Defeat Specter

Reelection Troubles for Liberal Specter

2009-02-14T14:17:00.000-08:00

A new Rasmussen survey finds that 58% of Republicans are less likely to vote for Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who's up for re-election in 2010, because of his vote in favor of the economic stimulus bill (Feb. 11, 500 LV, MoE +/- 4.5%). Of the independent voters, 48% are less likely to vote for him, and 27% are more likely.

Overall, 47% of Pennsylvania voters support the stimulus bill as proposed by Pres. Obama and congressional Democrats; 41% oppose it, and 12% are not sure. 52% said it was at least somewhat likely that the bill will end up making things worse instead of better.

Specter Joins Democrats in Harming Pennsylvania Workers

2008-11-17T15:58:00.000-08:00

The 250,000 volunteers from AFL-CIO unions around the country may still be hoarse and weary from the dogged stretch effort to get out the vote for Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden, but they're taking a victory lap. Labor feels much more confident that their top legislative priority - a bill that would make organizing workers substantially easier - will be passed and signed.

The Champagne will have to stay on ice, however, because the debate will be fiery over the Employee Free Choice Act, which effectively would do away with employers' rights to insist that employees cast pro or con votes in a secret ballot election for whether they want union representation.

Many employers say that election, overseen by the National Labor Relations Board, is sacrosanct. Unions say the process, through which management in many cases tries to make a case to workers that a union is not in their best interests, is fraught with coercion and intimidation.

Under the proposed law, if a majority of employees at a workplace approve by signing authorization cards, a union will represent the group.

The Employee Free Choice Act - opponents call it the forced choice act, arguing the legislation would give labor a disproportionately heavy hand in organizing - would bring sweeping change to the 73-year-old National Labor Relations Act. It would spell hope for labor and anathema to many business interests.

An Obama win meant everything to labor, because Sen. John McCain is an ardent opponent of the legislation, and labor's ground game was impressive: Unions spent about $450 million in the election, and the effort was particularly helpful in battleground states. In all, union members connected with 13 million voters in 24 states, in the process selling the Employee Free Choice Act along with the Democratic ticket.

Still, the fight will be fierce.

"Right now, the NLRB process is working against workers," said Terence M. O'Sullivan, general president of the 508,000-member Laborers' International Union of North America. "We need a system where workers do not have concerns with fear and intimidation by employers."
"This battle will be a firestorm," said Randel Johnson, vice president of labor policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The legislation is critical to labor's fortunes because unions' numbers have been sliding for years - with unions today representing only 7.7 percent of private-sector workers and 37.2 percent in the public sector. The causes for the decline are numerous - globalization, waning interest, entrepreneurial motivations, employer resistance and more - but now that the labor-friendly political stars are aligned - Obama and Biden were among co-sponsors of the Employee Free Choice Act that died in the last congressional session - labor's hopes are high.

The act passed the House in 2007 and had 51 votes in the Senate. But it needed 60 to overcome a Republican filibuster, and it failed.

In the aftermath of this month's election, Democrats have a 57 to 40 advantage in the Senate with three races still undecided. (Two of the 57 are independents who caucus with Democrats.) Even while it is doubtful the Democrats will reach 60, and there is a question whether conservative Democrats will come around, labor regards the act, also known as the card check bill, as central to a broad recovery package that also includes health care reform and infrastructure investment.

"They are all long-term structural economic issues," said AFL-CIO spokesman Steve Smith.
"We need it because, at a time when our nation's working people are living on the edge, a union card is the single best ticket to the train to individual and collective recovery," said AFL-CIO President John Sweeney.

Cards used to organize

In numerous unions, more organizing already occurs through authorized cards rather than an NLRB election. That is true with hotel workers, in gaming, food service, laundry and garment manufacturing in particular, said Mike Casey, president of United Here Local 2, the hotel workers union, in San Francisco.

The legislation is in part labor's response to rulings by NLRB members serving during President Bush's tenure. They are perceived as anti-union, such as rulings in 2006 that broadened the definition of supervisor. As a result of those rulings, as many as 8 million workers, including nurses, building trades and newspaper and television workers, among others, will be classified as supervisors and barred from joining unions, by the AFL-CIO's count.

"I agree with them, there's been a series of one-sided rulings by this Bush board" that has also acted slowly in resolving elections that determine union representation and charges of unfair labor practices brought by employees, said William B. Gould IV, a Stanford University emeritus law professor who was chairman of the NLRB during President Bill Clinton's time in office, from 1994 to 1998.

"These delays make it too easy for employers to intimidate and coerce workers, including dismissing them for organizing," said Gould. "And this in turn diminishes employee interest in unions and thus undercuts the right to collective bargaining they are supposed to enjoy," he added.

Still, Gould says "secret ballots to resolve union representation rights are the way to go," adding that Obama should meet Republicans halfway on bipartisan common ground. In his view, Obama should stay with the secret ballot election with an important coda - that elections should continue quickly after a union's petition seeking recognition is filed, within one or two weeks.
"Quick elections are the key to meaningful reform because delay is the principal way in which labor law stacks the deck against employees," said Gould.

Peter Hurtgen, another former NLRB member and chairman appointed by Clinton (1997-2002), now an employers' lawyer at Morgan Lewis & Bockius in Irvine, disputes the charge of board bias and inordinate delay.

Hurtgen provided statistics showing unions are winning well over 50 percent of NLRB secret ballot elections involving new organizing, while the NLRB said in a preliminary 2008 fiscal year report that 2,085 union-representation elections were conducted a median 38 days from the filing of a petition.

Hurtgen also likened organizing by authorization cards as "death by a thousand cuts," by which unions wear down an employer "until he has had enough." Hurtgen said, "In this process, unions don't organize employees, they organize employers. They can get the cards (signed) and the employer does not insist on an election and the union is in. Unions have been fairly successful at that."

On the other hand, Bill Samuel, the director of government affairs at the AFL-CIO, says that the "employer community is not focused on preserving the secret ballot elections; rather it is more about preserving the use of tactics that intimidate employees considering union representation."

Compromise not needed

Samuel also doubts that a compromise might have to be worked out in Congress - something like Gould's secret ballot election held expeditiously.

"I'm not going to forecast how the debate will unfold. We have a way to go to cover a filibuster. We are not there yet," Samuel said. "We are getting closer to a filibuster-proof Senate. It will include some Republicans," including a co-sponsor, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., he added.
There's no talk of compromise at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, either.

"Labor has faced decades of declining membership and they see this as a bonanza to quickly reverse that trend," said Steven Law, the chief legal officer and general counsel at the chamber, in Washington.

"I think, from the unions' perspective, they invested $450 million on buying influence and they expect something for it. From our perspective, there is nothing in the Employee Free Choice Act that can be improved by shaving it."

Said the AFL-CIO's Sweeney, "If we are going to rebuild our middle class and (have) a sustained recovery of living standards, workers must have the freedom to form unions as counterweight to corporate power, as a way to bargain for a better life."

E-mail George Raine at graine@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/16/BU7B1436S5.DTL

This article appeared on page C - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Specter Plans Meeting with Cuban Despot

2008-08-03T19:49:00.000-07:00

U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter said he has requested a meeting with Cuban leader Raul Castro and hopes to sit down with him during a trip to Latin America next month. The Pennsylvania Republican often uses his time away from the Senate -- it is scheduled to adjourn for a month-long recess Friday -- to meet with foreign leaders, as photos on his office walls can attest. On three previous occasions, he has met with Fidel Castro, who is ill and recently handed over power to his brother Raul. "I think that chances are really on the horizon for reestablishing relations with Cuba now that Fidel Castro is no longer in charge," he told reporters today. "I'd like to see Raul Castro. There is a real opportunity to get Cuban cooperation on drug interdiction. ... And also I'd like to see trade and tourism develop and I think we are right on the cusp of doing that. "He said he has sent a letter to Castro and is awaiting a response. "I think he'll see me," Specter said. Specter said he also hopes to meet with Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez during the trip, with whom he last met in August 2005. "I'm a firm believer in dialogue. I think there is a potential to salvage the relationship with Chavez -- will be very helpful in Latin America."

Specter Turns Blind Eye to Real Problem

2008-07-30T18:59:00.000-07:00

Senator Specter is working with Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-DE) on this "fair" piece of legislation: the Justice Integrity Act. Although unfairness in our justice system most likely exists under some circumstances, it is important to remember that the greatest reason a large number of black Americans are inprisoned is because a break down of the family in black neighborhoods, poor education in inner cities, and a willingness to not accept personal responsibility.

The fact is that in order to decrease the number of black Americans in jail is to revitalize the family in black communities, provide better educational and social networks in inner city school systems, and an acceptance that past travesties like slavery and segregation are regrettable, yet behind us.

Instead, Senator Specter and Biden would much prefer to call the justice system racist and attempt to show a correlation between the high rate of imprisonment among black Americans and racism in the system.

Specter Fails to Reach Out to Constituent

2008-07-29T19:07:00.000-07:00

This letter to the editor appeared in the Pocono Record on July 29, 2008.

Editor, the Record:

In these tough economic times, we all have to make sacrifices. My wife's rising health insurance costs prompted us to shop around for a better rate. The problem is, no other insurance company will take her with her pre-existing health conditions, thus we're stuck with a high premium and no affordable options.

I contacted Senator Arlen Specter to request some assistance in finding more affordable health insurance. My first phone call was answered and I was told someone would get back to me. I waited a few days with no return call. I called again, and was told again someone would call me back. Again, no return call.

I am dismayed that my representative who is supposed to be "working" for the people can't find the time to offer assistance to his constituents. To this day, no return call and we are still paying sky-high health insurance premiums.

RON GRAVER

Tannersville

New Ratings Provide Liberal Side of Specter

2008-07-02T15:44:00.000-07:00

A recent evaluation by the Club for Growth found that Senator Arlen Specter has one of the highest percentages of voting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The study found that Senator Specter voted with liberal Harry Reid 61.7% of the time, the fourth highest rating for a Republican.

The Alliance for Worker Freedom created it's own scorecard as well. While many of the states Republican delegation received high ratings, Senator Specter tied Senator Bob Casey with a 0% rating. Other Democrats who also received a 0% rating are Fattah, Holden, Sestak, Kanjorski, and Murtha.

Former Specter Chief of Staff Helping Liberal Carney

2008-07-02T04:32:00.000-07:00

Republican U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter is raising money for Democratic U.S. Rep. Chris Carney as he faces a still re-election test, Roll Call reports.

David Urban was Specter's chief of staff for five years, but now he is hosting a $1,000-a-head breakfast for Carney July 16 in Washington.

"While I'm a Republican, I like to think I support solid candidates," Urban told Roll Call.

"[Carney] is a conservative Democrats ... who deserves to be given another shot."
Carney is considered one of the state's most vulnerable Democratic incumbents as he faces businessman and millionaire Chris Hackett in the 10th Congressional District.

The paper also reports Urban has contributed to U.S. Rep. Jason Altmire (D-McCandless) and Republican Tom Manion, who is challenging U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Bristol).

Specter Works to Hinder Free Speech

2008-06-27T19:25:00.000-07:00

By Bart Jansen, CQ Staff

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn part of the federal campaign finance law could threaten some state laws and spur two senators to revive their push for a constitutional amendment.

The high court on Thursday threw out the so-called millionaires’ amendment, a portion of the law (PL 107-155) that raised the per-donor limits on contributions for congressional candidates facing wealthy, self-funded opponents.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. , writing for the 5-4 majority, said the provision was “at war” with rulings such as the 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo, which equated money with political speech.
Some in Congress were already disenchanted with Buckley v. Valeo. Sens. Charles E. Schumer , D-N.Y., and Arlen Specter , R-Pa., want to overturn it with a constitutional amendment (S J Res 21).

“It is clear the only way to preserve meaningful campaign finance reform is to repeal the Buckley v. Valeo ruling, one of the court’s worst decisions of the last 50 years,” Schumer said.
Their resolution, introduced in October, had not picked up steam, but Thursday’s court decision could help Schumer and Specter renew their efforts.

For Old Times Sake...

2008-06-26T12:00:00.000-07:00

By: John J. Miller

EDITOR'S NOTE: Pennyslvania's senior senator, Arlen Specter, faces Congressman Pat Toomey in their state's Rpeublican primary next month. The race is closer than many predicted it would be (see here); although the White House and party are behind Specter, Pennsylvanians appear to be open for a change. John J. Miller wrote about "The Worst Republican Senator," in a September 1, 2003, cover story for National Review. It is reprinted here.

“I'll go straight to the point," said Arlen Specter, shortly after sitting down to dinner with Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation in March. "I've got a primary and I'm being hit from the right. I want your support."

The Republican senator from Pennsylvania wasn't going to get it merely by breaking bread. Says Weyrich: "I told him I was disgusted with how he comes around just before his elections and asks for conservative endorsements, when we all know he won't give us the time of day later on." In years past, Weyrich has traveled to Specter's home turf and urged conservatives to stick with one of the GOP's most liberal members. "I'm not sure what I'm going to do this time."

The choice for Weyrich — and the whole conservative movement — is whether to make another uneasy peace with Specter in the prudential belief that no party holding a one-seat majority in the Senate should dump an incumbent who has won four previous elections in a swing state. The alternative is to rally behind Pat Toomey, an impressive congressman from Allentown who has launched an energetic primary bid against the man who has done more to frustrate conservative goals over the years than perhaps any other member of his caucus. Specter may not be the most unreliable GOP senator — he faces strong competition in that category from Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island — but he is almost certainly the most harmful, because he is smart, ruthless, and influential.

Weyrich's complaint is a common one: Specter votes like a Democrat until late in his term, when he remembers that he will need at least some conservatives on his side if he's going to win another six years. "Arlen is not a team player, but we're getting a little more cooperation out of him this year," says one GOP senator. In 2001, for instance, Specter was in his usual form, helping slash the Bush administration's tax cuts by $250 billion. This year, however, he embraced the president's tax-relief proposals early on. "There's more reason for an economic stimulus now," he says. Skeptics think it's not the economy he's trying to jump-start as much as it is his Republican base — which he'll need in next April's primary.

The 73-year-old Specter is one of the Senate's best-known but least-liked members. His notoriety dates back to 1964, when, as a young lawyer serving on the Warren Commission, he invented the "single-bullet theory" to explain how Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President Kennedy. Ever since, conspiracy groupies have blamed him for a major cover-up. In Oliver Stone's movie JFK, Kevin Costner's character labels Specter "an ambitious junior counselor" behind "one of the grossest lies ever forced on the American people."

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have much better reasons for disliking him: They regard Specter as one of the prickliest pols in Congress — a humorless man who is cold to colleagues and cruel to staff. Late one night several years ago, Senate majority leader Trent Lott needed Specter to sign off on an appropriations bill. Specter agreed to do it, for a price: Lott would have to attend two fundraisers in Pennsylvania. Lott made the deal, but this sort of legislative hostage-taking doesn't win fans. "There are two kinds of senators: Republicans who don't like Specter and Democrats who don't like Specter," says a former leadership aide. In a Washingtonian magazine survey, Hill staffers rated him the Senate's meanest member. This has given rise to one of Specter's nicknames: Snarlin' Arlen.

Being "mean" isn't necessarily a bad quality in a politician. When Weyrich stumped for Specter in 1992, he made a simple point to his conservative listeners: "Arlen Specter is a jerk, but he's our jerk." A former Senate staffer puts it this way: "If there's a tough debate going on, you definitely want Specter on your side."

The problem for conservatives is that Specter isn't their jerk nearly enough. He is an abortion-rights absolutist, a dogged advocate of racial preferences, a bitter foe of tort reform, a firm friend of the International Criminal Court — the list is long. When Citizens Against Government Waste recently listed Specter in its "Pig Book" as one of the Senate's most profligate spenders, he shot back: "If they left me out, I'd be worried." In 1995, Specter briefly ran for president and pursued the unique strategy of attacking the base of his own party: His announcement speech lobbed a grenade at "the intolerant Right." After pressing this theme for several months, one poll showed him attracting support from a grand total of 1 percent of Republicans. The senator's lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union is 42 percent (Pat Toomey's is 97).

In July, Specter disappointed conservatives yet again when he blocked a school-choice proposal that would have granted vouchers to 2,000 poor students in the District of Columbia. Prominent Democrats, including D.C. mayor Anthony Williams and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, support the plan. So did Specter six years ago, when he voted in favor of a similar measure. "I've regretted it ever since," he now says. "I believe school choice violates the separation of church and state. It's unconstitutional." But didn't the Supreme Court rule otherwise last year? "It was a 5-4 decision. The court may change its mind." Specter's own children attended private school in Philadelphia. "They didn't have access to a good public school," he explains. So what would he say to a mother in D.C. who insists that her kids don't have access to a good public school either? "There are charter schools available. I've led the way to improve the quality of education in America."

Specter's biggest impact probably has come on the Judiciary Committee. That makes sense, because he was a prominent lawyer before arriving in Washington. In addition to his work on the Warren Commission, he was twice elected district attorney in Philadelphia, where he earned a tough-on-crime reputation. On the Judiciary Committee, he has been tough on Republican judicial nominees. In 1986, Ronald Reagan selected Jeff Sessions of Alabama for the federal bench, but Specter joined his Democratic colleagues in defeating the nomination — it was only the second time the Judiciary Committee had turned down a nominee since the FDR era.

Attorney general Ed Meese called it "an appalling surrender to the politics of ideology." Sessions didn't vanish from public life; in 1996, he was elected to the Senate. Now he sits with Specter on the Judiciary Committee. The two men don't talk about what passed between them 17 years ago, but Specter admits he made a mistake: "I've gotten to know him. I regret my vote."

Specter doesn't regret a more famous vote that took place the following year, on the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork. This was a watershed moment in Washington politics, when left-wing histrionics began to play a leading role in judicial confirmations — and the term "borking" was born. Bork had an impeccable record as a law professor and judge, but the debate over his nomination was dominated by the fevered rhetoric of his enemies, who said that confirming him would condemn women to back-alley abortions and blacks to segregated lunch counters. Fresh from his first re-election a few months earlier, Specter couldn't make up his mind about what to do. He questioned Bork for hours in his private chambers and at public hearings. In the end, he decided to vote against confirmation. "He called and said that he couldn't be sure about me," says Bork.

"I've never known what he meant by that." Specter's announcement doomed the nomination. As Bork lobbyist Tom Korologos put it at the time: "Specter hit the game-winning RBI." Conservatives, of course, resent that he was batting for the wrong team.

Specter likes to think that he redeemed himself in the eyes of the Right four years later, when he was a strong defender of embattled nominee Clarence Thomas. With his next election a year away, he was indeed looking to win points with the Right. His strong prosecutorial skills became an important asset to Thomas, in hearings that polarized the country even more than Bork's had. It is possible to believe that without Specter's aggressive interrogation of Anita Hill, including his accusation that she may have committed perjury, Thomas would not have been confirmed.

Yet Specter wasted little time in distancing himself from the man he helped elevate. He has described the Thomas-Hill episode as a kind of sensitivity seminar on sexual harassment: "The hearings were a learning experience for me and, for that matter, for America, too." He has also expressed his "disappointment" in Thomas's performance on the Supreme Court. Specter refuses to use the same word today, though he's clearly not comfortable with Thomas's conservative record. "He's grown a lot in the last twelve years," says the senator. But Specter still won't commit to voting for Thomas if he were nominated as Chief Justice. "I'd want to think about that," he says. What about Antonin Scalia for chief justice? "I'd want to think about that, too."

The impeachment trial of Bill Clinton occurred before the full Senate rather than the Judiciary Committee, but many people believed Specter again would play a memorable role. And in fact he did, though his performance was most noteworthy for its weirdness. Senators were supposed to determine whether Clinton was "guilty" or "not guilty" of impeachable crimes. Specter, however, wanted a third option: "Under Scottish law, there are three possible verdicts: 'guilty,' 'not guilty,' and 'not proven.'" He said that the president had not received a proper trial, in the sense that no witnesses were called — and therefore senators didn't have enough information to convict. When Specter announced "not proven" during the roll call, Chief Justice William Rehnquist ordered his verdict to be recorded as "not guilty." Specter continued to claim that the distinction was meaningful, and suggested that perhaps Clinton should face a criminal trial in an actual court after leaving office. Yet he clearly doesn't have a low opinion of the former president; two pictures of Clinton decorate the foyer of Specter's Senate office.

During the George W. Bush administration, Specter has supported most of the president's picks for the federal bench. In May, however, he forced the Judiciary Committee to send the nomination of Leon Holmes to the Senate floor without a recommendation — an embarrassing setback for the White House. (As of this writing, there still hasn't been a floor vote on Holmes.) In July, he voted to approve Bill Pryor's nomination, but not before announcing that he might change his mind and vote against Pryor on the Senate floor.

This behavior is no surprise, though it would take on added significance if Specter were to become the next chairman of the Judiciary Committee, as he is now in line to do. Orrin Hatch of Utah is the current chairman, but he's term-limited in that position. Next comes Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who isn't expected to give up his control of the powerful Finance Committee. After him sits Specter, who has wanted the top job at Judiciary for years. "There's a lot I would like to do," he says, citing violent crime, antitrust law, and privacy as leading concerns. Several of his colleagues on the committee, however, are worried about the prospect of a Chairman Specter in 2005. "He could take the committee in a more liberal direction," says one of them. "It would definitely be a challenge."

Perhaps this is the clinching argument against Specter: He may in fact be the GOP's best bet for holding Pennsylvania's Senate seat, but his re-election also represents the best shot liberals have for influencing an important committee in a Senate they don't otherwise control. What's more, if Specter wins a fifth term in 2004, he'll be 80 years old in 2010 and perhaps ready to retire. If he knows he doesn't have to face voters again, conservatives may not even get the one or two years of leverage over him they've come to expect.

Specter's Pennsylvania colleague Rick Santorum, a committed conservative, supports Specter over Pat Toomey. "There's no question that Arlen's an independent guy, but he also understands the concept of team," says Santorum. "This race could draw resources away from other states, where there's a big difference between a Democrat and a Republican rather than a small one between Specter and Toomey." This party-line loyalty is remarkable, because Specter tried to complicate Santorum's first Senate primary by recruiting a pro-abortion woman to run against him. His first choice was Teresa Heinz, widow of the late Republican senator John Heinz (and now the wife of John Kerry). When she said no, Specter turned to state auditor Barbara Hafer, who looked like a candidate for a few weeks but didn't get in. Specter was forced to abandon his efforts. Santorum captured the GOP nod and won the general election — showing that true-blue conservatives can prevail in Pennsylvania if they invigorate conservatives and run respectably among the state's many Reagan Democrats.

Anybody launching a primary challenge against an incumbent faces long odds, but Toomey is optimistic. "I wouldn't be doing this if I weren't convinced I could win," he says. Specter is taking the primary seriously, which is good news and bad news for Toomey: good because it suggests that Specter really does feel vulnerable, bad because Specter won't fall victim to Lazy Incumbent Syndrome. At the end of June, Specter had nearly $9 million in the bank, compared to about $1.5 million for Toomey. "I won't be out-hustled," says the senator.

Yet the 41-year-old congressman remains confident. "I never thought I was going to raise more money than Arlen Specter," he says. "But I am going to raise enough to get out my message." Most experts think he'll need at least $4 million to have a real chance to win. He may yet succeed: In 1998, Specter faced two nameless primary opponents who spent next to nothing on their campaigns, and they attracted a combined 33 percent of the vote. This suggests that Toomey — not an unknown, but a conservative standout in the House who has won three elections in a Democratic-leaning district — begins with one-third of Republicans already in his pocket. He will only go up from there. And nobody should regard Specter as invincible in the general election: In 1992, Lynn Yeakel came out of nowhere and almost beat him, holding Specter to 49 percent of the electorate and drawing 46 percent for herself.

Much of the GOP establishment nevertheless is getting behind Specter, including the White House. But Toomey is making gains. Two dozen members of the state legislature support his insurgency, as do Pennsylvania right-to-life groups and national organizations such as the Club for Growth. Steve Forbes and Grover Norquist also back him. The Pennsylvania primary is closed, meaning that only Republicans can vote in it; conservatives therefore will have a lot to say about who wins the nomination. Specter believes there's a conservative case to be made on behalf of his re-election. On primary day, though, conservatives might well make a different declaration: "Not proven."

Specter Gears Up for Baseball Confrontation

2008-06-10T19:16:00.000-07:00

This article was written by CAP News, a comical news site. They certainly understand Senator Arlen Specter well to have produced such a comical piece on Specter's recent involvement in sports.

PORTLAND, MAINE (CAP) - "Slugger," the mascot for the Double-A baseball team the Portland Sea Dogs, will be the first of many baseball mascots called before a Congressional committee investigating possible wrongdoing at Minor League ballgames, sources say.

"We have credible evidence that, in racing young fans around the bases between innings, Slugger may have, on numerous occasions, let the fan win, thus shattering expectations of fair, above-board play at our sporting contests," Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) wrote in a letter to Commissioner of Baseball Bud Selig. "Frankly, I'm appalled. Even more appalled than usual, I mean."

Specter is apparently basing his concerns on a recent study showing that, out of more than 1,000 such races that Slugger has participated in since 1994, he has never won a single one, despite being clearly larger and more skilled at running than most of his young opponents.

"Listen, Slugger is a large, capable half-seal/half-dog with the stamina to lead a crowd of 7,000 through a boisterous version of the Village People's YMCA," noted Specter when contacted by CAP News. "You're telling me he can't beat a 7-year-old around a baseball diamond? Something stinks here."

Specter also claimed that Slugger and other members of his mascot brethren, including Ribbee of the West Tennessee Diamond Jaxx and Homer the Polecat of the Huntsville Stars, have attempted to unduly influence fans by offering them free merchandise, such as shirts and towels, usually fired at them at high rates of speed through so-called "T-shirt cannons" that may have been smuggled in from Iran.

"What these characters are going to find out is that baseball fans can't be bought or intimidated, even Minor League baseball fans," said Specter. "They see Homer the Polecat for the skunk he really is. Or weasel. We have it narrowed down to one of those two."

Slugger, who is mute, had no comment. But a spokesman for the Portland Sea Dogs insisted that the races are legitimate, as are the contest to throw fake groceries into giant supermarket carts and the one where a blindfolded man runs around the outfield trying to knock down a gigantic inflated Chick-Fil-A cow.

"We take great pride in our professionalism and our integrity," said Bob Reynolds of the Portland Sea Dogs front office. "Just ask the Sea Dog Trash Monsters when you're throwing away your hot dog wrappers and soda cups in their mouth."

Selig has yet to comment on the scandal, but insiders fear it could have serious repercussions in the mascot community.

"Remember what happened with Mr. Met?" asked one mascot who declined to be named, referring to the 1989 incident where a player hit the New York Mets mascot in the head with a baseball bat. "It took years to get beyond that."

In that case, after a lengthy trial, the player was cleared on the grounds that Mr. Met's head is a giant baseball.

Specter Slaps Bush Administration; Supports ACLU

2008-06-09T18:21:00.000-07:00

Senator Arlen Specter joined liberals George Soros, Arianna Huffington, and Helen Thomas to address the ACLU's 2008 Membership Conference. During this conference, Senator Specter slammed the Bush Administration and reiterated his support for current legislation favored by the radical liberal fringe group: the ACLU.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) continued his sharp criticism of the Bush administration’s record on protecting civil liberties in remarks before the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on Monday.

Specter said that the Justice Department has established procedures that dampen legal rights; that Bush has used signing statements to evade congressional directives; and that administration officials have shut Congress out of federal intelligence decisions. The administration has also erred by pushing for retroactive legal immunity for telephone companies for turning over Americans' private data, Specter said. An impasse over that issue is the chief reason Congress has rejected renewing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

"Seems to me it's very difficult to give retroactive immunity when you don't even know for sure what you're giving retroactive immunity for," he said. "It's very uncertain what will happen."

Specter, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee and a former eight-year district attorney in Philadelphia, addressed the ACLU's 2008 membership conference at the Washington Convention Center.

The senator on Monday also promoted two pieces of legislation that he is pushing in the Senate: one that would create a legal privilege for reporters to withhold information in some cases, and another that would extend free-speech protections to reporters who face libel suits in foreign courts. He said he is "proud to be on the same side" as the ACLU in favoring both initiatives, noting that he visited former New York Times reporter Judith Miller during her 85-day prison sentence in 2005 for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury investigating the Valerie Plame case.

Legal Bills Continue to Mount on Specter

2008-06-09T04:51:00.000-07:00

U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter's legal bills keep piling up. The Pennsylvania Republican spent another $18,027 in fees to Blank Rome during the first quarter of the year in connection with a Federal Election Commission audit of his 2004 campaign.

That adds to $58,000 that Specter's campaign paid to the firm last year.

The FEC completed its audit of Specter late last year. It found that Specter's '04 campaign collected more than $1 million in excessive contributions, failed to properly disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars in receipts from political party committees and political action committees and missed a key reporting deadline before the primary.

Specter's treasurer Stephen Harmelin said at the time that the campaign has "proactively taken steps to try and prevent any recurrences." Harmelin was the campaign's treasurer during the

'04 campaign.

A hefty fine could be on the horizon for Specter's campaign, although the FEC can't do anything until the Senate confirms new commissioners. With just two sitting commissioners, the six-member panel has been without a quorum for months amid a Senate battle over President Bush's nominees.

Any eventual fine wouldn't do much damage to Specter's coffers. The five-term lawmaker is raising money at a brisk pace this cycle, having already amassed $4.6 million.

Specter's Real Reason for Investigating NFL

2008-06-08T19:43:00.000-07:00

It seems these days that Congress is getting more and more involved in the realm of professional sports. Almost everywhere you turn, it's something else: first it was George Mitchell and the MLB steroids report, then the Congressional hearings of Mark McGwire, Palmeiro, etc., and, more recently, Arlen Specter and the NFL.

I've heard thousands of voices asking the same question: "Why the heck would Congress get involved in professional sports?"

And the answer, my good friends? It was done for you. And your money.

The NFL and MLB consist, in the minds of Congress, as the owners of the respective franchises. Let's lump them all together, the owners of the NFL and MLB. The 32 NFL franchises plus the 30 MLB franchises is 62 teams. That's a lot of teams, right? And a lot of teams translates into a lot of owners.

Let's talk a moment about these owners. Who are they? They are 62 wealthy individuals, worth millions of dollars. They did not amass this wealth through their ownership of their respective teams, either; all 62 were extremely wealthy long before they owned these franchises.

In my experience, the filthy rich people of the world did not get that way (and do not stay that way) by being foolish with their money. So why would a shrewd business-minded person gamble millions on a sports franchise?

Because it's not gambling at all. Even a lousy team can make money (see: Cincinnati Bengals). It is, in fact, easy money; you're usually guaranteed a TV contract, and you get a portion of the shared revenue from the league.

Fans, for the most part, are loyal, and, if you do achieve success within your league, you can count on a large number of bandwagon fans to boost your income. And should you overextend yourself, just sell or relocate your team. Not one owner has been sent to the poorhouse via football or baseball. Period.

Which brings us back to Congress. I understand that we were all taught in grade school that Congress enacts laws to help the good, decent, hardworking people of America, which may or may not be true. But I hope we can all agree that Congress also routinely passes laws to protect wealthy Americans' ability to make money via the preservation of the status quo—in other words, Congress doesn't rock the boat if the boat is full of rich people. (I guess that makes the boat a yacht.)

Which brings us back to the baseball hearings and steroid report. Congress investigated steroids because, just like our sports teams' owners, Congress is made up of extremely wealthy people who rely on contributions from other wealthy people to stay in office. It's a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" relationship. And if I've scratched your back to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions, you're going to scratch mine whenever and wherever it itches.

So if we assume that MLB's handling of the steroids issue caused quite a few 'itchy backs' in the circle of MLB owners, we begin to see the picture. The thought amongst the owners seemed to be that MLB's front office, particularly Bud Selig, were handling the issue poorly.

Phone calls were made, reports were filed, and hearings were had on national television coast to coast...all to protect the image of the game. Had baseball been perceived as "soft" on steroids, or, even worse, discovered itself to be a bunch of juiced up 'roid heads mindlessly swinging for the fences while breaking legitimate record after legitimate record, the game would've been ruined in the minds of the fans.

And that's you.

And had you walked away from the game, you'd have taken your wallet with you.

And that would've been a sad day for MLB.

So they called in Congress, the governing body of the land, to slap a few wrists and ask some questions. Some folks may go to jail at some point, and some folks may not go to jail ever. But, today, all is well in baseball.

Arlen Specter and the NFL is a slightly different story with the same ending: Show me the money!

Specter used Spygate to try and ruffle feathers in the minds of league ownership by casting Roger Goodell as an incompetent stooge (which he may or may not be). Specter was calling for a full, formal investigation of the NFL, which, for no apparent reason at the time, he felt should include a re-working of the NFL's anti-trust exemption.

I thought this was a little odd at the time. The anti-trust exemption deals with the relocation of teams, right?

Yes, I found out. But among other things, it also covers broadcasting. That's when things added up. Comcast, the cable giant, is in a legal dispute with the NFL, claiming it's unfair for the NFL Network to put games solely on its own NFL Network, which is offered only on DirecTV. They also disagree with the NFL's decision to offer NFL Sunday ticket only on DitrecTV. They would like them moved to (surprise!) Comcast.

Google "Arlen Specter Comcast" and you'll find that Specter had taken $153,600 in campaign contributions from Comcast, or those affiliated with Comcast as employees, or through its PAC. The only firm that gave more money to Specter's campaign was the law firm of Blank Rome LLP, which represents Comcast and which has given Specter $358,453.

Hmmmmm...$512,053 is a lot of bread. It seems to me that Specter is just protecting his own money on this one. It turns out that this makes the fourth time since 2005 that Specter has tried to have the NFL investigated in some form or another regarding its antitrust laws.

What else happened in 2005? The NFL announced it would show certain NFL games exclusively on the NFL Network starting in '06. The latest allegations of impropriety regarding the Spygate tapes is simply another example of Specter yelling that the house is on fire so that he may loot it in the chaos.

So, there you have it. Sports need to have the appearance of being a level playing field to keep us watching, and we need to keep watching (and buying) to keep the owners in business.
And Congress? Congress is simply doing what Congress has been doing since it was founded: protecting the interests of the rich.

Cheers!

Specter Speaks on Investigation Into NFL

2008-06-07T20:33:00.000-07:00

Specter Sticks Nose Further into NFL

2008-06-06T19:28:00.000-07:00

Sen. Arlen Specter reiterated his call for the NFL to initiate an independent investigation into Spygate.

The Pennsylvania Republican entered a statement Thursday into the Congressional Record concerning the New England Patriots' videotaping scandal.

The statement repeats many of the points Specter made in at a news conference May 14, including a push for an investigation similar to the high-profile Mitchell Report that examined performance enhancing drugs in baseball.

"My strong preference is for the NFL to activate a Mitchell-type investigation," Specter's statement said. "I have been careful not to call for a Congressional hearing because I believe the NFL should step forward and embrace an independent inquiry and Congress is extraordinarily busy on other matters If the NFL continues to leave a vacuum, Congress may be tempted to fill it."

Specter has been proactive in seeking greater NFL accountability into the Spygate affair, which centers on Patriots' taping of opposing teams' defensive signals over a span of several years. Specter has met with — and been highly critical of — NFL commissioner Roger Goodell. The Senator also met with former New England video assistant Matt Walsh, a central figure in the scandal.

"The commissioner's investigation has been fatally flawed," the statement said. "The lack of candor, the piecemeal disclosures, the changes in position on material matters, the failure to be proactive in seeking out other key witnesses, and responding only when unavoidable when evidence is thrust upon the NFL leads to the judgment that an impartial investigation is mandatory."

Goodell essentially declared an end to Spygate after meeting with Walsh last month, saying there was no new information that would warrant a further penalty against the Patriots. The commissioner docked New England a 2008 first-round draft pick and fined coach Bill Belichick $500,000 and the team $250,000 last fall.

GOP Needs to Wakeup

2008-06-01T18:25:00.001-07:00

Over the last couple of days, I have gotten many emails from longtime Republicans upset with my blog that is working to ensure that a conservative Republican challenges Senator Arlen Specter in the 2010 GOP Primary. They have repeatedly told me the actions that I am taking are unhealthy for the party and goes against the "party discipline" required to be involved in politics.

To begin with, here lies the GOP's greatest problem: we have begun putting cronyism before values and forgotten the major beliefs that have made us a majority party in the past. It is unacceptable for a party to support somebody simply because they have an "R" next to their name. The Republican Party establishment should view our party's platform before coming out in full force to support a liberal Republican who has blatantly opposed many of the positions that our party highlights in its platform.

The Republican Party establishment must also realize that elections are decided by the voters, not the party establishment. The party has begun to forget that grassroots organization wins elections, not party bosses in Harrisburg or Washington, DC.

Many of those who have criticized me tell me the main reason we need to support Senator Specter is because he is the only one that can win a statewide election in Pennsylvania. Therefore, according to many of these people, we should negate values in a simple attempt to win an election for a Republican who does little to enhance the values we use to so proudly stand for. The party can win a statewide election with a conservative Republican as long as the party realizes the importance of grassroots organization over party cronyism.

The Republican Party lost in 2006 for one single reason: they forgot what it was they believed in. If our party does not reflect upon its victorious years, it will lose its way and vanish into the annals of history. Our party has been able to claim itself to be the party that stands up for American values for so many years, yet that trademark has significantly diminished because of the actions taken by the party establishment.

I am sure that criticism will continue, and more and more party establishment members will become disgruntled with the fact that there is a group of Republicans unwilling to rollover to partisan Republican politics that does little to reach out to the average conservative voter who seeks to find candidates and representatives that fight for smaller government, a strong national defense, states' rights, and strict interpretation of the United States Constitution. It is time for these conservative voters to stand up and let the State and National Republican Committees realize they are out of touch and to return our efforts to grassroots, value-driven elections.

"Spygate" Fiasco Continues

2008-05-30T04:01:00.000-07:00

Senator Arlen Specter continues to put government pressure on the NFL and urges a full-scale investigation similar to that of the Mitchell Report. Although the NFL has satisfactorily dealt with the problem, Senator Specter continues to grandstand for the news cameras in an attempt to woo Philadelphia supporters who were upset about the Patriots' loss in the Superbowl as well as represent the interests of Comcast, Senator Specter's third great contributory force since 1989, who is upset with the NFL because of the NFL's cable networking.

By Christopher L. Gasper, Globe Staff

WASHINGTON - After NFL commissioner Roger Goodell spoke with Matt Walsh Tuesday, the league appeared ready to close the book on "Spygate." However, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, who also met with the former Patriots video assistant Tuesday, said yesterday he wants an independent, impartial investigation into the team's illegal taping practices. "What is necessary is an objective investigation, and this one has not been objective," said Specter.

The ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Specter stopped short of calling for a congressional investigation during his 35-minute press conference, but hinted at the possibility of hearings.

"If they don't [act], I think it's up to Congress to investigate and take corrective action," said Specter, who said his office has been stonewalled in its attempts to investigate. "It might be hearings. My col leagues will know and have access to all the information I do, but let them decide."

Specter said the chairman of the committee, Democrat Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, who would

have to approve any hearings, had volunteered to authorize committee expenses if Specter wanted to send out investigators, but Specter declined.

The NFL issued a statement yesterday reacting to Specter's declaration: "We respectfully disagree with Senator Specter's characterization of the investigation conducted by our office. We are following up after [Tuesday's] meeting with Matt Walsh."

Patriots spokesman Stacey James said the team referred all questions to the league.

Specter's call for an independent investigation was clearly designed to pressure the NFL not to bury "Spygate" now that Walsh has come forward with information that Goodell said Tuesday is fundamentally consistent with what caused him to fine the Patriots $250,000, coach Bill Belichick $500,000, and dock the team its 2008 first-round draft choice for the totality of their conduct. The punishment was levied four days after the Patriots were caught filming signals Sept. 9 in their season opener against the Jets.

In advocating for an independent inquiry, Specter cited what he called a conflict of interest for the NFL. He said the league and its owners have a financial incentive to put the scandal behind them because "the core of their game is integrity." "The league has every reason not to want to say too much," said Specter. "If the public loses confidence in professional football, it will be like wrestling. They're not going to have the gates. They're not going to have the TV. It's going to be a totally different thing."

Specter also said he was troubled by Walsh telling him that Dan Goldberg, whom Walsh identified as a Patriots attorney, was present at his NFL interview and was allowed to ask questions. Specter, a former Philadelphia district attorney, said to call such a practice objective "strains credulity."

Besides his call for an independent inquiry, Specter provided more detail on how Walsh claimed the Patriots used the tapes of other teams' signals.

According to Specter, Walsh told him a former Patriots offensive player told Walsh that before a 2000 game against the Buccaneers, the player was called into a meeting with Belichick, then-offensive coordinator Charlie Weis, and team football research director Ernie Adams. At that meeting, according to Specter, Walsh said it was explained to the player how the team would utilize Tampa Bay signals it had filmed during a preseason game that year.

Walsh was told by the player, whose identity Specter would not divulge, that he memorized Tampa Bay's signals, then watched from the sideline for the Buccaneers' defensive calls. He would decipher the signals and pass them along to Weis, who would relay the information to the quarterback on the field. Specter said the player told Walsh the tape allowed the Patriots to anticipate 75 percent of the play calls.

The Patriots lost that Sept. 3, 2000, game, 21-16.

Specter also said Walsh, who worked for the Patriots from 1997-2003 before being fired, told him he saw Steve Scarnecchia, son of Patriots offensive line coach Dante Scarnecchia and the Jets' current video director, filming signals for the Patriots.

Specter's 11-page floor statement referenced games against the Steelers Sept. 9, 2002; the Cowboys Nov. 16, 2003; and the Steelers Sept. 25, 2005 - all Patriot wins - as ones Walsh witnessed Steve Scarnecchia taping. Walsh said he witnessed the taping because he was a season ticket-holder. However, the Sept. 25, 2005, game was played in Pittsburgh, calling into question Walsh's recollection.

Specter also said Walsh told him he was instructed to conceal his filming by saying he was filming tight shots of players or the down markers, and that Walsh was given a generic credential instead of one identifying him as team personnel.

Walsh made similar remarks to HBO last night in an interview that will air tomorrow, the Associated Press reported. "If it was of little or no importance, I imagine they wouldn't have continued to do it, and probably not taken the chances of going down onto the field in Pittsburgh or shooting from other teams' stadiums the way we did," Walsh said of the Patriots' taping procedures.

Walsh also told HBO he was coached on how to evade NFL rules limiting the number of camera operators per team to two, and that team officials instructed him on ways to avoid detection.
Specter, critical of the NFL's handling of the case from the outset, yesterday remained rankled by Goodell's decision to destroy the six tapes from late in the 2006 regular season and the 2007 preseason and notes dating to 2002 that the Patriots turned over to the league.

Many have questioned Specter's motives for pressuring the NFL. He responded to a question about his link to the cable company Comcast, which is battling the NFL over the NFL Network, by saying, "I've been at this line of work for a long time and no one has ever questioned my integrity."

It was not until Specter's Feb. 13 meeting with Goodell that the league publicly confirmed the taping dated to 2000, which Belichick had told the NFL in September.

In his statement, Specter said the league's lack of candor, piecemeal disclosures, changes in position on material matters, and failure to be proactive in seeking out other key witnesses makes an impartial investigation "mandatory." "I think they owe the public a lot more candor and a lot more credibility," said Specter.

Christopher L. Gasper can be reached at cgasper@globe.com.

Specter on the Issues

2008-05-28T16:40:00.000-07:00

ABORTION

Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
Rated 14% by the National Right to Life Committee (indicating pro-choice record)

IMMIGRATION

Voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007)
Voted NO on eliminating the "Y" nonimmigrant guestworker program. (May 2007)
Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2006)
Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)
Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006)
Voted NO on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997)
Rated 16% by United States Border Control, indicating an open-border stance. (Dec 2006)

TAX REFORM

Voted NO on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (May 2001)
Voted NO on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001)
Voted NO on requiring super-majority for raising taxes. (Apr 1998)

CIVIL RIGHTS

Oppose gay marriage but support civil union. (Oct 2004)
Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)

DRUGS

Voted NO on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
Voted YES on spending international development funds on drug control. (Jul 1996)

EDUCATION

Voted NO on $52M for "21st century community learning centers". (Oct 2005)
Voted NO on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
Voted NO on requiring schools to allow voluntary prayer. (Jul 1994)
Voted YES on national education standards. (Feb 1994)

ENERGY AND OIL

Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)
Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)

ENVIRONMENT

Voted NO on prohibiting eminent domain for use as parks or grazing land. (Dec 2007)
Make EPA into a Cabinet department. (May 2002)

GOVERNMENT REFORM

Voted YES on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006)
Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Oct 1997)
Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts. (Jul 1995) Reduce federal government size & scope, including military. (Sep 1998)

GUN CONTROL

Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)

HEALTH CARE

Voted YES on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility. (Nov 2007)
Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)

HOMELAND SECURITY

Voted NO on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)
Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007)
Voted YES on preserving habeus corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)
Voted NO on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005)

*Courtesy of www.ontheissues.org

Defeat Arlen Specter in 2010

2008-05-28T14:51:00.000-07:00

This blog is devoted to keeping Pennsylvania voters informed of the liberal positions and actions taken by Senator Arlen Specter, the senior senator of Pennsylvania. For too long Senator Specter has represented the people of Pennsylvania with his liberal beliefs by representing higher taxes, supporting government waste, advocating pro-choice policies, defeating conservative judges, and promoting anti-gun legislation.

In 2010, Republicans must work to defeat Arlen Specter in the Republican Primary. We must work to elect a candidate that represents the conservative values of Pennsylvanians through promoting smaller government, lower taxes, strict constructionist judges, the protection of human life, and respect for Pennsylvanian's Second Amendment right to bear arms.

I would urge all visitors who have a Facebook account to join "Defeat Arlen Specter in 2010" group at http://http//www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=17037854026 .

Feel free to email me with any tips you may have in running this blog. Also feel free to comment on any of the posts, and best of all, please work to promote this blog throughout the blogosphere so that conservatives in Pennsylvania can begin to have their voice heard.