OneVoteCounts

Haggerty Elected Chairman of Home Rule Commission

2009-06-10T18:18:00.000-07:00

Mayor Jim Haggerty of Kingston (pictured to the left) has been elected chairman of the Luzerne County Home Rule Commission at the commission's inaugural meeting held Wednesday evening at Wyoming Seminary. Veronica Ciaruffoli was elected Vice Chairperson, and Rick Morelli was elected Treasurer.

Haggerty is the three term mayor of the Municipality of Kingston and a practicing attorney. Kingston has operated under a home rule charter since 1976.

The commission is charged with the following:

"The government study commission shall study the form of government of the municipality to compare it with other available forms under the laws of this Commonwealth and determine whether or not in its judgment the government could be strengthened or made more clearly responsible or accountable to the people or whether its operation could become more economical or efficient under a changed form of government."

Furthermore:

"The government study commission shall report its findings and recommendations to the citizens of the municipality within nine months from the date of its election except that it shall be permitted an additional nine months if it elects to prepare and submit a proposed home rule charter and an additional two months if it chooses to elect its municipal council by districts."

The commission also appointed a budget committee comprised of the elected officers to approach the county for money to fulfill its mandate of studying the county government.

The commission plans to meet every Wednesday at 7:00 pm at the Stettler Learning Resources Center, Sprague Avenue, Kingston.

Public or Private

2009-06-10T12:21:00.000-07:00

We want a comprehensive study done of Luzerne County government, and that will not happen if every meeting, every hearing, and every proceeding is open to the public. The study commission needs to meet in private (at certain times) in order to find out what works and what doesn't work in county government.

The debate on whether to have private meetings became very public when commission member Walter Griffith released e-mail correspondence between other commission members and him. Mark Guydish of the Times Leader got into the fray and fell down on the side of "all public, all the time."

Griffith, Guydish, and others are just plain wrong on this issue on political and legal terms.

We had OVC legal correspondent, Bruce Haller research the issue for us. Here are some of his findings.

"Home Rule" is governed by Pennsylvania Statutes, particularly Title 53, Chapter 29. With regards to meetings, Section 2920 states:

"The government study commission shall hold one or more public hearings, may hold private hearings and sponsor public forums and generally shall provide for the widest possible public information and discussion respecting the purposes and progress of its work."

The reason for private hearings is quite obvious, and we believe is why the commonwealth allows a commission to meet in private. It is analogous to the concept behind whistle blower statutes.

How can we expect to get an honest and unbiased account of the workings of county government if every interview of current county employees is subject to the scrutiny of the witness's fellow employees, the general public, and his or her boss?

Let's take the following example. The commission is looking into the inner workings of the clerk of courts office. Does anyone truly believe that a current employee is going to tell the commission at a public hearing that many of his fellow employees' jobs are unnecessary or that the office of prothonotary and clerk of courts should be combined, resulting in the layoff of half the staffs? It aint gonna happen.

If the commission decides to hold all public hearings, they will not get the honest look at county government, which the public wants and so desperately needs.

Griffith, Guydish, and others believe the Pennsylvania "Sunshine Act" applies to the home rule commission. Bruce also looked into this issue.

The Sunshine Act only applies to "agencies." The agency definition in the Sunshine Act does not include home rule commissions. Bruce also reviewed the dozen or so "home rule" cases which have made it to the courts of the commonwealth. None provided any guidance, either way, on whether home rule commissions are governed by the Sunshine Act.

When we look further into the Sunshine Act, we see that agencies may meet in private to discuss certain issues. Personnel matters, collective bargaining matters, the purchase or lease of property, ongoing litigation, and matters involving lawful privilege are the exceptions to the public meeting standard.

It is not conceivable that the commission would ever fall into one of these exceptions. If is also nonsensical to believe that the home rule laws written by the commonwealth would provide a private meeting option if the Sunshine Act prohibited such meetings.

Face it, the Sunshine Act does not apply and thankfully so.

We would end our discussion with that, but Guydish and Griffith make us continue.

After pontificating about the need of a "no exceptions" rule to public meetings of the home rule commission, Guydish wrote:

"Commission members can call each other outside of meetings, they can exchange documents, thoughts and ideas when they are not together. "

This raises another issue, besides the fact that Guydish believes closed door meetings among a few members to hammer out the details and make the real decisions is fine, as long as they meet as a "committee of the whole" at a later date and run through the motions.

The issue is that committee member Griffith has already decided that everything the commission does is public, including e-mail messages between commission members. He has already provided e-mails concerning the "public/private meetings" debate to the Times Leader and other media outlets.

We strongly believe that most of the meetings of the commission should be held in the public, but we also strongly believe that the commission should and must, within its own discretion, meeting in private when necessary.

Another Day, Another Federal Subpoena

2009-06-04T12:31:00.000-07:00

OVC has confirmed that Judge Mike Toole's tip staff, Thomas Marino has been served with a federal subpoena with regards to the ongoing corruption scandal in Luzerne County. An independent source familiar with the Wilkes-Barre jurist has corroborated the Times Leader story which appeared online today.

OVC wrote a few months ago that rumors were abound that Toole had come under suspicion from his days as a solicitor to the Wilkes-Barre Area School District. Two members of the Wilkes-Barre school board have resigned, including board president Jim Height. Brian Dunn has also resigned.

Height pled guilty last month to federal corruption charges, and Dunn has been charged federally, also.

More to come in the future.

Paperwork Prevents People From Seeking Public Office

2009-06-03T18:07:00.000-07:00

Every so often we read a letter to the editor which strikes our fancy. Today was such a day when we read Democratic Kingston Council candidate Curt Piazza's letter to the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader.

Piazza ran unsuccessfully ran for the Democratic nomination to face incumbent Mayor Jim Haggerty (pictured to the left) in November. Piazza was defeated by Stephen Radzinski 494 to 402 in the May 19th primary.

Piazza wrote a letter to the editor, which appeared today in the Times Leader. He wrote it in response to the Times Leader's assertion that Piazza secured his council nomination the "easy way." The Times Leader was referring to the fact that Piazza was only one of two candidates on the ballot for four open council seats. Incumbents Republican council members Mike Jacobs and Sandy Kase won write-in nods on the Democratic side as well as winning Republican nominations.

Piazza took issue with this. He wrote:

"First there’s the paperwork: You have to follow the directions to the letter to fill out your nominating petitions. Then you have to trek out into the bitter cold to ask your fellow citizens and party members to sign your petitions. (This requires exactness too). Sometimes you have to put up with disgruntled residents slamming the door in your face.

Then you have to get your paperwork notarized and pay those fees. Then you submit your paperwork to the Election Bureau, hoping it will be approved. Then you have to submit a copy of the Statement of Financial Interests to your municipality.

All this takes a lot of time, patience and legwork; it’s not for the faint-hearted."

There are some interesting points to Piazza's writing. Piazza's biggest hurdle seems to be the "paperwork." In any borough in Pennsylvania such as Kingston, in order to appear on the primary ballot, one must get ten signatures from registered voters in his or her political party (actually nine, because you can sign your own petition.)

We are also curious why Piazza would have to "trek out into the bitter cold," since according to voter registration records, Piazza is residence is in a public housing building which encompasses at least fifty units. Records also show that many more than nine registered Democrats reside in that same building.

Be that as it may, if you have trouble finding nine registered voters of your party to sign a nomination petition (Jeddo Borough may be the exception,) you probably shouldn't be running for office.

Piazza's second bone of contention is the "statement of financial interest." The statement is a one page form which must be submitted by all candidates with your nomination petition. The form requires one to list their name, address, the office sought, occupation, real estate interests, direct sources of income, creditors, and interests in any business entities. The dollar amounts are not required.

Hardly a arduous task, ... or is it. Maybe Piazza has a point.

Piazza's opponent, and Democratic nominee Radzinski for mayor seemed to have a little trouble with this simple requirement. In a mistake which could have taken him off the ballot, if timely challenged by a Kingston Democrat such as Piazza , Radzinski filed his Statement of Financial Interest one week after the deadline. This is a fatal error which requires removal from the primary ballot. No such challenge was filed against Radzinski.

Being mayor of a town of 13,000 residents requires the preparation, reviewing, and filing of a lot of "paperwork." We wonder how overwhelmed Piazza would have been if he had won in May and then in the Fall. We also hope that candidate Radzinski is a little more careful and attentive if he ever becomes Mayor Radzinski.

The Final Post Mortem

2009-06-01T08:49:00.000-07:00

Buzz had his annual post Memorial Day computer geek retreat in upstate New York, so we've fallen a little behind, but let's take one final look at the May primary in Luzerne County.

For the first time in a long time, the Luzerne County GOP decided to endorse candidates in a primary election. We covered the GOP endorsement in a prior blog. They endorsed in two uncontested contests --- Register of Wills and Jury commissioner --- along with two judicial endorsements and an endorsement in both the Prothonotary and and Controller races. They went 2 and 2.

When Terry Casey became the head of the Luzerne County GOP last year, he promised a new revitalized GOP. Things looked promising at the beginning of this year with the opening of a county headquarters, the hiring of a full time executive director, and getting Karl Rove to speak to a large crowd at its annual dinner. The endorsement of primary candidates also seemed like a good start.

With the GOP hurting badly on a national level, the myriad of Democratic scandals in Luzerne County gives promise to the county GOP. Since the county is so predominately Democratic, even to the point that such former GOP strongholds like Kingston and Forty Fort have switched from red to blue in the registration department, it is no wonder that all of the tainted public officials so far are Democrats. What a time for a county GOP resurgence.

The county GOP endorsed the only 2 registered Republicans out of seventeen who sought the judge seats. Attorney Richard Hughes won the top spot, just barely, on the GOP side. Attorney Mike Pendolphi, the other GOPer finished a dismal 14 out of 17. On the Democratic side, Hughes finished 14 and Pendolphi finished dead last. It doesn't look the the county Democrats are willing to put their full faith and support behind a Republican. Hughes is going to have trouble this fall, but that's the subject of another posting in the future.

In the controller and prothonotary races, the county GOP endorsed Carolee Medico Olenginski for proth and Attorney Nanda Palissery for controller. Olenginski won, but Palissery finished fourth in a five person race.

OVC knows that both Walter Mitchell and Nanda Palissery were recruited by the county GOP leadership to run for the respective offices. This recruitment was accompanied with promises of endorsements, limiting opposition, organizational support, and mostly importantly, money. The leadership failed to secure the endorsement for Mitchell, and failed to provide financial or any other support for the endorsed candidates. In the proth's race it was mostly due to lackluster enthusiasm for the endorsed candidate, but in the controller's race it just seemed to be a lack of enthusiasm in general.

The Protyhonotary race was an uphill battle for Mitchell. Olenginski had a great edge in name recognition throughout the county, having been the elected prothonotary for four years from 1998 to 2002. She also was able to portray herself as a victim of the corrupt Democratic machine. Without financial or organizational backing, Mitchell's campaign was doomed from the start.

Olenginski faces political newcomer Nancy McGinley Bellas in the fall, and we believe this may be the race to watch. Eventhough Olenginski's tenure at the prothonotary's office was filled with what we may term "erratic" and "eccentric" behavior, her public image is that of someone who was victimized by the good ol' boy network. Olenginski has a good chance of become Luzerne County's last "elected" prothonotary. We say "elected," because home rule will almost certainly eliminate this as an elected position.

The controller's race is a different story. Bob Morgan faced no opposition in the primary and appears to be a strong candidate. Walter Griffith, on the other hand, is a poor candidate whose only appeal is his misleading pledge to be a "full time" controller, and the fact that he has read the county code from cover to cover. We hate to break this to him, but there's a big difference between reading and understanding. Where we have no doubt that Griffith read the code from cover to cover, his actions throughout the past few years have shown, also with no doubt that he does not comprehend or understand what he read.

Morgan will outspend Griifth by a considerable margin. He has the ability to raise a lot of money, whereas Griffith does not. Griffith is thought of as something of a parlor joke within the GOP money circle in Luzerne County, so don't expect the big checks to flow into the Griifth war chest.

Griffith won the primary on name recognition alone. His name has been on the ballot and in the news for the past few years. The name reconition factor is obvious by the fact that former Democratic county commissioner Edd Brominski finished a strong second on the GOP side. Voters knew the name.

Voters focused primarily and almost exclusively on the judicial races, and we'd be willing to wager the UNIVAC 3000 on the fact that most voters didn't even realize there was a race for controller or prothonotary on the ballot until the screen appeared on the ES&S iVotronic touch screen voting system. In these types of races, name recognition always triumphs.

Griffith will be outmatched by organization and money come November, and Bob Morgan will cruise to victory. The GOP missed an opportunity here to take over the controller seat, which in all likelihood will remain an elected position when the county final turns to home rule.

Election Post Mortem, Volume I

2009-05-26T18:57:00.000-07:00

Buzz and I treated the OVC staff to a weekend off, but now it's time to do a little Monday morning quarterbacking. Let's first look at the Scranton mayor's race.

We were a bit surprised by the closeness of the Scranton mayor's race on the Democratic side. Mayor Chris Doherty received a tough challenge from Gary DiBileo. The final tally showed Doherty with 8,677 or 52.56% and DiBileo with 7,736 or 46.86%. On the GOP side Bob Bolus, a candidate who would be ineligible to serve because of a felony conviction from some 15 years ago, was the only candidate on the ballot. He received 837 votes, but there were 1809 write-in votes, most of which went to Doherty.

DiBileo is a former Scranton school director and former Scranton City council member. He challenged the two term Doherty for a rematch of the 2005 mayor's race. In 2005, DiBileo garnered 47 percent of the vote.

We believe Doherty has done quite an admirable job as mayor by making the tough decisions required of a small city mayor. His personnel decisions were not popular among the uniformed personnel, but they were the right decisions. Fortunately enough Democrats in Scranton had the wisdom to send Doherty on to a third term.

Now to Luzerne County.

We were pleased, but not at all surprised to see the Home Rule question pass with 77.46 percent. After all, if ever there were a time to fix a broken government, now is the time in Luzerne County. We are optimistic that the charter study commission which was elected on Tuesday will put forth a plan that will be acceptable to a majority of Luzerne County voters.

The biggest race, by far, in Luzerne County was the race for two judicial seats. Magisterial District Judge William Amesbury of Wilkes-Barre was the top voter getter by a wide margin on the Democratic side, capturing 10,393 votes to second place Attorney Tina PolachekGartley at 8,248 votes.

Amesbury also won one of the Republican nominations, finishing second behind Attorney Richard Hughes. The vote totals were 4,845 for Hughes and 4,701 for Amesbury.

Amesbury ran an excellent campaign. Although he was outspent by a number of his opponents, Amesbury got the most bang for the buck. Amesbury may not have been everyone's first choice, but we rarely heard a negative word about the amiable Wilkes-Barre magistrate during our travels during the campaign. He also came across as a hard working, honest, and sincere man who just seemed right for the times.

Hughes ran a well organized campaign and had strong support among the party faithful. Throughout the campaign we ran into many a GOP folk who stood firmly behind the Mountaintop attorney. Hughes has been something of a judge candidate in waiting. We heard rumors of him pondering a run in both 2003 (the seat won by Mike Toole) and in 2007 (the seat won by District Attorney Dave Lupas.)

The Republican faithful rewarded Hughes with the top spot in 2009. This was probably the most predictable result in the judicial race. We thought Hughes was a gimme for one of the GOP nod since early in the election season.

In an earlier post, we stated that Gartley won the Democratic nomination for one reason --- she was a woman. We stand by that statement.

There was nothing in the Gartley campaign that set her apart from a field of fine candidates besides her gender. In a year when the electorate became tired of the good ol' boy network, Gartley fit the bill.

Gartley's success is a major reason why Judge Joe Musto lost. Musto was perceived to be one of the good ol' boys (not in that he was corrupt, but the people wanted someone "new" and Musto was too much of the same.

The biggest losers in the election were Tom O'Connor and Gene Sperazza. Both men spent over a $100,000, and both faired poorly and well out of the mix. (O'Connor 8th and Sperazza 9th on the Democratic side and O'Connor 5th and Sperazza 6th on the GOP side.) Neither campaign took off despite the money spent.

Attorneys Joe Sklarosky and Daniel Zola showed some electoral prowess on Tuesday, and we would not be surprised to see them in a sequel in 2011. There are at least two, and as many as five judgeships up in 2011. Ciavarella's seat is up, as well as Hugh Mundy's seat. He will be 70 next year. Ann Lokuta will have exhausted her appeals by then, and thus her seat will be up. Finally, Judges Tom Burke and Peter Paul Olzsewski are facing tough retentions battles and fall to the "no" vote come this November.

If you thought 17 candidates was a lot, wait and see what we get in 2001 if five seats are up.

So the general election is a battle between Gartley and Hughes, since Amesbury is virtually assured election by having won a spot on both the Republican and Democratic sides. Hughes is a definite underdog, and we believe he will lose in November unless the Gartley campaign experiences a major blunder. We are not in a position to speculate on whether something may emerge to upset the Gartley ship of state, but we would not be surprised if something does emerge.

Tomorrow we will take a look at some other Luzerne County races of interest.

Election Post Mortem

2009-05-21T14:58:00.000-07:00

We'll be doing an election post mortem within the next few days. We can't guarantee it gets done before Memorial Day, but we will give it a shot.

Two comments we have to make now are these.

Number One. We read in the Citizens' Voice that Tina Gartley downplayed the gender issue when explaining her victory. Tina Gartley won the Democratic nomination for judge in Luzerne County for one reason --- she is a woman. Or perhaps we should put it this way, does anyone out there truly believe that Gartley would have even come close if she were a man? We believe if she were she'd be down near Pendolphiland. More to come.

Number Two. How gullible is the Republican base? Daniel Zola, a thirty three year old Democratic attorney from Hazleton, whose greatest claim to fame is his love for hunting, finishes third in the GOP field. He does this by trying to scare the bejesus out of the GOP base with his crime ridden streets mailer and his Second Amendment rights mailer. Gotta give the guy credit. More to come.

Prediction Additions

2009-05-19T03:51:00.000-07:00

Here are our predictions on the top three and bottom three on each side in the Luzerne County Judicial Race. The top threes are in order of finish. The bottom threes, you can mix and match.

Democratic Top Three

Musto
Amesbury
Sklarosky

Republican Top Three

Hughes
Amesbury
O'Connor

Democratic Bottom Three

Menn
Mirabito
Lumbis

Republican Bottom Three

Menn
Mirabito
Lumbis

Prediction time

2009-05-18T09:54:00.000-07:00

Buzz has had the UNIVAC 3000 working overtime, so we're ready to make our predictions in selected races in Luzerne and Lackawanna County. The picks are not endorsements, but our belief on who will win. Our judicial picks for Luzerne County will be posted later this evening, because we are involved in a few judicial pick pools.

We'll start with a few picks in Lackawanna County.

Judge

Margie Bisignani Moyle (Dem)
John Pesota (Rep)

Scranton Mayor

Chris Dougherty (Dem)

Our selected Luzerne County picks are:

Prothonotary

Nancy McGinley Bellas (Dem)
Carolee Medico Olenginski (Rep)

Controller

Nanda Palissery (Rep)

Kingston Mayor

Stephen Radzinski (Dem)
Jim Haggerty (Rep)

Practicing What You Preach

2009-05-15T06:32:00.000-07:00

Apparently Luzerne County judicial candidate Mike Blazick's anti lawyer contribution crusade never stopped him from taking a job with a law firm that gave $1500 to the Committee to Retain Judge Michael T. Conahan. Pennsylvania Department of State records show that the Perry Law Firm gave a $1500 contribution on October 28, 2003. Blazick joined the Perry Law firm in 2006.

In addition to his former law firm's contribution to Conahan, there's an interesting parallel between Blazick and Conahan. In 1993, Michael T. Conahan, a magistrate from Hazleton came up with a novel idea in his judicial campaign. He refused to take contributions from lawyers and law firms. In 2009, Blazick revisited that political ploy with a vengeance.

Blazick has made lawyer contributions the cornerstone of his campaign, and we believe it is all just a political ploy. The fact that he never personally gave money to a judicial campaign can be explained by a number of reasons, and none of them add up to a belief by Blazick that such contributions corrupt the system. We do not believe for a minute that Blazick had the foresight to not give campaign contributions to Conahan or Ciavarella because he knew they were corrupt.

It is our belief that Blazick just doesn't give campaign contributions to any candidates. In fact, the only state campaign contribution we could find was a $60.00 contribution to the Harleysville Insurance PAC in 2008. It is our conclusion that Blazick doesn't give money to judges because of some high moral principle. We believe he doesn't give money to judicial candidates because he's cheap.

We are also offended by Blazick's latest radio advertisement. In particular, Blazick plays a sound bite from former United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra O'Connor. O'Connor basically states that if there is one thing she can change in the legal system it is large contributions to judicial campaigns by "litigants." Mike, "litigants" are not "lawyers." Your ad is misleading at the very least.

First of all, the Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits judges or candidates for judge "publicly endors(ing) a candidate for political office." The O'Connor quote may not be a direct endorsement of Blazick, but it sure sounds like she's endorsing his platform.

We looked up the word litigant in Webster's Dictionary. A litigant is "one engaged in a lawsuit." We also checked for synonyms. We found plaintiff, complainant, group, participant, party, competitor, opponent, accused, and defendant. WE DID NOT FIND LAWYER. A litigant is not a lawyer.

So is Blazick trying to mislead the people into thinking litigant and lawyer are synonymous or doesn't he know the difference himself. If he's trying to deceive the people into thinking that lawyer and litigant are synonyms, then he should not be judge. If he doesn't know the difference, then he should not be judge.

Pendolphi for Judge

2009-05-14T17:19:00.000-07:00

Buzz and I attended the Mike Pendolphi for Judge rally tonight at the Chicken Coop. We originally stopped in for a couple of dozen of General Alarm Chicken Wings and a cold frosted brew when we ran into Pendolphi.

Pendolphi is one of only two Republicans who is running for judge in Luzerne County. In March, he received the endorsement of the Luzerne County Republican Party along with fellow Republican Richard Hughes.

The 43 year old Pendolphi was accompanied at his event by his wife Sharon and six year old daughter Madyson.

Pendolphi said, “In my career, I have tried civil jury trials, criminal jury trials, custody, divorce and support trials, equity trials, children and youth dependency and termination of parental rights trials and even juvenile criminal trials. There is no time for on-the-job training when people’s lives, liberty, family and property are at stake.”

We spoke with one long time Luzerne County attorney who said he strongly supports Pendolphi. He said, "Mike has fought in the trenches of the legal system for many years. He has handled almost every case imaginable in front of almost every judge and magistrate in this county. That is the type of experience lacking in the resume of many of the other judicial candidates. He knows what it's like to represent the little guy or gal against the powerful. That's the type of person we need to be judge."

Bone Marrow Drive

2009-05-13T18:18:00.001-07:00

We primarily cover political topics, but every so often we do just a little bit more. On May 16th, there will be a bone marrow drive at the Quality Inn (formerly Victoria Inn) Rte. 315, Pittston Township from 10 am to 4 pm for Liam Schulze.

Here's Liam's story.

Our little Liam was born on January 2, 2008...the happiest day of our lives. When he was 4 months old, Liam started getting cyclical fevers, usually lasting a week, but occurring at the same time each month. For about the next 10 months, Liam had been to pediatricians, oncologists, infectious disease specialists, hematologists, and rheumatologists, but none were able to figure out what caused his fevers.

On March 26, 2009, Liam was diagnosed with a rare blood disorder, Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis, or HLH. HLH is a fatal disease if not treated in time and even then there is no guarantee. Our son now faces chemotherapy and a bone marrow transplant if he is to have any chance at beating this disease. It is not cancer but is treated like it. Words cannot describe the fear and sorrow that enter a parent's heart when given such news. On one hand, we were relieved that we finally arrived at a diagnosis, on the other we were so scared.

We have decided the best place for him is at Cincinnati Children's Hospital under the care of Dr. Lisa Filipovich, expert in the field of HLH, and her staff for treatment including a bone marrow transplant. Our trip began on April 15, 2009.

Now the only thing we can do is stick together with our family and friends to beat this. Out little Liam is a fighter (Liam means "Powerful Warrior") and we welcome you to browse "Liam's Lighthouse", because there is always a light shining in our son's heart.

It will only take about 15 minutes to do the test, it's just a swab of your inner cheek. You have to be between the ages of 18 to 55 to donate. Further information is available by calling Holly at 570.313.9940.

Controller Question Number 4

2009-05-13T17:39:00.000-07:00

Our fourth question to the Luzerne County Controller candidate was a follow up to question Number 3.

Question Number 4: If you favor home rule, do you believe the position of controller should be an elected one, or should he or she be chosen by another method? Explain your reasoning.

Bob Morgan

As indicated in the previous answer I would not support a Home Rule charter that changed the role of Controller from an elected position to a position of selection because I believe it could impact the independence of the office. I believe abandoning the direct election of the Controller could make him or her worry more about job security and pleasing the County Council or County Executive to ensure job security and would lessen the impact and independence of the Controller's office.
.
Alice Coffman

DID NOT RESPOND

Nanda Palissery

The controller position should be an elected one. Appointments naturally lead to possible corruption. The controller is the watchdog of the people's money, therefore the people should elect the controller to maintain his or her independence. If the controller is appointed, he or she would have to answer to those who made the appointment. An elected controller would have to answer to the electorate.

Bob Sypniewski

DID NOT RESPOND

Edd Brominski

Under home rule it would probably best in the best interests of the public to have the position filled by the elected body.

Walter Griffith

I feel the Controller should always be an elected position and I also feel the position should have term limits on it as well. I feel a term of two terms is plenty for any elected official and there should be no Retirement of pension allowed to any elected official. I would work with the Home Rule Study Commission to be sure that this is inserted in the Charter as well. The reason for this is because the Controller should not be allowed to be in control of the financial "Bible" for longer than 2 terms because it is a very powerful position. I also feel that new people would be beneficial to the taxpayers to formulate new ideas and procedures that would make the Office more productive.

Controller Question 3

2009-05-12T17:37:00.000-07:00

Our third question to the Luzerne County Controller candidates was a simple one.

Question 3: What is your position on home rule in Luzerne County?

Alice Coffman

DID NOT RESPOND

Bob Morgan

I support the ballot question for the Government Study Commission because I believe it is a healthy exercise in democracy and will allow citizens to determine whether our current form of government meets the needs of the citizens of Luzerne County in the current times. I believe the study commission process allows participation by voters and current officeholders to make the case to retain the current Commissioner form of government, to modify it, or to introduce a new form of government. I believe the 18 to 24 month timeframe provides a safeguard against making rash and possibly ill considered changes in reaction to a particular set of headlines or circumstances. In addition the results of the study and the recommendations of the committee require significant communication and voter approval prior to enactment. I believe this entire process is healty for government and ultimately may lead to a better, although different, form of government in the next several years.

I would oppose any change to the direct election of the office of Controller because I believe the current format provides for a level of independence. I believe the position of Controller, by its very nature, should be one that reports directly to the voters to ensure that the officeholder is always aware that he or she always reports to the voters. The appointment of a Controller, whether by a County Council or by a County Executive could interfere with the independence of the office and could lead to a softening of the oversight role of the office. I could not support a Home Rule charter that contained provisions for an appointed Controller, I believe the best way for the office to retain independence would be to allow the Controller to remain an office directly elected by the voters.

Bob Sypniewski

DID NOT RESPOND

Walter Griffith

I feel Home Rule or any other type of government is only as good as the Citizens that are involved in its operation. I also feel a study is a good place to start to see if the Home Rule would work for our County. I will support the final decision of the taxpayers of Luzerne County.

Edd Brominski

I am in favor of Home rule .
Nanda Palissery

Home rule is a complicated question. The form has not yet been determined, and so it is difficult to answer. It is like asking about the new 2012 Cadillac and whether I would buy one? I couldn't possibly tell you yet, until I have driven it and seen it.

Indecision

2009-05-12T14:19:00.000-07:00

When Buzz and I were driving around in the OVC microbus, we stumbled upon the most indecisive voter in Luzerne County. This house in Kingston displayed each and every one of the signs for the seventeen Luzerne County Judge candidates.

Crossing the Line

2009-05-11T18:02:00.000-07:00

The latest mailer from Luzerne County judicial candidate Daniel Zola is anything but judicial. The flyer, which touts his "unanimous" endorsement "by all of the Luzerne County Chief's of Police," plays to the fears of crime ridden streets.

It takes the 2009 murder statistic, which most believe is an aberration, to make people think that Luzerne County is one of the crime capitals of the state. (The Wilkes-Barre/Scranton area ranks 56 out of 332 in the nation in crime. 1 being the safest, 332 being the most dangerous.)

We decided to learn more about Zola by checking out his website.

His website was easy to find --- zolaforjudge.com.

Zola is the son of Magisterial District Judge Joseph Zola of Hazleton, and we learned from his website that he is "more than a native of Luzerne County. Daniel Zola's family has lived in our county for four generations. Zola descends from coal miners, laborers and law enforcement officers that have built our community and defined our family values."

We also found out that he is an avid hunter.

"Hunting is his favorite pastime. Daniel is an N.R.A. member and avidly hunts during rifle and archery seasons. Archery is his true passion because it is more challenging. As most hunters can tell you, the true enjoyment of hunting comes from the excitement of sitting on stand and wondering what is going to come through the woods next...hearing the crunch of footsteps in the fall woods is enough to spike your blood pressure and get your heart racing."

Finally we found out that he likes putting "junkies" in state prison. He devotes two lengthy paragraphs in his bio section explaining how he convicted "junkies" during his tenure in the Luzerne County District Attorney's Office.

What we did not find out from his bio page was his age, 33; his educational background, Hazleton Area High School; Luzerne County Community College; King’s College, 1999; Widener University School of Law, 2002; and his admission to the Pennsylvania bar in 2003. We guess you go with you strengths.

Apparently Zola is running for Police Chief in Chief of Luzerne County. We do not see how his love for hunting has any bearing on making complex judicial decisions, nor do we see how his continual referral of persons with serious drug problems as "junkies" show the compassion necessary to pass judgment on others.

Zola is certainly not our choice for judge. We believe perhaps his young age and lack of legal experience has colored his views to believe that a judge is only someone who puts bad people behind bars. A judge is so much more. The qualities of a good judge include patience, wisdom, courage, firmness, alertness, incorruptibility and the gifts of sympathy and insight. We see none of this in Zola.

A Question of Character

2009-05-10T18:56:00.000-07:00

Walter Griffith, one of five Republican candidates for Luzerne County Controller has shown us through his reaction to the posting of his 1993 citation for patronizing a prostitute that he is unfit to serve in public office.

When we decided to post the sixteen year old newspaper article which listed Griffith's being cited with patronizing a prostitute, we did not believe the matter had much relevance on his fitness to serve in public office, but we posted it because we believed the public had a right to know and make their own decision.

We asked Griffith to respond prior to our posting, to which he did. His explanation of the events surrounding the incident left more questions and became a factor in our decision to post. We found his explanation a bit dubious.

Griifth insisted that he had decided to celebrate his milestone "40th birthday." He stated this to us a number of times:

"when I was 40 and decided to go have a beer to celebrate a milestone in my life and because I never drink"

"going to celebrate my 40th birthday"

"The incident happened on July 16th 1993 on my 40th birthday"

The problem is Griifth was born on July 16, 1954. July 16, 1993 would have been his 39th birthday. We have confirmed Griffith's age through his own web site and through voter registration records.

Secondly, if he were innocent and just "in the wrong place at the wrong time," what reason would he have to say:

"I apologized to my wife at the time and have asked God for forgiveness for this incident"

"This incident happened 16 years ago and I have changed my life and am a new person "

Once we posted the article, Griffith posted a number of comments on OVC which generally amounted to insults and character attacks. What was far worse and reminded us of WWE trash talk were the e-mails he sent to us. We have decide to post those e-mails, because we believe they demonstrate Griffith's unfitness to hold public office.

His first e-mail was received on Friday, May 8th at 10:34 am. It is posted below in its entirety.

"Dear Anonymous ASS HOLE,

This is the last time I will address this issue that you as a real coward, that is the writer of this Blog page, has brought up about my personal life, and has attempted to destroy a human beings personal life, without regard for the persons feelings or the affect that a story, that is 16 years old would have on his family and children that were to young at the time, but now are able to understand.

I would like to be crystal clear in my statement that this post is nothing more than slander, and a personal assault on my character and my family without any proof at all regarding the circumstances of the incident or the outcome of the charges that were rendered at the time of the hearing.

I really don't need to go and address people that are cowards and refuse to sign their names to their posts, and I surely won't even get down in the gutter with you as a stupid blogger, that had no regard for my family, by posting something that was printed in the newspaper, but never was proven to be true.

The incident that happened was unfortunate and when the case was heard before the magistrate the recording of my statement to the undercover policewoman was played and the ruling was that I was loitering due to the anti cruising law that was in place in the City and therefore I was cited for Loitering.

There was no plea bargain as was suggested and the case was filed as a summary offense much like a traffic citation.

The newspaper has destroyed many people by simply writing that they were arrested but the newspaper never seems to follow up with the ruling of the courts after the initial arrest and therefore the public never saw a story that the charges were DISMISSED for me and several others that are in that article.

The fact of the matter was that I was found “NOT GUILTY” and the article on the blog is SLANDEROUS AND LIBELOUS” because it was stated that there was a criminal citation issued and that is simply not true. The citation was for patronizing a prostitute and that is not a criminal offense, but a summary offense, and therefore you have issued a slanderous and defamatory statement which is not true and was posted in print media for all to see without evidence or proof.

My life was devastated by this article in 1993, because the people that read the newspaper, like you, that are allowed to have a blog page, as well as the people that HIDE behind the First Amendment, that feel they can write or say anything anonymously, simply don't follow up or do their own investigation to be sure they have the facts before they insert their foot in their mouths.

I will say this to you, and that is simply that if you do not remove this post on your blog and issue a retraction, I will find you and I will sue you for Slander and defamation of my character and I will send letters to the PA Attorney General’s Office and the FCC and I will make your life a living nightmare. I have spoken to Bob Sypniewski as well and have issued the same warning to him.

Walter L Griffith Jr."

The second e-mail was received at 11:47 am.

"Dear Anonymous or whatever.

Below is the definition of Libel for the unlearned as yourself and the charge that I will be filing against you when Yahoo.com tells me your name and address..

An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. Libel is a form of defamation , as is slander (an untruthful statement that is spoken, but not published in writing or broadcast through the media).

Walter L Griffith JR
Candidate for Luzerne County Controller"

The third came at 11:53 am, which included a lengthy "cut and paste" definition of libel, was prefaced by the following:

"Hey Anonymous,

Please read this and know I am coming to get you with this and other information.

TAKE DOWN THAT POST IMMEDIATELY OR PAY THE CONSEQUENSES

Walter Griffith Jr"

The fourth, which was received at 11:55 am contained a further definition of libel.

The fifth came at 5:09 pm. It read:

"Hey James or John or David,

What's wrong does the cat have your tongue as to removing the post ? Take down that post or deal with me and my obsession to make your life a living hell.

You are nothing more than a back stabbing person that hides behind Jesus and his church. Come out in the open and identify yourself if you feel you were in the right to post this article. I am going to sit outside your house and watch you until I find out who you are and what you are doing.

I know where you live on Lehigh St as well as the others in Dallas and trust me I will find out who you are and may even show up in your church on Sunday.

Walter L Griffith JR Candidate for Luzerne County Controller"

I had not checked my e-mail during that day, so I became aware of them when I returned home at about 5:30 pm. As a result of these e-mails, I informed Griffith that I would not remove the post, because there was nothing libelous contained within the post. I also advised Griffith to seek legal counsel before he proceeded further in his actions. I finally asked him why I should not post his e-mails. I received his response at 8:55 pm.

"Hey Coward,

I really don't care if you post them or not how's that for a reason, Trust me I will find you and I don't need an attorney and I did consult with one before I sent the e mails to the FCC and I am on firm legal ground and you are on shaky ground as well.

I asked you like a gentleman to not post the information and I asked you to consider my family and my personal feelings and not post it and you refused to listen to me and have hurt my family. I will wait and I will find you and I will have the last laugh at your expense, this is not a threat but a promise. and I always sign my name and am not a Coward or scum bag like you..

Walter L Griffith Jr
Candidate for Luzerne County Controller"

We are very troubled by Griffth's reaction and lack of restraint. We also believe this is a testament to why Griffith is unfit for public office.

Controller Question Number 2

2009-05-08T19:17:00.000-07:00

The is the second question we asked the Luzerne County Controller candidates.

Question: Will you keep acting controller Anthony "A. J." Martinelli on your staff?

Bob Sypniewski

DID NOT RESPOND

Walter Griffith

1. I feel that I do not have enough information to make this type of judgment call at this moment, However I will promise the taxpayers that if Mr Martinelli has abused his power of his office and has used his position in the County as a tool to receive special treatment, I will issue him a suspension and place the information in his personnel file. I do however feel that everyone makes mistakes and is entitled to a reprimand and suspension for a first time offense and that should be afforded to anyone in any type of employment. I will not tolerate any type of employee mismanagement or disregard for the position that they hold and will deal with these types of issues on a case by case basis.

Nanda Palissery

I won't make any decisions until after I am elected and have had a chance to discuss the matter with Mr. Martinelli. He has not been convicted of a crime and the courts saw fit to grant the district attorney's motion for ARD placement. In my business experience, I learned that in a new office, it pays to learn all you can from the existing staff before replacing it.

Alice Coffman

DID NOT RESPOND

Edd Brominski

Doubtfully

Bob Morgan

If I am fortunate enough to be chosen by the voters to be the next Controller one of my first priorities will to be review the entire staff to ensure everyone is working in a role that best suits their talents, experience and level of expertise. I believe all personnel related decisions should be made in a professional manner and should be handled in a way that ensures the highest level of confidence of the taxpayers and all parties involved. SInce I have not been elected Controller at this time, and have not had the opportunity to conduct the promised review of the staff, it would be premature for me to comment on the status of any member of the staff.

I would caution my fellow candidates from making rash comments regarding any personnel appointment(s) as these matters are both sensitive and potentially legally actionable if viewed as "politically" motivated. I believe we need to bring the level of professionalism to a higher level, rather than lowering it with what may be construed as cheap crowd pleasing attacks on individuals.

Controller Question Number 1

2009-05-08T05:18:00.000-07:00

Here is the first question posed to the six candidates who are running for Luzerne County Controller. This is the first of a series of questions.

Question 1: What will be your top priority as controller?

Nanda Palissery

Top priority is getting the audits completed on time and reorganizing the office to work more efficiently. I also intend to devise a protocol to meet with and communicate with the commissioners and all department heads on a regular basis to discuss county spending and a procedure whereby future contracts may be reviewed in advance of execution.

Bob Sypniewski

DID NOT ANSWER

Edd Brominski

Establishing a system whereby each bill submitted has a code verifying payment..i.e. Authorized by BID, Office Holder , less than required amount necessary for bid or emergency as some examples.

Alice Coffman

Have financial reports brought up to date. This is very crucial to have up to date information available to the public and for budget purposes. The most recent Financial Statements are for December 31, 2006 issued January 7, 2009. This absolutely amazes me. I believe it is due to the lack of experience.

Bob Morgan

My top priority will be to use my real world business experience to provide leadership in the Controller's office for the citizens of Luzerne County. I believe our next Controller needs to review and reorganize the functions of the office to ensure that we meet the required responsibilities in a timely fashion. I believe our internal audit staff needs to grow in irder to complete the tasks required of the office which include internal audits of the row offices, tax collectors and magisterial offices. I would also look toward expanding the audit oversight to include all county department and agencies and the Luzerne County Community College which receives approximately 5% of the county budget but is not currently audited by the Controller's Office. While many of the agencies, LCCC for example, are audited by state and federal government agencies I believe the Controller's office should also be responsible for oversight in these areas as well.

I believe my over 20 years experience in the financial services field will allow me to bring a unique perspective to the the Controller's office. I will use this experience especially in my role as a member of the Retirement Board which is responsible for the management of the county retirement plan. I pledge to be an active advocate for the taxpayers and the employees of Luzerne County to ensure this plan is managed in a sound and responsible way. I believe my prior life experience, especially my years of working with large corporate retirement plans, provides a level of professionalism not previously evident on the Retirement Board. This asset pool must be managed in a sound and prudent fashion because the effect on the greater budget can be devastating, as an example we are faced with a $17 million deficit which will require the taxpayers to take on additional levels of debt, 2/3 of this deficit represents the $11 million Annual Required Contribution for the pension plan. I believe the Board will benefit from taking a proactive approach to managing our retirement liability that will have a positive effect on the taxpayers in the long run.

Walter Griffith
1. My Top Priority will be to bring to the Controller's Office a person that will be there every day from 8:30 AM until 4:30 PM so that if there are any questions or concerns from any of the staff or Commissioners, I will be there to answer them and to direct the staff in the office. I will not be a "Phone Call" Controller.

2. The second priority is to get the audits completed so that the County will comply with the DCED Guidelines and therefore allow the County to become eligible to recieve loans from the State.

3. The third Priority is to make sure that all County Contracts and Bids for contracts are followed according to the County Code that states that all contracts must be bid.

Financial Reports Due Tomorrow

2009-05-07T17:57:00.000-07:00

The 10 day Pre-election finance reports are due tomorrow. The UNIVAC 3000 has just had its tune up by Buzz and is ready to work overtime. We will be reviewing as many reports as we can, and we will bring you as much info as we can.

Stay tuned.

Breaking News: Controller Candidate Caught in 1993 "Prostitution Sting"

2009-05-06T22:02:00.001-07:00

I was once told by a political consultant that before you decide to run for public office, you should “search your closet” for your “deepest, darkest skeleton,” and if you can live with that “skeleton” appearing on the front page of the newspaper, go ahead an place your name on the ballot. One of those skeletons has emerged from the closet of Luzerne County Republican Controller candidate Walter Griffith's closet in the form of a criminal citation for patronizing a prostitute in July of 1993.

We have afforded Griffith the opportunity to respond, and he has done so. His response is posted below.

Once you place your name on the ballot, everything becomes fair game. It is this very thing that deters many fine persons from ever seeking political office.

In this age of the twenty four hour news cycle, which includes anyone with a computer and the urge or will to blog, the public scrutiny of even candidates for minor offices has become intense. The public’s right to know has become great and, at some times, insatiable.

We do not take our obligations as bloggers lightly. We try our best not to engage in rumor or gossip, and we steer away from personal attacks and try to give an objective viewpoint based upon facts.

We consulted many a trusted friend today on the decision to post or not to post. Many asked us not to post this article because of its remoteness to present day and for the sake of Walter Griffith’s family. We struggled today with the decision, but decided the public is the ultimate arbitrator of whether or not Griffith’s actions 16 years ago are relevant to his ability to serve as Luzerne County Controller.

We strongly believe a public official or public office seeker’s family’s private lives are off limits, but we also strongly believe that the private actions of a public official or office seeker are fair game.

Harry Truman is famously quoted as saying, “if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.” In the spirit of those words of wisdom, “if you don’t want your private life made public, don’t run for public office.”

We are not personally swayed or influenced in the least bit by remote and distant private actions of candidates for public office which do not directly affect that person’s ability to carry out the duties of the office which he or she seeks. People are human, and it is through mistakes and misdeeds that we learn. Squeaky clean politicians scare us, but not everyone thinks that way. Some look to the private actions of a politician, regardless of their remoteness, as an important indication of one’s public character.

We make no comment on the incident or Griffith's account of his actions that night. The public will be the ultimate judge.

Here is Griffith's account of the incident in his own words:

"The incident happened on July 16th 1993 on my 40th birthday and I went to the place on S Main St to pick up my sister in law to go out and have a few drinks to celebrate my birthday, because my wife was working and could not go with us. My sister in Law worked for an answering service in the building directly in front of where the "Sting Operation" was being performed.

While I was waiting outside of the building, I was asked by an undercover Policewoman, what I was doing there and I explained I was waiting for someone and then I was told to drive around the rear of the building and there I was arrested for soliciting a prostitute.

I appeared before Magistrate Collins and was found not guilty but paid a fine for loitering.

I apologized to my wife at the time and have asked God for forgiveness for this incident even though I, in my opinion, was not doing anything wrong, other than going to celebrate my 40th birthday and was at the wrong place at the wrong time.

This incident happened 16 years ago and I have changed my life and am a new person and that is what I am inside and outside."

Controller Bios

2009-05-06T18:40:00.000-07:00

Today we begin our extended Luzerne County Controller coverage. We begin with bios submitted by the candidates pursuant to our questionnaire. The order in which they are presented has been selected by the UNIVAC 3000.

Edd Brominski

1980/1983 Luzerne County Commissioner.... Balanced the budget each year ( I was Chairman the last 3 of those 4 years). Married to my first wife Dee (only wife) for 48 years. Two Children Ed Jr. and Lynn. Two Grandsons, Randy and Scott Salus. I taught for 15 years, was Mayor of Swoyersville for 4 years, worked in Insurance sales and management for 8 years , was the Director of the Assessement office in the county for 7 1/2 years, and worked as a medical prescriptions sales person for 5 years. Retired in 2005.

Walter Griffith

My name is Walter L. Griffith JR. and I am currently 54 years old and a lifelong resident of Luzerne County. I currently own and manage my own Auto Repair business and have done so very successfully since 1989. I am also very active in managing an organization that is responsible to submit a budget and balance our books each year, as well as organize and facilitate the operation of an organization that covers 4 states.

I currently have been very active in Wilkes-Barre City Government, as well as Luzerne County Government, and have been very active in the daily operations of these governments for the taxpayers of the City and County and have made much progress in being sure that our elected officials are held accountable to “us” the taxpayers.

I am running as your County Controller and have demonstrated time and time again my desire to represent each and every taxpayer and citizen in Luzerne County by my constant asking of the “tough questions” of your elected officials and will continue to do this on your behalf if elected as your County Controller in 2009.

I represented “YOU” the taxpayers when the County Commissioners were going to plunge the County into more debt with regard to the 16 million dollar loan and was successful in representing “YOU” by having that amount reduced to only 5.6 Million.

I also was at the meetings to represent “YOU” when the Debit Card issue was happening and the feel the Controller should have known about this long before the people were swindled out of thousands of dollars.

I was at the courthouse when 21^st Century Appraisals were doing our appraisals in a very shoddy and haphazard way that has cost the taxpayers of this County thousands of dollars.

I was at the Courthouse when the Salary Board was not functioning according to the law of the County Code as well and was very instrumental in helping your elected officials cut spending by my information.

My background politically is very simple…I am not related to any one in Luzerne County that works in the courthouse and I will not bankrupt my moral or ethic character to get elected to any position in government.

Alice Coffman

EDUCATION:

Hazleton Senior High School, 1984
Penn State Hazleton Campus, May 1986. Associates Degree in Business Administration

Bloomsburg University, Magna Cum Laude, December 1992, Bachelor of Science in Business Administration majoring in Accounting.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:

Self-employed CPA, dba Coffman & Associates, located in Conyngham, PA since July 1996, specializing in small business and individual accounting and tax matters. Served as auditor for the Luzerne County Children’s Home and United Charities in West Hazleton, PA.
Parente Randolph, Hazleton, PA; auditor of financial statements of both profit and non-profit entities and pension funds, spring of 1994.
Deloitte & Touche, Fogelsville, PA; auditor of financial statements for profit entities and the Pennsylvania State University system, December 1992.

POLITICAL EXPERIENCE:

None, this is my first time entering the political arena.

PERSONAL:

Married August 25, 1990.
No children, nine siblings, one deceased due to MS August 2008, twenty-six nieces/nephews, 10 great nieces/nephews, Parents both deceased.

Bob Sypniewski

DID NOT RESPOND

Bob Morgan

Bob Morgan is a lifelong resident of Luzerne County, born and raised in Kingston and currently residing in Fairview Township with his wife and two children.

He is a graduate of Wyoming Valley West High School and King's College where he received a B.A. in Government. While a student at King's he served an internship in the Washington office of Congressman Frank Harrison.

After graduation, Bob began a career in the financial services industry, beginning his career with Prudential Investments, one of the leading managers of retirement plans in the country. During his time at Prudential he served first as a Marketing Representative supporting the firm's regional pension sales representatives. In 1991, he began managing client relationships for a number of client's of the firm, eventually becoming an Account Executive with responsibilty for a team of service representatives who handled day to day operations for large corporate retirement plans with assets of over $750 million. Bob was also responsible for presenting semi-annual reports in face to face meetings with the Chief Financial Officers and pension trust committees of his team's plans.

In 1998, he joined Smith Barney as a Financial Consultant working with individuals managing their personal assets. During this time he managed a number of corporate 401(k) plans in the local community as well. At Smith Barney he attained the titles of Retirment Plan Consultant and Financial Planning Consultant. In 2006, Bob joined PNC Investments as a Senior Financial Consultant, earning the title of Assistant Vice President in 2007.

Bob has also served as Past President of the Friendly Sons of Greater Wilkes-Barre, served as Past Chair of the Awards Committee, and has served as a charter member of the committee for the organization's annual charity golf tournament. He is currently serving his 8th consecutive term, 13th in total, as Treasurer of the Friendly Sons. He is also a Past President, and past member of the Board of Trustees of the Wyoming Valley Serra Club. He and his wife have served as Chairpersons and sponsors of the Wyoming Valley March of Dimes Signature Chefs Auction in 2007 and 2008.

Nanda Palissery

I am 43 years old. I was raised in South Wilkes-Barre and Hanover Township. I attended Middle/High school were at Wyoming Valley West.

I graduated from high school in 1983. I have a sister and two brothers. My father taught at Luzerne County Community College from 1967 through 2000. He died last November. My mom, who lives in Shavertown teaches at LCCC also.

I attended LCCC for two years, and then transferred on to Texas A&M University, where I graduated in 1989 with a degree in Mechanical Engineering. I worked for Westinghouse as an HVAC engineer and began law school at Temple University School of Law in 1990.

I graduated from law school in 1994. During the last 2 years of law school, I taught full time at LCCC in the areas of calculus, physics and laser technology. I opened my private practice in 1994 and have a general practice, with the bulk of my practice being criminal defense and civil litigation.

I am married since 1992, live in Dallas and have 3 beautiful girls 14, 13 and 10. They all attend Dallas school district schools.

My wife and I owned the Exit 6 bar in Luzerne for 5 years and ran it successfully until we sold it in
2006.

OVC Controller Questionnaire Answers Begin Tomorrow

2009-05-05T18:18:00.001-07:00

OVC will begin its extended coverage of the Luzerne County Controller's Race. Nanda Palissery (R), Walter Griffith (R), Bob Morgan (D), Bob Sypniewski (R), and Alice Coffman (R) are pictured. Edd Brominski did not supply a photo.

A few weeks ago, the OVC staff sent a Controller questionnaire to the six candidates. Between now and May 19th, we will post their answers verbatim and without commentary.

OVC Hires Legal Correspondent

2009-05-04T12:46:00.000-07:00

OVC is pleased to announce that they have added Bruce the legal correspondent to their staff. Bruce, pictured to the left, is a graduate of a Yale Law School and former Beechum County prosecutor.

Bruce will be commenting on legal issues of the day and handle all OVC legal matters, including copyright infringement, libel and slander actions, and various legal issues involving the registration and inspection of the microbus.

Bruce can be reached at brucehaller@yahoo.com.

CV's Coulter Jones wins the Yuri Andropov Award

2009-05-03T06:59:00.000-07:00

Citizens' Voice "Beat Reporter" and "Community Watchdog" Coulter Jones has been awarded the prestigious OVC Yuri Andropov award. The "Yuri" is awarded to an individual who shows utter contempt for the Right of Free Speech. The Yuri was instituted by OVC in 2006 and is named after the former Soviet KGB Chief who fulfilled his childhood dream and became leader of the Soviet Union in 1982. Coulter will receive an autographed copy of Das Kapital, a fifth of Russian vodka, and a roll of duct tape.

In the May 2nd edition of the Citizens' Voice, Jones penned a column entitled "Campaign signs litter roadways as primary draws closer." To the staff, at OVC we love political signs and see them as one of the ultimate symbols of the democratic process and the Freedom of Speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. It is quite ironic and clearly in the spirit of Yuri that Coulter Jones would see signs as "litter."

Democracy is not always pretty and not always sterile. Unfortunately, the Coulter Joneses of this country want it to be that way. God forbid a couple of signs "litter" the public highways and byways.

Public spaces have always been a place where one can express his or her opinion. The pamphleteers who helped spawned the American Revolution used these public spaces to spread their message. The political signs in public spaces today are the pamphleteers of Colonial Times. Unfortunately, many local politicians don't understand this parallel.

Local townships pass anti free speech ordinances, because "everyone else is doing it," and because their solicitors don't tell them that what they're doing flies in the face of the First Amendment. Political speech is the cornerstone of the First Amendment, and laws which restrict it rarely meet the constitutional standard. The justification that political signs are "unsightly" or "litter" shows a deep misunderstanding of free speech guarantees of the First Amendment..

Don't get us wrong, after the election has passed, then the signs become litter. We have absolutely no problem with a township, a city, or borough requiring candidates to remove their signs within a reasonable time after the election.

The Wilkes-Barre City ordinance, to which Coulter refers in his column, is just plain unconstitutional, and Wilkes-Barre City should know better. The last time we checked, Wilkes-Barre City is not a First Amendment free zone.

And, as far as calling or e-mailing Coulter to notify him of signs that violate local ordinances, perhaps time would be better spent sending Coutler and the local officials a copy of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions, which both expressly prohibit such infringements on political speech.

Breaking News: Justice David Souter Throws in the Robe

2009-04-30T19:41:00.000-07:00

NBC news is reporting that United States Supreme Court Justice David Souter will not return to the court in October, but instead will retire to his farm in New Hampshire. Appointed to the Court by Republican President George H. W. Bush, he usually votes with the more liberal wing on the court. He currently ranks fourth in seniority among the Associate Justices.

Souter is 69 years old and has never been comfortable with the Washington scene since being elevated to the Court in 1990. His retirement has been rumored ever since the election of Barack Obama.

When Bush, Sr. nominated Souter, he was opposed by a number of liberal U. S. Senators, including Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, who believed he was a judicial conservative in the mold of Robert Bork. Since his early days on the court, Souter has been a reliable vote for the liberal bloc on the court.^{We have been unable to confirm that Souter's sudden retirement has anything to do with Bob Powell.

We will begin the the replacement speculation in the next few days.}

Sparks Fly at the GOP Women's Forum

2009-04-30T18:22:00.000-07:00

Republican Controller candidate Bob Sypniewski apparently never heard of Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment. Reagan often quoted what he termed his 11th Commandment. "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."

Sypniewski went on the attack against endorsed Republican controller candidate Nanda Palissery at the Luzerne County Republican Women's Meet the Candidates night. All five controller candidates attended the event on Thursday night at the Luzerne County Republican Headquarters in downtown Wilkes-Barre.

The sparks flew when Sypniewski gave his remarks. Each candidate was given a few minutes to pitch themselves before the crowd of about fifty people. Alice Coffman, Edd Brominski, Walter Griffth, and Palissery all touted their experience and frequently referred to each other in kind terms druing their presentations. The tenor changed when Sipniewski spoke last.

After his usual 15 of 16 children speech in a home with no heat or electricity, Sypniewski said "lawyers at the court house get dressed up and look real nice, but they have devious hearts." He comments were an obvious dig at Palissery, who is an attorney and many deem as the front runner.

Palissery took umbrage to the comment and didn't take it sitting down. He stood up and said he took offense to the comment, but Sypniewski did not back down.

Palissery was not the only one who took issue with the lawyer comment. Endorsed GOP judicial candidate confronted Sypniewski after the event, but Sypniewski again held his ground.

Sypniewskli didn't win any points with the GOP crowd, and one prominent Republican said she was "disappointed by the words of Bob Sypniewski. I think he crossed the line."

Controller Debate

2009-04-29T18:17:00.000-07:00

The League of Women Voters held a debate for the six Luzerne County Controller candidates at Wilkes College last night. Pictured from left to right are Bob Morgan (D), Walter Griffith (R), Bob Sipniewski (R), Edd Brominski (R), Alice Coffman (R), and Nanda Palissery (R). About 35 people attended the debate, although we don't believe more than a handful were persuadable voters.

The candidates were allowed two minutes to offer an opening statement and two minutes to close. They were asked a series eight questions. Each candidate was given one minute to answer.

The questions ranged from the candidates views on nepotism (all were against it) to their first priority in office to "do you intend to spend 8 hours a day in the office" to the backlog of audits.

Here's what we came away with from the debate. Morgan thinks the controller's office still uses DOS computers from the 1970s, Griffith has read the county code from cover to cover, Sipniewski hates lawyers, Brominski got fired for the assessors office, Alice Coffman is an accountant, and Palissery doesn't look like a "good ol' boy."

All of the candidates seemed to be well aware of the fact that there is a mess not only in the controller's office, but in county government in general. All of the candidates stressed different startegy and tactics to correct the problems which have plagued county government over the past few years.

Palissery stressed the better use of personnel in the controller's office and blamed many of the problems on the lack of leadership in the office. He pointed out that since Maryann Petrilla left the controller's office to become county commissioner, Governor Rendell has failed to appoint a replacement. Palissery also stressed his level of commitment to the job and pledged select weekend and week night controller office hours to allow the public better access.

Coffman stressed time and again that the expertise she has gained as a Certified Public Accountant for the last eighteen years make her uniquely qualified for the job. She also portrayed herself as a workaholic who would dedicate long hours to the job. In a pledge which perked up our ears, she pledged to create a controller's blog. (Alice, if you need Buzz's assistance, you can have him, but the Univac 3000 stays here.)

Brominski stressed his years as a Luzerne County Commissioner and his years in the Luzerne County assessment office. We are unclear as to why he left that office, but he seemed to imply he was fired for being a whistle blower.

We were impressed by Sipniewski's forceful style, but we were also concerned that he may possess some of the detriments which hurt Steve Flood's cause when he held the office, primarily a confrontation nature. Sipniewski was by far the most confrontational of the bunch, attacking endorsed Republican Palissery on at least two occasions.

Giffith seems to have done his homework. He had with him a copy of the county code and a number of other documents. Griffith pledge to be in the office everyday from 8:30 to 5. He also took the strongest stand on nepotism, saying he wouldn't hire anyone in the controller's office who was related to or friends with anyone currently working for the county. Griffith also said he would either hire a solicitor from outside the county or a solicitor who had absolutely no ties county government or any existing solicitorships.

Morgan stressed the need to bring the office up to date. He said that the software system currently used in the controller's office is very out dated. He was also concerned about a lack of leadership in the office. He said his 20 years in the financial community gave him the qualities to be a good controller.

No fists were thrown, but the soundbite of the night came from Palissery. When Sipniewski implied that Palissery was part of the "good ol' boy network," Palissery, who emigrated from India at the age of two, stood up and said, "Do I look anything like a good ol' boy? I don't think so."

Palissery also had the runner up soundbite line. After hearing Coffman state that her expertise was accounting and that she would probably electrocute herself changing an electrical outlet in Stark Learning Center, Palissery quipped, "with my engineering degree, I could change that electrical circuit."

Stay tuned when OVC plays twenty questions with the controller candidates starting May 1st. (Well not actually twenty but you get the point.)

Not One of The Good Ol' Boys

2009-04-29T08:09:00.000-07:00

Stay tuned for our coverage of the Luzerne County Controller's debate later today.

Will the Last One To Leave Please Shut Out the Lights

2009-04-29T05:49:00.000-07:00

The defection of Senator Arlen Specter from the GOP to the Democratic Party is just a sign of the further marginalization of the national Republican Party. This is just the latest in a series of events which are beginning to look like the recreation of a national Republican Party into a regional party based in the Old South. So much for Karl Rove's "permanent Republican majority."

Specter said. "Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans."

Specter explained that his vote on the stimulus bill irked a lot of the GOP faithful. "Since then, I have traveled the state, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania."

Local Republican reaction was mixed. A local well known conservative Republican was all smiles. He was elated that Specter became a Democrat, because it helped pave the way for Pat Toomey in the Republican 2010 Senate primary.

Another Luzerne County GOP big wig and longtime Specter said she was saddened with the loss of Specter to the Dems. She reminisced about her support of Specter all the way back to his first Senate run in 1980.

A longtime Luzerne County GOP elected official said he would have "preferred Specter to end his career in the Senate as a statesman, not as a weasel."

The national (or should I say Regionally Significant GOP) reaction was also mixed. Senate "permanent" minority Leader Mitch McConnell issued the following statement:

“Well, obviously we are not happy that Senator Specter has decided to become a Democrat. He visited with me in my office late yesterday afternoon and told me quite candidly that he’d been informed by his pollster that it would be impossible for him to be re-elected in Pennsylvania as a Republican because he could not win the primary. And he was also informed by his pollster that he could not get elected as an Independent and indicated that he had decided to become a Democrat.”

Here's some more national reaction, Democratic and Republicans:

"Ultimately, we're heading to having the smallest political tent in history, the way events have been unfolding. If the Republican Party fully intends to become a majority party in the future, it must move from the far right back toward the middle." — Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine.

"Arlen Specter gives our side of the aisle not only a numerical boost, but also an intellectual shot in the arm." — Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.V.

"Sen. Specter's decision today represents the height of political self-preservation." — Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

"Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don't do it first." — Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee.

"I welcome Sen. Specter and his moderate voice to our diverse caucus, and to continuing our open and honest debate about the best way to make life better for the American people." — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

"Sen. Specter has confirmed what we already knew — he's a liberal devoted to more spending, more bailouts and less economic freedom." — Chris Chocola, president of Club for Growth.

Specter's change of parties is just the latest in a trend of Northeast Republicans being cast out by an ever more conservative Republican party. The moderate or dare we say liberal Republican has been laid to rest or at least thrown out of the GOP big tent.

OVC looked back at the party breakdown of four Congresses {the 89th (1965-67), the 99th (1985-87), 104th (1995-1997), and 111th (2009-2011)}. We at the breakdown of the entire Congress and the breakdown of 9 Northeast states (ME, VT, NH, CT, MA, RI, NY, PA, NJ). The numbers show a dramatic shift of Senate and House seats in the Northeast from the Republican side of the aisle to the Democratic side of the aisle.

Over the past 45 years, until recently, the GOP controlled about half of the 18 Senatorial seats in our Northeast region, even at a time when Democrats held 68 out of a hundred Senate seats in 1964. During that time we had a number of prominent leaders in the Republican Party hail from one of the nine Northeast states, leaders like Hugh Scott (PA), John Heinz (PA), Jacob Javitz (NY), Lowell Wicker (CT), Margaret Chase Smith (ME), Edward Brooke (MA), and Clifford Case (NJ). Now, after Specter's defection, the GOP controls only 3 out of 18 seats.

In the House, Democratic percentage of Northeast House seats was generally within a few points of the Democratic percentage of nationwide House seats held. This was true until the virtual collapse of the Northeast GOP delegation. 89th (68% D nationwide, 63.8 D Northeast), 94th (64% to 58%), 99th (47% to 52%), 111th (59% to 82%).

It is true that if we analyze the Old South, we would see just the opposite -- a complete change over from Democratic control of both the House and Senate in that region to almost complete control of the GOP.

In the 1940s, the 1950s, and the 1960s, the national Democratic party had an albatross around its neck. That albatross was the intolerant and racist members of their party who were continually elected from safe Democratic districts in the South. The Democrats were able to break that stranglehold, but it cost them numerous seats in the South. It also helped in the election of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Southern Democrats, dissatisfied with their party, began voting Republican at first on the national level, and then on the state and local level.

OVC looks at Specter's decision as a wise one. Specter would have been defeated in the 2010 GOP primary, probably by Pat Toomey. Toomey would have gone on to defeat in the 2010 general election. By leveling the playing field, Specter will now fight Toomey on a turf where he will be favored. The only difference for Toomey is the fact that the Democrat who defeats him now will be Arlen Specter.

Specter didn't sell out his principles. They have not really changed. If anything, now Specter can become more principled.

Former Senator Rick Santorum gave an interview to FOX News last night. He told of how as GOP Whip in the Senate during his last term, "Arlen" was his "responsibility" to make him tow the party line. Santorum said, there were a number of times when Specter voted against his principles and in line with the GOP leadership. Without that "R" next to his name, Santorum believes Specter would have voted the other way.

The only surprise here at OVC is "What took you so long, Arlen?" Your views haven't changed over the years, but the views of the party you once called home, have.

Breaking News: Judge Mike Toole the Next to Fall

2009-04-25T07:01:00.001-07:00

OVC has information from a source close to the Wilkes-Barre Area School District that Judge Mike Toole may be brought down in a scandal related to his days as a solicitor for the school district. We have been hearing rumblings of a Ted Stevens like home improvement scandal.

Senator Ted Stevens was convicted just prior to the 2008 election of accepting and not reporting thousands of dollars of improvements to his Alaskan home. The conviction was subsequently thrown out for prosecutorial misconduct.

Sources tell OVC that Toole may have had similar dealings with improvements to his Wilkes-Barre home.

Stay tuned.

We're Taking You to a Clambake

2009-04-25T06:23:00.000-07:00

Buzz and I were enjoying a couple of good cigars at our favorite local cigar shop, when we were approached by a couple of kindly gentlemen who asked if we wanted to go to a clambake. Having been politicked out for the week we agreed. We were hoodwinked. We ended up at a Luzerne County judicial rally. We shouldn't have been surprised, after all, these days any room that can hold more than 25 people on any given evening is more likely than not hosting a judicial candidate's event.

We attended the Tom O'Connor rally at the Swoyersville American Legion along with 200 or so of Tom's closest friends and relatives. O'Connor welcomed us with open arms, but asked if Buzz could keep his hot dog consumption to under a dozen.

A number of county candidates were there including incumbent Democratic Register of Wills Dottie Stankovic, Deomcratic Controller candidate Bob Morgan, Democratic Proth candidates Gerald Mullery and Nancy McGinley Bellas, and Republican Proth candidate Walter Mitchell.

O'Connor gave a very brief speech, the majority of which dealt with the acknowledgement of family who attended the event. The only real substance to the speech was his pledge to "make" us "proud" of him being a judge in Luzerne County. He left the political attacks to his campaign chairman Dr. Chris Alexander.

Alexander touted O'Connor's 30 plus years as a practicing attorney, but then said we needed to elect a judge who could handle both "criminal and civil matters" without a "conflict of interest," and a judge who could fulfill a full 10 year term without facing "mandatory retirement." Both references were clear shots at Judge Joseph Musto who is conflicted out of criminal cases due to his niece being District Attorney Jackie Musto Carroll and the fact that he is 65 years old and must retire at age 70.

Stay tuned for other clambake updates in the future.

Sample Luzerne County Ballots On Line

2009-04-23T13:11:00.000-07:00

The official Luzerne County ballot is available at the Bureau of Elections site.

The Betting Windows Are Open

2009-04-22T18:44:00.000-07:00

The UNIVAC 3000 has been working overtime, and Buzz has a headache, but here are the odds. There are a number of variables which Buzz fed into the UNIVAC 3000, and we're proud to say that OVC is the first to post the odds on the Luzerne County judicial race.

The factors which we used were name recognition, projected money to be spent, ballot position, campaign organization, campaign message, and past election trends.

Just to recap, there are seventeen attorneys vying for only two spots. Actually, at this point, there are four spots --- two Republican nominations and two Democratic nominations. Drum roll please.

Democratic nomination:

Joseph Musto, 3-2; Bill Amesbury, 4-1; Gene Sperazza, 4-1; Tom O'Connor, 5-1; Joe Terrana, 7-1; Joe Sklarosky, 10-1; C. J. Bufalino, 10-1; Daniel Zola, 15-1; Tom Marsilio, 20-1; Dick Hughes, 25-1; Jennifer Rogers, 50-1; Mike Pendolphi, 75-1; Tina Gartley, 100-1; Mike Blazick, 350-1; Tony Lumbis, 400-1; Molly Mirabito, 500-1; Steve Menn, 500-1.

Republican nomination:

Dick Hughes, 1-1; Bill Amesbury, 4-1; Tom O'Connor, 4-1; Mike Pendolphi, 6-1; Gene Sperazza, 7-1; Joe Sklarosky, 8-1; Joe Musto, 10-1; Joe Terrana, 15-1; Tom Marsilio, 20-1; C. J. Bufalino, 35-1; Jennifer Rogers, 50-1; Daniel Zola, 75-1; Tina Gartley, 100-1; Mike Blazick, 350-1; Tony Lumbis, 400-1; Molly Mirabito, 500-1; Steve Menn, 500-1.

Has Scalia Gone Soft On Us?

2009-04-22T05:32:00.000-07:00

The man who never met a warrantless search he didn't like, apparently has met one. In a decision that surprised the heck out of the staff at OVC, the United States Supreme Court scored a point for individual rights. But what was more surprising than the outcome, was the list of "unusual suspects" in the majority and dissenting opinions.

Arch conservatives Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined the majority in an opinion written by 89 year old liberal John Paul Stevens. The case concerned the warrantless search of an automobile by police when they have a person in custody in a police car. The court decided that such a search without a warrant was unconstitutional.

We will post a more detailed analysis at a future date, but what we found very intriguing in this perplexing decision was the concurring opinion of Scalia where he calls for the overruling of all automobile searches involving the "charade of officer safety." There may be hope for Antonin yet.

Controller Race Coverage Update

2009-04-21T18:56:00.000-07:00

We have decided to include Democrat Robert Morgan (not pictured to the left) in our controller's race coverage. Morgan does not have opposition in the primary, and thus will face the Republican nominee in the November general election.

The six candidates will be receiving a questionnaire prepared by the editorial board of OVC within the next few days, if not sooner Their answers will be posted starting after May 1, 2009.

Two Outta Seventeen Aint Bad

2009-04-21T18:03:00.000-07:00

Only two of the seventeen candidates for Judge in Luzerne County filed campaign finance reports for cycle 1, which ended March 30, 2009. Those candidates were Michael Pendolphi and Jennifer Rogers. Campaign financing may not be the most interesting subject out there, but Buzz and I have some time on our hands before the start of the WNBA season.

Pennsylvania campaign finance law requires the filing of a cycle 1 report only for candidates seeking state office (in this election, that only applies to candidates for the Commonwealth, Superior, or Supreme Courts) or candidate committees that have "expended money for the purpose of influencing the election" statewide candidates.

Neither Rogers nor Pendolphi's committees expended any money on behalf of a statewide candidate, so they did not have to file a report. In this new era of full disclosure, we must assume they filed their reports to demonstrate this new openness. Then again, perhaps they misinterpreted the law and believed they were obligated to file.

In any case, here's what we found.

Pendolphi spent $104.94 on photography, $77.36 on balloons, and $302.00 on printing of labels and pins, for a total of $484.30. All of Pendolphi's contributions were from Pendolphi himself. Pendolphi's ending balance was $0.00

Rogers' campaign report was a bit more complicated. She raised $2425 from seventeen contributions ranging from $100 to $250. She raised $1752 from unitemized contributions of $50.00 or less, and $7600 from contributions of $250.01 or more.

The $1000 plus club had four members. Ruth and Clifford Melberger gave $1000, Bettie Ann Morgan gave $1000, Ronald and Madge Rogers gave $1000, and Attorney Vincent Cappellini gave $2500.

Rogers spent $3907.78 on political consulting, postage, and printing. She had unpaid debts in the amount of $3461.42. These bills were for printing and advertising. This left Rogers with an ending balance of $4227.80, after subtracting the unpaid invoices.

So as we stood at the beginning of April neither of these candidates had raised nearly as much as the $37,000 which fellow judicial candidate Gene Sperazza gave back in lawyer contributions.

We don't expect an monetarily equal playing field out there. We fully expect some of the candidates to raise and spend less than $20,000 or even $10,000. We also fully expect some candidates to raise and spend well over $100,000.

At this point, the usual suspects for the $100,000 plus club are Sperazza, Judge Joseph Musto, Thomas O'Connor, William Amesbury, C. J. Bufalino, Richard Hughes, and John Terrana.

Stay tuned tomorrow for our judicial predictions. Buzz has been crunching the numbers on the UNIVAC 3000 for the past few days.

Happy Birthday Sulu

2009-04-20T19:36:00.000-07:00

With all the excitement over the birthday of John Paul Stevens, we almost forgot about Mr. Sulu. George Takei turns 72 today. Even though he has never been appointed to the Supreme Court (although he was on George W. Bush's short list until that "gay marriage" thing,) we always enjoyed him on Star Trek.

Happy Birthday John Paul

2009-04-20T13:57:00.000-07:00

John Paul Stevens celebrated his 89th birthday today and his 12,177th day (or 33 years and 123 days) as a United States Supreme Court Justice. He's ninth on the all time seniority list. Stevens would have to serve until July 16, 2011 to become number one in seniority, but on February 25, 2011, he would surpass Oliver Wendell Holmes as the oldest member to serve. According to the Social Security life expectancy table, Stevens should live 4.09 more years, so Holmes' record should fall if you believe the federal government.

For Supreme Court buffs, William O. Douglas holds the longevity record at over 36 years or 13,358 days.

Stevens was appointed to the court by President Gerald Ford and confirmed by the United States Senate 98-0. He was sworn into office on December 19, 1975. Coincidentally, he replaced William O. Douglas, who has resigned due to failing health. Prior to being nominated by Ford, Stevens served on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, having been appointed by President Richard Nixon on November 20, 1970.

Stevens' judicial philosophy has evolved over the years from that of a moderate conservative during his early years to currently being one of the most liberal members of the court. There was much speculation that Stevens would announce his retirement upon the election of Barack Obama, but Stevens has no signs of hanging up the robe anytime in the near future.

Stevens says his health, unlike that of fellow justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who has been battling colorectal cancer) is fine. People close to Stevens say that he is interested in breaking Douglas' record for Supreme tenure longevity and Holmes' record for pure longevity.

Stevens said, “I don’t think of myself as a liberal at all,” he told the New York Times in 2007. “I think as part of my general politics, I’m pretty darn conservative.” Stevens said that his views haven’t changed since 1975. He considers himself a “judicial conservative,” he said, and only appears liberal today because he has been surrounded by increasingly conservative colleagues. “Including myself,” he said, “every judge who’s been appointed to the court since Lewis Powell” — nominated by Richard Nixon in 1971 — “has been more conservative than his or her predecessor. Except maybe Justice Ginsburg. That’s bound to have an effect on the court.”

Stevens has been the senior associate justice, a position second in authority only to the chief justice. When the chief justice is in the majority and Stevens is in the minority, Stevens decides who will write the principal dissent; when the roles are reversed, Stevens assigns the majority opinion.

On the current court, in close cases, Stevens has wielded this power strategically. With himself included, he can usually rely on four liberal votes (David Souter, Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.) The four reliable conservative votes are Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. The swing vote is now Anthony Kennedy. Stevens open courts Kennedy for a fifth vote. Although generally conservative, Kennedy has a peculiar judicial philosophy which is difficult to define at times. In some instances, Stevens has assigned majority opinions to Kennedy to secure his vote; in others he has chosen to write majority opinions himself in ways that will persuade Kennedy to stay in the liberal camp.

Don't be surprised to see Stevens celebrate his 90th birthday as the senior associate justice on the court.

Justice Unfiltered

2009-04-17T18:11:00.000-07:00

The editorial staff of OVC has been contemplating what type of coverage to afford to the Luzerne County judicial race. We have made our decision. We will be contacting all 17 candidates and asking them to forward to us any and all press releases. Those press releases will be posted in their entirety.

We will occasionally comment on the race, but for the most part, we will let our readers read what the candidates have to say in their own words. The local newspapers receive press releases and generally do one of two things -- they don't print them at all, or they cherry pick quotes which the editors or reporters believe are newsworthy.

We will see how it works.

Sperazza Caves To Public Pressure

2009-04-17T10:22:00.000-07:00

In a move which troubles us at OVC, judicial candidate Eugene Sperazza has decided to no longer accept donations received from fellow attorneys, and he will return all he has received to date – about $37,000, the Times Leader reports.

“I have asked the committee to return or forward to a charity of the lawyer’s choosing approximately $37,000 and any additional contributions that may be received in the future,” Sperazza, a candidate for one of two open seats on the county Court of Common Pleas, said Thursday.

“Although contributions from attorneys are authorized by Pennsylvania’s Judicial Code, I feel strongly that this is the right thing to do to restore the people’s confidence in our judiciary and in our profession,” Sperazza said in the release. “After careful consideration of what has occurred in Luzerne County as well as the understandable growing lack of public trust, I feel that all questions concerning any conflict of interest should be removed from the court system.”

Sperazza said he wants to take all steps necessary to assure the people of the county that his rulings will be arrived at in an independent, fair and just manner. “If that means returning legitimate contributions from my fellow professionals, so be it,” he said.

We are troubled by this action, because as we have written in the past, we are not troubled by contributions by lawyers to judicial candidates. What troubles us and makes us stand up and take notice are large contributions by any individual, lawyer or not.

If a judge candidate has a cocktail party for $125 a head, and a lawyer and his significant other attend, we don't believe that the $250 contribution will have any bearing on judicial decision making. If it would, we question as to why that particular lawyer is running for judge in the first place. Remember, former Judge Conahan tried this tactic in 1993 when he was first elected, and we all know how that turned out.

Although it is admirable to want to restore public confidence in our disgraced judiciary, Sperazza, we believe, is only looking for some publicity in this move. We know this move will curry favor with the shock jock wannabes like Steve Corbett and the anti-lawyer crowd, but it doesn't impress us in the least bit.

Judges are supposed to be insulated from the whims of popular opinion. They should not float like a leaf in the wind, being blown in all directions. It is through this insulation from the transient nature of public opinion that they can make the tough decisions, which are not always popular. Protecting the constitutional rights of individuals is not always popular, but who among us would want those rights determined by the latest public opinion polls.

Caving to public pressure is not a virtue and not a quality we desire in any judge.

Who will be the GOP Nominee for Controller?

2009-04-16T18:20:00.000-07:00

Five candidates have placed their respective hats in the ring for the honor of being the Republican nominee for Luzerne County Controller. Robert Morgan is the sole Democratic candidate, and barring a massive write in campaign, should win the Democratic nomination handily. In fact, in an OVC exclusive, Buzz has crunched the numbers on the UNIVAC 3000, and we are now ready to declare Robert Morgan the winner of the Democratic primary. You heard it, or should I say, read it here first. Tell your friends.

The editorial board of OVC has decided to grace our readers with extended coverage of the GOP race for controller. In the upcoming weeks, we will dedicate some extra time and blog space to the candidates and the issues in a race for a position which may be eliminated if home rule passes. Such is the life of a blogger.

We intend to send a questionnaire to all five candidates -- Edward Brominski, Alice B. Coffman, Walter Griffith, Nanda Palissery, and Robert Sypniewski. The questionnaire will contain questions hand selected by the OVC editorial board, and we hope, will be questions on the minds of voters in Luzerne County.

Stay tuned. Coming soon: Two of the seventeen candidates for Judge filed campaign finance reports for Cycle 2. Can you guess who? We'll tell you soon, and we'll tell you what they reveal.

Red Meat for the Masses

2009-04-15T07:28:00.000-07:00

Karl Rove did not disappoint the 600, give or take a few, that attended the 2009 GOP Spring Dinner in Wilkes-Barre, Tuesday night. He gave an hour long speech which touted conservative principles, bashed liberals and President Barack Obama, and praised his former boss, President George W. Bush.

The dinner was preceded by a $500 a person cocktail party. When Rove entered the room, he mingled with the crowd, posed for pictures, and autographed programs.

Rove's speech was preceded by a partisan speech from endorsed Republican Supreme Court candidate Judge Joan Orie Melvin. In a speech that was inappropriately long for a warm up act, Melvin basically said "elect me so Republicans make of the majority of the PA Supreme Court, and we can rig the 2010 reapportionment for the Republicans." I guess that was her definition of a "strict constructionist judge," one who doesn't "legislate from the bench."

The evening got a little stranger after that when State Senator Lisa Baker introduced Rove to the crowd. Besides the general introduction remarks, Baker told the crowd that one of Rove's pet projects is to restore the legacy of President William McKinley. Yes, William McKinley!! What about George W. Bush's legacy? I guess you can't blame him, not a day goes by that Buzz and I don't hear some bashing William McKinley. Maybe he could lend us a hand in our project of restoring the legacy and honor of President Franklin Pierce.

Rove was greeted with a standing ovation, and almost immediately praised the "strict constructionist judges" who were in attendance. All seven endorsed Republican candidates for statewide courts were in attendance.

In a Rovian twist of irony he told Republicans they should not engage in "blind obstructionism" which the Democrats employed against Bush for the last eight years. Republicans should support Obama on issues which they agree, such as Afghanistan. Interesting from a man who made his political career on division and obstructionism.

Rove blamed the current economic recession on Fannie Mac and Freddie Mae. He argued that they caused the mortgage crisis, which lead to worldwide economic collapse. He claimed that the Bush administration attempt to rein in Freddie and Fannie, but their efforts were thwarted by the usual suspects --- Senator Chris Dodd and Representative Barney Frank. That accusation was a crowd pleaser.

Rove attacked the Obama stimulus plan in traditional GOP fashion by citing a few absurd examples of suspect spending to condemn the whole stimulus plan. (Like $4 billion on obesity control and smoking cessation.)

He referred the audience to the GOP alternative budget available on Representative Eric Cantor's website, a budget which stresses (you guessed it) tax cuts, free markets, free enterprise, and limited government.

Rove spent a little time explaining the GOP plan on health care. Again the plan stressed give tax credits for the purchase of health insurance, eliminating the restrictions on buying health insurance across state lines, and the old GOP favorite, eliminating frivolous lawsuits against doctors.

Any Rove or Bushie speech wouldn't have been complete without the "Bush kept us safe" language. Rove did not disappoint. He bashed the closing of Gitmo, Obama's refusal to employ "enhanced interrogation techniques (in other words, torture), and Obama's pledge to see that detainees get a fair trial and are not detained forever. He did, however, praise Obama for his renewed efforts in Afghanistan.

In what we saw as a reversal of strategy, Rove emphasized "convincing undecideds" of the GOP plan in his grassroots part of the speech. Quoting Abraham Lincoln, he said Republicans have the undecideds talked to by someone they hold in confidence in order to enlighten them to Republican ways. An ironic statement from a man who devised Bush' 2004 election victory by pandering to and hammering the base.

Rove ended his speech with the heart warming story of how he helped 61 year old Dr. Bill Krissoff receive a waiver to join the Marines and serve in Iraq as a surgeon. Krissoff's son was killed by a roadside bomb in 2006, and his younger son had volunteered to serve in the armed forces and was being deployed to Iraq.

All in all, the content of the speech was what we expected, but we were impressed by Rove's ability to give a speech. We expected a little more of a dry, statistical filled monologue. For a "behind the scenes" guy, he is a better speaker than the man he put in front of the camera. Rove was also quite personable, but then again it was a very friendly and partisan Republican crowd.

A Rove Landing

2009-04-14T20:39:00.000-07:00

Political guru and Bush's Brain, Karl Rove descended on the Luzerne County GOP tonight at the main ballroom in Genetti's in Wilkes-Barre. An overflow crowd of just under 600 attended the $35.00 a plate dinner. Buzz and I attended the event, and we hate to disappoint our devout liberal and left wing readers, but we found the former Deputy Chief of Staff to George W. Bush very congenial, funny, and actually, very approachable.

The GOP faithful, which included GOP candidates from all across Pennsylvania, enjoyed the hour long speech from the man also dubbed "the Architect." Rove received a standing ovation at the beginning and end of his speech, and was interrupted numerous times during his remarks. Buzz snapped a couple of photos of me with Rove, and Rove was kind enough to sign my program. (Picture tomorrow.)

We intended to do a complete story on the Rove speech and the GOP Spring Dinner tonight, but Buzz had some problems with the Microbus on the way home, so we'll put that off until tomorrow.

Stay tuned for our take on the Rove speech, and our take on the unusually long and perplexing speech of GOP endorsed candidate for Supreme Court Judge Joan Orie Melvin.

Franken Wins, Franken Wins, Franken Wins

2009-04-13T19:13:00.000-07:00

From the Associated Press: A Minnesota court confirmed Monday that Democrat Al Franken won the most votes in his 2008 Senate race against Republican Norm Coleman, who immediately announced plans to appeal the decision.

Coleman has 10 days to appeal to the state Supreme Court. Once the petition is filed, it could further delay the seating of Minnesota's second senator for weeks.

"It's time that Minnesota like every other state have two" senators, a jovial Franken said outside his Minneapolis townhouse with his wife Franni at his side. "I would call on Senator Coleman to allow me to get to work for the people of Minnesota as soon as possible."

After a statewide recount and seven-week trial, Franken stands 312 votes ahead. He gained more votes from the election challenge than Coleman, the candidate who brought the legal action.

The state law under which Coleman sued required three judges to determine who got the most votes and is therefore entitled to an election certificate, which is now on hold pending an appeal.

"The overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates that the November 4, 2008, election was conducted fairly, impartially and accurately," the judges wrote. "There is no evidence of a systematic problem of disenfranchisement in the state's election system, including in its absentee-balloting procedures."

I'll Take What's Behind Door Number 3

2009-04-13T12:37:00.000-07:00

On the old Let's Make a Deal game show, contestants would have a choice of keeping what they already won or trading it for what was behind the curtain or door. They didn't know in advance what was behind the door or curtain. In the world of political finance, we have a similar process. A large donor doesn't want his or her name showing up on a candidate's finance report, so he or she creates their own political action committee (a PAC) and then the PAC gives money to the candidate. Such is the case with PSPA.

We found large campaign donations from PSPA on both former Judge Michael Conahan and former Judge Mark Ciavarella's campaign finance reports, so Buzz did what any computer savvy person would do --- he googled it. We came up with a number of answers, unfortunately, none of them was right. We found Pennsylvania Society of Physicians Assistants, Pennsylvania Society of Public Accountants, Professional Ski Patrol Associations, and a number of others. We couldn't figure out why any of them would want to give large sums of money to judicial retention campaigns.

Then we found out who the real PSPA was and is. PSPA (Political Support for Political Action) is a political action committee financed by Attorney Joseph Quinn. On November 3, 2003 PSPA gave Conahan $10,000. In 2005, PSPA gave two donations to Ciavarella prior to the election in the amounts of $1250 and $5000. PSPA also gave Ciavarella $10,000 a month and a half after his successful retention bid on December 29, 2005.

PSPA is still active this judicial season. Quinn's group has given $2500 to Attorney Joe Sklarosky, $1000 to Attorney William Amesbury, $1000 to Attorney Richard Hughes, and $5000 to Attorney Eugene Sperazza.

The earliest record we found on PSPA is 2003. All contributions to PSPA are from Attorney Joe Quinn. Since 2003, Quinn has given PSPA $110,000.00 in contributions, in amounts ranging from $5000 to $20,000.

In addition to the Luzerne County Judicial candidates who received money in 2009, here's the list of who got the money from 2003 to the present. To make it a little more comprehensible, I've broken the contributions down into categories.

Luzerne County (non judicial)

Atttorney David Lupas for District Attorney, $3200; Commissioners Greg Skrepenak and Todd Vonderheid, $6000; Dr. Jack Consalvo for Coroner, $300; Luzerne County Commissioners Greg Skrepenak and Maryann Petrilla, $7000; Sheriff Barry Stankus, $330; District Attorney Jackie Carroll Musto, $4000; and Prothonotary Jill Moran, $4000.

Local Mayors

Wilkes-Barre Mayor Tom Leighton, $750; West Pittston Mayor Bill Goldsworthy, $750; and Scranton Mayor Chris Doherty, $1500.

State Offices, including Judges and Justices

Auditor General Jack Wagner, $1000; Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffrey, $3000; Supreme Court Justice Thomas Saylor, $4000; Superior Court Judge Correale Stevens, $5000; Superior Court Judge Jack Pinella, $2000; Supreme Court Justice Debra Todd, $3000; Governor Ed Rendell, $10,000; and Attorney General Tom Corbett, $2000.

Lackawanna County Judicial and non-Judicial

Commissioners Corcoran and Castellani, $500; County Commissioners Mike Washo and Corey O'Brien, $4000; District Attorney Andy Jarbola, $900; County Commissioners A.J. Munchak and Bob Cordaro, $1000; Judge Tom Munley, $5000; and Judge Carmen Minora, $5000.

Luzerne County Magistrates

Attorney Joe Carmody, $500; Martin Kane, $400; and Bill Amesbury, $500.

Luzerne County Judges

Judge Michael Toole, $5000; Judge Conahan, $10,000; and Judge Ciavarella, $5000.

State House and Senate

Representative John Yudichak, $2250; Representative Eddie Day Pashinski $250; Senator Bob Mellow, $2500; Attorney Jim Haggerty for State Senate, $2500; Dr. Brian O'Donnell for State Senate, $3000; Representative Mike Carroll, $2000; Representative Phyllis Mundy, $4500; and Representative Todd Eachus, $1500.

PACs and other committees

Justice for All PAC, $10,000; Democratic State Senate Campaign Committee, $1300; Luzerne County District Justice Association, $200; Luzerne County Democratic Committee, $1000; and LAWPAC, $10000.

Other Judges

Judge John Mott, Bradford County, $500.

The $188,719.00 Question

2009-04-11T17:50:00.000-07:00

In former Judge Mark Ciavarella's retention campaign in 2005, Ciavarella received 21,069 "yes" votes for retention and $188,719.00 in the form of a loan repayment from the retention committee. Ciavarella had been elected to a ten year term on the bench in 1995. Apparently in 1995, Ciavarella loaned large sums of money to his campaign. 2005 was payback time.

Ciavarella's retention committee raised $303,420.00 through a golf tournament, a cocktail party, and direct solicitation. He spent every dollar of that, but the majority of that money was $188,719.00 in loan repayments to himself. A lot of the money was spent on the usual items --- advertising, political consultants, and the expenses related to his fund raising events.

There were a few thing of note which made Buzz and me stand up and take notice. Particularly we thought the $6,000 donation to the Luzerne County Democratic Committee and the $2500 donation to Friends of Skrepenak & Vonderheid was interesting. Another interesting tidbit was the $15,000 contribution from the Makowski and Pisano Political Committee, which was subsequently returned.

To us the most striking aspect the Ciavarella retention report, besides the loan repayments, is the fact that the committee received $64,005.00 after Ciavarella's successful retention bid. A number of these contributions came in in the last few days of 2005.

Judicial candidates are prohibited from political activity, including fund raising, except for the calendar year in which they are seeking election or retention.

We wonder if all of those who gave money after the election realized that their money was going directly into Ciavarella's pocket in the form of loan repayments.

Stay tuned. The campaign finance reports are a wealth of information. Next we will answer the question, who is behind PSPA and why did they give Ciavarella's retention committee $10,000 on December 29, 2005?

Correction of "Old Billy was Right?' post

2009-04-09T18:22:00.000-07:00

To Our Readers:

Please accept our apologies. 2009 judicial candidate Eugene Sperazza did not give $10,000 to Judge Ciavarella's retention campaign. He only gave $1250. We erroneously read a $1000 contribution as $10,000. He did however give $10,000 to the Judge Conahan retention campaign.

Norton and Buzz

Follow the Money

2009-04-09T17:03:00.000-07:00

The mantra of the Watergate investigation by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward was "follow the money," or at least that what Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman kept saying in All The President's Men. Buzz and I decided to follow the money in the retention campaigns of Judge Michael Conahan in 2003 and Judge Mark Ciavarella in 2005.

Yesterday, we listed the 2009 judicial candidates who gave money to the two former Luzerne County judges. Today we're going to list the top contributors, but before we do we have some thoughts to pass on.

We are not in the least bit troubled by the fact that some of the 2009 judicial candidate went to a fundraising cocktail party and gave Ciavarella or Conahan a few hundred bucks for watered down drinks, Ernest and Julio Gallo box wine, and a couple of glasses of Coors Light. After all, the class of 2009 are all lawyers and the cocktail parties were networking opportunities for lawyers. There is nothing wrong with that.

Conversely, it doesn't make members of the class of 2009 saints, because they were too cheap to shell out a buck twenty-five ($125.00) a person. We'll bet you Susan B. Anthony dollars to Krispy Kreme donuts that none of those "cheapskates" were stiffing the retention campaigns as a matter of principle. So get down off your high horses and stop patting yourselves on the back if you didn't make yesterday's list.

We are a little troubled by the large contributions, those who went above and beyond the call of duty. A $10,000.00 contribution to Conahan by Class of 2009 member Gene Sperazza is one such contribution. The $4325.00 by John Terrana also gives us heartburn. C.J. Bufalino's $1000.00 is a little below the troubling line, as is Gene Sperazza's $1250 to Ciavarella. The rest are fine.

With all that said, let's start with Conahan. The list includes all contributions of $2500 or more. We tried to give as much detail with each contributor as we could gleen from the financial to reports. We'll start at the top, with the name you've been waiting for. Dr. Stanley Yamulla gave Conahan $15,000 for the 2003 retention campaign. Retired doctor Stanley Yamulla gave Conahan $10,000. We believe they are father and son

Here's the rest. Attorney Michael Butera, $10,000; Sheryl Shapiro, housewife, $10,000; Law firm of Mylotte, David, and Fitzpatrick, $10,000; Attorneys Timothy, Brian, Joseph, and John Lenahan of Lenahan and Dempsey, $10,000 ($2500 a piece); Attorney Conrad Favello, $7500; Law firm of Dougherty, Leventhal, and Price, $5000; former Luzerne County Prothonotary Jill Moran, $5000; Law firm of Ustynoski & Marusak, $5000; Attorney John Nardone, $5000; Joseph Kress of Harry's U-Pull-It, $3500; Bruce Slusser, retired, $3000; Earl Slusser, $3000; Attorney Harry Cardoni, $2500; Attorney Patrick Dougherty, $2500; and Brian Corcoran, $2500.

Ciavarella was up for retention in 2005. Here's his list of $2500 plus contributors. Various Lenahans from the law firm of Lenahan and Dempsey, $20,000; Attorney Brian Corcoran, $10,000; Attorney Conrad Favello, $8000; Attorneys Catherine and Neil O'Donnell, $7500; Anzalone Law Office, $5,250; Attorney Mark Bufalino, $3500; Attorney Angelo Terrana; Attorney William and Tina Anzalone, $3000; James and Georgia Sampson, contractor, $3000; Bonner Enterprises, contractor, $2500; Attorney Edward McNelis, $2500.

We were quite surprised to find no contributions from Attorney Robert Powell to either Conahan or Ciavarella. Perhaps he contributed in other ways. Developer Robert Mericle, however, contributed a total of $2000 to Ciavarella through contributions in his name or his wife's.

Stay tuned for tomorrow, when we'll tell you how they spent the big bucks.

Old Billy Was Right?

2009-04-08T18:23:00.000-07:00

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." It seems the words of William Shakespeare from Henry VI, Part II (Yes, it was the sequel) are the rallying cry of many in Luzerne County these days. Even the seventeen judicial candidates, who are lawyers themselves, are getting into the act.

A number of judicial candidates have pledged not to accept money from lawyers, somehow believing that this will insulate them from corruption. Judicial candidate Attorney Michael Blazick even has a radio advertisement in which he vows to change Pennsylvania law to prohibit judicial candidates from accepting money from lawyers. WILK shock jock wannabe Steve Corbett is also on the "no lawyer money" bandwagon, but then again he's a big fan of many screwball ideas.

Well, Judge Michael Conahan was way ahead of the curve on this one. When Conahan ran to fill the vacancy on the Luzerne County bench left by the retiring Judge Bernard Brominski in 1993, Conahan vowed not to take any money from lawyers. It was a novel idea in its time, and we all know how that turned out.

The problem is not money from lawyers. The problem is large donations from any donor. That's why the federal election code was changed after Watergate to limit the amount an individual can give to a campaign during an election cycle. The current federal limit is $2300 per person per election cycle. There is, however, no limit in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (In 2004, former US Secretary of Transportation Drew Lewis gave then Attorney General candidate Bruce Castor over $600,000 to Castor's campaign.)

OVC does not see a problem with a lawyer contributing to a judicial campaign. Campaigns cost money and somebody's gotta finance them. Why not a bunch of rich lawyers? Better than a bunch of poor bloggers. You must be a lawyer to run for judge, so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that lawyers may know lawyers, and that lawyers might have an interest, legitimate or not, as to who gets elected judge.

The true concern should be not if some lawyer gave a judicial candidate $100, $200, or $500, but it should be who's giving $2500, $5000, or $10,000, regardless of whether that person is a lawyer, a butcher, a baker, or candlestick maker.

With all that said, let's see what Buzz found out in his search of the retention campaign finance reports of former Judges Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella. Conahan was retained to a 10 year term in 2003, and Ciavarella was retained in 2005.

Did any of the current 17 judicial candidates give any money to Ciavarella or Conahan?

Conahan received money from three of the judicial candidates in 2003, and two contributions from spouses of candidates. Thomas O'Connor, $500; Joseph Sklarosky, Jr., $200; Karen (wife of Bill) Amesbury $250; and Scott (husband of Tina) Gartley, $200; and the big one, Eugene Sperazza $10,000.

Ciavarella did a little better in 2005. He received contributions from ten of the seventeen candidates, and one spouse. Joseph Sklarosky, Jr., $125; Thomas Marsilio $125; Scott (husband of Tina) Gartley, $125; Daniel Zola, $125; Richard Hughes, III, $375; Steve Menn, $125; Thomas O'Connor, $500; Michael Pendolphi, $125; C.J. Bufalino, $1000; and the big two, John Terrana $4325 and Eugene Sperazza, $10,250.

Since the UNIVAC 3000 almost blew a few tubes sifting through the hundreds of donors in both of these campaigns, we'll save the big donors' list for tomorrow. Stay tuned tomorrow to see who gave Conahan $25,000 towards his 2003 retention campaign. (BTW, it's not Robert Powell or Robert Mericle.)

Same Sex Marriage Now Legal in the Heartland

2009-04-05T16:54:00.000-07:00

While Buzz was wasting valuable computer time on the Univac 3000 to set his lineup for fantasy baseball, I decided to read Varnum, et. el. v. Brien (the Iowa same sex marriage case.) With that said, I guess the question that comes to mind is whether Buzz or I have too much time on our respective hands.

The unanimous decision of the Iowa Supreme Court is 69 (I kid you not) pages long and is available at the Iowa Judicial Branch web site.

Here's what I found. I didn't intend for this blog to be this long or as in depth, but then again, maybe the Iowa Supreme Court didn't intend to write a 69 page decision, either. I also intended this to be an opinion piece, but it turned more into a law review article. We'll do the opinion thing at another time.

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the ban on same-sex couples marrying violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. Equal protection clauses exist in the United States Constitution, and we assume, every state constitution. They basically grant all people the same rights or "equal protection" under the law.

In 1998, the Iowa legislature amended the Iowa marriage statute to state “[o]nly a marriage between a male and a female is valid.” Twelve individuals (six couples) challenged the law and said it violated the Iowa Equal Protection law. (They didn't say it violated the U. S. Constitution's clause. If the Iowa Court said it violated the U.S. Constitution, it is our understanding that the state could appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Now the case ends in Iowa, because the Iowa Supreme Court has the final say on the Iowa constitution.)

The couples claimed that they faced certain disadvantages due to the inability to obtain
a civil marriage in Iowa. These disadvantages and problems include the legal inability to make many life and death decisions affecting their partner, including decisions related to health care, burial arrangements, autopsy, and disposition of remains following death. They also claimed an inability to share in their partners’ state-provided health insurance, public employee pension benefits, and many private-employer-provided benefits and protections. They also explained how several tax benefits are denied.

The County of Polk (the defendant in the case) offered five primary interests of society in support of the legislature’s exclusive definition of marriage. The first three interests broadly related to the advancement of child rearing. The fourth interest raised by the County addressed the conservation of state resources, while the final reason concerned the governmental interest in promoting the concept and integrity of the traditional notion of marriage.

Conservatives should have known they were in for a bad day when, the Iowa Court stated its belief that the Constitution of its state was a "living and breathing" document and that time didn't stop at the time of its adoption in the early 1800s. Quoting the United States Supreme Court decision in the Texas Sodomy case, the Court wrote: “times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,” and as our constitution “endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom” and equality.

In a further rebuff to the conservative argument of "original construction," the court quoted the late Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who poignantly said, “It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply
persists from blind imitation of the past.”

After stating their intent to broadly interpret the equal protection clause of the Iowa constitution the court went into a long discussion as to the level of "scrutiny" it should apply. There are three levels of scrutiny a court can imply when determining whether a statute violates the equal protection clause. Strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis scrutiny.

The University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law gives a good lay person's explanation of these levels of scrutiny.

Strict scrutiny is the toughest standard for a law to, as they say, "pass constitutional muster ." The government must show that the challenged law serves a compelling state interest and that the law is necessary to serve that interest. This standard is applied when a law attempts to discriminate against a suspect classification such as race, national origin, religion, alienage, denial or dilution of vote, interstate migration, access to courts, and other fundamental rights.

Intermediate or middle tier scrutiny applies to gender and illegitimacy. In this case, the government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.

The final catch-all level is that of minimum or rational basis scrutiny. The government need only show that the challenged classification is rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest. All classifications not in the other two categories fall into the rational basis category.

The court sort of punts on the decision as to whether it should determine whether to interpret the law with the highest level of scrutiny when it writes: "Because we conclude Iowa’s same-sex marriage statute cannot withstand intermediate scrutiny, we need not decide whether classifications based on sexual orientation are subject to a higher level of scrutiny."

The justices totally reject the notion that the state's goal to protect traditional marriage can be a legitimate interest of the state. They believe this is circular reasoning.

They wrote: "A specific tradition sought to be maintained cannot be an important governmental objective for equal protection purposes, however, when the tradition is nothing more than the historical classification currently expressed in the statute being challenged. When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification."

The next rationale offered by the government was that dual gender couples provide optimal environment to raise children.

In a paragraph that's sure to anger conservatives from coast to coast, the court writes: "Plaintiffs (the same sex couples) presented an abundance of evidence and research, confirmed by our independent research, supporting the proposition that the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents. On the other hand, we acknowledge the existence of reasoned opinions that dual-gender parenting is the optimal environment for children. These opinions, while thoughtful and sincere, were largely unsupported by reliable scientific studies."

Again, that damn science gets in the way of the conservative agenda. Will those blasted scientists stop at nothing?

The court also wrote that if the marriage statute was truly focused on optimal parenting, many classifications of people would be excluded, (such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons) not merely gay and lesbian people.

The court also did not buy the next reasons, the promotion of procreation. The court said the only "sole conceivable avenue by which exclusion of gay and lesbian people from civil marriage could promote more procreation is if the unavailability of civil marriage for same-sex partners caused homosexual individuals to “become” heterosexual in order to procreate within the present traditional institution of civil marriage.

The state's fourth reason to deny same sex couples the right to civil marriage was the promotion of the stability in opposite-sex relationships. The government offered no reasons that it does, and the court found none.

The fifth reason, the conservation of state resources, seemed to be a "throw away" reason by the government, and the court threw it away. The court said if the state wanted to "conserve state resources" under that logic more state resources would be conserved by excluding groups more numerous than Iowa’s estimated 5800 same-sex couples (for example, persons marrying for a second or subsequent time).

After finding that none of the state's reasons for enforcing or enacting the statute passed "constitutional muster," the court addressed the religious opposition to same sex marriage. They basically said civil marriage must be judged under our constitutional standards of equal protection and not under religious doctrines or the religious views of individuals.

So the bottom line -- Iowa joins Massachusetts and Connecticut as the only states to allow same sex marriage.

Judge Mike Toole Still Judge Mike Toole

2009-04-03T18:12:00.000-07:00

In May, 1897, it was reported that legendary writer Mark Twain had died. Twain responded in a letter in which he wrote "the report of my death was an exaggeration." Well apparently the report of the resignation of Judge Michael Toole from the Luzerne County bench was also "an exaggeration."

OVC has it from a source close to the Judge that he has not resigned.

Toole, the son of senior Judge Patrick Toole, was elected to the bench to succeed his father in 2003. It was reported in late March by The Legal Intelligencer that federal investigators were looking into Judge Michael Toole with regard to uninsured/underinsured motorist arbitrations.

OVC will keep you up to date.

Corbett Leads for GOP Guv Nomination in Early Poll

2009-04-02T15:43:00.000-07:00

Attorney General Tom Corbett has a substantial lead in a GOP voter preference poll over Congressmn Jim Gerlach and former U.S. Attorney Pat Meehan. The poll was conducted by Public Opinion Strategies in the middle of January. The sample was small (400 likely primary voters.)

Corbett leads Gerlach and Meehan by a 40%-10%-6% margin. The margin of error was 4.9 percent.

OVC does not give much weight to polls at this early stage. If polls at this early state were an accurate indication of how voters actually vote, last year's Presidential election would have been between Hillary Clinton and Rudolph Guiliani.

Corbett does have very good name recognition throughout the state in large part due to his high profile mass arrests, mainly in drug cases. Last year, during his bid for re-election, Corbett didn't miss an opportunity to conduct a press conference to announce a series of mass arrests. In Operation Re-Election 1, 2, 3, and 4, Corbett criss-crossed the state, patting himself on the back for his crime fighting efforts. Expect much more of the same over the next 18 months.

Senator Al Franken?

2009-04-01T23:10:00.000-07:00

If you thought 36 days were an election recount eternity in 2000, the 2008/2009 Minnesota Senate race will have you re-evaluating that definition. YES, believe it or not, Minnesota still only has one United States Senator. Despite then incumbent Senator Norm Coleman leading by a slim margin in the initial count, a recount, completed in January, 2009, showed Al Franken ahead by 225 votes. Coleman took his challenge to the Minnesota courts. The Senate election that just doesn't want to end will soon enter its sixth month, but the end may be near despite what Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) hopes and believes.

Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, is threatening “World War III” if Democrats try to seat Al Franken in the Senate before Norm Coleman can pursue his case through the federal courts. He acknowledges that a federal challenge to November’s elections could take “years” to resolve. But he’s adamant that Coleman deserves that chance — even if it means Minnesota is short a senator for the duration.

On Tuesday. March 31, 2009, the three judge panel assigned to hear the election challenge issued an order to count only about 400 absentee ballots, thus almost securing another "victory" for Franken. The choice on the absentee ballots are unknown. The 400 challenged ballots come from both counties won by Franken and Coleman, and OVC finds it hard to believe that 80 percent (the approximate number needed by Coleman to overcome the Franken lead) of those ballots would fall into the Coleman column.

Coleman's lead attorney, Ben Ginsburg, has said that if Coleman is unsuccessful when the panel issues its final order next week after the last 400 votes are counted, that he will file an immediate appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court. The law allows 10 days from the time of the panel's decision.

OVC believes that two factors will push Coleman into doing the honorable thing --- concede. Those factors are Coleman's possible political future and Coleman's lack of cash to keep paying Ginsburg, et. al.

The legal bills for Coleman's challenge are in the millions of dollars, and a lot of that money is coming from outside Minnesota. That money could be spent much more wisely on future Senate elections as the GOP tries to keep the Democrats below the a 60 seat majority in the United States Senate. The Democrats (counting two independents) would reach 59 when Franken is seated. Many players in the GOP, with the exception of Cornyn, are ready to move on to 2010.

Coleman may or may not have a political future in Minnesota or Washington, D.C. There is something to be said of fighting the good fight and then doing the honorable thing. It worked for Al Gore in 2000. Gore emerged as the gracious and honorable loser and moved on to bigger and better things. (We'll leave the fact that Gore actually won Florida in 2000 to another day.)

Coleman is not independently wealthy, so he needs a new gig. He'll have a much better shot of getting that gig if he walks away after fighting the good fight. That time to walk away should come sooner than Cornyn's "hundred years' war."

A Warm Bucket of Piss

2009-04-01T12:51:00.000-07:00

John Nance Garner of Texas was Vice President of the United States for the first two terms of Franklin Roosevelt's presidency. After policy disagreements with his boss, Garner ran against FDR in the 1940 Democratic primaries and was soundly defeated. Garner once described the office of the vice presidency as being "not worth a bucket of warm piss." After attending the GOP endorsement get together last night, we wonder if Garner's quote might be applicable to the Luzerne County Republican endorsement.

The major question being asked by those who received the endorsements is "what is it worth?" To our knowledge, the Luzerne County GOP is not sitting on a pile of money that it will shovel into the campaign coffers of the endorsed ones. We also don't believe that the county GOP will do much more on their own than print up a few thousand slate cards to pass out on election day.

The Luzerne County GOP broke tradition this year and let the rank and file GOP committee people vote on the endorsements. In the past, the county committee usually did not endorse, and if they did, the executive committee would make the decision. They had two important stipulations in the endorsement process.

First, in order to receive the GOP endorsement, a candidate had to have been a registered Republican since at least February 16, 2008. This eliminated 15 of the 17 judicial candidates and Eddddddd Brominski, former Democratic county commissioner and candidate for controller who recently switched teams. Second, committee people had the option of marking "Do Not Endorse" in any or all of the races.

In the judicial race, there are two open seats. There used to be three, until the Pennsylvania Supreme Court pulled the seat formerly held by Ann Lokuta from the May primary ballot. The GOP committee endorsed Attorney Richard Hughes and Michael Pendolphi. OVC believes that the endorsement means the most to Pendolphi. It was well known, as the numbers attest, that Hughes was a Republican. Pendolphi, although a lifelong Republican, did not have the name recognition of Hughes in GOP circles. For Pendolphi to be able to say he is an endorsed Republican candidate for judge will help set him apart from the other 15 Democrats who have crossed filed.

In the five way controller race, Attorney Nanda Palissery also should benefit from the endorsement. Many people do look to their party for endorsements when deciding which lever to pull on election day.

In the race for prothonotary, we don't believe it will make much of a difference. Carolee Medico Olenginski is a known commodity. The former prothonotary is a polarizing figure. There doesn't seem to be much middle ground with Carolee. You either love her or hate her. Walter Mitchell is a financial advisor and longtime mayor of Bear Creek Village, who lacks the name recognition of Carolee.

With regards to the other two races, Register of Wills and Jury Commissioner, neither have opponents. We also believe that incumbent Dottie Stankovic will cruise to re-election in November. Although she is a Democrat, Dottie has always been an outsider when in comes to the Luzerne County Democratic Party and owes her fame to her polka show on WVIA.

Luzerne County GOP Endorses

2009-03-31T17:33:00.000-07:00

Buzz and I took the Microbus downtown tonight. We were looking for a nice place to eat, and we stumbled upon the Luzerne County Republican headquarters. We saw some action going on inside the HQ and decided to stop in.

Around a large table, the county GOP leaders were counting the ballots on the primary endorsements. Renita Fennick, the GOP executive director was pulling ballots out of a box and calling out candidate's names. About fifteen other people sat around the table tallying the results.

Several candidates anxiously listened and tallied their own numbers. Attorney Mike Pendolphi, candidate for Judge; Attorney Nanda Palissery, candidate for controller; and Robert Sipnewski, candidate for controller were the only candidates we saw in the room.

Here are the results: (Candidates in bold received the party's endorsement for the May 19th primary election.)

Judge: Attorney Richard Hughes 114 votes, Attorney Michael Pendolphi 54 votes, Magisterial District Judge William H. Amesbury 18 votes, and No endorsement 14 votes.

Controller: Attorney Nanda Palissery 51 votes, Walter L. Griffith, Jr. 39 votes, Robert Sypniewski 19 votes, No endorsement 17 votes, Edward A. Brominski 3 votes, and Alice B. Coffman 3 votes.

Prothonotary: Carolee Medico Olenginski 75 votes, Walter Mitchell 55 votes, and No endorsement 4 votes.

Register of Wills: Gina Nevenglosky 74 votes and No endorsement 54 votes.

Jury Commissioner: Frank Semanski 107 votes and No endorsement 21 votes.

Pendolphi said he was "proud to receive the Republican endorsement," and he believed "the court house needs more Republicans."

Palissery was equally pleased with the endorsement. He said "he believed it was a fair process." He thanked all of those who voted for him and said he was "proud to have the Republican endorsement."

ShamWow Pow

2009-03-30T09:54:00.000-07:00

Where's Billy Mays when you need him? Billy Mays wannabe Vince Shlomi, the ShamWow guy, was arrested after a violent confrontation with a South Beach (Miami, Florida) prostitute on February 27, 2009. Shlomi paid the prostitute $1000 for "straight sex" at the ritzy Setai Hotel in Miami Beach, Florida. Shlomi told police that he met Sasha Harris, 26, in a Miami Beach nightclub. The 44 year old Shlomi told police that he punched Harris a number of times in the face when she bit his tongue and would not let go. Prosecutors this month declined to pursue formal charges against either Harris or Shlomi.

OVC's attempts to reach our favorite pitchman, Billy Mays, for a comment were unsuccessful.

Walter Cronkite Where Are You?

2009-03-28T06:25:00.000-07:00

Buzz and I don't watch much on network television, especially the so called news magazine shows. We do watch network sporting events. (Buzz, although, is still reeling from his pick of a Stephen F. Austin/Robert Morris NCAA men's basketball final. Damn that new Atari computer. Buzz is going back to the UNIVAC 3000.) We find that the major networks' shows are a little too simplistic for our tastes and cater to sensationalism and the lowest common denominator. Last night our beliefs were confirmed.

Like many people in NEPA, we watched the 20/20 report on former Judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan. What we saw was sensationalism at its best.

From the title of the report "Kids for Cash" to the eerie music to the "ambushing of the bad guy" to the self serving statements of the parents and the kids to shock jock wannabe Steve Corbett to the breaking down of the judge who was investigating, the report seemed to be "National Enquirer TV."

Whatever happened to fair and objective reporting without the gratuitous exaggerations and and self righteous editorial comments? We are by no means justifying or codoning the actions of Ciavarella or Conahan. What they did was ethically wrong and criminal, but the quid pro quo of "kids for cash" simply did not exist.

20/20 reporter Jim Avila was the biggest violator of objective journalism. Here are some of his quotes: Judges got "rich on the backs of children," "secretly on the take," "absurdly swift justice," "a diabolical plan," "a diabolical pattern," "devised a scheme to pad their pockets on the backs of children," juvenile center "built by the judge's cronies," "judge's spent their dirty money," "sold kids down the river," and "kids were languishing in juvenile jails." Hardly the language used by objective investigative journalists in the mold of Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward.

In addition to Avila's lack of objectivity, we had two particular inflammatory quotes which tickled our fancy. Shock jock wannabe Steve Corbett of WILK radio referred to Conahan and Civarella as "gangster judges were selling children into a prison camp." Corbett's quote is just emblematic of his radio schtick, where he plays of role of the "holier than thou" outraged "mad as hell" citizen.

Marsha Levick, of the Juvenile Law Center referred to the case as "probably the most egregious abuse of power in the history of the American legal system." Apparently, Levick is not a student of history, having forgotten the judicially approved enslavement of millions of African Americans and the internment of thousands Japanese Americans during World War II.

One factor that seems to be forgotten during this whole affair is the fact that in every single juvenile case, there was a police officer who charged the juvenile and an assitant district attorney who prosecuted the case present in the court room. If the juvenile shouldn't have been charged, why did the police officer charge the juvenile? If the case shouldn't have been prosecuted, why did the district attorney's office bring the prosecution? Police officers and prosecutors' duty is to prosecute crimes, not to put people in jail. Where was the outrage from them when "innocent" children were locked up?

OVC knows that if a certain judge, who will remain nameless, were assigned to juvenile court instead of Ciavarella, his incarceration rate would have made Ciavarella look like a bleeding heart liberal.

Ciavarella and Conahan deserve to be criminally prosecuted, but not for "kids for cash." They deserve to be prosecuted for taking money for the building of a juvenile center. There's the actus rea for which they are culpable.

What troubles us the most is that in the vast net that has been cast in this matter, juveniles who deserved to be incarcerated will benefit from a few eggregious examples of wrongly incarcerrated juveniles. Don't be fooled by the self serving statements of juveniles and their parents who have minimized some of the juvenile's culpability. Ciavarella's criminal actions do not vindicate every juvenile who appeared before him.

The Microbus is back on the road

2009-03-26T15:17:00.000-07:00

Buzz and I are pleased to announce that the OVC Microbus is back on the road. It's hard to find parts for such a classic ride, but Buzz was able to get the job done. There have been some major developments in Luzerne County over the past few weeks, but no election news is bigger than the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision to remove the judicial seat formally held by Ann Lokuta from the ballot.

The Supreme Court decision was brief and without an opinion. There was one dissenting Justice, Justice Seamus McCaffery. The Court wrote:

"The consolidated matter is REMANDED to the Court of Judicial Discipline for the
limited purpose of that court considering Petitioner’s claims in the nature of after-discovered
evidence, arising from the recent revelations of corruption in Luzerne County. The Court of
Judicial Discipline is to determine whether the new evidence requires a further hearing
and/or whether it affects the existing determination of the Court of Judicial Discipline to
remove Petitioner from judicial office."

"Furthermore, the December 9, 2008 order of the Court of Judicial Discipline is
STAYED pending remand and a final determination of this matter, and the Secretary of the
Commonwealth is directed to refrain from placing Petitioner’s judicial seat on the Court of
Common Pleas of Luzerne County on the May 2009 primary ballot. This stay is entered
solely for the purpose of ensuring that Petitioner’s seat on the Court of Common Pleas of
Luzerne County is not placed on the ballot until final resolution of this judicial disciplinary
matter, and is not to be construed as this Court taking any position on the merits of
Petitioner’s appeal or her after-discovered evidence claim."

We here at OVC don't believe any new evidence will change the opinion of the Court of Judicial Discipline. Lokuta may not have been corrupt, like her former brethren Judges Mike Conahan and Mark Ciavarella, but she certainly deserved to be removed from the bench for her actions during her 15 years as a Luzerne County Judge.

Lokuta abused her position in a way much different than Conahan and Ciavarella. Her biggest failing was that she lacked the judicial demeanor which is required by anyone who dons the judicial robe. Her courtroom antics brought disgrace to the bench, and had absolutely nothing to do with her taking on the "good ole boy" network. Lokuta was incompetent, arrogant, and just plain rude to jurors, lawyers, court staff, and anyone who got in earshot or eyeshot. Judges don't have to be Mr. or Ms. Congeniality, but there is a certain amount of decorum that becomes the office. Lokuta showed none of this.

What we find so troubling is the belief that since Conahan and Ciavarella went down in a flurry of corruption that Lokuta is somehow vindicated. Conahan and Ciavarella were only two of a myriad of witnesses who testified to Lokuta's erratic and un-judicial behavior. Lokuta was deservedly ousted from the bench, and we hope and pray that the reprehensible actions of Conahan and Ciavarella in unrelated matters do not become the reason to overturn the decision of the Court of Judicial Discipline for her removal from the bench.

Now to the election matter. Three open seats is a big difference from two open seats with seventeen candidates vying for those positions. What is even more troubling is the fact that the deadline to withdraw from the May primary was yesterday, the day the Supreme Court ruled. As far as we know, all seventeen candidates are still on the ballot.

We do expect some of the candidates to use this election as a warm up for 2011. In 2011, there will be at least three seats up, and possibly five. Judge Hugh Mundy reaches mandatory retirement in the next two years. Ciavarella's seat will also be up, as well as Lokuta after she loses her appeals. The other two possible seats are those currently occupied by Judge Thomas Burke and Judge Peter Paul Olszewski. Both jurists are up for retention and with the current atmosphere in Luzerne County, retention is no sure thing. Eventhough neither Burke nor Olszewski have been implicated in any corruption scandal, that may not be enough to save them in a "Throw the Bums Out" year.

The Big Tent Collapses

2009-03-11T16:13:00.000-07:00

If Hazleton Mayor and Republican Political Heavyweight Lou Barletta is any indication of the “new” direction of the Republican Party, the Democrats can look forward to a long era of dominance. Buzz and I charged up the VW microbus (it’s clean and green and running on electricity now) and ventured into the Luzerne County Republican Headquarters last Thursday night. Buzz came for the free eats. I came to listen. We had the honor of meeting some of our fellow bloggers, who were also there to take in Lou’s words of wisdom.

Besides the oft repeated misstatements of fact about items of pork in President Barack Obama’s stimulus plan (Harry Reid’s “high speed rail line from Los Angeles to Las Vegas {which, by the way, would probably be a very profitable rail line for AMTRAK, if it were true}, Nancy Pelosi’s “mouse farm,” and the $4 billion dollars for ACORN,) Lou’s speech was full of the red meat items the hard line conservatives love.

His speech was interrupted a number of times when he bashed the main-stream media for having a love affair with Obama, waved the flag, and talked of the glory days of Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.” Oh, we almost forgot, the crowd also loved the obligatory references to the glory days of Ronald Reagan.

There was no mention of the multi-trillion dollar war of choice in Iraq, no mention of the 4000 plus Americans who died in that war of choice, no mention of the Bush/Cheney war on individual rights under the guise of national security, no mention of the utter and complete mismanagement of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, no mention of the Republican “pork projects” in the Obama stimulus bill, and no acceptance of responsibility for the Republican principles which contributed greatly to the collapse of Wall Street,.

Albeit Lou was speaking to a crowd dominated by Republicans, except for the occasional Democratic judge candidate, but his rhetoric had no sense of cooperation and no sense of reaching out to those across the aisle. No compromise. It was a “stick to our conservative principles” speech through and through. The speech is very similar to the one he gave at the Allegheny County Republican Lincoln Day Dinner last month.

Democrats should rejoice, because the rhetoric of Lou and other conservatives assure the GOP of minority status. People gave the GOP years to shove their agenda down the throats of the American people, and the result was failure.

Conservatives will say that the reason there was failure was because the GOP was not conservative enough, but the true reason for their failure is obvious --- massive tax cuts to the wealth which lead to the rich getting richer and the middle class seeing their incomes decline, deregulation which lead to a collapse of financial giants and Wall Street, a contempt for government which lead to incompetent and ineffectual actions, and a neo-con philosophy which lead to the needless death of thousands of brave young Americans and a multi-trillion dollar war of choice.

So by their logic, would we be better off with more tax cuts for the wealthy, even less regulation, less government, and more wars of choice. Buzz thinks not, and I agree with him.

As far as Barletta, he is mum on a possible run for higher office. We find it hard to believe that Barletta takes his show on the road for his own amusement. Barletta is laying the groundwork for a run for state office. There are two major statewide offices on next year’s ballot --- Governor and United States Senator.

Incumbent Governor Ed Rendell is constitutionally prohibited from running for re-election in 2010, so that race is wide open, but for the fact that incumbent Attorney General Tom Corbett has been eyeing that seat for a number of years, and we believe his is the prohibitive favorite.

Incumbent Republican United States Senator Arlen Specter, 79, has no intention of stepping down, despite his age and battles with cancer. He will seek an unprecedented sixth term, but he is a dying breed in the Republican Party. He is a moderate, the type of Establishment Republican that once dominated the Northeast part of the country. Like the buffalo, these moderate Republicans were either killed off by the voters of their own party, by the voters of their states at large, or by their timely and untimely deaths..

Specter dodged the proverbial bullet in 2004, when “politically born again” conservative GOP congressman Pat Toomey came within 17,000 votes or a few percentage points of unseating Specter in the 2004 primary. Conservatives hate Specter, and he gave them just another reason to hate him even more when he voted for Obama’s stimulus plan. Toomey is undecided, but we have heard rumblings that he wants to run for governor.

If he does, we believe Lou will run against Specter in the primary and subject Specter to a full scale assault from the right. We also believe that the conservative Republicans who dominate the votes in the GOP primary may very well push Lou to victory. Remember, Democratic registration roles swelled in 2008 when Hillary Clinton and Obama fought it out in the 2008 Presidential Primary. Much of those numbers came from moderate Republicans who switched their registrations. We don’t think they’ll be switching back anytime soon, and for that matter, conservative purists don’t want them back anyway. That factor alone may be enough for Lou to edge out Specter in the primary.

We have not seen the last of Lou. Stay tuned.

What we got here is failure to communicate

2009-02-25T08:35:00.000-08:00

Buzz and I decided to watch Cool Hand Luke last night after President Barack Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress and Governor Bobby Jindal's Republican response. While Obama's speech was well delivered, realistic and optimistic, and even inspirational, Jindal's response demonstrated in the words of character actor Strother Martin a "failure to communicate." If Jindal is the best and brightest of the "new and improved" Republican party, the Democrats don't have much to worry about.

Jindal spoke of the greatness of the American people. He told the following story. "During Katrina, I visited Sheriff Harry Lee, a Democrat and a good friend of mine. When I walked into his makeshift office, I'd never seen him so angry. He was yelling into the phone: "Well, I'm the Sheriff and if you don't like it you can come and arrest me!" I asked him: "Sheriff, what's got you so mad?" He told me that he had put out a call for volunteers to come with their boats to rescue people who were trapped on their rooftops by the floodwaters. The boats were all lined up ready to go, when some bureaucrat showed up and told them they couldn't go out on the water unless they had proof of insurance and registration. I told him, "Sheriff, that's ridiculous." And before I knew it, he was yelling into the phone: "Congressman Jindal is here, and he says you can come and arrest him too!" Harry just told the boaters to ignore the bureaucrats and go start rescuing people."

He went on to say. There is a lesson in this experience: "The strength of America is not found in our government. It is found in the compassionate hearts and the enterprising spirit of our citizens." WHAT? Besides the logical inconsistency that government is not some intangible concept but made up of the "American people" in which he has so much faith, the lesson to be learned from Katrina is that if you appoint incompetent people to important government positions (Michael "You're doing a heck of a job" Brown, et. al.) you will experience incompetence when you expect those people to act. The Katrina response is the point we look to when the American people turned their back on the Bush administration and began to realize the Bush administration rewarded loyalty and purity of ideology over competence. Up until that point, Bush's approval ratings were above 40 percent or higher. After Katrina, Bush's ratings were rarely above 40 percent.

Jindal's hypocrisy didn't stop there. While railing against federal spending, Jindal neglected to mention that he had no problem supporting or accepting $80 billion in federal aid to his state to rebuild after Katrina.

Jindal laid out the Republican principles he believes will solve our current economic crisis. First on his agenda was tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts. Jindal failed to mention that the the Bush tax cuts for the highest income earners were in effect when we got into this economic mess, and that Obama has proposed the largest cut in taxes in history to those earning less than $250,000. He also apparently missed the point that during one of the greatest economic boom in our nation's history (1945 to 1960), the highest marginal tax rate was between 82% and 91%. That rate now stands at 35%. In 2010, the rate will go back up to the Clinton era rate of 39.6%.

The second prong of Jindal's speech was alternative fuels, conservation, energy efficiency, more nuclear power, and more domestic drilling for oil and natural gas. It is a bit disingenuous to hear a Republican talk about alternative fuels and energy conservation after eight years of Bush-Cheney. Bush and Cheney believed in oil, oil, and more oil. Conservation, energy efficiency, and alternative fuels were the purview of the environmentalist wackos and tree huggers.

Jindal then moved on to affordable healthcare for all Americans. Again, a bit disingenuous from a party which opposed SCHIP and every attempt in the past 30 years to reform the nation's healthcare system. Remember, it was the Republicans that killed national healthcare in the Clinton years with horror stories of rationed healthcare, long lines, and bureaucrats making medical decisions. (Ironically, not much different than the HMOs of today.) Our national healthcare system may be the best in the world, .... but only if you can afford it.

Two more points Jindal made were for ridding Washington of corruption and the good old limited government mantra. News flash to Jindal --- the American people have changed their tune from the Reagan era. A majority of Americans believe now that government is the solution.

Obama's speech, on the other hand, laid out plans to fix the economy, fix the American education system, and develop alternative energies that will make us energy independent. He also deftly illustrated how they all are intertwined.

Obama may have been a hard act to follow, but Jindal failed miserably in trying to revive the Utopian Ronald Reagan world in which the far right live.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself

2009-02-19T08:36:00.000-08:00

Of the many talking points of the GOP these days is the one that says World War II ended the depression, not the actions of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal. There are two major flaws i this too often heard talking point. First, FDR's New Deal programs did an awful lot to combat the Great Depression, and second, World War II amounted to a giant federal stimulus program. Federal spending seems to be A OK with the GOP if it's defense spending.

Let's look at the numbers. Here are the unemployment numbers 1933 to 1945. 1933 (24.9 percent unemployment rate), 1934 (21.7), 1935 (20.1), 1936 (16.9), 1937 (14.3), 1938 (19.0), 1939 (17.2), 1940 (14.6), 1941 (9.7), 1942 (4.7), 1943 (1.9), 1944 (1.2), 1945 (1.9).

Here are the budget outlay and deficit numbers for those years. 1933 (4.6 billion), (2.6 billion); 1934 (6.5), (3.5); 1935 (6.4), (2.8); 1936 (8.2), (4.3); 1937 (7.5), (2.1); 1938 (6.8), (89 million); 1939 (9.1), (2.8); 1940 (9.4), (2.9); 1941 (13.6), (4.9); 1942 (35.1), (20.5); 1943 (78.6), (54.5); 1944 (91.3), (47.5); 1945 (92.7), (47.5).

So when we look at the numbers, the greatest recovery in employment numbers came with the massive federal spending on World War II. So in a sense the GOP is right. World War II put and end to the Great Depression, but World War II was, in effect, a massive government work project. Perhaps the reason we saw only an unemployment reduction for 24.9 percent to 9.7 percent was the fact that FDR did not go far enough. Unemployment practically disappeared by 1945. Massive government spending creates jobs, period.

The other major talking point of the GOP is lower taxes create jobs. If this were true, how is it that the unprecedented economic prosperity we saw from 1945 to 1960 was accomplished with a top marginal tax rate of between 88 and 91 percent?

Welcome Back Norton

2009-02-18T07:50:00.000-08:00

Sorry to all the avid readers of onevotecounts. Our vacation lasted a little longer than we had planned, but we're back! Buzz also had a few problems with the Univac 3000, and you wouldn't believe how hard it is to find replacement vacuum tubes. I've begged Norton to upgrade, but he thinks microprocessors are just a fad, like electricity, telephones, and digital television.

We're going to institute a few changes at OVC. First of all, we hope to hold to a minimum 3 blogs a week, including Satire Mondays. Buzz had suggested Super Satire Saturdays, but I'm not a big fan of alliteration and Saturdays are not the best days for Norton's creative thought. Second, with all of the happenings in Luzerne County these days, we will dedicate some time to local issues. Third, well... there really is no third at the present time. Come on, it's our first day back. Give us a little time.

Pay to Play

2008-12-16T10:04:00.000-08:00

A recent Gallup poll has shown that 26 percent of people surveyed believe that Obama's staff has engaged in something illegal with regards to the selection of Obama's replacement in the United States Senate. Thank you Fox News. This is just a sign of things to come over the next four or eight years. With all of the problems we now face with the economy, Fox News and the conservatives are looking for ties which simply do not exist.

Last week, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was charged by federal authorities with trying to sell the Senate seat to the highest bidder. Apparently, Blago has been under investigation for a few years now on unrelated matters, but the taped conversations picked up the Senate Seat Sale. Blago is either stupid or extremely arrogant. We believe his is a lot of both.

Obama knew that Blago was a problem and, he did his best to keep his distance from the ethically challenged governor. Even though almost every Democratic elected official for dog catcher up spoke at the Democratic convention, Blago was not given a spot on the stage. When Obama had his victory celebration in Chicago's Grant Park, Blago was not invited.

We don't doubt that there were conversations between the Obama people and Blago, but one of the taped conversations summed up the Obama position. Blago said the only thing Obama was willing to give him was "appreciation."

There also is no question that Chicago politics is and has been rotten for years, but Obama has continually steered a path away from the corruption, but he has been forced to deal with the elected officials in his home town over the years. This is not uncommon in our history. Let's not forget that both Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman rose above the corrupt political machines which helped them into power.

Let's get down to business. Let's look for solutions to the myriad of problems we now face after eight years of incompetence. The American people deserve the change for which they voted and not the constant obsession of Fox News and the right wingers to try to derail the Obama Express before it leaves the station.

Georgia Senate Run-off Today

2008-12-02T07:54:00.000-08:00

The run-off for the seat of incumbent Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss (pictured to the right) takes place today in Georgia. OVC believes that Chambliss will prevail over a challenge from Democrat Jim Martin (pictured to the left) 53 percent to 47 percent.

The re-election of Chambliss will keep the Senate Democratic number at 58, with the Minnesota Senate race still embroiled in a recount. With the state Canvassing Board scheduled to meet in two weeks to finish the recount, and nearly 6,000 votes being challenged by the two campaigns, a Minneapolis Star Tribune tally late Monday showed that Coleman leads by 340 votes. Coleman had challenged 188 more votes than Franken.

Chambliss has brought in some heavy hitters, including former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Senator John McCain, and Governor Sarah Palin. In fact, Palin appeared at four rally for Chambliss yesterday. Martin was unable to get President-elect Obama to stump for him personally, but Obama did keep his field operation in tact to help Martin and recorded radio spots and robo-call messages. Martin also has the help of former Vice President Al Gore and former President Bill Clinton.

The Reaclclearpolitics average has Chambliss at 51.3 percent and Martin at 46 percent. The RCP average on the Presidential race was 7.6 percent. Obama won by 7.0 percent. The RCP average had Kay Hagan up by 4.3%, and she won by 8.5% in neighboring North Carolina. In Virginia, the final RCP average was Mark Warner up by 28.6 %, and he won by 31.2%. And in Oregon, RCP had Merkley up by 5.6%, and he won by 3.1%. The RCP average predicted the winner in all the decided Senate races. In the Minnesota race, RCP had incumbent Republican Norm Coleman defeating Democratic challenger Al Franken by 2.8%. Whoever wins that race will win by less than 0.1%.

We should know the results within an hour of the closing of the polls in Georgia at 7:00 pm EDT.

The Supremes

2008-11-28T12:03:00.000-08:00

When Barack Obama takes office on January 20, 2009, he faces a number of tough choices with regards to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the troubled economy, but he may also be faced with filing up to three vacancies on the United States Supreme Court. OVC takes a look at what the next four years will look like for the nation's highest court.

The current make up of the Supreme Court is as follows: Chief Justice John Roberts (Age 53, Appointed by G.W. Bush 2005); Justice John Paul Stevens (88, G. Ford 1975); Justice Antonin Scalia (72, R. Reagan 1986); Justice Anthony Kennedy (72, R. Reagan 1988); Justice David Souter (69, G.H.W. Bush 1990); Justice Clarence Thomas (60, G.H.W. Bush 1991); Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (75, W.J. Clinton 1993); Justice Stephen Breyer (70, W.J. Clinton 1994); and Justice Samuel Alito (58, G.W. Bush 2006).

The judicial philosophy of the court is spilt with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito making up the conservative wing. Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer make up the liberal wing of the court. Kennedy generally sides with the conservatives, but he sometimes crosses over and sides with the liberal wing. Kennedy's philosophy is sometimes confusing, and his vote cannot be relied upon by either side.

The most likely justice to leave is Stevens. He is the longest serving member (33 years) and the oldest justice (88, 89 on April 20, 2009) on the court. He has also evolved into one of the most liberal justices on the court. Appointed to the court by Jerry Ford, Stevens has drifted to the left, and has become a solid member of the liberal wing. OVC expects Stevens to announce his retirement before the beginning of the next term in October, 2009. Stevens is quite comfortable with Obama choosing his successor.

The next most likely member of the court to ride off into the sunset is Ginsburg. Ginsburg is not in the best of health. She underwent surgery for colo-rectal cancer in 1999. Her cancer appears to be in remission, but she has hinted that she would leave the court if a Democrat won the 2008 Presidential election. OVC would not be surprised if Ginsburg announces her retirement at the end of this Supreme Court term in June, 2009.

There have also been rumors that Souter may retire at the end of this term. He is 69 years old, which makes him one of the younger members of the court. His health is good, but it is reported that he never really took to life inside the beltway. Souter may join Stevens and Ginsburg in retirement.

The remaining members of the court will be around for a while. Roberts and Alito are both in their 50s, and have only been on the court for a short time. It would be highly unlikely for either of them to leave the court in the next four or eight years. Scalia and Thomas would never leave during a Democratic administration, so they're not going anywhere. Kennedy is in good health, and we don't see him leaving anytime soon, either.

Here's a list of the potential Obama appointees for the Supreme Court.

(1) Diane Wood (58 years old) -- One of the two or three most often mentioned candidates in the press. Wood was appointed to the federal bench in 1995 by Bill Clinton. It's hard to find a knock on her candidacy. She has nice credentials, is well regarded intellectually, and she is from Chicago. She would certainly be a favorite upon a Ginsburg retirement.

(2) Elena Kagan (48 years old) -- Kagan is the current Dean of Havard Law School (Obama's alma mater) She certainly has the stature, has high level Washington experience, is the perfect age for a long run on the Court, and is respected across the political spectrum for her handling of hiring issues at Harvard. She has no judicial experience, so keep an eye on her if she gets a Court of Appeals appointment early on in Obama's presidency.

(3) Merrick Garland (56 years old)-- Garland was appointed to the D.C. circuit court by Bill Clinton in 1997. The D.C. Circuit is a favorite grooming place for Supreme Court nominees. Garland is also a Harvard law grad.

(4) Cass Sunstein (54 years old) Sunstein is a legal scholar, particularly in the fields of constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and law and behavioral economics. Sunstein taught at the University of Chicago for 27 years, where he continues to teach as a Visiting Profesor. Sunstein is currently the Felix Frankfurter Professor at Harvard Law School.

(5) Teresa Wynn Roseborough (50 years old) It is widely anticipated that this African-American former Stevens clerk/Gore lawyer/ACS founder is appointed to the Court of Appeals in the first months of a Democratic Presidency. This would be a sign that Obama may consider her for a vacancy on the supreme court.

(6) Leah Ward Sears (53 years old) The African-American Chief Justice, Georgia Supreme Court is also a possibility. She was the first woman and youngest person to ever serve on the Georgia Supreme Court when she was appointed by then Governor Zell Miller (in the days when he was playing with a full deck.) She has an excellent judicial reputation and record.

(7) Sonia Sotomayor (54 years old) This woman of Puerto Rican descent was appointed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals by Bill Clinton in 1998. She is named as a favorite by many pundits for the first nomination.

(8) Deval Patrick (52 years old) The African American Governor of Massachusetts has a close relationship with Obama. He has no judicial experience, but then again, neither did Governor Earl Warren before he was tapped by Eisenhower as Chief Justice.

(9) Eric Holder--Obama has already announced he will nominate Holder as Attorney General, so a Holder appointment may come down later rather than sooner. He has the credentials, including a stint as a judge in DC, and might be an appealing in-house option for a second or third seat. Involvement in the controversial pardon of Mark Rich would be an obvious target for confirmation attacks.

(10) Barrington Parker, Jr. (64 years old) The African American judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals may be a bit old for an appointment, but his name has been mentioned as a possible nominee.

The Gumby Vote

2008-11-25T12:13:00.000-08:00

It looks like the Minnesota Senate race will come down to the gumby vote, or as the Los Angeles Times phrased it, the Minnesota Senate race "comes down to the votes of several dolts. "As the hand recount of the ballots reaches 78 percent counted, Republican Norm Coleman's lead over Democrat Al Franken stands at 210 votes. What will determine the race is the 3000 challenged ballots. Coleman has challenged 1600 ballots and Franken has challenged 1557 as of 4:35 EST on November 25, 2009.

Minnesota uses optical scan ballots. The voter fills in ovals next to the candidate's name to show their preference, not unlike the forms used on the SATs and other standardized tests. The ballot is counted by placing it into an optical scan machine which counts the vote. Sounds simple, however, errors occur. Some voters don't fill in the ovals completely, some mark their preference in another manner (such as a check next to the candidate name), while others mark two ovals. These votes may or may not be read by the optical scan machines. It is important to note that the vast majority 99 plus percent of ballots are filled out correctly, thus the incorrectly filled out ballots usually don't make a difference, unless the race is very close.

Here are a few examples of the challenged ballots.

Certainly these voters have a little trouble following instructions. These are just five of the 3000 plus ballots which have been challenged so far by both sides. Based on the percentages, it appears that there will be about 4000 challenged ballots. These ballots will be reviewed by the state canvassing board on December 16, 2009. . The board is a five-person panel consisting of Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Eric Magnuson, Justice G. Barry Anderson, Ramsey County District Court Chief Judge Kathleen Gearin, and Assistant Chief Judge Edward Cleary; they will make a determination of the voters' intent for ballots where either of the campaign's representatives disagree with the election officials at the county sites. Of the five Canvassing Board members, Ritchie is a member of the Democratic Farm Labor Party (that is the Minnesota Democratic Party), two of the judges were appointed by a Republican governor, one was appointed by former Independent Party Governor Jesse "The Body" Ventura, and one was elected in a non-partisan election.

So what this election comes down to is the "Gumby Vote," ---- those voters too stupid to correctly fill out a ballot. Neither party has a monopoly on the Gumby Vote. Each side has it's own percentage of Gumby voters, but we believe one ballot we saw epitomizes the Gumby vote. Here it is:

Millard Fillmore Would Be Proud

2008-11-22T15:51:00.000-08:00

In the 1850s, we saw the rise of the Know Nothing Party. Over the last twenty or so years, we have seen a rise in the Know Nothing wing of the GOP. In the battle for the soul of the GOP, the Know Nothings may be winning the battle, and that could mean years of political obscurity and minority political status for years to come. The Know Nothing wing is lead by the usual suspects, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and now Sarah Palin.

First, a little bit of history. The Know Nothing party was actually named the American Party. Iit was a Nativist political movement that blamed many of the ills in the nation on immigrants. In a time of rising immigrants, this Protestant dominated group feared all immigrants as anti-American. They were particularly troubled by the Irish Catholic immigrants who they believed were beholden to the Pope and not to the United States. There basic beliefs were :

Severe limits on immigration, especially from Catholic countries
Restricting political office to native-born Americans
Mandating a wait of 21 years before an immigrant could gain citizenship
Restricting public school teachers to Protestants
Mandating daily Bible readings in public schools
Restricting the sale of liquor

In 1856, the Know Nothings nominated former President Millard Fillmore. Fillmore came in third. James Buchanan won, and Fillmore received 21.6 percent of the vote and carried only the state of Maryland

2008 Noble Prize winner for Economics and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote in August, 2008. "[K]now-nothingism — the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there’s something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise — has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The party’s de facto slogan has become: “Real men don’t think things through.”

OVC characterizes this as "simple answers for complex problems." There are some serious thinkers on the GOP and conservative side like George Will, David Brooks, and Peggy Noonan. Unfortunately, their voices are be drown out by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and the rest of Fox News. The darling of this movement is Sarah Palin, who has become the de facto leader after the fall of former leader George W. Bush. (Before you say Bush was liberal on immigration, and thus the comparison is false, the rest of his stances fit well in line with the simplistic nature of the Know Nothings.)

First the 21st Century Know Nothings are very anti-immigrant. Immigrants are stealing their jobs, taxing our health care system, collecting welfare benefits, and committing countless crimes. We have to build a wall to keep the new one out and throw the illegal ones who are here out.

The anti-Catholicism is not prevalent in the 21st Century Know Nothings. Catholics have been replaced by Gays, Liberals, the Main Stream Media, and anyone else they consider "anti-American." Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) stated the view which epitomizes the new Know Nothings. When asked by Chris Matthews of Hardball "how many do you suspect of your colleagues as being anti-American?" Bachmann responded: "What I would say -- what I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America? I think people would love to see an expose like that." (Of course, she has since dismissed the comments as "an urban legend.")

Sarah Palin is the gift that keeps giving for the Democrats. Although she is loved by the Republican base, she alienates almost every Democrat and a large number of Independent voters. The base sees her as another Ronald Reagan. She speaks in plain language and does let complicated facts get in the way of her simplistic views. Palin also seems unaware of her shortcomings, instead blaming all her ills on the evil, liberal main stream media.

The GOP has a lot of soul searching to do over the next two and four years. For the Democrats, they hope and eve pray that the soul searching will lead to Alaska and Sarah Palin. Then, Millard Fillmore would be proud.

Goodbye Ted

2008-11-20T10:11:00.000-08:00

The longest serving Republican Senator of all time has lost his bid for re-election to a seventh full term. Theodore Fulton Stevens (R-AK) was appointed to the United States Senate by Governor Wally Hickel, upon the death of Democratic incumbent Senator Bob Barlett and was sworn in on Christmas Eve, 1968. Stevens had lost a Republican primary battle for Senate in 1968. That was the last election Stevens would lose until he found out on his 85th birthday (November 18) that he was almost 4000 votes behind Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich. Yesterday, Stevens conceded defeat.

Believe it or not, sixteen days after the 2008 general election, we still have two Senate seats up for grabs. Incumbent Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) is facing a run off election on December 2nd against Democratic challenger Jim Martin, having failed to receive more than 50 percent of the vote on November 4th. The other outstanding race is between incumbent Norm Coleman (R-MN) and Democratic challenger Al Franken. The official count put Coleman ahead by 206 votes. An automatic recount began yesterday, and final results are not expected for a month.

This means that OVC has yet to miss a call in the Senate races. For the casual reader, we have said Franken will prevail in Minnesota, and Chambliss will retain his seat on December 2nd. This leaves the Democrats one seat shy of the filibuster proof number of 60 seats.

Hillary 2016

2008-11-19T12:16:00.000-08:00

Will she or won't she be he next Secretary of State? OVC believes she will take the job. We believe that SOS Hillary is a win win for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

We are quite impressed with the tone that is being set by the Obama team so far. Reaching out to Hillary is a sign that Obama is willing to bury the hatchet for the good of the country. The situation with Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) is also a good sign. If Obama had put out the word to ostracize McCain's campaign buddy, Lieberman would not have survived with his Homeland Security chairmanship in tact. Obama extended the olive branch here, and again we believe that is the correct tone.

Hillary has the intelligence, the temperament, and the toughness to be an excellent Secretary of State. Her views may differ a bit from Obama's, but she knows how to be a good soldier. We expect that she will have the intestinal fortitude to offer her honest opinion when Obama asks her, which we assume will be frequently, but she also has the realistic view of her position to pursue President Obama's policies. Hillary will not go "Palin" on Obama.

Here's how we see it. Hillary may not take this job for purely altruistic reasons. The scenario we see as a possibility is this. Hillary takes the SOS job. Sometime in 2011, Vice President Joe Biden decides not to seek re-election. Obama taps Hillary to be the next VP. Obama/Clinton wins big in 2012. Hillary is ready, willing, and able to run for President in 2016.

Hillary has two choices here --- Be the champion of the long overdue universal health care plan or set herself up for a 2016 run. We believe Hillary wants to be President even more than she wants universal healthcare. Hillary will be 69 right before the 2016 election. That's about the age of Ronald Reagan when he was first elected.

Plus Three Equals Sixty

2008-11-15T13:31:00.000-08:00

Buzz is still crunching numbers at his UNIVAC 3000 in the OVC control center, and the Democrats still have a slight chance of getting the 60 seat majority in the United States Senate. There are three seats still up for grabs --- Alaska, Minnesota, and Georgia. All three seats are currently held by incumbent Republicans. If the Democrats win them all, they will reach sixty seats. OVC believes this is a long shot. We called a 59 seat Democratic majority in our pre-election prediction, and we still stand by that number.

Georgia

Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) failed to garner 50.0 percent, and thus Georgia law requires a runoff between the top two vote getters. Chambliss received 49.8 percent of the vote on November 4th. Democrat Jim Martin received 46.8, and Libertarian candidate Allen Buckley garnered 3.6 percent of the vote. Buckley is out, so Chambliss faces Martin in a December 2nd runoff. The race has attracted national attention, with John McCain stumping for Chambliss this week despite condeming Chambliss' anti Max Cleland ad from 2002. McCain told CNN in 2003 "I'd never seen anything like that ad. Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to the picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield -- it's worse than disgraceful. It's reprehensible."

Martin has asked President-elect Barack Obama to campaign for him. As of today, Obama has not said whether or not he will stump for Martin, however he has ordered that his campaign offices in the state remain open to assist Martin. The special election will not see the turnout numbers we saw on November 4th, so an Obama led get out the vote effort may help Matin significantly. OVC still believes that Chambliss will survive the Martin challenge. We also believe that Obama will make a campaign appearance or two for Martin sometime before the December 2nd runoff.

Minnesota

Norm Coleman (R-MN) holds a slim lead of 206 votes over Democrat Al Franken out of the 2.9 million votes cast. That's a lead of .007 percent. This race is headed to a mandatory recount. Republicans have already begun the "vote fraud" cry, because Coleman's lead has fallen from a little over 700 votes on November 5th to the current 206 vote difference. Look for a long battle and the "attorney full employment" act in Minnesota. The recount begins on Thursday, but will not be completed for a month, according to Minnesota election officials.

OVC expects Franken to win, as we predicted prior to the election. We also predicted this race would be close. For political junkies, recounts are heaven on earth. Buzz and I will keep you up to date.

Alaska

Believe it or not, they still haven't counted all the votes in Alaska eleven days after the election. Incumbent and seven time convicted felon Ted Stevens (R-AK) has a few thousand vote lead on November 5th, but that lead has turned into a thousand plus vote lead for Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich. A recount is a definite, because it only takes 10 voters to petition the state for a recount when a race is this close. We believe Begich will prevail.

If Stevens, the longest serving Republican Senator in history, manages to pull it out, the full Senate will most likely move to expel him. It takes a two-thirds vote, and it is very likely the Democrats will be able to pick up ten votes from the GOP. If this happens, there will be a special election to fill the vacancy, and we will bet dollars to donuts that Governor Sarah Palin will run.

Bottom line. We see the Democrats going two and one in the final contests. That means the new Congress will stand at 41 Republicans, 57 Democrats, and two independents who will caucus with the Democrats. Yes, we believe Joe Lieberman will remain in the Democratic caucus

A Look Back at Our Favorite Phrases

2008-11-12T11:56:00.000-08:00

You betcha! Buzz and I have decided to take a look back at some of our favorite phrases of the 2008 Presidential Election. They are in no particular order. Sarah Palin gave us a bunch, and Tina Fey and SNL gave us a lot more. So let's get mavericky and start this thing.

Maverick, Mavericky, a Couple of Mavericks This was John McCain's calling card, but Sarah Palin took it to a new height. Maverick became the buzz word for many a drinking game. To paraphrase Joe Biden's famous line from a Democratic primary debate, Sarah Palin's sentences consisted of a noun, a verb, and maverick.

Joe the Plumber Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher is the unlicensed plumber from Holland, Ohio, who became McCain's second running mate. Barack Obama encountered "Joe the Plumber" on a campaign stop in Ohio. Joe told Obama he was planning to buy the plumbing business where he worked. He wanted to know how Obama's tax plan would effect him. Obama used the phrase "Spread the Wealth" in his answer to Joe. McCain jumped on this in the 2nd debate and made Joe a part of his campaign. Fox News turned him into a folk hero. Joe hired a publicist and last we heard he was pursuing a country recording contract.

I can see Russia from my House and Putin rears his Head Palin never said these exact words. Tina Fey did on SNL. But when asked about her foreign policy experience, Palin said that "you can see Russia from parts of Alaska." She did however use the phrase "Putin rears his head" when he comes into American airspace.

That One McCain was speaking during the second debate about some legislation and said something to the effect of "guess who voted for that bill." Then pointing to Obama he said, "that one." Buzz and I saw one of our favorite campaign button. It said, "I'm voting for That One, Obama 08"

Spreading the Wealth and Socialism After Joe the Plumber burst onto the national scene, the McCain campaign couldn't get enough of the "spread the wealth" comment. They characterized it as "socialism" and said Obama was a "socialist" because he wanted to "spread the wealth."

Palling Around with Terrorists McCain tried, but with little success to tie Obama to 1960s/1970s terrorist William Ayers. Ayers belonged to a group the Weather Underground and bombed some buildings, including the Pentagon, in the early 1970s. Obama and Ayers served on an educational board in Chicago (funded by former Reagan ambassador Walter Annenberg.) Palin characterized this as "palling around with terrorists. Obama had no association with "a guy from" his "neighborhood besides the board and was eight years old when Ayers was a Weather Underground member. This attack only played with the conservative base, everyone else saw it for the irrelevance that it was.

Three AM Phone Call This is a primary gem. Hillary Clinton tried to say that Obama lacked the experience to take the "3 AM phone call" about some international crisis. Clinton's attack helped her emphasize Obama's thin resume on the national stage. This strategy couldn't be employed by McCain in the general election campaign, because the choice of Palin made this argument hard to make with a straight face.

Clinging to Guns and Religion Obama's only serious blunder was when he referred to rural Pennsylvanians in particular and small town folks in general as "bitter" and "clinging to guns and religion." Obama admitted that his words were poorly chosen. Clinton jumped on this in the primary, and we believe it became the mantra of Sean Hannity, along with Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright, and Socialist. We believe Obama's comments were, perhaps an overarching generalization, but also an accurate social commentary. George W. Bush focused on social issues and ignored everything else when he divided this nation to get re-elected.

Sidekick not a Maverick This was Senator Bob "Cure for Insomnia" Casey's finest moment. When referring to McCain's voting record in the Senate as 90 percent with George Bush, he said, "that's not a Maverick, that's a Sidekick."

This is not an exhaustive list, and we may have some more in the future.

Why Obama Won

2008-11-11T08:09:00.000-08:00

Organization, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and no clear McCain message. These are the major factors in the Obama victory.

Barack Obama had the best ground game we may have ever seen in a Presidential campaign. He built his organization much the same way Howard Dean had done in the 2004 Presidential Primaries ---- through the internet. This organization registered voters in record numbers, they knocked on doors, they made phone calls, they held house parties, and they raised money $5, $10, and $20 at a time. They kept in touch through Obama's version of Myspace (mybarachobama.com).

Obama raised more money than any other candidate in US history. He did this through millions of individual donors. Yes, he had his fair share of max donors ($2300.00 per person,) but the vast majority of his donors gave donations of under $200. Through the October 1, 2008, 3.1 million people had donated to the Obama campaign.

There was a lot of discussion during the primaries that centered on whether or not the long primary campaign against Hillary Clinton would help or hurt Obama. There is now no question that he was helped by that long primary campaign. It allowed Obama to create an organization in every state. That organization was never disbanded, and continued to exist and work all the way through November 4th. It allowed Obama to continue voter registration, continue fundraising, continue making phone calls, continue knocking on doors, and most importantly to get out the vote in early voting and on election day. The extended primary also made Obama grow as a candidate. Hillary threw everything at him, and he withstood the onslaught. It just goes to prove that whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

George W. Bush was also the heavy weight anchor that McCain could never shake. He was a constant thorn in the McCain change mantra. Bush so damaged the Republican brand that he was not part of the McCain effort nor the effort of any major Republican candidate seeking election or re-election. McCain was the GOP's best hope, because he had on occasion broken from Bush or at least had an image of breaking with the President.

George W. Bush left us with a $10 trillion national debt, two never-ending wars, an economy in shambles, a terrible image abroad, and an aura of incompetence not seen since the Grant administration. We do not believe any Republican could have won in that environment.

Sarah Palin. What can we say about her that hasn't already been said. Palin was a train wreck. Although she invigorated the base, she alienated everyone else by her utter lack of knowledge. She was everything they used to say about Obama --- an empty suit. McCain took away one of his strongest arguments against Obama by choosing Palin. McCain's questions on Obama's experience came right back to him with Palin.

After the initial fascination with Palin, she became a serious drag on the ticket. Even conservatives like George Will and David Brooks questioned Palin's readiness. She never attracted the disgruntled Hillary voters, and who besides a deluded conservative ever thought she would. She was the anti-Hillary. She was on the wrong side of almost every issue which Hillary held dear. Her stance on abortion was enough to turn the stomach of mos Hillary supporters.

Finally, we turn to the lack of a coherent message. McCain went from "Obama's a celebrity" to "I'm suspending my campaign" to "Obama's a socialist." Every week, if not every news cycle we saw a reinvention of the McCain campaign. The original message of experience versus inexperience rang hollow with the choice of Palin.

Obama, on the other hand, stayed on-message and appeared calm, cool, and Presidential through it all.

Missed It By THAT Much

2008-11-10T08:35:00.000-08:00

In the words of Maxwell Smart, we "missed it by that much." Last week we gloated over the fact that we had called the electoral and popular vote totals exactly right. It appears that we were one electoral vote off. The final total is Obama 365, McCain 173. We called it Obama 364, McCain 174.

Ok. We know what you're saying. There are no states with one electoral vote. That is true, however, two states split their electoral votes based on Congressional District. Those states are Maine and Nebraska. Maine adopted the split decision law in 1972 and Nebraska followed 24 years later in 1996. Since the change in law, neither state has split its electoral vote.... until now.

Barack Obama had trailed John McCain by 569 votes on Wednesday, but grabbed a 1,260-vote lead in the 2nd Congressional District when early vote totals were added in.

“Today, Nebraska’s 2nd District voters added an Obamaha-shaped exclamation point to Barack Obama’s historic election,” Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) said. “It really is a new day in America when he even picks up an electoral vote in Nebraska.”

The final 5,300 provisional ballots in Douglas County will be considered this week, but those ballots, some of which will be ruled invalid, are not expected to vary much from other Douglas County results favoring Obama. An Obama victory would rack up the first Democratic electoral vote in red-state Nebraska since 1964, when Lyndon Johnson captured the state.

The metropolitan Omaha district is composed of Douglas County and portions of Sarpy County.

Here’s Friday’s unofficial 2nd District count:

• Obama, 134,168.

• McCain, 132,908.

A Nation of Mutts

2008-11-08T06:26:00.000-08:00

The "Mutt in Chief" spoke yesterday in his first news conference since being elected President. When asked a question about what type of dog he would be getting for his daughters, President-elect Barack Obama responded that because Malia, 10, has allergies, the family wants a low-allergy dog. But Obama said they also want to adopt a puppy from an animal shelter, which could make it harder to find a breed that wouldn't aggravate his daughter's problem. "Obviously, a lot of shelter dogs are mutts like me," Obama said with a smile. "So whether we're going to be able to balance those two things, I think, is a pressing issue on the Obama household."

In a press conference which focused primarily on economic issues, Obama's comment added a moment of levity to press conference which began with the entire press corps standing when Obama entered the room. The self-deprecating crack offered an insight into Obama's ability to freely discuss matters of race. It also reminded us of Bill Murray in the 1981 movie Stripes.

In Stripes, Murray is the self-appointed leader of a platoon of misfit soldiers. He gives a pep talk to his fellow basic training com padres, when they face the prospect of having to repeat basic training. He says: "Our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse, the underdog, we're mutts... but there's no animal that's more faithful, that's more loyal, that's more lovable than the mutt."

Some had a problem with Obama's mutt remark. Buzz was listening to the parallel universe that's known as the Steve Corbett show on WILK Radio in the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton area. For three plus hours, Corbett and his "bitter" callers characterized Obama's mutt comment as a racial slur. They were outraged that the President-elect would use such a term.

They missed the point. Obama's use of the word mutt was done in the spirit described in Stripes. A mutt is a lovable, loyal, and faithful dog who doesn't have a pure bred pedigree. It describes Obama exactly. The son of a black Kenyan father and white Kansas mother, he met his father only once, was raised by his single mother and grandparents, and worked his way through college and law school. He is everything George Bush is not. Continuing the dog analogy, Bush was a pure bred, from the finest stock. He was the dog you spent $1500 for from the champion breeder. Obama was the dog you found at the SPCA. Obama knows that and he's proud of it. There's nothing racist about that.

OVC advice to Corbett, to paraphrase Sergeant Hulka from Stripes, "Lighten up, Francis."