http://grassrootspa.com/2010/01/07/gerlach-withdr...

--has the bulk of colloquy and, thus, the reader is invited to fact-check and opinion-validate what is contained herein.
*
Previously, I wrote [to ensure fully-"informed consent"]:
I like Jim; I contributed to his prior Congressional campaign, and I would want to support him to unseat Casey.
BUT…
If he were to renege on his decision to abandon his incumbency, he would be manifesting ego over honor; many GOP’ers would (somewhat reluctantly) mirror my conclusion, and he would damage the very party loyalty that has become profoundly lacking during recent years.
*
I would add that Jim could have announced he was competing for both the Gubernatorial and Congressional seats, but he did not. Therefore, to offer himself suddenly as an alternative in a crowded race would be construed as disingenuous at-best, notwithstanding whatever support he would anticipate receiving as an incumbent.
*
As is readily apparent, I have “max-ed out” for Curt, for he has demonstrated himself to be the true-conservative and 100%-gentleman one would wish all politicians to emulate. He has been a proven-leader for years, forthrightly asserting his beliefs AND “walking the talk” in cutting-edge situations (Card-Check, Med-Mal). Rather than “preaching to [those who should long ago have been] the converted,” I will wade into the current crisis.
Those who are upset with Jim – including myself – would have anticipated his having “telegraphed” the capacity/intent to re-enter the 6th…rather than disrupting heartfelt efforts of his colleagues. Yes, this is part of the rough-and-tumble, but people/resources/$$$ are not to be placed at arm’s length by the power of incumbency.
I note, for example, the “standing-ovation” received by Curt @ the Pennsylvania Conservative Caucus meeting @ Municipal Hall in West Chester, nine days ago. Curt covered all the substantive talking-points in a half-hour…plus the bonus-gate and Perzel-indictment issues…and wowed the (highly-critical, deeply-committed) crowd.
*
I have not discussed many of the issues upon which I might DISAGREE with Curt, with Curt, but this is a classic situation in which the integrity-factor must be factored-in when assessing both the candidate and the platform.
Curt undoubtedly has delayed his decision because he is less concerned with making personal political calculations (as has Jim, noting multiple pre-candidacies in a brief time-period). This perception hurt Jon David Fox in 1992, it may be recalled, with MMM and the D’s [unfairly] portraying him as a rabbit who constantly was running for office. And, in the present situation, Curt must check-back with those who led him to his current level of achievement, prior to deciding what to do.
Having garnered quality endorsements (all state-senators, 7/9 state-reps, Walker, multiple incumbents in Berks, etc.), he must feel a sense of loyalty to the trust they placed in him, and we will trust him to make the best quality decision.
*
Regarding the back-and-forth–and disregarding how people bring personalities/agendae into whatever they might write about a given issue–the fact remains that there is a natural deference that exists towards incumbency. One could conjure scenarios whereby Curt (whose independence is now ensconced within the Perzel-indictment) defers to Jim, and then is the recognized “heir-apparent” when/if (1)–Jim loses, or (2)–Jim wins and runs for Senate [when he cannot compete for two federal positions simultaneously]. One could also conjure scenarios whereby Curt is aggressively bypassed by those who would push a Welch (and “welch” on prior agreements) because he might be more apt to “reward” his benefactors.
Thus, it may boil-down to this: Will Curt attempt to honor his principles and nascent constituency, or will he bide his time and draw-upon brief exposure to the national-spotlight to inform his efforts to maximize the productivity that should exist in Harrisburg?
*
In all probability, Curt will make his decision today. It will not be reflex/obsequious (Cohen/Zelov), it will not be self-serving/politicized, it will not be contingent upon what any of the others choose to do. I would invite serious-minded people to weigh-in via these blogs (publicly) and/or to contact Kyle Whatley (@ his campaign office 610-524-8100).
This is serious business. I will not finance Jim, but I will support him if Curt withdraws. I suspect most others would reflect this sentiment. The GOP must remember that, corrupting Jack Kelly’s quote in Pogo of the 1960′s, “The enemy’s out there!” Anyone who has spoken with Curt for two minutes will have witnessed his open-minded smile, buttressed by adherence to Constitutional principles. At the end of the day, know that he will have made the correct decision for his supporters, constituents (current/future?), and America.

*

I like Jim; I contributed to his prior Congressional campaign, and I would want to support him to unseat Casey.

BUT…

If he were to renege on his decision to abandon his incumbency, he would be manifesting ego over honor; many GOP’ers would (somewhat reluctantly) mirror my conclusion, and he would damage the very party loyalty that has become profoundly lacking during recent years.

*

I would add that Jim could have announced he was competing for both the Gubernatorial and Congressional seats, but he did not. Therefore, to offer himself suddenly as an alternative in a crowded race would be construed as disingenuous at-best, notwithstanding whatever support he would anticipate receiving as an incumbent.

He is the only one that can beat him!

None of Gerlach’s non-Federal money from his aborted Governor’s attempt can be used if he seeks reelection to his Federal Congressional seat.

I think Gerlach is damaged goods, as the GOP will be less united behind him.

On a related note:
Will Sestak abandon his statewide Senate race? (hopefully) And try to retain his Congressional seat after all? (hope not)

While I’m firmly convinced Sestak has too much ego and too little common sense to pull out, I keep hearing people calling for that move or expecting it. It’s a bad rumor and a worse idea.

At dinner this evening, with a very progressive Dem friend of mine in Philly, she said she heard a rumor that Sestak was pulling out to keep his seat. I was VERY clear that I think it’s only a rumor at totally at odds with Sestak’s game plan. However, as a progressive Dem who is also concerned about state politics, she was worried about losing Lentz’s state legislative seat. So, from her perspective (outside the district), it made logical sense to keep both.

If it was true, Meehan would crap his pants (which would be the only upside).

However, I think such a move would set of a bloody civil war given how Lentz and Conner have entered the race, and the work that has been done under the assumptions (and assurances) of Sestak running for Senate. I think this false rumor is undercutting Lentz and Conner’s fundraising (so, I wouldn’t be surprised if the GOP has been spreading the rumor).

Once the petition deadline passes for Sestak to get on any other ballot, this rumor will be exposed as false and the REAL candidates for the 7th should see a boost in their fundraising.

I DO think Sestak should pull out, but then return the money to the donors or distribute among the Dem campaigns and national campaign committees.

BUT…

If he were to renege on his decision to abandon his incumbency, he would be manifesting ego over honor; many GOP’ers would (somewhat reluctantly) mirror my conclusion, and he would damage the very party loyalty that has become profoundly lacking during recent years.