Pennsylvania – Page 42 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Social Issues in a Crumbling Economy

If you want to appear out-of-touch with voters, the fastest way to do that is to send the kind of flyer I received from Democratic Rep. Patrick Murphy yesterday.

Background: According to the lists they have, I’m a Republican woman and have only been registered in Pennsylvania as a Republican. (This is unusual for me, as I haven’t been formally affiliated with either party since I was a teenager and initially registered in Oklahoma.) On paper, I’m dedicated enough to have voted in the Republican primary, and the last time I voted in a general, the GOP swept all of the county races. In other words, there’s nothing about my Pennsylvania voting history that indicates I’m open to their messages on either fiscal or social issues.

Every Democrat running in this state has been hammering on the economy. They know it’s what people want to hear. Yet, Murphy decided to send me a mailer that has women’s faces plastered on one side telling me that Mike Fitzpatrick will ban abortion. The other side says, “We’ve been here before.”

My response to Sebastian when I showed him the mailer this morning: “No, I’ve never been there before. I’m a Republican woman who is iffy on the abortion issue at best, and I’ve never been sitting on a dirty street with my head between my knees in a trashy looking dress.” There is literally nothing on the flyer that I can identify with – women having sex on the street, women getting abortions left and right, the fact that I know the Supremes are not going to change Roe, and there’s no serious threat to abortion in the political world right now.

Sebastian then pointed out that while there’s not a huge pro-life movement here in our district, the chances are extremely high that a woman who has registered with the Republican Party and votes in their primaries is actually an abortion opponent. He’s right about that, especially given the highly Catholic population around here. While many might overlook Murphy’s votes to fund abortions with their money, having his pro-abortion stance thrown in their face will almost certainly turn them off.

We can’t find one thing about this flyer that is remotely relevant to the issues that local voters are talking about this year. There’s nothing that’s on message to my voter file at all. I can’t even fathom what made him do this.

What Do You Do if You’re Dan Onorato?

As I was running errands yesterday, I couldn’t help but notice a very lonely Dan Onorato for Governor sign sitting in a median – no owner, no signs of friends posted immediately around it. And I got to thinking, what should a candidate like Dan Onorato do?

Last month, the County Executive had a whooping $3.3 million in the bank. When you consider we have one of the most expensive media markets in the country, and the rest of the state is spread out among a bunch of different markets, that doesn’t go terribly far in buying television advertising when you factor in all the other normal expenses in a campaign – including the “street money” to buy votes in Philly.

His opponent, Attorney General Tom Corbett, reported $7.7 million on hand. To top that off, in every single poll, he’s trouncing Onorato from 7-15 points.

So, Onorato clearly doesn’t have state recognition or voter approval, even after running a general campaign since he won a contested primary in March that gave him lots of coverage over Corbett and his lack of a serious primary. He doesn’t have enough enthusiasm to rally the base to open their wallets. Unless we end up with a live boy/dead girl scenario, this race is in the bag.

With that in mind, do you spend the money in the areas where you need high Democratic turnout to have any shot of winning? Or, do you effectively give up on the Governor’s mansion and spend in areas where you are polling poorly in an attempt to simply build name recognition for a future run for some other statewide office? What would you suggest for Onorato?

Duty to Retreat

The York Daily Record correctly points out that this case has nothing to do with castle doctrine. The guy basically fired a shot into the air, blocked the thief from leaving with another vehicle, and held him at gun point until police arrived. He has not been (and should not be) charged.

This falls pretty squarely under prosecutorialÂ discretion, probably significantly bolstered by the fact that the prosecution is well aware they will have a hard time finding a jury that’s going to convict this guy. In many ways, the civil immunity is the real change Castle Doctrine brings, despite the fact that it also revises the self-defense law. It’s highly unlikely that anywhere in Pennsylvania you’ll be convicted of shooting someone who has broken into your home, no matter what the law may technically say. Dave Hardy recently told of a similar situation in Arizona:

Here in AZ, with real juries, the results are quite different. A prosecutor once told me that he’d urged the County Attorney to stop prosecuting homeowners who shot burglars in the back. They’d just lost three of those cases in a row. Whatever the statute law might be, jurors saw one fewer burglar as a good thing and would not convict a fellow homeowner for having done a good thing.

Trial by jury is one of the most important legal institutions we inherited from English Law. It doesn’t really matter what the Arizona Revised Statutes or the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes say, if you can’t find a jury that will convict under those circumstances, the practice is, for all practical purposes, legal. Trial by jury is one of the great checks the people have on their government. Self-defense law is probably one of the areas the people differ most greatly from the officials who serve them. Castle Doctrine doesn’t do much more than bring statutory law into line with what most people think it already is, or should be. It’s not surprising, then, that the law has broad, bi-partisan support. Yet the politicians still don’t really want to vote on it, as the current debacle in the Pennsylvania Senate is showing us.

Philly Area Not Doing so Well

I’m not surprised we’ve lost so many jobs, considering what an awful place Pennsylvania is to do business. We have among the highest corporate tax rates in the country, and our government is increasingly looking for ways to make it even worse. If I were going to start a business, I’d go to an up and coming market. This area has been my home all my life, but it has no future as long as the people keep sending politicians to Harrisburg that make anti-business policy choices, and vote for bloated an expensive government. And this is just the ‘burbs I’m talking about. The City of Philadelphia is a basket case in its own right, and beginning to rival such stellar cities as Detroit and Baltimore in sheer craptitude.

The only thing we have going for us is housing prices haven’t taken as bad a beating as other markets, because we never bubbled very much since even in good times no one wants to live here.

Final Push for Castle Doctrine

It’s stuck in the Senate. Click here to see the NRA alert and who to call. We also need to reiterate to State Senators that we expect a clean bill. Efforts are underway to amend the bill. We have to do this now, or it’s dead for this session, and we have to go through this all again.

Self-Defense Opponents Won’t Give Up

I have a headache. I don’t think it was caused by beating my head against the wall over getting a simple bill like Castle Doctrine passed, but I’m pretty sure that’s why it won’t go away.

Good News: Today there should be movement in the Senate. (Link courtesy of reader Adam Z.) This is particularly important because of this is the week it has to pass to make it to the Governor’s desk.

Bad News: Reports that the anti’s just won’t give up on this one. This may mean a problem with amendments. If any amendments are added, the bill is dead. There’s no opportunity for the House to take it up again. It must be a clean bill.

Back to what makes this so infuriating: How on earth does a bill that passed the House by a 4-1 margin end up being so hard to pass through the legislature? This isn’t even a gun bill, it’s an issue of clarifying the self-defense laws!

Elections have Consequences

In this case, maybe the consequences wouldn’t quite be the end of the world if the Democrats manage to keep hold of the state House – at least for gun owners. From the always witty John Micek:

At 10 a.m. in the Media Center, Rep. Nick Kotik, D-Allegheny, puts his cart well before the horse by announcing his plan to run for House speaker next year. Have to hold onto the majority first, Representative.

Currently, the House is run by Rep. Keith McCall who is solidly pro-gun. I have no doubt that fact played a huge role in the success of moving Castle Doctrine as a clean bill yesterday. However, he announced he planned to retire after this term, so we were stuck in limbo wondering if an anti-gunner would run for Speaker. The good news is that Rep. Kotik was rated A in 2008 and even carried the endorsement in his last race.*

The downside of the Democrats holding on to the House would be in redistricting battles and the fact that committee chairs would still mostly be anti-gun folks. Moving bills would still be very hard, even with overwhelming support in the full chamber. So, even though I love my pro-gun Democrats, I’m still going to work to make sure that the House flips to Republican hands.

*Since NRA’s new PVF website removed the archives, I had to put in a request for the grade. (Hint, hint guys – I used that information for post research.)

Castle Doctrine Finally Overcomes Opposition

We’re not done yet, but Castle Doctrine has finally come through the House. The vote was earlier this evening, and involved lots of yelling, many threats, and even some cane waving. There was some of the most entertaining sausage making I’ve ever seen. I wished I had recorded it for future laughs.

The bill faced several hurdles, including an attempt to adjourn instead of actually holding a vote. The Philadelphia Democrats tried out-of-order motions to table the bill, even when the Speaker repeatedly announced the call for a vote on the actual bill.

At least one AP reporter “gets it” with this summary of what’s going on:

The vote to widen the “castle doctrine” so that it applies beyond homes and vehicles was 159-38, with dozens of Democrats voting with Republicans, the latest demonstration of how gun issues do not follow partisan political lines in the Pennsylvania Legislature.

It’s so refreshing knowing to see a reporter acknowledge that the important issues doesn’t break along party lines. The article also reports that a Senate Republican source says the Senate will, in fact, take up the bill next week. Gov. Rendell still won’t say whether he will veto or sign.

The Odd Election Year Dance Around Self-Defense

As we wait for the House of Representatives to cast the final floor vote on Castle Doctrine today, I decided to take a look at the weird little dance that some Democrats and Republicans took around the issue. Some of these moves just leave me scratching my head. Why pick some of these fights in an election year? For others, they deserve big kudos.

Todd Eachus (D) – This guy baffles me. In 2008, he was A rated and received the NRA endorsement. Based on that, you’d think he wouldn’t have a problem with self-defense. And, based on his vote to pass Castle Doctrine, that would seem to be the case. But, his comments and other votes are what add to the confusion. First, he voted on the motion to have a floor vote on Castle Doctrine. Then, he voted against the motion that withheld the anti-gun amendments. So he wanted the anti-gun stuff to come up for a vote. Okay…that could be argued that as Majority Leader, he was just trying to appease the Philly delegation in a vote that would lose with or without his support.

But, this morning he’s quoted in the papers bitching that we were “heavyhanded” in trying to get a floor vote. If the vote was a throw away to the Philly delegation, that’s not ideal, but not the end of the world. But why be their go-to boy for the anti-gun coalition in the press? Why not leave the Philly delegation to do their own dirty work? As Sebastian said when I read that to him on his drive to work, “Aren’t the members from Philly the ones being ‘heavyhanded’ since they held up a bill with overwhelming bipartisan support?”

I’m assuming that he’ll be safe with NRA support this year, and I don’t blame them for that. But, if he insists on going above and beyond for the Philly delegation on the gun issue, then I’ll make sure we cover every statement. There’s no need to be their spokesman, they do a fine job of shoving their feet down their own throats when it comes to speaking out on our Constitutional rights.

Denny O’Brien (R) – What on earth. This guy was A rated in 2008. He is one of few and far between pro-gun Philly representatives. Really? Self-defense is what moves him to vote against us? He voted to bring the bill up for a floor vote, then he turned and voted against us by opposing the vote to keep it a clean bill, and then he voted against us on the actual floor vote. That’s disappointing because several of the police officers who have called me in the last few days to find out who to vote for have been in his district. I’ll keep an open mind until the final vote today to see if there was some confusion yesterday, but I’d hate to call them all and tell them that Rep. O’Brien suddenly voted against us on this important issue.

Josh Shapiro (D) – I’m confused. This is a representative who should not want to vote on gun issues. Yes, he represents a part of Montgomery County that very well might back a gun ban, but being anti-gun doesn’t win him any votes. In fact, he has his eye on higher office – statewide office. He cannot win with a strong anti-gun record if he has to campaign outside of his immediate area. So, you would think that it would be in his best interest to stick with us (he’s been with us a few times) when it’s a fairly uncontroversial vote and then lay low the rest of the time. It doesn’t hurt him, and he won’t have to worry about a negative record when he finally takes the plunge statewide.

While we should give him kudos for supporting the uncontroversial Castle Doctrine bill, I would love to understand why he decided to join the Philly delegation in wanting to bring up the half dozen or so anti-gun amendments forward. If their effort had been successful, he would have had to vote on every one of those amendments. While he’s probably vote with us on some, he’d then put a political target on his back for every single anti-gun vote he cast.

Jim Wansacz (D) – I took some hell for supporting this pro-gun representative in his solidly Democratic district. Unfortunately, he didn’t win the primary to take the Senate seat up there, so he won’t be serving in the legislature in the future. But, I’m really happy to see that regardless of his legislative future, Rep. Wansacz stuck with us on all three votes yesterday. If there are any readers up in his district, you should probably drop him a note of thanks.

Frank Farry (R) – He gets a mention since he’s our representative, and he voted the right way on every single vote on Castle Doctrine. This comes from a guy whose campaign didn’t return the NRA questionnaire in 2008. He actually knows he lost votes because of it, and just like we predicted, Rep. Farry is willing to stand up for our right to self-defense. Go us. (And, tomorrow I’ll see if I can track down a lawn sign to go up immediately until Election Day.)

Steve Santarsiero (D) – What is this dude thinking? His district is even farther out of Philly than ours is, and he’s a Democrat running in a year that doesn’t exactly have high expectations for his party. He was only elected in 2008, and he submitted a questionnaire that earned him a B rating against a Republican who refused to answer the questionnaire. However, his votes against us, and his subsequent endorsement by CeaseFire have shown his true colors. For a guy who rode the coattails of Obama to his office, you’d think that he’d not pick a fight with us. That would be the smart thing to do for anyone who wanted to keep their office. And now, it looks like that grade will drop, and his opponent has been reaching out to sportsmen in the district.

Mini-Update on Castle Doctrine

I think the levels of ups and downs of the last two weeks was best described from Rep. Seth Grove, at least from his perspective as a legislator:

I was already to do battle against the Gun Control amendments on HB 40 – Castle Doctrine too. Maybe next time.

We were supposed to face down anywhere from six to eight anti-gun amendments ranging from one gun a month to restricting reciprocity of carry licenses. While it’s a good thing to never have to worry about anti-gun legislation, it’s also a bit of a frustration that we warn people about all of these threats that never end up happening. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a good thing we had the support of 156 lawmakers to vote this thing through to another step in the process. But, it’s frustrating that I know some gun owners will believe we were blowing smoke up their asses for the anti-gun amendments that never came. We weren’t. The legislators themselves can attest to that.

So tomorrow, should the Speaker of the House indulge us, we should have the final floor vote in the House on Castle Doctrine. Hopefully the Senate will take it up. I haven’t really been paying attention to anything in the Senate lately, other than some political commentary on tax hikes that they won’t likely take up this year. So we’ll see.

I did read a few notes on Facebook by someone who said they caught part of a presser hosted by Gov. Rendell who was none too pleased about the self-defense bill actually getting traction. But, if he gives us grief, he’s gone and irrelevant in January. And, to boot, we’ll punish the rest of his party who stand with him on the issue and just flip the House so the Democrats are out to pasture in Pennsylvania politics.