt is one of the best and most thoughtful op/ed writers working today.

--Article contributed by Alice Fling

Link

Registered Independents breaking towards the Democratic Candidates

Not a bad development for those of our group, given how many Registered Independents we have here in Ox-Grove Area.

The new poll underscores how much of a drag the war threatens to be on Republican candidates in competitive races. With debate underway in Washington about possible course changes in Iraq, Americans cite the war as the most important issue in determining their vote next month more often than any other issue, and those who do favor Democrats over Republicans by 76 percent to 21 percent.

Independents are poised to play a pivotal role in next month's elections because Democrats and Republicans are basically united behind candidates of their own parties. Ninety-five percent of Democrats said they will support Democratic candidates for the House, while slightly fewer Republicans, 88 percent, said they plan to vote for their party's candidates.

The independent voters surveyed said they plan to support Democratic candidates over Republicans by roughly 2 to 1 -- 59 percent to 31 percent -- the largest margin in any Post-ABC News poll this year. Forty-five percent said it would be good if Democrats recaptured the House majority, while 10 percent said it would not be. The rest said it would not matter.

Link

Close to Home, Part II--the Immigration Conflation Conflagration

I was driving home from work today on Rt. 1, and noticed a few new political signs inviting me to visit "CaseyforAmnesty.com" and saying (in scary looking black and red) that umpteeen million illegal immigrants were counting on him.

So, I took a look.

Wow. And a sad, sad, sick, sordid, sorry site it is, too. Not to mention, it's paid for by the Santorum campaign.

Click on the title link to read an article outlining the more nuanced differences between the candidates.

Senator Specter, simply put, supports the same bill as Casey said he would have voted for had he been a sitting senator at the time--a bill that Santorum voted "NO" for. Both Casey and Specter, being reasonable sorts, recognize that it's not an ultimate solution to a difficult problem with many competing interests, but feel that it is important to begin addressing the situation sooner rather than later. It may very well be that there could be a better bill, but you notice that Santorum's little hit-man website doesn't bother to tell you that the other (and far more popular) Republican Senator from our state SUPPORTED it.

Senator Spector, in case you are scoring this one along at home, supports Senator Santorum's re-election bid as a fellow Republican would be expected to do.

And how does our Junior Senator repay our Senior Senator's support? By using a bill Specter SUPPORTS to distort Casey's view on immigration.

Hey, Senator Specter, here's mud in your eye.

This is obviously an issue that is of keen interest to Ox-Grove area residents. You cannot live here and not understand that a large part of our local economy and southern Chester County agriculture and industries are sustained by immigrants from Mexico and Latin America. This is an issue that deserves more serious consideration, and a balanced, nuanced approach.

There is little evidence on the face of it that Senator Santorum is capable of anything of the sort.

Link