[IP] PSF, The '04 Aftermath, Part II & More
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jon Delano <jon.delano@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: November 24, 2004 6:25:56 AM EST
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: PSF, The '04 Aftermath, Part II & More
Reply-To: Jon Delano <jon.delano@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear Politically Savvy Friends,
You have overwhelmed me with such thoughtful emails following my
blurry-eyed instant analysis right after the election that I feel
negligent in taking so long to get Part II off to you. And, as it
turns out, there is now so much more to muse about. First, let me say
thank you for all the kind words from so many of you about my campaign
coverage this year. [Folks in this media market get subjected to me on
TV, radio, and print, while you long-distance friends are not so
afflicted!]. I work hard to give you the best I can as fairly as I
can, and, even when we disagree, I love hearing from you.
This has been a very grueling campaign year for everyone, and
tomorrow we begin what I hope is a terrific holiday season for
everyone. Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours! Just as families often
do, let's hope we can rebuild relationships between red and blue
states. A little humor and a little humility helps. I know that many
Democrats are convinced that President Bush and his congressional
allies have no intention of "reaching out" in compromise, but as I
opined in Part I, America is always better than its leaders, and I
remain optimistic that the great divisions of the last four years can
be bridged if the will to do so, on both sides, is there.
In Part I, I offered instant analysis of the presidential race.
In Part II today, I amplify on that and take a closer look at
Pennsylvania. Then I end with my thoughts about Senator Rick
Santorum's brouhaha in Penn Hills. Read on.
BEYOND THE BELTWAY:
Presidential Redux:
I don't have much more to add to my instant analysis the day after
the election, except to note that the election was very close, despite
efforts to claim great mandates (all winners do that) or to bemoan a
horrendous loss. Both President Bush and Senator Kerry got more
popular votes that any other man who has ever won the presidency, and
that's actually a good sign of a healthy democracy.
Senator Kerry needed Ohio to win the electoral college, and he
just fell short. One of our PSFs who was on the ground with Kerry in
that state reports the following: "1) John Kerry received more votes
than any Democrat has ever received in the history of the state of
Ohio, exceeding the campaign's vote goals and getting 200,000 more
votes than Bush did when he won the state in 2000. 2) Traditionally,
to win Ohio, Democrats have to win Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) by
150,000 votes and keep the Republican candidate under 60 percent in
Hamilton County (Cincinnati). We won Cuyahoga by 217,000 votes and kept
Bush at 53 percent in Hamilton. We even won Franklin County (Columbus)
by 40,000 votes (Gore won it by 4,000). 3) We met our vote goal – we
just did not realize that Bush could grow his vote by as much as he
did. The Republicans turned out by astronomical numbers in the Western
and Southwestern part of the state."
In short, Kerry did everything right in Ohio -- Bush just did it
better in his base!
By the way, those of you interested in maps might want to click in
to this website at the University of Michigan:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/ ; In addition to that
traditional red-blue map of states, these political scientists give you
a more realistic way to look at the election based on population vote,
along with some other options. As my PSF who sent this along said,
it's really a site for political geeks like us!
Was the Election Stolen?
I continue to get scores of emails about the 'fraud' that
allegedly afflicted the ballot count in Ohio and other states. While
I am not naive enough to believe that shenanigans didn't occur on
election day, it seems to me that the guy with the most at stake has
been the quietest -- John Kerry. If Kerry believes something went
wrong with the process, he has an obligation to speak up and speak
out. I know, I know, perhaps like Richard Nixon in 1960, Kerry has
decided its in his long-term political interests and the nation's, too,
to just keep quiet.
I don't mean to diminish efforts to get at the truth of the
ballot, and I won't demean (as some do) those who are digging. I'm
all for investigative reports, but I am not by nature a
conspiratorialist. So those who think Bush 'stole' the election, keep
digging. That is your American right. But it's going to take some
hard evidence of fraud that affects the overall result to get most
Americans to pay attention.
Blue Angst:
Lots of PSFers who voted for Kerry have emailed me their feelings
of angst in the wake of the prospect of another four years of George W.
Bush. This one describes what I suspect is the reality for many blue
state supporters of Kerry.
"I am from Illinois (blue state), went to college in Philadelphia
(in a blue state), did graduate work in Boston (blue state), worked in
New York for three years (blue state) and have been in California for
22 years (blue state). I have never lived for any length of time in a
“red” state and, in fact, most of them are places I couldn’t even
imagine living. So I guess what this realization has brought home is
that the majority of voters are not just of a different point of view
than mine, they are virtually from another world -- a world where
opposing gay marriage is more important than healthcare, the
environment, a reckless rush to war, or the economy."
My PSF friends who are Bush supporters obviously don't see it
this way. They see the 'blue' states as effete, coastal elites who
have lost their moral grounding. Whether President Bush can ever
bridge the two, or even wants to, will be a subplot worth watching in
the next four years.
PENNSYLVANIA:
Snarlin' or Darlin', Arlen's the Man:
Senator Arlen Specter is the most successful politician in
Pennsylvania history. Attacked from the right, attacked from the left,
he always manages to pull it out. And he did so again on election
day, winning a record fifth 6-year term, by more than a half million
votes.
What happened was clear. First, moderate Democrats and suburban
Republicans embraced him as the independent senator who would stand up
to the right-wing. Congressman Joe Hoeffel, the Democratic challenger
who ran as strong a campaign as he could, was just too unknown to pull
it off, even as Kerry was carrying the state. In Philadelphia, for
example, Hoeffel beat Specter by only 262,000 votes, while Kerry was
beating Bush by just under 400,000 votes. In Allegheny County
(Pittsburgh), where Kerry beat Bush by almost 100,000 votes, Hoeffel
won by only 17,000 votes. And then in those bedroom suburbs of
Philadelphia where Kerry beat Bush, it was Specter over Hoeffel.
Hoeffel even lost his home county, Montgomery, to Specter by 28,000
votes.
Second, conservative Republicans did not abandon Specter as they
did in the primary. Constitution Party candidate Jim Clymer, the only
pro-life candidate in the race, was a credible option, but in the end
he got only 215,000 votes, not even breaking 5 percent.
I had predicted that Specter would win by a single digit margin.
Turns out I was wrong by 0.835%. Specter won by 10.834% over Hoeffel
in the unofficial count because Clymer's campaign simply could not
attract the conservative voters that turned out in record numbers to
embrace the Bush-Cheney ticket.
The Aftermath:
What happened next was, of course, even more interesting to
Specter-watchers. True to form, the next day PA's senior senator spoke
the obvious when he told reporters that, given the 60-vote rule to
overturn a filibuster against judicial confirmation, the president
would have to look for moderate judges, not right-wing ideologues, to
appoint to the bench. That comment was, in my view, taken out of
context by those who hate Specter and forced the senior senator to
engage in another one of his rescue missions to save his chairmanship
of the Judiciary Committee.
Once again, he has done so, but at what price?
To use a crude expression suggested by one of my conservative
PSFers, Specter has effectively been 'de-balled.' If PA Democrats who
voted for his reelection ever really expected him to oppose any of
Bush's nominees to the Supreme Court or the federal bench, that appears
now to be an illusion, as least that's what many Republicans think.
In exchange for his chairmanship, Specter has essentially agreed to let
all of the president's choices get to the Senate floor. Conservatives
are gleeful.
While on the surface, the conservatives may be right -- they have
cornered Specter and all his claims to be an 'independent' are
quashed. But knowing the senator as long as I have, I am not so
sure. We will learn shortly, as the president will waste no time
sending up to the Senate some judicial nominees whose Specter's
supporters in PA will have a hard time stomaching. The real test of
Specter's independence will come when a Supreme Court nominee is
named. Stay tuned.
The Other PA Races:
Democrats swept two of the three statewide row offices, but could
not bring home the trifecta.
As expected, auditor general Bob Casey swept to a landslide win
for state treasurer, winning 3.3 million votes. His campaign
immediately trumpeted the fact that Casey won the most votes of any
candidate in PA history, even more than Lyndon Johnson's landslide in
1964. Casey's margin of victory, 1.3 million votes, was mighty
impressive, but did not beat the record set by the late Senator John
Heinz who won reeelection in 1988 with a margin of nearly 1.5 million
votes. Casey is clearly in line to run for governor in 2010, this time
with Rendell's support.
For state auditor general, Democratic state Sen. Jack Wagner of
Pittsburgh beat Republican Joe Peters by 340,000 votes. Wagner, a
social conservative who was Casey's running mate for lieutenant
governor in 2002, fits the mold of successful Dems in PA, and can be
expected to be a substantial player in state politics in the years
ahead.
The Democrats' only loss was the office of attorney general, where
Democrat Jim Eisenhower could not turn a Democratic tide statewide to
his favor. Once again, the Associated Press misread the early returns
to declare Eisenhower the winner over Republican Tom Corbett. I was in
the KDKA-TV newsroom when the bulletin came in from AP, and I leaned
over to a couple of the news managers and said, "Watch this one. This
could turn overnight." It did, just as it had eight years ago when AP
declared Democrat Joe Kohn the winner over the ultimate winner
Republican Mike Fisher.
In the end, Corbett won by 118,000 votes. Eisenhower did very
well in Philadelphia, beating Corbett by 372,000 votes, and he beat
Corbett in two of the three Philly suburban counties. But while that
is the traditional route for a Democratic victory, PA still requires
the Democrat to do well in other key urban areas around the state.
Eisenhower's campaign in Western PA was practically non-existent, and
it showed on election day. Corbett only lost Allegheny County by
40,000 votes and kept it close in most of the neighboring counties,
even winning Westmoreland by 22,000 votes. Corbett also won Erie
County, Lackawanna County, and Lehigh County, counties Democrats need
to win. And then, as Republicans usually do, Corbett cleaned up in the
"T" and went on to victory.
It was the one great moment for PA Republicans, along with their
predicted recapture of the state House and Senate. Indeed, the GOP
picked up one seat in each of those bodies. The defeat of state Sen.
Allen Kukovich of Westmoreland County, noted for being one the nicest
liberals in Harrisburg, has many Dems scratching their heads, but it
was no surprise for those who have watched this county vote Republican
consistently, at least in statewide elections.
Still, on balance, the PA Democrats feel pretty good about 2004,
which is a good thing for them because 2006 promises to be another fun
election in this state.
SANTORUM REDUX:
Normally, I would end right here, but PA's junior senator, Rick
Santorum, has been in the news a lot lately. The crux of it has to do
with his residence in Penn Hills (a suburb of Pittsburgh, for my
non-local PSFers) and using local tax dollars to educate his children
who don't live in PA.
Now I know that many of you will send me nasty emails, but let me,
once again, come to Rick's defense. Santorum is doing absolutely the
right thing to have his wife and children at home with him in Leesburg,
Virginia, and I will not criticize him for that. Yes, I know he
attacked my friend and former employer, Congressman Doug Walgren, for
doing exactly the same thing back in 1989-1990. Back then, Doug made
the same defense that Rick makes today. A member of Congress should be
able to have his young family with him in Washington. Doug was right
then, and Rick is right today. End of my editorial!
Of course, that's not the end of the story, as the news media as
reported. So let's see if we can piece together what's going on here.
Erin Vecchio is a member of the Penn Hills School Board. She also
happens to be chair of the Penn Hills Democratic Committee. When she
learned that the school district had paid out tens of thousands of
dollars to a cyber charter school utilized by the Santorum children who
are home-schooled in Virginia, she started asking lots of questions
about Santorum's residence. It's old news that the Santorums live in
Leesburg, Virginia, in a $757,000 home. They also own a 3-bedroom home
on Stephens Lane in Penn Hills, assessed at $106,000, next door to a
much larger 11-room, 5-bedroom home owned by the senator's in-laws, the
Garvers.
When the senator comes back to Pittsburgh, he and his wife usually
stay with the Garvers. The home next door is occupied by the senator's
neice and her husband, who are also registered to vote from that
residence along with Rick and Karen Santorum. The children are being
raised in Virginia. Folks, there is nothing illegal here. Elected
officials in Congress usually establish a place of residence somewhere
in their constituency even though they don't live there. Often it is a
family home, an in-law's home, an apartment, or, in Rick's case, a
dwelling they lease out to others. Rick, like Doug Walgren did back
in the 1980s, pays his local taxes.
While this dispute raises all the old issues of residency, it
really has much more to do with Penn Hills taxpayers underwriting the
education of the Santorum children. Beginning in 2001, the kids were
enrolled in the Western Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School as Penn
Hills students. For three school years, Penn Hills taxpayers paid
$37,755 a year ($7,551 for each of Santorum's five children) to the
cyber school. School board member Erin Vecchio says the payments were
vouchered by the cyber school and paid by the district without the
names of the students being disclosed to the district. When she got a
tip that it was Santorum's kids in Virginia who were being supported by
Penn Hills taxpayers, she confronted Santorum at the polls on election
day who, reportedly, did not deny the fact. Last week, the Cyber
Charter School announced that the Santorum kids were not eligible for
the 2004-05 school year because they were not Penn Hills students.
Vecchio accuses Santorum of fraud, and wants the senator to pay
back the school district the $113,265 dollars she says that Penn Hills
taxpayers spent on Santorum's children. The senator refuses, saying he
is a Penn Hills taxpayer and did nothing wrong. A majority of school
board members, by the way, are Republican, but there is no evidence
that they are brushing this issue under the rug.
Santorum says it's all political, calling Vecchio (according to
one press account) "a sort of smash-mouth, in-your-face politician" --
hmmm, I've heard Rick called that, too -- who has a political agenda to
defeat Santorum in 2006. Vecchio defends herself, saying Penn Hills
taxpayers, regardless of party, just want their money back. But make
no mistake. Politics is also at the heart of this matter. Local
Democrats want very badly to defeat Santorum, and this issue, which is
grounded in residency, has particularly resonance in this region
because of Santorum's successful campaign against Walgren in 1990.
In my view, Rick has been up-front about the residency and
home-schooling of his children in Virginia for years. My recollection
is that it even came up in the 2000 campaign, and he defended it to the
satisfaction of many. What is new was the decision by the senator to
claim his children as Penn Hills students for purposes of a cyber
charter school tax reimbursement. Was this legal? I don't know, but,
in my view, the Penn Hills School Board has every right to investigate
the pay-out of tax dollars. The next school board meeting is Tuesday,
December 7.
That's it for this Wednesday morning. As always, I welcome your
comments and insights. Have a wonderful Thanksgiving. I give thanks
that we live in a great country where, despite political differences,
we can break bread together and celebrate our religious traditions
freely. And, on this Thanksgiving, I especially give thanks for your
friendship. Enjoy the holiday!
As always,
Jon
Jon Delano
Political Analyst
H. John Heinz School of Public Policy & Management
Carnegie Mellon University
[As always, these views are my own and not those of the great
organizations with whom I am privileged to be associated].
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/