PSF, The '04 Aftermath, Part II & More

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jon Delano <jon.delano () verizon net>
Date: November 24, 2004 6:25:56 AM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: PSF, The '04 Aftermath, Part II & More
Reply-To: Jon Delano <jon.delano () verizon net>

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

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/