Corbett’s US Senate Candidate Is An Albatross Around His Neck

The Guv’s man, Steve Welch, is an Obama Voter, infuriating many in the GOP

It’s the bottom of ninth, you’re down a run, two outs and a man on second.  Should he try to steal?

Hell no. A single probably scores you, and getting thrown out ends the game. Simply stated, the risk outweighs the reward. But if, for whatever reason, the decision to steal is made, there’s only one rule: you damn well better make it. Fail, and you’re toast with the fans, the media and your teammates.

For the political equivalent, look no farther than Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett’s bewildering decision in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate.

For a year, there were those who questioned whether the state even had a governor. Then Corbett stormed out of nowhere to endorse young businessman Steve Welch, strong-arming the Republican Party to do the same.  But despite this pressure, and the fact that the Governor personally recorded the vote of every State Committee member during the public proceeding (secret ballot? forget it), the endorsement vote was still close.  Why?

Maybe it had something to do with Corbett asking loyal Republicans to do the unthinkable --- back a candidate who voted for Barack Obama. No, that’s not a misprint, and yes, that bears repeating: Welch voted for Mr. Hope and Change himself.  But there’s more.  He also contributed to Joe Sestak, and hosted an event for the man who was arguably the most liberal member of Congress.  

Here’s the kicker.  Despite Corbett’s support, Welch is running third and even fourth in some tracking polls (in a five man race), and his fundraising is nowhere near what you’d expect from the anointed favorite of the Governor.  

Many rank-and-file in the GOP are still scratching their heads as to why Corbett would back a flawed candidate who, should he win the primary, faces a huge uphill battle against incumbent Bob Casey. Given the circumstances, a Welch candidacy in the general election would be a gift from God to the Democrats.  Consider:

The President’s approval rating remains dangerously low; gas prices are soaring; Obamacare is hugely unpopular; and the economy is not recovering to the satisfaction of many.  These are big negatives that may prove decisive in races around the nation, and could become a backlash against the entire Democratic ticket through “guilt by association.” So in a year that the normally unbeatable Casey has become very mortal, many in the GOP simply aren’t buying the Corbett line that Welch is the best candidate.

And for good reason. Because of Welch’s support of Obama, any attack against Casey can be easily rebutted. 

“Bob Casey ---you supported the President’s agenda,” would be countered by, “Yes, Steve Welch, and by voting for Obama, so did you. Glad we agree. What’s your point?”

It doesn’t help that Welch’s story keeps changing. He claims he left the Republican Party because George Bush and the GOP Congress weren’t doing enough to advance the conservative agenda. Fine. Many felt the same way.  That’s why God made the Independent, Reform and Constitutional Parties. But it’s mindboggling that any conservative would leave the GOP for the ultra-liberal Democratic Party. 

Welch then claimed he voted for Obama to stop “Hillary-care,” which also makes no sense since Obamacare is a far more aggressive government health care system. So which was it? Hillary-care or dissatisfaction with the Republicans?  And his claim that he was duped into believing Sestak was a fiscal conservative is laughable. Perhaps more than any politician in the nation, Sestak has proudly been true to his core beliefs --- all of them staunchly liberal.

*****

To save the Pennsylvania Republican Party from national embarrassment, rank and file Republicans would be wise to hang the Steve Welch/Barack Obama/Joe Sestak debacle right where it belongs--- as an albatross around Tom Corbett’s neck. He owns it, and he alone should bear the consequences of what most likely will be a colossal failure.

Ironically, Corbett has placed himself in a Catch-22. He made his endorsement, misguided as it is, and with his image and credibility at stake, his candidate better “make it.”

If Welch loses --- and worse, comes in third --- Corbett takes a hit. And yet, if Welch wins, he almost certainly loses to Casey in November, a defeat many will lay at the Guv’s feet for backing a candidate who was doomed from the start.

But here would be the biggest irony of all.  Due to the Governor’s own ineptitude, a stronger Bob Casey emerges victorious in November, then takes on and defeats Corbett in two years.  And since no Casey has ever lost a general election in Pennsylvania history, that’s a real possibility. 

Talk about the chickens coming home to roost.

                            

 An accredited member of the 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. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Republican State Committee: It’s Time For An Open Senate Primary

Endorsing Steve Welch ---who voted for Obama --- would make the Party a national laughingstock

To say the Republican presidential primary has become interesting would be a gross understatement. With three different winners in the first three contests --- an unprecedented situation --- everyone is asking why the frontrunners keep falling and why the GOP base cannot unite behind a leader.

Well, hold on to your seat, because here’s a big question: Would you believe that both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 primary? And after they became disenfranchised by the Republican Party for moving too far Left, they decided to do the only logical thing: become Democrats? And in addition, does it blow your mind that besides voting for the Big O, they took out their frustrations over a too-liberal GOP by financially supporting the most far-Left Democrat in the entire Congress?

Seem far-fetched? Well, it is --- and it isn’t.

No, of course Romney and Gingrich didn’t switch Parties, vote for Obama or support liberal Democrats. If either had, it would, without question, be lunacy for any element of the Republican Party to endorse them. To many in the GOP, Obama is not just a political adversary but the Devil Incarnate who must be defeated at all costs. So running someone against Obama who had previously supported him would be a surefire recipe for disaster.

In some respects, Jon Huntsman fell victim to this exact situation. Many Republicans refused to trust him after he served as President Obama’s Ambassador to China, and his candidacy tanked. Likewise, one of Romney’s biggest obstacles to winning over Republicans stems from his implementation of an Obamacare-type health care system in Massachusetts, since many feel that he would be unable to effectively run against Obama on that critical issue.

Enter the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania.

There are seven candidates vying for the opportunity to take on incumbent Bob Casey. The election is in April, but it’s this Saturday, January 28^th, that may well determine the nominee. That’s when the Republican State Committee convenes to decide whom it will endorse --- if anyone.

Incomprehensibly, but not surprisingly, certain factions within the GOP leadership are pushing to endorse Montgomery County’s Steve Welch, a candidate who:

A) Became a Democrat because the GOP wasn’t conservative enough,

B) Financially supported (former) Congressman Joe Sestak, one of the most liberal members of Congress, and

C) Voted for Barack Obama in 2008.

For those who may think this is also a fairy tale to illustrate a point, think again.

Steve Welch did in fact vote for Barack Obama and supported Joe Sestak. So why on Earth would State Committee want to endorse Welch, and in doing so become the laughingstock of the nation?

Good question. And since State Committee members are elected officials, perhaps they should be asked that before Saturday’s vote.

This is just another example of brain-dead GOP leadership choosing laziness over hard work. Since Welch is a millionaire who could self-fund, GOP leaders wouldn’t have to engage in fundraising activities (AKA “doing their job”) nearly as much as they would for other plebian candidates --- no matter how much more qualified they may be.

Many Party faithful want to believe that the majority of State Committee sees a Welch endorsement for what it would be: a political and public relations disaster, one that would seriously erode what credibility Pennsylvania’s Republican Party has left. Such an endorsement would also cement the growing perception --- not incorrect, by the way --- that the only thing of importance to the GOP hierarchy in choosing a candidate is the size of his wallet. Qualifications? A lot of money ---period. Republican values? Irrelevant.

Brilliant.

******

Given his recent support of Leftist Democrats, would Steve Welch make a good Republican senator? Tough to tell, but Pennsylvania’s Republican voters should be the ones making that determination, not Party leaders in a smoke-filled backroom who only see dollar signs from a candidate.

Republicans deserve straight answers from Steve, and to this day, they really haven’t received them. Did he vote for Obama to spite his “true” Party, did he truly support him, or did he do it to stop “Hillarycare,” as was reported? We don’t know. With those significant questions unanswered, and by extension, character and judgment issues swirling around Welch, an endorsement would only serve to muddy the waters and foster an anger among Republicans that hasn’t been seen in Pennsylvania in decades.

Amazing as it now seems, Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater girl, supporting Barry in his presidential election. It took years for her to evolve into the more liberal Hillary that we know today. So perhaps most disconcerting is the speed in which Steve Welch evolved with his Party loyalties --- and then back again.

If one was disgruntled with the Republicans not being conservative enough, fine. Many felt the same way. But that’s why God made the Independent Party.

If one is truly seeking more conservative values, where is the wisdom and good judgment in switching to a Party that for years has unabashedly moved further to the Left? And regarding Obama and Sestak, give them credit where it’s due: both were crystal clear about where they stood on issues. Nationalized health care? Absolutely. Redistribution of wealth through higher taxes? Yep. More government spending is the answer, as a paternalistic government knows best? Without question.

So for someone to abandon the Republicans to join the Democrats, and march behind people such as Obama and Sestak, may well be an indication as to that person’s true political leanings. All the more reason for such a candidate to be vetted by ALL Republicans, not just State Committee.

There are some on the Right who seem opposed to the endorsement process every time it rolls around. Yet in many instances, it has its rightful place, a key instrument in a political party advancing its vision through whom it deems the best candidate. When candidates are vetted correctly, with the best interest of the Party in mind and not the selfish agendas of individual leaders, endorsements can be critically important in winning elections.

But when unprecedented situations arise that scream for an open primary, endorsements should never be forced, as they will virtually always backfire.

Given this situation, it absolutely boggles the mind that Tom Corbett --- the Republican Governor of Pennsylvania --- would not only get involved in a primary, but would choose to endorse someone with Welch’s background, as he did last week.

For the good of its Party, Republican State Committee should do the right thing this weekend by voting for an open primary. If it chooses to self-destruct by endorsing Steve Welch, that laughing you’ll hear will be Bob Casey as he wraps up another six-year term ten months before the election.

An accredited member of the 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. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

GOP Choices for President And Senate Are Slim

Business As Usual Still Holds In Critical Pennsylvania

“This is the most important election in American history…if we don’t beat Obama and take back the U.S. Senate, the country won’t survive…”

Such is the rallying cry of many Republicans across Pennsylvania and the nation. 

Several things come to mind:

1) The United States will “survive,” even if Barack Obama is elected to a second term. Sure, more spending and bigger government will push the country further down the wrong path, but the GOP would do well to tone down the sky-is-falling rhetoric and concentrate on the actual issues. And for the record, it’s a pretty good bet that America, the most powerful nation the world has ever known, is strong enough to survive a liberal President for a term or two.  If one man really can “destroy” the nation, the ballgame was over long ago.

2) The electorate has shown itself to be extremely volatile, with huge swings in the last three elections.  Those power shifts were not mandates for either side, but a message for Washington to solve the nation’s economic problems.

That trend looks to continue in 2012, and as of now, seems to favor the GOP. In such a “wave,” some candidates will win solely because they have an “R” next to their name. That type of “right place, right time” luck should never be a strategy for victory, but in several key races, that appears to be the GOP plan.

*****

What does it say about the Republican Party that, heading into what should be a banner year, it has only two top-tier presidential candidates (and as of two weeks ago, just one)?

And in the all-important electoral swing state of Pennsylvania, there remains no frontrunner to take on vulnerable freshman senator Bob Casey? As a matter of fact, not only isn’t there a “big name” challenger, there is only one announced candidate, only months before the April primary. (Marc Scaringi, a former Rick Santorum staffer).

While it’s still feasible for candidates to enter either race, it is the fourth quarter, and the clock is running. 

The Iowa caucuses take place in just five months, barely enough time for a late entrant to organize a grassroots ground-game and raise the huge sums necessary to compete. So short of a nationally known figure with a solid track record jumping into the fray (which pretty much comes down to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie), the GOP field is set.

Two candidates? That’s it? In the “most important” election in history to many Republicans, it’s come down to a mere two?  (Texas Governor Rick Perry and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney). 

And before the partisans cry foul about that analysis, let’s be honest about the field.  Congressman Ron Paul has the most loyal supporters, and more than anyone, shapes the debate.  But his numbers will stay the same, not nearly enough to win the nomination.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, while also having passionate supporters, was dealt a severe blow by Perry’s entry, as many Republicans looking for the “conservative with the best chance of winning” have defected. And neither Paul nor Bachmann have history on their side, as only one congressman has ever been elected president (Garfield).

The rest of the field consists of has-beens and also-rans. None can win and labeling them “second-tier” is being entirely too generous.

At least there were four top-tier candidates in 2008 (McCain, Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson) with guys like Paul and former Congressman Tom Tancredo nipping at their heels.  But to only have one up until recently begs the question: of all the Republicans nationwide, how is it possible to have so few viable candidates?

 *****

On the state level, it’s even worse.

Scaringi is a solid candidate with a firm grasp of the problems facing America, and, truth be told, would be a good U.S. Senator.  And if he wins the nomination by default because no other candidates step up, he may just be that senator if anti-incumbency fever runs high in Pennsylvania. (Although it is important to note that no Casey --- father or son --- has ever lost a general election).

But he has no name recognition, little money and hails from a sparsely-populated area of the state.

So where is everyone else?

Oh, the Party hierarchy is working hard, doing everything in its power to recruit a wealthy businessman who could self-fund the race, which is codespeak for them not wanting to do their job. Their qualification for Party support? “How big of a check can you write?”

To the business-as-usual establishment, policy positions don’t matter, nor does damn near anything else.  Irrelevant is one’s knowledge of the issues, and how well that person can articulate those positions. 

How long have you been a Republican, and how closely aligned to the GOP platform are you? Can you relate to the voters? Will you run the campaign the way it must be run to win --- aka visiting all 67 counties in the dead of winter? And are you a candidate of good character?

All secondary to the Party establishment. The only thing that matters is the size of your wallet.  And that is a major reason why Bob Casey, despite plummeting approval numbers, still maintains the advantage.

Several months ago, this author wrote a column stating that the GOP had no frontrunner to challenge Casey, and was roundly criticized by the same folks who are now scrambling to find a viable candidate.

Some things never change.

And why is that? 

Because the GOP, both nationally and in Pennsylvania, too often choose candidates not on merit --- as in, who can best defeat the Democratic opponent ---, but instead, on whose “turn” it is or who can fund the race.  In the mold of choosing Bob Dole and John McCain, Pennsylvania’s nominees may look great to Party insiders, but fare dismally when put before the voters. 

There has been little effort to groom candidates for the future, and absolutely no push to stop the hemorrhaging from Philadelphia, where Republican statewide candidates routinely face half-a-million vote deficits.  So now the Party is in the strange position of sitting on massive gains --- having won a U.S. Senate seat (Toomey), Governor (Corbett), and winning back the State House (a ten seat majority) --- but potentially taking a pass on the Casey seat, which could well be the deciding vote as to which Party controls that legislative body.

You reap what you sow, and the critical harvest is upon the GOP.

The biggest irony is that a strong senate candidate could help put Pennsylvania back in the “red” column nationally, as the state is still in electoral play (Bush lost by only two points in 2004).  And while Republicans can lose Pennsylvania and still win the White House, the same is not the case for the Democrats.  Take the Keystone State away from Obama, and you send him packing.  It’s that simple.

But with scant Republican leadership in Pennsylvania, it’s not a good bet that will happen. Incumbents don’t usually lose unless they’re challenged by viable, first-tier candidates.

With Rick Perry now in the race, Obama is sweating.  But Bob Casey is playing it cool, thankful the GOP is acting like his biggest campaign supporter.

An accredited member of the media, Chris Friend is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

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

and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including

The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick

Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in

Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national

television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

GOP’s Chances To Unseat Bob Casey? Good Luck

You would think that with Pennsylvania’s Republican roots, which have run especially deep over the last several decades, freshman Democratic senator Bob Casey would be vulnerable in 2012. 

You would be wrong, and the reason is simple civics.  Incumbents don’t lose unless they’re challenged by viable, first-tier candidates, as the senate elections in Nevada and Alaska proved.  And, as of now, there are none to challenge Casey. Whether that changes in the next year is anyone’s guess, but the mere fact that the GOP finds itself in this position speaks volumes about how it builds its “bench.”  Translation:  it doesn’t.

*****

Pennsylvania’s Republican power was on full display when Ronald Reagan chose three cabinet officials not just from the same state, but the same county! Montgomery County produced Drew Lewis (who fired the striking air traffic controllers), Alexander Haig, and Richard Schweiker.  Since then, it’s been all downhill for the Montco GOP, with infighting and strife resulting in minority status in the state’s third largest county.

In 1994, Pennsylvania could boast that it was the most Republican state in the nation.  The GOP controlled the two U.S. Senate seats, the Governorship, both chambers of the state legislature, all the statewide row offices, and a majority in the congressional delegation.  But the Party lost its way, and, by running untenable candidates, gave up huge chunks of the political landscape--- all reasons the state hasn’t voted Republican in a presidential election in what will be, at the minimum, a quarter-century.

In a resurgence that culminated last month, however, the Keystone State was one of the epicenters of the GOP political wave.  Five congressional seats flipped, Republican Attorney General Tom Corbett became Governor by trouncing Democrat Dan Onorato by ten points, the state senate stayed firmly Republican, and the State House, which had been Democratic, saw an almost incomprehensible thirteen seats move to the GOP, giving them a ten-seat majority.

And yet, with all that momentum, there is no first-tier, “go-to” frontrunner candidate to challenge Casey.

Why?  Because much more often than not, the GOP has chosen its candidates not on merit --- as in, who can best defeat the Democratic opponent ---, but instead, on whose “turn” it is.  In the mold of choosing Bob Dole and John McCain, Pennsylvania’s nominees may look great to Party insiders, but fare dismally when put before the voters.  Just look at the last several elections for governor, treasurer and auditor general.

And because there has been little effort to groom candidates for the future, and absolutely no effort to stop the hemorrhaging from Philadelphia, where Republican statewide candidates routinely face half-a-million vote deficits, the Party is now in the strange position of sitting on massive gains, but potentially passing on the Casey seat.

The subject of that race was one of the hot topics discussed at last weekend’s Pennsylvania Society gathering in New York, the annual event in which the state’s premier political and business elite exchange thoughts, predictions and gossip, most of which has no basis in reality.

To cut through the insider-speak, Freindly Fire turned to longtime Pennsylvania political observer Michael O’Connell for his thoughts on how the GOP got itself into its current position, and what it could do to be viable in 2012 --- when there will be races for U.S. Senate, Attorney General (which has never been held by a Democrat), State Treasurer, and Auditor General (an open seat).

“Pennsylvania Republicans are at a generational turnover, just as they were in the late seventies.  There is scarcely any bench of obvious statewide candidates, although there are any number of talented Republicans holding office.  The next several years will see more than a few of them try to make the always difficult transition from the General Assembly or local office to the big time.”

*****

Depending on the speed and efficiency of GOP Party-building efforts, made infinitely easier after the recent gains, several quality candidates may arise from the ranks, but currently, the field is weak, and the list short.  Following is a brief analysis:

First-tier:  None.

Second-tier: Congressman Jim Gerlach, who has defied the odds by winning in the Democratic waves of 2006 and 2008.  But Gerlach will be under pressure to not vacate the seat, as 2012 will be a tougher year for the GOP.  And given that he is now back in the Majority, how realistic is it that Gerlach will leave an almost-sure thing for a difficult race in which the odds are not in his favor?  Slim.

Third-tier: State Senators Jake Corman and Kim Ward.  Both are well-respected legislators, but are completely unknown outside their districts.  Given that neither represents a large population center, they would have to show a remarkable ability to raise money in order to increase name recognition statewide --- not an easy task, since federal rules limit contributions to $2400, a far cry from the state level where there is no limit.

 "Both are prototypes of what I mentioned,” O’Connell stated. “Talented players in offices largely out of the public eye, who will have to demonstrate that they can move on to a brutally difficult statewide contest.  There is no training school for that--it is a credential one only earns by running and winning a race."

Often-mentioned but no virtually chance: Congressman Charlie Dent.  Dent was reelected by a wide margin, and will clearly enjoy serving in the Majority, which is exactly where he’ll stay for one simple reason: he is pro-abortion, and in Pennsylvania Republican primaries, that’s a killer.  The only remote shot Dent would have is to be part of a five or six candidate field, with all his opponents splitting the Pro-Life vote.  Otherwise, he’s not going anywhere.

There are wildcards, to be sure. Former congressmen Phil English and Melissa Hart, while neither has publicly expressed intent, would match up well with Casey.  Both of these seasoned pols hail from western Pennsylvania (compared to Casey’s northeast base) and both served effectively in Democratic-leaning districts, though they lost tough races in the Democratic waves of 2008 and 2006, respectively.  But don’t count on either one taking up the challenge.

Interestingly, perhaps the candidate with the best chance for victory would be a self-funding businessman. Instead of carrying the baggage of an easily-distorted voting record, a charismatic business leader could engage the voters with the only record anyone really cares about: how many jobs he created, how his budgets were managed, and the innovative solutions he implemented to solve problems in the face of economic adversity. 

Since more and more people think government should be run like a business, operating within the same constraints as the private sector, such a platform could prove endearing. And while there are the pitfalls of self-financing (he’s “buying” the election), the alternative is far more appealing: he’s beholden to no one, especially the special interests.

An individual who fits that description is John Moran of Moran Logistics, who continues to create jobs due to his involvement in the booming Marcellus Shale natural gas industry.  While Moran recently stated he was not in the running (after his name was anonymously floated), the significant buzz created over just a few days demonstrated two things: the appealing nature of the no-nonsense businessman candidate, and the almost complete lack of a traditional candidate bench.

Both parties should recognize that their Business-As-Usual approach to selecting candidates needs an overhaul, especially given the fiscal calamity in which we find our nation and state.

For the Republicans at least, that model may well be to run law-and-order candidates with a proven track record of rooting out corruption and taking the tough stands, regardless of the political fallout. 

The results speak for themselves: New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a ever-rising national star, is a former United States Attorney, as are newly elected congressmen Pat Meehan of Delaware County (who won by 11 points) and Tom Marino of northeast Pennsylvania (ten-point margin), who unseated a well-funded and popular incumbent.  Montgomery County State Representative-elect Todd Stephens, a former Assistant District Attorney, took down entrenched incumbent Rick Taylor, and of course, state Attorney General Tom Corbett, who successfully prosecuted many powerful Harrisburg insiders, ruled the day.

Of note was the fate of John Perzel, longtime Philadelphia State Representative and former uber-Speaker of the House, who was the only Republican to lose in the biggest GOP wave since 1946. Law of averages?  Bad luck?  Hardly.  Instead, his loss centered around the 82-count indictment he is facing --- a case brought about by Corbett.

The message is clear.  Voters know they stand on the precipice, and feel the candidates best suited to clean up the political mess are not the ones whose “turn” it is, but those who have demonstrated the ability to create jobs and put bad guys in jail.

The path has been blazed.  The question is: can the Republican hierarchy finally read the road sign to success?  

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com
Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."
Freind, whose column appears nationally in Newsmax, also serves as a guest commentator on Philadelphia-area talk radio shows, and makes numerous other television and radio appearances, most notably on FOX.  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com