With Gaddafi’s Death, Is Libya The Next Iraq?

Long oppressed by their strongman leader, the rebels finally had their day. With immense military and political help from the West, they first toppled the regime, and later, the dictator himself.  At long last, “freedom” was theirs, although as we have come to know, one person’s freedom is another’s hell.

And how did the rebels show their appreciation to their liberators? By showering them not with roses, but roadside bombs, bullets and vitriol. Their message? “Thanks --- now get out.”

So it was in Iraq, and so it will be in Libya.

Amazingly, Western leaders either don’t read history, or, more likely, do so and arrogantly think they can avoid the same mistakes.

They can’t.

The objective of the US and NATO was to remove Gaddafi. Well, mission accomplished. But once again, the age-old adage applies: Be careful what you wish for…you might just get it. And get it they did, but now what? How much more blood and treasure will be expended to maintain a presence in a country that was a) stable, b) a Muslim “ally” of the West, and therefore c) didn’t need an occupying Western presence?

Sadly, too much.

*****

There was no question why the U.S. became involved in Libya.  It wasn’t about stopping a dictator or civilian deaths.  And it’s wasn’t about democracy and freedom.  It was because Libya produces a lot of oil. Period.

Need proof?  Among numerous examples, just look at Syria.  They continue to massacre their citizens and foment terrorism, but their petroleum production is but a fraction of what Libya pumps out annually. Case closed.

So America once again did much of the heavy lifting, giving its imprimatur for the airstrikes which led to the rebels taking down Gaddafi.   

But it seems that we have forgotten one small thing.  Those rebels --- who brutally and gleefully executed Gaddafi in full view of cameras, and are now “running” the country --- are the same folks who comprised the largest fighting force outside of Iraq to engage the United States military in that country.

That bears repeating.

We just backed the very same people who have been shooting at us for the past eight years.  A naïve question, to be sure, but did anyone in charge actually bother to think about this before participating in the regime change of a sovereign nation?

                          

The rebels, who are no longer rebels but now governmental “leaders,” have tasted power. They are getting used to carrying out the law ---their law --- on the spot, administering justice as they see fit. To think that they are just going to lay down their weapons (which we provided) and obey orders from a civilian politician is a fairy tale. Just look at the recent revelation that upwards of 20,000 portable surface-to-air missiles, each capable of downing a jetliner, are missing and feared to be in unfriendly hands. What a shock.

The result will be chaos and armed factions roaming the country.  And when they are pressed further, look for car bombs and oil pipelines to start exploding.

Kind of like…Iraq. 

But the West can’t have that, so by its own admission, it will be sending in ground troops.  And as history shows, that is never a short-term proposition. 

Of course, since European countries are broke and wholly incapable of sustaining any military operation, the United States will inevitably be drawn further into the Libyan quagmire.

In the hope of not repeating past mistakes, there are two lessons that should be heeded by what will hopefully be a new Administration next year:

1) Credibility is everything.  Nowhere is a nation’s word more important than on the world stage. If a country that prides itself on being of high moral character lies and betrays, it’s credibility is shot.  Period. It’s a lesson the United States still hasn’t learned.

For example, America urged the Kurds to rise up against Saddam Hussein at the conclusion of Gulf War I, pledging support to help them overthrow the dictator. But the U.S. reneged on that promise, leading to the needless slaughter of many. Because of our credibility gap, we were forced to expend enormous effort to convince the Kurds to join the coalition in the Gulf War II. 

Fast forward to the present, and it is apparent that lesson has gone unheeded, as the Libyan debacle clearly illustrates.

Moammar Gaddafi was never an angel, not in the beginning of his forty-year reign, nor at the end.  But he showed himself to be a leader with whom the West could effectively work, even if his transformation was rooted in self-preservation.

In no uncertain terms, Gaddafi was told to shape up or face the consequences.  To his credit, he did, and then some.  He admitted complicity in the Pan Am 103 bombing and paid reparations, dismantled his WMD/nuclear program, and stopped harboring terrorists.  As a result of his positive actions, Gaddafi’s nation was removed the Terrorism List by the George W. Bush Administration, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stating Libya was rewarded for its "renunciation of terrorism and the excellent cooperation Libya has provided to the U.S." in the war on terror.

And yet, despite U.S. assurances to Libya that the two nations would be conditional allies, that “excellent cooperation” wasn’t good enough.  America broke its word by helping to eliminate a leader who had done everything the United States had asked of him.  With that kind of “credibility,” is it any wonder why many leaders have chosen a path at odds with America? Venezuelan General Hugo Chavez comes to mind.

This results in needless roadblocks in diplomatic, political and economic negotiations around the world. The damage from one thoughtless decision can take years to repair, with Libya the latest example.

2) It is time for energy independence.  Despite the inherent common sense of energy independence, both from economic and security perspectives, it remains a policy neither Party chooses to advance.  Sure, the rhetoric is there, but that is where it ends.

Rather than tap into the largest natural gas deposits in the world (the Marcellus and Utica Shales), the vast oil reserves in Alaska, the Bakken Formation in North Dakota, the reserves under the Rockies that may be the largest on the planet, and drill offshore, the politicians continue the disastrous policy of relying on petroleum from hostile nations.

Put another way, if Libya, and the entire Middle East for that matter, wasn’t sitting on huge reserves, America wouldn’t give it a second thought, with the exception of its security guarantee to Israel.

But because neither Party will pursue energy independence in a meaningful manner, job creation suffers, inflation rises, and America’s fighting forces remain in the crosshairs.

So once again, America is involved in yet another conflict with no clear objectives, which will only create more uncertainty in world markets that are already on the verge of collapse.

Common sense is such that America should stop playing policeman to the world, become energy independent, put the interests of its citizens before the people of other nations, and, above all, keep its word.

Don’t hold your breath. As Voltaire said, “Common sense is not so common.”

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Hell Freezes Over --- Arlene Ackerman Is For School Choice!

As we all know, weather forecasters are wrong much of the time. But you can’t hold them responsible for that wholly unpredictable icy blast felt this week.

After all, it was Hell freezing over.

That’s right.  Seems Dante’s inferno took a dip in the cold, not coincidentally, at the exact same time that former Philadelphia School Superintendent Arlene Ackerman --- a 43-year fixture in the public education establishment --- called for comprehensive school choice as the primary means to improve education.

Calling access to a quality education “the civil rights battle of our generation,” Ackerman penned a column in the Inquirer in which she lamented that it took her entire career to realize that true reforms would never originate from inside the system. 

Her words describe the problem perfectly:

“Real reform will never come from within the system because too many powers that be (the teachers' union, politicians, consultants, vendors, etc.) have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo that is failing our children.”

Dr. Ackerman then offered the solution that, while obvious to anyone with common sense, has been thus far impossible to achieve.

“Meaningful education reform must be forced upon the system from outside by giving parents of all income levels real choices about where their children go to school. That requires giving parents comprehensive school choice…”

Ackerman also advocates the expansion of charter schools, which, while a good idea, is but a small part of the overall solution, since the waiting list for these successful institutions is 30,000 strong. 

The major reason charters are light years ahead of regular public schools, as Dr. Ackerman correctly points out, is two-fold. They are not required to follow many of the burdensome and counter-productive regulations imposed upon public schools, and, more important, teachers are hired --- and fired --- based on merit.

Hmmm.  Holding people accountable for their job performance. What a novel idea. If only we did that in other jobs. Oh wait.  We do.  It’s called the private sector. 

That’s right.  Despite the comedy routine of certain folks who have nothing to “Occupy” their time except railing against the evils of competition  and free enterprise, the private sector is in fact what built America into the greatest, most benevolent power the world has ever known.

Without question, though, the United States is slipping backwards, being dragged into malaise and misery. And that decline, more than anything, can be traced to one thing: the demise of education.

For decades, all efforts to improve public education have been squashed by teachers’ union bosses, whose loyalty was to their fiefdoms and the almighty paycheck ---both funded entirely by taxpayers who were duped into believing their children were receiving the best education possible.

Whenever questions were raised about the lack of accountability and stagnant or declining standardized test scores, the blame game began.  “Parents don’t put in the time with their kids’ homework… It’s society’s fault…There are too many students in each class.” And of course, the most common one of all: “We need more money.”

Undoubtedly, some parents don’t put in as much time as they should, and we live in an ever more complex society, but these simply cannot be used as excuses to not adequately teach. In the private sector, when your job becomes tougher, you either meet the challenge, or hit the door. Adapt, improvise, overcome --- or go home.  Nowhere should that be more applicable than when teachers are entrusted with our children, indeed our future.

And the “not enough money, too many kids” excuse is a myth.  That’s not opinion, but cold, hard fact.  Pennsylvania spends $26 billion per year (that’s billion, with a “b”) on education --- more per student than 39 other states --- an amount which has doubled since 1996.  Despite a drop of 27,000 students over the last ten years, the public school system had added 33,000 employees in that time. Therefore, by definition, increased funding, more personnel and decreased class size have not improved student achievement.

And the results for all that money and smaller class size? Pennsylvania students are 42^nd in SAT scores, and rank low in literacy, graduation rates and those going to college.  Their performance on the National Assessment of Education Progress exam has not improved.  And most startling, nearly HALF of all 11^th graders are not proficient in math and reading (per PSSA standardized test scores).  This cannot be attributed to just the poor-performing urban schools pulling down scores, but is testament to an across-the-board educational failure. 

Bottom line: it’s not just that the status quo isn’t working.  It has completely failed. Based on that dismal picture, Ackerman’s advocacy of school choice --- the “change that must come from outside the school system” --- couldn’t have been offered at a better time.

*****

 There are two elements of Dr. Ackerman’s revelations that are worth noting.

1) The implementation of school choice, more than any other reform, is imperative if we are not to lose another generation.  The way we did things in the past hasn't worked, and what we continue to do isn't having an impact. Unless we treat education in the same way as every other successful institution in America --- business, sports, entertainment, the military --- then we might as well raise the white flag of defeat.

Most western nations have a form of school choice, and the results speak volumes. Compared to our 30 biggest global competitors, America’s students rank near the bottom of the pack in every category.

2) Isn’t it a shame that no one in the public education establishment has the courage to speak the truth while they are still on the inside? Don’t get me wrong.  It is wonderfully refreshing to hear Dr. Ackerman’s sentiments, and to see that she has finally seen the light on what must be done to improve public education.

But it is a sad note that revelations like hers must come after her departure.  Just imagine how different things could have been had the Philadelphia School Superintendent come out of the gate advocating school choice.  While certainly not a slam dunk, it would have infinitely increased the chances for the adoption of choice, particularly since a majority of the legislature and Governor Tom Corbett also favor it.

A school choice victory is still possible, as we are told it is a top legislative priority.  While it won’t be easy, especially given the teachers’ unions’ huge political war chests generated by forced union dues, maybe, just maybe, the conversion of Arlene Ackerman from the Dark Side of Public Education might be the spark needed to push across the finish line.

Only then will the dream of so many, including Dr. Ackerman, begin to come true: “all children having access to a quality public school education.”

Just what the Doctor ordered.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Romney MUST Address His Mormonism

He is Republican, pro-defense and hawkish on the War.  He is also an unabashed Christian, although his particular sect is viewed with suspicion and prejudice.  Oh, and he's running for President.

Based on the recent firestorm that erupted when a pastor called a presidential candidate’s religion a “cult,”   it seems clear that we're talking about Mitt Romney and his Mormon faith.  But we're not.  The above description referred to none other than Dwight D. Eisenhower --- a Jehovah's Witness for most of his life.

Eight years later, it was John F. Kennedy defending his Catholicism.

Now, it’s Romney’s turn.  But he is taking a “leap of faith” by deliberately avoiding discussion about how his Mormonism influences his values, and how he views the relationship between religion and government.

During the last presidential campaign, Romney made a strategic mistake on the religion issue.  It wasn’t that he didn’t address his Mormonism, because he did.  The problem was his timing. And he seems about to make the same mistake.

An Act of Desperation in 2007

In the run-up to the 2008 primaries, there was an intense battle inside Romney's camp over whether Mitt should address the Mormon issue head-on.  That the debate even took place demonstrated political naiveté on Romney’s part, as well as a lack of historical knowledge.

Romney and some of his advisers actually thought they could avoid discussing his Mormonism. Since he was the frontrunner, how could they have believed that the “Mormon issue” would disappear? 

Yes, Romney finally made his Mormon speech, but it was too late. Had it been delivered three months prior, he would have been ahead of the curve, proactively talking about Mormonism on his terms.  But that didn’t happen.

Instead, it looked like an act of desperation.

Romney, who had been leading in the early states (in both money and polls) suddenly found himself trailing the surging Mike Huckabee in Iowa, who was also breathing down his neck in New Hampshire and South Carolina.  It was only after losing momentum that Mitt decided to address the questions that had long been swirling about his faith.  The result was that he looked desperate and disorganized.

Apparently, Romney’s folks thought they could put the issue to rest by emulating Kennedy's famous Texas speech to Protestant ministers, where he adamantly stated that he would not be taking orders from the Pope.  That was a miscalculation on several counts. First, common perception is that Kennedy ended concerns about his Catholicism after that speech.  Wrong.  JFK felt obliged to address the issue on several other occasions. 

More importantly, Catholicism was the largest single religion in the nation, and Catholics made up a substantial and powerful voting bloc in many key states.  Conversely, Mormons make up just a fraction of the electorate, and a significant number of voters, especially evangelical Christians, view Mormonism as a non-Christian “cult.”

Romney’s unexpected slip in the polls four years ago was his first major crisis, and how he reacted---some say over-reacted--- led to questions about the candidate.  Were people put off by a potential Commander-in-Chief who seemed to panic at the first sign of trouble?  Could America afford a President who was seen as indecisive? And just how much of Mitt Romney's “strong faith” was believable, since his former positions on abortion and gay rights stood in contradiction to the tenets of his religion?

And as we know, Romney failed to win the nomination that many experts said was his to lose.

Now he’s back in the same frontrunner position, yet is again choosing to remain silent on the Mormon issue.

He sidestepped Pastor Rev. Robert Jeffress’ cult remark made at the Values Voter Summit, and failed to directly address another evangelical leader who questioned whether Mormonism was even a Christian faith. A Romney spokesman said he would not address the Mormon issue because he did so four years ago.

Given that the memory span of the average voter is about three months, that’s ridiculous. Failure to act quickly on this matter will undoubtedly cause history to repeat itself.

Like all religions, Mormonism has some tenets that seem quirky to non-adherents. As the primaries draw close, expect those aspects to become front-and-center on the national stage, both directly and indirectly. With all of Romney’s crisis management experience in business, he ought to know that it’s always better taking the bull by the horns to define a difficult issue --- and being the first to do so.  If you allow the issue --- or your opponents --- to define you, you’re always playing catch-up.

By refusing to address an issue that clearly isn’t going away, Romney is playing with fire.  No one remembers his speech from four years ago, but even if they did, he should innately understand that addressing an issue --- any issue --- just once is meaningless.  In the same way that he hammers home his economic plan time and again, so too should he proudly discuss both Mormonism and his personal thoughts on how it affects his life. Not doing so only raises more questions and, by default, gives credence to unsubstantiated hearsay about “strange” Mormon beliefs.

Interestingly but not unpredictably, several of Romney’s GOP competitors had the opportunity to state that Mormonism was a Christian religion.  They took a pass. Why?  Because they believe they’ll lose part of their evangelical base, some of whom view Mormonism with animosity.

That’s proof positive that this issue isn’t going away. All the more reason for Romney to address it, and turn the tables on his competition.

Romney would be wise to study how Kennedy handled the religion issue. By consistently hammering away, JFK made it seem that voting against a Catholic was bigotry, plain and simple.  Kennedy smashed a religious barrier that many said would never be broken, not by remaining silent and taking the high road, but with a take-no-prisoners approach in his quest to become America’s leader.

As both Eisenhower and Kennedy proved, it's the man, not the religion, who will carry the day. But that distinction doesn’t come from rolling over.  It is earned.  Time will soon tell whether Romney understands that lesson.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania.

Freind's column, "Freindly Fire," appears nationally in Newsmax and regionally in

Philadelphia Magazine's Philly Post.  It is also published regularly in a number

of the state's largest newspapers, including The Delaware County Daily Times, Chester

County Daily Local, Norristown Times Herald, Pottstown Mercury and Bucks County Courier

Post. Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries

and all fifty states.

His work has been referenced in numerous other publications including The Wall Street

Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris' bestseller

"Catastrophe."

Nutter, Chief Ramsey Playing Games With Philly Murder Rate

Murders are up, but Philly PD’s website states they are down --- because they’re comparing this year’s killings to those from 2007!

If the CEO of a Wall Street firm announced that revenues were up 22 percent, he would be lauded for his leadership and undoubtedly receive a hefty raise.

By contrast, if it was revealed that the CEO was playing games with the books and basing his figures not on a year-to-date comparison from the prior year, but from four years ago, he would probably be shown the door.

But that’s precisely the situation with Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, the city’s highest-paid employee.  The argument can be made that Commissioner Ramsey is deliberately misleading the public on the city’s murder rate.

*****

A visit to the Philadelphia Police website Crime Stats page (http://phillypolice.com/about/crime-statistics) verifies what we already know: shootings, violence and murder are out of control throughout the city.  As of this writing, there have been 259 murders since January 1, as one can plainly see from the highlighted 2011 figure on the webpage.  Beside that is a number with a down arrow.  Currently, it’s 18 percent, but last week it stood at 22.  It purports to represent the percentage that murders have decreased.

And therein lies the problem. A big one.

Murders aren’t down 18 or 22 percent.  As a matter of fact, they’re up. Comparing year-to-date statistics, they’ve increased ten from last year, a whopping 24 from 2009 (a ten percent jump), and eight from 2008.   

But Chief Ramsey has decided to hide these numbers and instead compare today’s murder rate with that of 2007, the high-water mark for killings.  That’s like the Phillies claiming a playoff victory because they beat the Cardinals half a decade ago.

It’s interesting to note that Ramsey was hired at the end of 2007, which perhaps explains why he is using that blood-soaked year as his benchmark--- all the easier to pass the buck and make himself look better.

Maybe the Chief, and Mayor Nutter, who hired him and remains his boss, missed their callings. They seem better suited for Wall Street firms that rely on misleading investors (in this case, the citizens) for their own personal gain (re-election, job security and bloated pensions). 

So residents get the screws two ways: they walk away with a false sense of security, mistakenly believing that murders are down.  And when they realize the truth --- that their leaders are deliberately misleading them --- they feel betrayed.

Unlike the Wall Street CEO, Nutter and Ramsey get away scott-free.  And like some robber baron execs, they each make a pile of money, courtesy of a duped public, with little accountability and oversight.

In fact, Chief Ramsey is rolling in it, to the tune of $255,000/year.

You may recall that earlier this year, the Commissioner was actively courted for the top police job in his hometown of Chicago.  Despite pleas that he stay, it was almost a done deal, but for one small sticking point: his $400,000 per year total compensation asking price, according to press reports.  You know it’s greedy when even a liberal Democrat like Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel balks at such an obscene amount, which, by the way, is the salary of the President of the United States.

Ramsey’s reason for ultimately staying in Philadelphia? “…the support I got here at home from the business community — and the media, even — and, of course, Mayor Nutter, made the difference.”

Well, that, and the $60,000 pay raise he was promised from the Mayor as a reward for not leaving the city, courtesy of the taxpayers.  That increase makes the Commissioner the highest --- repeat, highest --- paid city employee.  Even more than the Mayor himself.

Ramsey was right about one thing. He did get quite a bit of support, from city councilmen (“we won the big prize” by retaining Ramsey) to the gushing, sycophant media.  Notably, neither entity bothered asking the right questions before, or after, the lavish pay hike was doled out to the Chief.

Questions such as:

1) How can the city afford to shell out a $60,000/year salary increase to anyone when it can’t even pay its current bills, has an insolvent pension, and continues to see its tax base --- what’s left of it --- flee? In fact, it was just reported that there is yet another tax revenue shortfall, adding to the budget deficit.  What a surprise.

And for the record, there are plenty of qualified people who would have gladly accepted the Commissioner’s previous salary of $195,000 had he chosen to leave. 

2) When will Philadelphia realize that paying exorbitant salaries to government officials is not just financially foolhardy, but doesn’t guarantee results?  Just look at Arlene Ackerman, the now former School Superintendent who made $325,000/year (with incentives allowing for a half-million dollar payday) to preside over an ever-worsening school district.  For the privilege of leaving her post, she banked $905,000, all footed by the public. 

And don’t forget scandal-plagued former Housing Authority chief Carl Greene, who, with his bonus, was making $350,000.  In addition, residents are still paying sky-high legal bills related to the mess he left behind.

3) Was any quantitative, or better yet, common sense analysis done to see if Ramsey merited such a large salary bump?  Murders are increasing, out-of-control flash mobs have led to curfews, police corruption is rampant, and there is growing fear on the streets, leading many suburbanites to stay away. 

According to the Chief’s 2008 “Crime Fighting Strategy,” the big goal that year was to “reduce homicides by twenty-five percent,” yet the Department was way short, overseeing only a 15 percent drop from 2007 to 2008.  And what of the stated overall plan of reducing homicides by 30 to 50 percent, as outlined in a public letter from Ramsey to Nutter? Not even in the ballpark. As noted above, homicides have been rising, not falling.

While certainly not all these things can be attributable to the Chief, the buck stops with him.  He is responsible.  Just like a CEO often receives no bonus when numbers are down, the Chief of Police should have pay raises tied to performance.  But since the Mayor deals in Other People’s Money, that isn’t the case.

*****

Is the city is safer? You can play with statistics to bolster any desired conclusion.  Yet ask those in Philadelphia whether they truly feel secure, and most would simply laugh. And that’s the only statistic that matters.

Is the Chief doing a good job? In some respects, yes.  But so stellar that he commands a raise three times more than the city’s per capita income?  Not even close.  The fact that the city can’t afford the money is just salt in the wound.

OK, fine. Ramsey got his money.  It is what it is, and he isn’t relinquishing it.  But that bolsters the point all the more.

The leader of the Police Department should epitomize transparency and honesty.

Instead, in what can only be assumed to be a deliberate attempt to deceive Philadelphians, games are being played with the city’s increasing murder rate.  And there is no excuse for that. None.

The culture of any organization is established by the conduct of its top leaders. In the Philadelphia Police Department’s case, its culture of honor, values and integrity has taken a hit.  And when the rank and file --- the guys on the street chasing down the murderers --- see their top brass skirting the truth for political gain, perhaps they too cut a corner where they shouldn’t be.  They take on the persona of their leadership.

It’s time for the Mayor and Chief to do the right thing by telling the truth, no matter how difficult that may be. Let’s see more honesty in the most trusted institution in Philadelphia --- its police department.

Only when the city’s leaders regain the trust of the people will Philadelphia begin its journey back to respectability.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania.

Freind's column, "Freindly Fire," appears nationally in Newsmax and regionally in

Philadelphia Magazine's Philly Post.  It is also published regularly in a number

of the state's largest newspapers, including The Delaware County Daily Times, Chester

County Daily Local, Norristown Times Herald, Pottstown Mercury and Bucks County Courier

Post. Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries

and all fifty states.

His work has been referenced in numerous other publications including The Wall Street

Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris' bestseller

"Catastrophe."

Hands Off PA's Electoral Votes!!

After his victory in 1980, Ronald Reagan chose the best, the brightest --- and make no mistake --- the most politically powerful to fill his cabinet. In an acknowledgement to the Republican might of Pennsylvania (a state he won), he chose three cabinet officials from the same county! Drew Lewis (who fired the striking air traffic controllers), Alexander Haig, and Richard Schweiker all hailed from Montgomery County.

In 1994, Pennsylvania was the most Republican state in the nation in terms of elected officials.  The GOP controlled the two U.S. Senate seats, the Governorship, the state legislature, all statewide row offices, and a majority of the congressional delegation. 

And in 2010, five congressional seats flipped to the Republicans, Tom Corbett trounced his gubernatorial opponent, the State Senate remained in GOP hands, and Republicans seized control of the State House with a ten-set majority.

Yet the biggest prize of all has eluded the Party for a quarter-century: a win for their presidential candidate.  Not coincidentally, the southeastern counties, home to nearly half the state’s population, have trended Democratic in that timeframe, with the former-GOP strongholds of Delaware and Montgomery Counties abandoning Republican nominees since 1988.

So it’s no surprise that leading Republicans, including Governor Corbett and Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, have come up with a plan to change how the state’s presidential electoral votes are awarded. Under their proposal, one electoral vote would be allocated for each congressional district a presidential candidate wins, as opposed to the current system, which is winner-take-all.

We’ll get to the real reason behind this naked political ploy, but first, let’s look at why the plan is a bad idea:

1) It politicizes the election process in an unprecedented way: Congressional districts would be gerrymandered like never before, drawn by the Party in power to suit its candidate’s needs in order to win the most districts.  This is NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they designed the system, and most definitely puts the politicians ahead of the people.  It’s supposed to be the other way around.

2) It sets the stage for the system to constantly change: Although labeled a plan offering “electoral fairness,” it is being pushed simply because the GOP now controls Harrisburg and wants to bolster the Republican nominee’s electoral total any way it can.  Remember, the Democrats need Pennsylvania to win the White House, whereas the Republicans do not.

And since this change would be enacted by simple legislation, where does it end?  If Pennsylvania Democrats regain control in 2014, and a Republican occupies the White House, would we then see the winner-take-all system come back into play?  The electoral system in constant flux would only breed resentment and confusion, which could not come at a worse time.

3) It’s a wash on the national level: If enacted nationally, this system would ultimately be a wash, or even negatively impact the GOP. For example, Republicans would no longer win all of Texas’ 38 votes, perhaps only taking 25. Taking it even further, it is possible that in 2004, despite George W. Bush winning 31 states, he might have lost the election, since he only won the Electoral College with 16 votes to spare.

4) The system works as it is: It is not easy to pigeonhole the American people’s voting preferences. For example, Montana and North Dakota, both Republican states in most presidential elections, have Democratic Senators, as did solidly Republican Georgia a short time ago.  Indiana, with a GOP governor and legislature, had voted for Democratic for president only once since 1940 --- but that changed in 2008. Obama also won the normally-GOP states of North Carolina, Virginia, Florida and Missouri.  Yet the Republicans are darn close to winning the traditionally progressive states of Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin.  Bottom line: Voting patterns are not set in stone. The more competitive elections are, the more engaged the electorate.  The Electoral College works, so why mess with a good thing?

5) It all comes down to having good candidates who can articulate a message with charisma and passion. When Republicans instead coronate those whose “turn it is,” they get clobbered.  Bob Dole and John McCain are prime examples.  Neither had any business being the presidential nominee.  Not much has changed, as the GOP is in total disarray heading into what many Republicans call the most important election in history. The truth is, there are only two candidates capable of winning the nomination, both of whom carry tremendous baggage.  Yet McCain, the Party’s patriarch, just stated, ““We have the deepest bench in the Republican Party now that I have ever seen.” And that says it all.

On the state level, it’s much of the same, as Lynn Swann and Mike Fisher proved all too well. 

Which leads us to the The Pennsylvania story.

*****

The GOP’s demise in the Keystone State can be attributed to two things: the lack of quality candidates and the colossal failure of leadership.  Fix both, and they win the state --- and the White House.  But the electoral system shouldn’t be changed just because the entrenched Business As Usual GOP hierarchy is the poster boy for incompetence.

The combination of running untenable candidates, valuing insider contracts and solicitorships over issues and choosing laziness over grunt work has caused it to lose huge chunks of the political landscape.

There has been little effort to groom candidates, and absolutely no initiative to stop the hemorrhaging from Philadelphia, where Republican statewide candidates routinely face half-million vote deficits.  As a result, the Party is in the strange position of sitting on massive gains from the tidal wave of 2010, but taking a pass on challenging vulnerable Democratic Senator Bob Casey. The GOP leadership doesn’t seem to realize that the big swings in 1994 and 2010 were not mandates for the Republicans per se, but a demand that real solutions be enacted to solve monumental problems. 

When Republicans talk about the issues, they win --- and win big.  President Reagan innately understood that, which is why he won 44 and 49 states, respectively, with massive Electoral College victories.  Even George H.W. Bush learned that lesson, as he too galloped to victory with 40 states and 426 electoral votes.

*****

Thirty years ago, when someone moved into the Philadelphia suburbs, they were always greeted (usually within a week) by the local Republican committeeman. The conversation went something like this, “Oh, I see you moved here from the city. Well, we have safer streets, better schools, and lower taxes --- because our municipality and county are run by Republicans.  Here is a voter registration card…I’ll be back in a few days to see how we can work together.”

That recruiting effort built the Party into a well-oiled machine, and the county organizations could be relied upon to deliver for national and statewide candidates.

But all that ended, and with it, the GOP’s dominance. Issues gave way to power trips and petty infighting, the Party lost its energy and brand. Now, door-knocking and personal visits are virtually non-existent. And the numbers illustrate that failure: in the largest Republican wave since 1946, neither Tom Corbett nor Pat Toomey won Delaware or Montgomery County. Given that the GOP isn’t making the necessary changes, it’s a good bet that trend will continue, with Obama and Casey again winning the state.

Republican woes aside, letting the genie out of the bottle by fundamentally altering the hallowed electoral system established by our Founding Fathers --- one that has served us so well --- for short-term political gain is anathema to everything uniquely American.

The folks pushing this change should look in the mirror and ask themselves if they are truly the leaders they purport to be.  If so, they should abandon this foolhardy plan and seize the day, winning the hearts and minds of the electorate the old-fashioned way --- through hard work.

The Founding Fathers knew a thing or two about how government works best.  Honoring them by not punting a good thing is the least we should do.

An accredited member of the news media, Chris Freind is an independent columnist,

television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news

bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest

cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania.

Freind's column, "Freindly Fire," appears nationally in Newsmax and regionally in

Philadelphia Magazine's Philly Post.  It is also published regularly in a number

of the state's largest newspapers, including The Delaware County Daily Times, Chester

County Daily Local, Norristown Times Herald, Pottstown Mercury and Bucks County Courier

Post. Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries

and all fifty states.

His work has been referenced in numerous other publications including The Wall Street

Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris' bestseller

"Catastrophe."