Seal of Disapproval

One of the things modern parents teach their children these days is that what one posts online can come back to haunt you in the future. Pre-internet, that wasn't a problem, but it sure is now. 

Last week’s scandal, wherein an endorsed Republican candidate for Methacton School Board, Scott Misus, posted offensive comments on a public social media site, became a cautionary tale and living example of this important lesson. The Misus situation has made what one posts online relevant, and in an era of lazy and low-information voters, vividly illustrates how unwillingness to do one’s own research on candidates and to allow others to do your thinking for you can have serious consequences.

Political parties have their own agendas and tend to be run by people who like to play kingmaker for their own reasons, and since most people aren’t privy to insider info about the personalities, alliances and agendas, reliance on their opinions should be viewed as no more than a starting point; a guideline, not gospel.

And don't bank on the press to do meaningful vetting for you, either. The days of investigative reporters are largely gone, and very small budgets at most media outlets means they primarily publish little more than press releases.

Misus, who was jointly endorsed by the two Republican committees in Methacton School District (LP and Worcester; school board candidates cross file, and evidently the LP Dems decided not to endorse at all), has been dealt with by party leadership and officially stripped of his endorsement.  While it’s too late to have his name removed from voting machines, he will not be advocated as a candidate on Election Day. At considerable expense, party sample ballots were pulled and reprinted without his name on them. His name was painstakingly removed from yard signs on which he appeared.  The viewpoints he expressed are not shared by the members of the local party or the other endorsed candidates.

Absolutely, I think we should have done a better job of vetting our candidates. Court records were scrutinized but we should have gone further. All candidates were asked at the endorsement meeting whether there was any information about themselves that could embarrass the party, and Misus either forgot about these Facebook posts or didn’t see a problem with them, as they were not mentioned.

But that’s typical and not a good way to vet candidates unless you already know the answer and are verifying a candidate’s honesty. Candidates often lie or mislead. They forget, hedge, hide, engage in wishful thinking, and understandably try to put the best face on things. A good vetting process is systematic and ideally discovers both the strengths and weaknesses of candidates before offering them assistance or support. You can’t rely only on what a candidate tells you.

However, even when one DOES know of adverse information that defies explanation, sometimes parties move forward with a candidate anyway. That’s when doing your own research is most valuable.

This is not just an indictment of the GOP. The local Democrat party has had their missteps too.

For example, back in 2009 one of my coworkers was a LP Democrat committeeman who excitedly bragged to me one day that his party was going to put up as a township supervisor candidate a 'dynamic woman who was new to Lower Providence but not new to politics’.

I was intrigued because I was working on a campaign to elect the then-incumbent supervisor, so as soon I learned the name, I researched this woman and discovered that she was a notorious con artist who had been at the heart of a 2002-2003 scandal in Philadelphia wherein she pretended to be an heiress descended from a Revolutionary war hero, ingratiated herself into Philly high society, and used this persona to swindle a wealthy Philadelphia real estate broker out of more than $80,000 in cash and thousands more in the form of goods and services from others. She was so notorious that a couple of crime shows had done episodes about her. (See a good summary, here; this woman, who has since remarried, moved out of Lower Providence last year as the result of a foreclosure, so apparently her money management problems continue to this day. She still has an active court docket with Montgomery County as she's still paying restitution).

Anyway, I passed this information onto county GOP party leadership, who took it to Democrat party leadership, who then presented it to the candidate and asked her whether this information was true. She quietly withdrew and nobody was publicly embarrassed. 

Perhaps, like the “CARE” parents, we should have just shopped the story around to the local news media for maximum exposure and humiliation instead of handling it in a gentlemanly manner and giving the party the opportunity to address it first.  

The lesson is, if a party doesn’t do a good job vetting candidates these days, when it’s easier than ever via the Internet, the opposition (and/or public) most certainly will.  It’s not called ‘opposition research’ for nothing.

While the Worcester Republican Committee (via Worcesterpapolitics.com) apparently was quick to blame Lower Providence’s Republican Party for the Misus debacle, the offensive Facebook posts were never presented by their municipal leader, Wini Hayes, during the leadup to the joint school board endorsement meeting (or at the actual meeting) as a reason why we should not endorse Mr. Misus, even though Ms. Hayes took the lead on questioning candidates and asked each of them about the existence of unflattering or adverse information.

Given how WRC has positioned themselves (via their friends at Worcesterpapolitics.com) as somehow innocent in this, you can imagine how surprised I was to discover something that apparently escaped WRC six years ago when it endorsed current supervisor Susan Caughlan, and earlier this year when they re-endorsed her for re-election.

Ms. Caughlan (also known as Mrs. David Brooks, whom I’ve written about previously), an attorney, wrote and published an article for the William and Mary Law Review  in 1987 that defended the in-home possession and viewing of child pornography as a protected First Amendment right [you can read her argument yourself here].  This was not a random class assignment she was forced to write, it was an analysis she chose to make, write and publish.

I’m not sure how one can defend the creation or mere existence of, let alone the private possession, viewing and sharing of, child pornography anywhere, anyplace, anytime, but this woman evidently feels the framers of the Constitution envisioned this as a protected, God-given right more than two hundred years ago - as long as it occurs in the privacy of your home, of course, if I read this correctly - and attached her name to this garbage. As a Republican, as an American, as a parent, as a human, it disgusts me that WRC would hold up someone with these reprehensible views and endorse them as some sort of exemplary representative of our values, no matter when she wrote it.

In the event that Caughlan belatedly defends writing this as some sort of youth-inspired insanity, it gets worse. In the “You can tell a lot about a person by the company they keep” department, I’m told she’s had a long friendship and association with recently convicted child porn purveyor (and Worcester Twp resident) John Harris. This friendship is shady especially when you consider that he has reportedly endorsed her in the past, donated money to her campaign, and records show she voted  to spend in the neighborhood of $200,000 of Worcester Township taxpayer dollars protecting his emails from discovery in a Right-To-Know case (Worcester didn't have an email system of their own at the time and now, of course, we know what kind of things were lurking in his email). And, incidentally, she’s also voted to spend taxpayer resources to battle Methacton School District in efforts to delay and restrict the installation of field lights at Methacton’s football field in an effort to prevent them from impacting nearby residents, which includes and benefits Harris, among other things.  

This friendship/association is common knowledge in and around Worcester, so why, again, was she ever endorsed? Was SHE vetted? As I mentioned above, WRC chair Wini Hayes asked Methacton school board candidates seeking a party endorsement this year if there was anything negative about themselves that they needed to explain; did she ask Caughlan the same thing at their meeting to endorse a supervisor candidate? And if so, did Caughlan ever tell WRC about this plank in her ‘conservative’ platform?

Is it any wonder, then, that the fastest growing voter identity group is “independent” and that increasingly, voters look with more favor upon UNendorsed candidates?

Political parties are made up of imperfect humans who despite the best of intentions, sometimes get it wrong. Voters have a wealth of free information easily available to them to determine who a candidate really is, what he/she is really about, and whether a candidate resonates with their values.  The fact that so many have voter apathy and abdicate the vetting responsibility to others lends validity to the saying ‘you get the government you deserve”.

Don't Hate The Player, Hate the Game

If you choose not to play in a particular game, is it unfair when someone else who does, wins?

That is the twisted political logic on display in a recent Lower Providence Patch article (here) from local far-left Democrat, Joe “The Nerd” Ferraro.  You may have seen Mr. Ferraro on cable TV attending a local meeting on occasion. He has a talent for getting the local press to publish his sound bites, and is a frequent contributor to Huffington Post (and Patch). He and I have butted heads on occasion in the past and he’s often tried to label me as one thing or another.

Joe cries foul and plays the victim because, as he claims, the LP Republican Party is ‘gaming the system’ in that their candidate for the Board of Supervisors, attorney Patrick Duffy, is allegedly running a write-in campaign on the Democrat ballot. This is not illegal; in fact it’s standard practice for school board and judicial candidates in Pennsylvania to file nominating petitions to run on both tickets.

I think it’s disingenuous for Joe to throw a flag on the play. The Democrat party in LP either is so disorganized that they can’t get their act together to get someone to step up and run, OR actively chose not to recruit and run candidates for township supervisor. Then, when there is an attempt at a
write-in campaign on their (empty) ballot, they get all indignant, as if somehow the GOP is disrespecting the position that they couldn't even be bothered to fill in the first place --- for TWO ELECTION CYCLES RUNNING!!!

In addition, they only have one candidate running for the 4 open spots on the Methacton School Board. Something tells me the LP Dems may not even have had anything to do with that; most likely, that candidate is a lone ranger.

They are also not running anyone for auditor. The only position they really do have a candidate for is tax collector. Incumbent Kirsten Deal – who withdrew from her seat as a Democrat committeeperson several years ago when she became frustrated with their leadership -  is up for another term this  year, so it’s not like the Dems had to go find their candidate for this slot.  She was already in the gate.

For all intents and purposes, LP Dems have almost totally avoided wading into the LP political pool of late. Given that, why on earth wouldn’t any smart candidate try to wrap up a 9-month election cycle in the primary if he or she can? If your party abandons its voters and offers up no candidate for them to rally around, who can blame the only participant in the race for going after them and presenting them with a candidate to evaluate on his/her merits, rather than by whether their name is followed by an R or a D? What have you got to lose at that point?

As I can personally attest, running for any elected office these days can cost a decent chunk of change and, if you do it right and actually knock on hundreds of doors to meet voters personally, can consume a huge amount of time and shoe leather. If your opposition gives you a freebie, you’d be stupid not to take it so that you can win on both ballots in the primary and be done with it. Don’t doubt for a second that if the shoe were on the other foot, the Democrats wouldn’t do the same.

When I ran for township supervisor in 2011, I elected to try this strategy and ran a Dem write-in campaign, as did the other two Republican candidates. As Joe alludes, the Democrats got wind of it when all the mail started hitting and, incensed that the Republican candidates were supposedly ‘hijacking’ their party, sprang into action 72 hours before the election, beginning their own write-in campaign on the Sunday evening before the Tuesday primary. Well, I submit that you can’t hijack something that has been abandoned, and make no mistake, the Dems abandoned the supervisor’s races in 2011 and 2013.

He also expressed outrage at this supposed violation of the ‘rules’.  Rules? Maybe the Dems should try  playing by the rules per the PA election code and running a real campaign the way serious candidates do.  Playing by the rules means filing nominating petitions full of voters’ signatures to get your candidate on the ballot, filing campaign formation documents and appointing officers so your candidate can fundraise and have transparency as to what he spends his money on, and running an issues-based campaign around whatever his positions are. It is most certainly not throwing a Hail Mary pass two days before an election and running an unvetted Johnny-come-lately who couldn’t be bothered to follow the process or spend any time visiting or educating voters on what he believes, his position on the issues, and what he would do if elected. It is the political equivalent of a drive-by shooting.

And, not for nothing, but the whining about how Duffy is supposedly sneakily using the color ‘blue’ in his yard signs to lull Democrats into voting for him is ludicrous.  Did I miss something? When did the Democrat party trademark the color blue and reserve it for their exclusive use? If everybody had the same thought process Joe does, shouldn’t Duffy’s use of blue work against him with his own party of red-loving Republicans?

I have to hand it to the Dems. In recent years all they managed to do was run the same retreads for the same offices over and over, but in the last few years it appears they completely threw in the towel and are running no one, so Joe’s righteous indignation rings hollow.  If you only start looking for candidates at the time nominating petitions are being circulated, you're already behind the 8-ball....what, you have no bench??

To quote the PA lottery groundhog, “You can’t win if you don’t play”.  

 

 

 

 

 

And They're Off!!

This year in the election cycle is a year in which we elect our next county commissioners and our row officers (everything from sheriff to register of wills to clerk of courts, treasurer, prothonotary, etc). In the last such election, the Democrats in Montgomery County made some inroads, scoring some of those seats.

This time around, the Republican Party is locked, loaded and taking aim to win them all back. Some seats are running unopposed in this spring’s primary (May 17); some have several people competing on both the D and R sides of the ticket for the slot. To see a full list of Republican candidates, check out my district website at www.lowerprovidence2-3.com, or the county MCRC site at http://www.montgomerycountygop.com/ . For a full list of Democrat candidates, check http://mcdems.org/.

This is also the year in which we in Lower Providence, a Second Class Township, elect two supervisors. Supervisors are the equivalent of a smaller municipality’s mayor. A total of five hold staggered terms so that every couple years, one or two seats are open. Because so many people have asked me to consider it, I have decided to run for one of them. If I don’t already have it, I hope to win your support.

So, if I’m not posting here much over the next few weeks, it’s because I’m out knocking on doors, holding fundraisers, and putting out signs. As a Republican, I’ll only be knocking on those doors - Pennysylvania has a closed primary, so only those registered in one party or the other can vote for their respective candidates - but if you’re out when I stop by, or you just have a question or comment to relay, I’d be happy to hear from you. You can always reach me at my email (lowerprov2-3@yahoo.com) or my home phone (610-539-5175).

My campaign website is located at http://www.kearneyvictory2011.com/.

Here for the Party

Now that the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary is behind us, I’d like to comment on the impact it had in Lower Providence. That might take a couple of posts, but first and foremost I want to report that there are four new faces to the Lower Providence Republican Committee, and they are all female.

First, I won one of two seats in my race in 2-3, replacing departing committeeman Bill Stewart, who had decided not to run this time around, and came within five votes of taking the title of top vote-getter and beating my opponent, Kathie Eskie. [UDPATE: AS OF 6-15-10 the certified, official results are me with 158, Ms. Eskie with 156, and Mr. Donovan with 88] I had 8 more votes (that I know of) that couldn’t make it to the poll in time, or I would have – but it doesn’t matter. I’m happy to have had all the support that I did. We had approximately 33% turnout at our poll, which may be unprecedented for a primary. While the Democrats came out in force to support Sestak (who had a very strong (and entertaining) poll worker there for them in the name of Wendell Young from Oakridge Circle in my district), the only reason the Republicans came out was for my race.

 Second, in district 2-1, newcomer Linda Tyson won the seat vacated by our new district justice, Cathleen Kelly Rebar. I don’t know Linda yet, but I will reach out to her to introduce myself and I look forward to working with her.

Third, Barbara Donofrio won at 3-4 (Shannondell), replacing Lea Bertha, who did not run for another term.

Last, but certainly not least, local court reporter Kimberly Bursner won in voting district 1-1, replacing Rosie Lomire, who also decided not to run. I do know Kim – she has been involved a little bit as far as attending fundraisers and trying to learn who all the players are in Lower Providence – and we’re ‘Facebook friends” - and I know she will be a great addition to the Committee.

I just wanted to say something about my race.  I heard loud and clear, through knocking on doors, talking to people, and in seeing just who came out to vote for me yesterday - despite the miserable weather - that Republican politics as usual – on any level, not just in Lower Providence - is not acceptable any longer for this Party.

My theme was that we needed to step up our game and bring new energy and ideas to the table, along with remembering who our base is and what they value in order to better combat liberal candidates and policies, and I am dedicated to making that a reality. I appreciate the voters’ trust in me to advocate that viewpoint. I realize the “establishment” Republican party may not like that, but since I’m positive we agree in more areas than we disagree, I am sure we will find a way to unite, work together and move forward.

There are so many people who help one succeed in an election, and I’m not even going to try here to thank all of them. I’ve made a lot of those calls and given a lot of those hugs (and still have a few more to go, along with some thank you letters), and those folks all know who they are. I appreciate every single thing anyone did for me, no matter how small.

 I truly look forward to, as country singer Gretchen Wilson sings in a song that obviously is a play on words, being “Here for the Party”.

Big (Sheriff's) Shoes To Fill

My understanding is that the Montgomery County Republican party's executive committee/area leaders will meet on Monday to wade through and consider all those individuals (almost a dozen!) who threw their hats into the ring for the opportunity to replace  beloved Sheriff John Durante, who recently passed away.

Lower Providence has two contenders up for consideration, both of them worthy: one is Ben Crahalla, who was our delightfully colorful longtime district justice of 22 years, until the end of last year, when The Hon. Cathleen Rebar took over that office.

The other is Joseph Stemple, the former chief of police in Whitpain Township, most recently a member of our Planning Commission and our 'Senior Citizen of the Year' for 2009.

Either would be an excellent choice and representative of Lower Providence's best. Just wanted to wish both gentlemen the best of luck on Monday.

UPDATE:

All candidates were interviewed and discussed but a formal vote was not taken on whom to recommend to the Governor (the name must be submitted within 90 days to the PA Senate for confirmation).  I heard that one candidate did quite well and hit it out of the park; however, getting this done in Harrisburg is going to be tougher now that budget season is underway. If the 90 days passes with no name submitted, then the Chief Deputy (Al Ricci), who is Acting Sheriff now, fills out the remainder of the term.

May 11 is the deadline for the Governor to submit a name for PA Senate confirmation, so Bob Kerns may try be more aggressive in trying to get this done as that date approaches.  

Trash Talk

Maybe you haven't heard, but trash is the hottest topic in the land these days. And everybody's got an opinion.

It's the system that has served Lower Providence well for almost twenty years, with Mascaro doing the hauling. We were one of the first townships to do contract for volume purchasing power with a single hauler; now the vast majority of municipalities across the state have caught up with us. Mascaro was the winning low bidder in the last six contract cycles dating back to the early 1990's. We were trendsetters in the waste removal arena before it was trendy to be.

The trash removal contract is up for rebid. There's been great debate about whether it should be rebid, and if so, how it should be rebid.

Recently, supervisors Chris DiPaolo and Rick Brown decided that we should get out of the trash business altogether and not put out a bid for one company to do trash removal. I'm sure this recent change of heart has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Chris, and close friends of both he and Rick Brown, were sued by Mascaro recently involving alleged election violations during the primary this past spring. Nah, probably just a coincidence.

The bid package that will be put out for bid will, in addition to a tiered pricing option depending on whether you want once or twice a week pickup, have an 'opt out' provision. The problem is, 3 supervisors think "opt out" means one thing, and 2 think it means something else.

Rick and Chris think 'opt out' means you opt out of the contract hauler option and instead pick your own company to pick up your trash. Piero Sassu, Marie Altieri and Craig Dininny support 'opt out' to mean that you are one of those folks who has some other option to handle your trash. Maybe you own a business, and you dispose of your residential trash there.  You have NO need for trash service here in Lower Providence.

The math associated with this option as interpreted by Rick and Chris is staggering. Here's a little word problem: if you and your neighbors select, between you, six different trash companies, and each of those six picks up one time a week for trash, one time for yard waste, and once for recycleables, how many trucks do you think that is thundering down your road each week?

That's a lot of trucks tearing up all the roads that were just paved...roads that have to last for ten years, until they're paid off. That's a lot of extra vehicles on the roads with the school buses each morning. That's a lot of extra noise.

What do you think makes sense? And for the record, since Election Day is coming up soon, Republican candidates Eckman/Thomas favor multiple haulers, and Democrat candidates Keenan/Heinegg support one contract hauler with tiered pricing based on how many pickups you need a week...a modification of what we have now.

I understand the township will be surveying residents on this issue. However, the survey is a mere two questions long and doesn't fully explain the options. Be sure to let your elected officials know just what you want, whether you respond to the survey, or take the time to email them.