While Specter did not want to talk about his primary opponent Joe Sestak, he had plenty to say about his old adversary, Anita Hill. “While Ginny Thomas should not have called Anita Hill’s office at 7 30 in the morning, it was even stupider of Anita Hill to alert the press of the call,” he commented.

Specter is not ready to retire yet. He said, “I am going back for the lame duck Congress to soak the rich and raise tax rates. Don’t ask don’t tell is also a priority.”

Specter had no regrets about leaving the Republican Party and becoming a Democrat. “I was born a Democrat, he stated. “When I decided to run for office, I was forced to run on the Republican ticket because the city Democrat machine was so corrupt they would not consider me. I was still registered as a Democrat at the time.”

The Senator is coy about his future plans. “George Mitchell advised me to take my time in making a decision,” he mentioned. Like many a politician, he is considering becoming a pundit. His outlet of choice was a surprising one. It is the liberal bastion of NPR.

Hours after the polls closed, the nation still didn’t know who would become Pennsylvania’s junior senator, as Republican Pat Toomey and Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak were locked in a back-and-forth duel, a race too close to call.
Finally victorious, Toomey thanked his supporters, of course, but he should have also thanked those most responsible for his success: Philadelphia Democrats.

It was the relatively light turnout in the city that killed Sestak’s candidacy.  Based on the 77,000 vote statewide margin — out of 3.9 million cast — if just one of ten more Philadelphians voted, Sestak’s election would have been a lay-up.

Ironically, the One-Party town of Philadelphia, with virtually no competitive races, led to the demise of the Democratic senate seat. As a matter of fact, the only race that was close involved  incumbent Republican State Representative John Perzel, saddled with an 82-count indictment.

That said, there’s a lesson to be learned for Pat Toomey and all Republicans running statewide, including Presidential candidates: make major inroads in Philadelphia immediately, or suffer the consequences. The Democratic vote in the city always jumps in Presidential election years, as it will in 2012, and 2016 — when Toomey faces the voters again.

*****

Now that the Election Day white noise has subsided, let’s look at the true picture that has emerged from last week’s historic vote.

The Republicans made huge gains all around, especially in Pennsylvania, arguably the epicenter of electoral activity.

Attorney General Tom Corbett trounced Rendell-protégé Dan Onorato by a ten point margin, the seat held by Arlen Specter was flipped by Toomey’s win, and five congressional seats fell into GOP hands.  And the state senate — up until Election Day the ONLY elected Republican body from the Mid-Atlantic north and east of Ohio — is now joined by a GOP dominated statehouse, with Republicans picking up an almost-unfathomable 15 seats to enjoy a 12 seat majority.

So is the Keystone state “red” again, like in 1994, when Republicans controlled the governorship, both U.S. senate seats, all row offices, and had majorities in the state house, senate and congressional delegations?

Not so fast.

Things didn’t work out back then because too many Republicans chose power for the sake of power, and abandoned the platform on which they were elected. Likewise, if the current GOP winners don’t follow through on their campaign promises, they do so at their own peril.

Republicans have usually been an effective minority opposition Party; it’s the governing part where they have had problems. They must avoid taking the position of Robert Redford in The Candidate, when, after he wins his election, famously asks, “What do we do now?”

*****

The GOP would be wise to understand that the election was NOT a mandate for Republicans, as much as it was a protest…a shot across the bow of both Parties.
Voters have grown increasingly irritated with the Business As Usual approach in Washington and Harrisburg, and are demanding their elected officials focus on what the people want, not what some leaders think they need.

The best example of arrogant leadership was when Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama ram-rodded national healthcare legislation through to fruition. While the need for reforming healthcare is universally recognized , it was fourth or fifth on most people’s lists.  After Scott Brown’s victory for Ted Kennedy’s seat, the message was clear: jobs, jobs, jobs.

Despite that, universal healthcare was given priority over the economy. Give Pelosi and Reid credit: they got the job done against the odds, but with SEVERE consequences.

The Republicans would do well to heed that lesson.

The message is clear.  The GOP cannot just be Party of No.  Instead, voters are insisting that they work with Obama and the Democrats, creating solutions to float the sinking economy.

The Catholic vote is a prime example, as it abandoned the Democrats in massive numbers. Just two years ago, Obama (despite his avidly pro-abortion stance) won Catholics 54-44, but this time they voted for the GOP in droves. Some observers estimate that the swing was 34 points.

Voters want the focus to be on the economy.  If Republicans don’t make strides in this regard, their gains will be in jeopardy over the next several years. And they can’t make progress unless they are honestly willing to work with their counterparts.

Where do they agree? For starters, offshore drilling, nuclear power, certain tax cuts, and more teacher accountability. The President made these items part of his agenda this year, only to be met with disdain from the current congressional Republicans, who made no attempt to cooperate on these issues.

So here’s the $64,000 question: will the incoming Republicans give serious effort to getting America back on track, knowing that any achievements will help Obama’s reelection, or will they play partisan politics, trying to turn every word the President utters and every action of the Democratic senate into a campaign sound-bite in two years?

The latter choice is more enticing, since it’s far easier to play politics inside the beltway than actually make tough governing decisions, but it is a slippery slope.
Regardless which path the GOP chooses, it will most certainly make more gains in 2012 based on simple math.  The Democrats must defend 22 seats to the Republicans’ nine, with only four needed to control the senate.

But what then?

Obama will most likely be re-elected, made possible, ironically, by the Republicans gains.  It is very difficult to defeat an incumbent President, only accomplished four times over the last 150 years. In fact, an incumbent has to work very hard to have the voters reject him.  Give them credit — Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush did just that.

Therefore, the Parties will once again be forced to work together — done so effectively when Bill Clinton and the GOP got down to the business of governing — or they will deliberately stand opposed to gain miniscule partisan advantage, all while solving nothing.

If a ship changes course only one degree, over many miles its destination will change dramatically, but trying to steer away from an iceberg only 100 feet away is pointless.
The time for America to safely turn away from the iceberg has almost elapsed.
America is at a crossroads, reeling in unprecedented fashion.  The decisions its leaders make over the next several years will largely determine if it will continue its debt-ridden decline into a second-world nation with a first-world military, or whether its beacon will once again glow brightly as the Shining City on a Hill, the civilized leader in an increasingly chaotic world.

If the choice is Business As Usual, if it’s Robert Redford’s line, if it’s divisive politics at its worst, then it won’t matter which Party rules Washington, because the lights will already have gone out.

And what a wholly avoidable tragedy that would be.

********************

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com
Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris’ recent bestseller “Catastrophe.”
Freind, whose column appears nationally in Newsmax, also serves as a guest commentator on Philadelphia-area talk radio shows, and makes numerous other television and radio appearances, most notably on FOX.  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Will Barack Obama’s properties from 2008 (Twitter, Facebook friends, email list) impact the 2010 midterm race?

update: 4:18 FWIW …

FLOTUS apparently travels with a fashion
assistant, who was originally from Chicago. The assistant forgot the make
up case on the plane and had to run back and get it.

Update: 3:14

Media Watching: Sestak leads Toomey by +4 since 8am. Data is defined by combining and weighing blog, web, & other internet posts. #paelect We’ve been watching our alerts and research for 2 weeks steady. Up until today, the media listening stream has favored Pat Toomey (R).

Update: 2:51

I need to respond to Ben Smith’s story on Politico yesterday. He has a
picture of one campaign brochure that features Joe Sestak less
prominently than Dan Onorato. From this one campaign leaflet, he jumps
to the erroneous conclusion that Sestak is not loved by the Democratic
party.
As someone who has stopped by almost daily the Philadelphia office of
Organizing for America, Obama’s get the vote operation, I can tell you
that the Democratic Party is working v just as hard to elect Sestak to
the Senate as they are to elect Onorato as Governor. Every one of the
thousands phone calls made there every day mentions both candidates.
In addition, I have seen all types of configurations on the campaign
literature and some favor Sestak. Each is designed with a target
audience in mind.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1010/Also_Sestak.html?showall
–
Laura Goldman

————————————————————————————————————–

Update: 1:13 pm

We are using Twitter SEARCH: Twitter ##p2 #tcot #pagov #paelect (We coined #PAelect last year)

@pa2010news Make informed choices in PA. View our archive of the races: Http://YouTube.com/pa2010video Comments? #p2 #tcot #pagov #paelect

We’ve been at it all day so to get the full experience, check in at once at:

… Instant interaction across the political eco-system: http://Twitter.com/pa2010news

… YouTube.com: Campaign video archive – check the facts! – pa2010Video – http://bit.ly/ayQo9Y

… Page: Facebook Page – http://on.fb.me/b8Mrsm

… Group: Facebook Group – http://on.fb.me/d5CzVr

Of course you can email us at press@pa2010.com

We’ll add more to the blog soon.

Benjamin F. Barnett

Publisher

———————-

I heard somebody talking about the upcoming election and they said that neither Tom Corbett or Dan Onorato were qualified to be governor.  In my best Seth Meyers impersonation, all I could think to ask was really?

Much has been made about whether candidates are qualified for elected office over the past few years.  People criticized Barack Obama’s qualifications because he had been a US Senator for less years than Lost had been on the air and then John McCain picked Sarah Palin and his opponents criticized her for being a governor for less time than NHL playoffs normally take to complete.  Naturally, both sides found the attacks of “not qualified” to be simply outrageous.

To put it as unequivocally as possible:  both Dan Onorato and Tom Corbett are qualified to be governor of Pennsylvania.  One may be better prepared, or have better ideas, but both are qualified to be elected.

Also, before I forget to say it, both Joe Sestak and Pat Toomey are qualified to be the next U.S. Senator.

The threshold to be qualified for higher office is extremely low.  While college admissions may demand a minimum SAT score and jobs demand a number of years of experience before they even look at your resume, all you need to be a Governor, Senator, or President is to be old enough and a citizen, and other similarly simple barriers to overcome.  My dad is qualified to be Governor and my neighbor is qualified to be Senator.

The choice in any election isn’t for us to decide if a candidate is qualified for office, but if they are the better option for that office.  A college admissions office might have 5000 applicants for 3000 spots and an employer might have dozens of applicants for one open position.   Meanwhile, in a general election, we only have two, maybe three major candidates for an office.  Even in a primary, the field of candidates might go as high as seven or eight, but not dozens and certainly not thousands.

The two unseen qualifiers really seem to be an ability to raise enough money to be credible and the sheer willingness to run, which has brought some to ask “what normal person would put up with the inane indignities of the electoral process?”  (link:  http://www.slate.com/id/2270651/)  Even committing crimes or being involved in illicit activity is not a disqualifier as seen with the example of David Vitter running and likely winning in Louisiana despite his dalliances with an escort.

People like to expand the question of who is qualified to understanding of issues and personal life experiences.  Howard Dean touted his travels around the world as proof that he was qualified to be President and Mitt Romney touted his past business experience as a qualifier.  George W. Bush’s experience as an oil man was used as a qualifier and a disqualifier in 2000 depending on whether you liked him or hated him (and of course there can never be an in-between in politics.)  People on the left might say that a candidate isn’t qualified for office because they don’t understand the science behind global warming while conservatives may say that a candidate isn’t qualified because they don’t have an adequate understanding of the tax code.

Even with this, I find it hard to see how Corbett and Onorato wouldn’t be considered serious, well-qualified candidates for governor.  One is the state attorney general and the other is the county executive of the second biggest county in the state.

In the end, when somebody says “Candidate X isn’t qualified,” keep in mind that what they likely mean is that they just don’t like the candidate or disagree with their views.

So, with a few weeks left in this election, don’t worry about whether the candidates are qualified for office.  They are.  Just decide who is best prepared, who has the best ideas, and who you think will move the state and country forward.

Then you’ll be a better voter, but no less qualified for the job.

Former Alaska Governor and 2008 vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin took to her usual venue, Facebook, Tuesday to endorse seven Senate candidates including Toomey for those candidates’ opposition to cap and trade legislation. Toomey has also picked up the support of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who stumped for Toomey at a rally in Blue Bell Friday. Giuliani attacked Democratic candidate Joe Sestak’s record as a Representative and tied him to President Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

While Toomey embraced endorsements from Giuliani, former Governor Tom Ridge and former Harrisburg Mayor Stephen Reed (D), he seemed to shy away from Palin’s endorsement. However, both The Hill blog (linked above) and The Philadelphia Daily News report that Toomey seemed non-committal about the Palin endorsement and dodged a question about the former governor’s qualifications to hold office during the debate Wednesday.

The Pennsylvania Democratic Party wasted little time using the Palin endorsement against Toomey. In a press release released a day after the Palin endorsement, party spokesman Mark Nicastre tied Toomey to the more extreme elements of the Republican Party and Tea Party movement:

With his poll numbers tanking, Pat Toomey must be really desperate to roll out the endorsement of Sarah Palin. It just goes to show that Pat Toomey has far more in common with Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell and Sharon Angle than he does with the people of Pennsylvania.

Palin has now endorsed 56 candidates in the 2010 election season.

After trailing for the entire general election campaign, Sestak’s polling numbers have improved in recent weeks, with most polls showing either a statistical dead heat or very narrow leads for Toomey.

Specter will be joining Senators Bob Casey and Chuck Schumer and a reception for Democratic Senate candidate Joe Sestak Monday in the Philadelphia. It will mark one of the only times since their bitter primary that Specter has stumped for Sestak—Specter brought him to a lunch of Senate Democrats shortly after the primary, but hasn’t done any public events.

He voiced his support for Sestak as he conceded on primary night.

The downtown event, first reported by The Philadelphia Jewish Voice, is expected to showcase Specter and his colleagues vouching for Sestak’s bona fides on Israel policy. Republican candidate Pat Toomey is hoping to make significant inroads among suburban Jewish voters, a constituency that long supported Specter.

One more has been added to the schedule, and this one is set to go down Oct. 18. It’ll be aired on the local ABC affiliate in Philadelphia, giving Republican Tom Corbett and Democrat Dan Onorato what could potentially be their biggest debate audience of the campaign.

That debate will come just two days after the candidates have their second debate, a televised one in Pittsburgh.

Meanwhile, there’s been a flurry of outside ad buys in the Senate race recently.

First, there was this latest TV spot from conservative group Crossroads GPS, those guys who just love to hit Democrat Joe Sestak on spending.

Then, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chimed in with its latest ad, which tries to frame Republican Pat Toomey as China-friendly outsourcer of jobs.

And to top it all off, Toomey’s buddies at the Club for Growth have yet another ad of their own taking Sestak to task for stimulus spending.

There’s also a new ad in the 15th Congressional District, where Democratic challenger John Callahan is pushing back against criticism from incumbent republican Charlie Dent that he’s not the budget-balancer he claims to be.

Check it out below.

And last but not least, it appears that Republican Mike Fitzpatrick has snagged an endorsement from a local police union. We haven’t yet seen a release from the Fitzpatrick campaign, but The Inquirer reported that FOP Lodge 5 had made its decision.

As The Inky notes, that’s something of a blow for Congressman Patrick Murphy (D-8), who’s the son of a retired cop and has boasted police support before.

The 30-second spot, which was not released by the campaign but was airing Tuesday night and Wednesday morning in the Philadelphia media market, refers to Toomey as “Pennsylvania’s most right-wing congressman”—a reference to an American Conservative Union rating that has put him to the right of former Senator Rick Santorum.

It goes on to air a clip in which Toomey says “my voting record’s pretty heard to distinguish from Rick Santorum’s,” and reminds viewers that Toomey called Palin “a spectacular governor.” It also airs a clip in which Toomey voices support for outlawing abortion and enacting penalties for doctors who perform them.

With most public polls showing Toomey leading Sestak one month before Election Day and with the race expected to tighten, the new ad underscores a key pillar of Sestak’s strategy: make Toomey unacceptably conservative to Pennsylvanians.

“Pat Toomey,” the ad says, “he’s not on our side.”

See the ad below.

The Muhlenberg College/Morning Call survey released Wednesday showed Republican Tom Corbett holding a 11-point lead over Democrat Dan Onorato in the race for governor, 47 percent to 36 percent. Twelve percent of likely voters are still undecided, and Corbett’s edge is one point smaller when those undecided voters are pressed to say which candidate they are leaning toward.

Republican Pat Toomey, meanwhile, holds a seven-point lead over Democrat Joe Sestak in the Senate race, 45 percent to 38 percent. Fifteen percent of likely voters are undecided, and Toomey’s edge stays at seven points when so-called “leaners” are included.

The results are largely unchanged from Muhlenberg’s poll last month. And while some surveys have showed the race tightening in recent weeks, the results are also consistent with what many public polls have found for months.

The survey of 577 likely voters, conducted Sept. 28 to Oct. 4, had a margin of error of four percent.

Click here to see the poll.

Toomey’s campaign disclosed its fundraising haul about an hour after Democrat Joe Sestak’s campaign said it raised $3.2 million during the period. Toomey has been a potent fundraiser, and his best quarter to date brought the campaign to more than $14 million raised since he started campaigning last spring.

The GOP nominee had been outspending Sestak on TV for the first few months of the general election, but Sestak’s ad buys have picked up steam in recent weeks.

Toomey was always expected to carry a financial advantage into the homestretch, after he avoided a competitive primary while Sestak had to spend millions dispatching Senator Arlen Specter.

But the financial state of the race won’t become clear until campaign finance reports are filed later this month. Neither campaign disclosed its cash-on-hand figures Tuesday.

“I am so appreciative for all the support I have received for my candidacy,” Toomey said in a statement. “As I travel across the state, I meet more and more Pennsylvanians who want to join our campaign in order to bring true change and fiscal sanity to Washington. If I am elected to the U.S. Senate, I intend to do just that.”