Even though Congressional leaders in the House have floated the idea of passing a one-week funding bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rejected the idea Wednesday. Republicans are looking for $40 billion in budget cuts while Democrats are only willing to consider $33 billion in cuts. Democrats also argue that the cuts Republicans are demanding are ideologically driven, pointing to cuts to organizations such as Planned Parenthood and National Public Radio.

If the government does shut down, about 800,000 federal government employees can expect to be furloughed. The shutdown would also stop paychecks to military members, though Sens. Robert P. Casey (D-Pa) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) are the lead sponsors of a bill that would ensure soldiers continue to be paid through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.

Despite all of the potential negative consequences of a government shutdown and the fact that a 1995 shutdown actually cost $1.25 billion, the Tea Party faction has been practically screaming for a shutdown of what they consider a bloated bureaucracy.

With that in mind, here is a rundown on Pennsylvania’s Congressional Delegation stands on a possible shutdown. It is difficult to find any overt support for a government shutdown, though Rep. Lou Barletta is on record saying that his constituents may support a shutdown if that’s what it takes to rein in spending. One common theme is that Republicans (and even one Democrat) blame the Democratic-controlled Senate for not passing a budget last year. In December, Talking Points Memo noted that nine Senate Republicans walked away from their support of an omnibus spending bill that had been negotiated for months.

Senator Robert Casey (D): In addition to his sponsorship of the military pay bill, Casey joined 15 other moderate Democrats in signing a letter to House Speaker John Boehner urging him to avoid a shutdown. The letter calls a shutdown “irresponsible” and notes it would distract from a focus on creating jobs and reducing the debt. It also accuses Republicans of using the possible shutdown to make a political point.

Senator Pat Toomey (R): Toomey told the Allentown Morning Call that a government shutdown is “not okay” and no way to run a government. However, he also blamed the last Congress, of which he was not a part, for its failure to pass a budget on time. Toomey made similar statements in February when Congress was considering a short-term continuing resolution.

Robert Brady (D PA-01): We could not find a definitive statement on the looming shutdown from Brady. He did vote for the latest stop-gap measure that funds the government through April 8. He also supports measures that would devote any unused portion of a member’s Representational Allowance to reducing the deficit.

Chaka Fattah (D PA-02): Fattah posted a link on Facebook and Twitter linking to a poll that shows most Americans don’t want to see a government shutdown. He also wrote a post for the Huffington Post detailing his plan to eliminate the $14.3 trillion national debt in 10 years. He called for a one percent tax on the $445 in transactions that go through the Federal Reserve.

Mike Kelly (R PA-03): Kelly voted in favor of HR 1225, the constitutionally questionable bill that would declare HR 1, the Republican-sponsored budget that would cut $61.5 billion, to be the final bill from Congress should the Senate fail to pass a budget. Kelly blames the Senate for not passing a budget last year. The liberal blogosphere also called Kelly on his claim that a shutdown would not disrupt Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Jason Altmire (D PA-04): The National Republican Congressional Committee attacked Altmire for his comments on Fox News March 31 that Democrats are to blame for not passing a budget on time last year. During a recent town hall meeting, Altmire praised a shift in thinking from spending to cutting, but warned against haphazard cuts.

Glenn “GT” Thompson (R PA-05): Thompson spoke on the House Floor April 5 and blamed the inaction of the Senate for failing to pass a budget and railed about running the government on continuing resolutions. “Even if we all agree a program is efficient and needed, we can’t spend money we don’t have,” he said. He has been clear that a government shutdown would be costly and unproductive. The Center Daily Times reported that 18 Tea Party members protested Thompson’s vote on the March temporary funding bill.

Jim Gerlach (R PA-06): Gerlach also voted for the temporary funding measure and blamed Senate Democrats for not passing a budget. He is not in favor of a shutdown, saying, “Job creators need certainty to start hiring again, not one more countdown to a federal government shutdown.”

Pat Meehan (R PA-07): Meehan held a town hall meeting in March where he argued that a government shutdown would not be beneficial when a resident challenged opponents of the Affordable Care Act to do so. Still, Meehan is in favor of the Republicans’ 2012 spending plan which would cut $6.2 trillion over 10 years but has been largely panned by the left for its cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. He has also released a statement defending his vote to defund NPR.

Michael Fitzpatrick (R PA-08): Fitzpatrick also blamed Senate Democrats for not passing a budget. “The American people and job creators should no longer be held hostage to the Senate’s inaction on the federal budget,” he wrote in a press release. His press release on the Republican budget proposal was less committal than Meehan, urging his constituents to get familiar with the plan and “and be active participants in this national discussion.”

Bill Shuster (R PA-09): A spokesperson for Shuster told the Johnstown Tribune-Democrat that the Congressman hopes to avoid a shutdown. He also posted a video talking about the dangers of increasing federal government spending.

Tom Marino (R PA-10): Marino told the Sunbury Daily Item that Republicans do not want to shut down the government and called on the Senate to pass HR 1. He also posted a message on his Facebook page supporting the proposal to pay soldiers in the event of a shutdown.

Lou Barletta (R PA-11): On March 28, Barletta announced that he would not support any more stop-gap spending measures. “Stringing together short-term continuing resolutions only extends the uncertainty among local and national job creators, and that will slow our economic recovery at home,” he wrote in the press release. He also told the Morning Call that he thinks his constituents want to see the federal government reduce spending and might support a shutdown if that’s what it takes.

Mark Critz (D PA-12): Critz called on Congress to end “the partisan bickering and finalize a responsible budget.” However, if the government would shut down, he is co-sponsoring the House bill that would deny a paycheck to members of Congress. Critz also railed against the Republicans’ spending plan, saying it hurts senior citizens while keeping in place tax cuts for the wealthy and oil company subsidies.

Allyson Schwartz (D PA-13): Schwartz agrees that the government should be making cuts in spending, but has called the proposed Republican spending cuts, “reckless.” She also says that the Republicans’ 2012 budget would not reduce costs, just shift costs to senior citizens.

Mike Doyle (D PA-14): Doyle condemned passage of HR 1, calling it destructive and counterproductive. “Frankly, it’s exactly what I’d expect to see when people who hate government are put in charge of it,” Congressman Doyle wrote in his press release. “They say government is useless and inefficient, and if they get their way, it soon will be.” He also posted a message on Twitter saying that the 2012 Republican budget proposal would “destroy Medicare as we know it.”

Charlie Dent (R PA-15): In his announcement that he voted for the last stop-gap spending measure, Dent said, “To avoid the extremely disruptive impact a shutdown would have on our economy, it was absolutely necessary the House passed an additional short-term Continuing Resolution.” Dent also told the Morning Call that he is worried about a shutdown, particularly if military paychecks are not issued. Dent called the 2012 Republican budget proposal “a serious and sobering document” and said that the Medicare and Medicaid proposals deserve thoughtful review.

Joe Pitts (R PA-16): Pitts voted against the bill in March to fund the government through April 8. He also told The Hill newspaper in March that “more and more” social conservatives are considering not voting for legislation that would defund Planned Parenthood and the Affordable Care Act. On April 1, Pitts wrote about the pressing need to cut spending.

Tim Holden (D PA-17): We could not find any definitive statements from Holden, but he did vote in favor of the latest stop-gap spending measure.

Tim Murphy (R PA-18): Murphy also explicitly blames the Senate Democrats for their failure to pass a budget, but did vote for the latest stop gap measure. In his statement he said, “The time for stalling and half-measures and one-week spending bills has long since passed. The longer we postpone the difficult decisions that have to be made, the worse off we become.” He did, however, join in urging the Senate to continue issuing paychecks to military personnel if the government does shut down.

Todd Platts (R PA-19): Platts told the Gettysburg Times “Our intent is to keep government open.” However, he also blames Senate Democrats for failing to pass a budget. He also sent out a press release in early March discussing the problem of duplicated efforts in the federal budget, noting that eliminating such duplication could save $100 billion.

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.

In a Monmouth University poll released Thursday, Meehan garners 49 percent of likely voters, compared to 45 percent for Lentz. Just seven percent of voters are undecided or prefer another candidate. The survey was the first public poll taken of the open-seat race in suburban Philadelphia, where Meehan, a former U.S. Attorney, and Lentz, a two-term state lawmaker, have been battling fiercely. Both campaigns have long expected a close race.

Despite Meehan’s lead, the results have to be heartening for Lentz and his supporters. He is outperforming the generic congressional ballot in the district, and is nipping at Meehan’s heels despite facing an opponent who was better-known from the start thanks to years as Delaware County District Attorney. Meehan’s lead is just outside the margin of error, and the poll did not include independent candidate Jim Schneller, a conservative who can presumably pull votes from Meehan. If internal Democratic polling echoes the public survey, it’s likely that the party’s congressional campaign committee will invest heavily in the race.

But there’s downside for Lentz, too. Meehan is expected to carry a significant financial advantage into the closing weeks of the race. And while Lentz has already been on TV with relatively modest ad buys for weeks, Meehan has saved his campaign war chest for a media blitz that could eventually swamp Lentz off the airwaves.

Fifty percent of likely voters disapprove of President Obama’s job performance, and both parties are viewed unfavorably by a majority of respondents.

“This district mirrors the national mood,” Monmouth University polling director Patrick Murray said. “Voters are disappointed with the way the country has gone over the past two years and blame both political parties, but they have to choose someone.”

In another finding that could foreshadow some trouble for Democratic Senate candidate Joe Sestak, he is leading Republican rival Pat Toomey by only three points in the 7th, within the margin of error—despite the fact that the survey was taken in the district he represents.

Meehan remains better known, but that gap is not what internal polling demonstrated months ago. Thirty percent of likely voters don’t have an opinion, compared to 37 percent who say the same of Lentz. Meehan enjoys higher favorability ratings, and echoing findings in battleground districts across the country, he has significantly more strength among independent voters. Meehan leads among male voters, while Lentz holds a smaller edge with women.

The survey of 670 likely voters, conducted Oct. 4-6, had a margin of error of 3.8 percent.

Click here to see the poll.

Correction: This article originally misstated President Obama’s approval ratings as reported by the poll. Fifty percent of respondents disapproved of his job performance, and 44 percent approved, not the other way around.

Rendell this week joined the Obama administration in telling liberals to buck up before the midterm elections, and leave their malaise at the door.

“This isn’t about President Obama,” Rendell said late Monday on MSNBC. “It’s about whether the Democratic Party, not perfect, but certainly bent on trying to preserve theories in government and progressive practices, is going to be in charge of the Congress or the Republican Party. And it’s not the Republican Party of old. This is a scary Republican Party.”

To liberals dissatisfied with the president, Rendell had a simple message: “We ought to get over it.”

“If we’ve got some issues with President Obama,” he said, “save them for another day.”

Meanwhile, Republicans are making hay of the fact that Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D-11) isn’t exactly engaging reporters and the larger public with gusto. Like many incumbents, he didn’t do much of the way in town hall meetings over the summer. Now, he’s got the press at arm’s length.

The first indication of this came from The Times-Tribune, which reported the other day that “efforts to interview the congressman this week about the [health care] law were unsuccessful because his re-election campaign declined to make him available. Campaign spokesman Ed Mitchell said allowing one reporter to interview Mr. Kanjorski weekly on issues would require the congressman to take time out of his busy schedule to grant other reporters’ requests to discuss issues.”

In other words, “if we talk to one of you, we’ve got to talk to all of you.”

It’s not exactly an attitude that will endear reporters to any elected official. Then we saw this article in Politico about the “year of the missing candidate.” In it, Kanjorski found enough time to talk with a reporter to say he’s avoiding town halls because he doesn’t want “nuts to hit me with a camera.”

“I’m not going to arm my opponent with a baseball bat,” he said.

And Republican Pat Meehan is playing up his anti-corruption credentials in a new Web video. The 7th District hopeful and former U.S. Attorney has made his days as a crime-fighter a cornerstone of his campaign against Democrat Democrat Bryan Lentz.

With that in mind, the three-and-a-half-minute video serves as something of a mini-documentary of Meehan’s past as a prosecutor, both as U.S. Attorney and Delaware County District Attorney.

The highlight of this, of course, is the corruption case Meehan’s office spearheaded against former state Senator Vince Fumo, now in prison. Meehan resigned as U.S. Attorney before the case went to trial because he was exploring a run for governor. But he got props for moving the case forward at the early stages.

Check out the video below.

Meehan’s campaign decided to skip the Oct. 14 debate hosted by the League of Women Voters after the group said it would allow independent Jim Schneller to participate. Schneller has not been involved in previous debates between Meehan and Democrat Bryan Lentz. He got on the ballot thanks to help from Lentz’s supporters—a fact Meehan’s campaign has used to try and paint him as an illegitimate candidate.

“It is well documented that Jim Schneller got on the ballot thanks to a coordinated effort between Bryan Lentz and his supporters,” Meehan spokeswoman Virginia Davis said. “We’re not going to debate two people who got on the ballot thanks to Democrats.”

The decision by Meehan’s campaign marks the latest Schneller-related flare up in the bitter, suburban Philadelphia race. It is also the second time this cycle that a Republican House candidate in Pennsylvania has voiced trepidation about joining debates with a third-party conservative candidate.

Lentz’s campaign quickly pounced, saying Meehan was avoiding the spotlight after a recent Havertown debate in which Meehan struggled with his public performance.

“Pat Meehan has demonstrated once again that he believes he is entitled to be a Congressman and doesn’t actually have to explain why,” Lentz campaign manager Kevin McTigue said. “Pat Meehan will meet behind closed doors with the extreme Tea Party but he won’t take public questions from groups like the League of Women Voters. It was clear from the Havertown debate that Pat Meehan lacked a basic grasp of his talking points, let alone the issues.”

Meehan’s campaign said it’s “ridiculous” to attribute its decision to his recent debate performances.

“That’s Bryan Lentz trying to make this a charade,” Davis said, “a debate over debates.”

Regardless of the reason, what had initially promised to be a packed debate schedule now will end with a whimper. Meehan’s campaign unilaterally scheduled its own series of debates earlier this year, touting that it had put together an “unprecedented” slate of 10 such events. But several have not materialized, and notwithstanding a possible Chamber of Commerce forum still in the works, it appears that only four debates will have taken place before Election Day in the state’s most competitive House race.

Meehan, who has been the GOP’s fundraising star in Pennsylvania this cycle, said he finished September with more than $1.5 million in the bank. Assuming he begins airing TV ads soon, that number will likely be considerably lower by the time he formally reports the figure later this month. Meehan’s campaign says it has raised more than $2.3 million since he entered the race last fall.

Democrat Bryan Lentz, Meehan’s opponent in the competitive 7th District House race, had not yet released any fundraising tallies early Monday afternoon, and campaign finance reports are not due until Oct. 15. Meehan has enjoyed a steady but not overwhelming financial advantage throughout the campaign. Lentz has already been airing TV ads for a few weeks.

“I am deeply grateful for the tremendous support our campaign has received,” Meehan said in a statement. “This support will help us deliver a strong message of lower taxes, smaller government and our commitment to creating jobs going into Election Day.”

The United Aerospace Workers Local 1069, which represents local Boeing workers, endorsed GOP nominee Pat Meehan during an event in Eddystone Thursday. The union often endorses both Democrats and Republicans, but it was nonetheless a significant get for Meehan during a cycle in which organized labor has more often backed Democratic nominee Bryan Lentz. The group backed Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential election.

“Pat Meehan is going to go to Washington and fight for us, the working people of his district,” union president Mike Patterson said in a statement. “Pat is a man of integrity who will not waiver in his support of our local union members, who will fight for our families, and who will be steadfast in his support of the V-22 and Chinook aircraft that our military men and women rely upon. Our members are proud to support Pat Meehan because we know he will be there to support us.”

The race is currently No. 1 on the pa2010.com Congressional Power Rankings.

Republican Pat Meehan’s campaign criticized Lentz on the matter this week, noting that Lentz made Republican Tom Gannon’s use of a taxpayer funded car an issue before narrowly unseating him in a 2006 run for state House. At the time, Lentz said he wouldn’t use a state car if elected, telling one reporters that “I’ll pay for my own car like everybody else in this district.”

In 2009, Lentz started making use of a taxpayer-funded Ford Escape hybrid—and Meehan’s campaign says that makes Lentz a “hypocrite.”

“Actions speak louder than words, and Bryan Lentz’s tough rhetoric on the campaign trail in 2006 doesn’t match his actions in Harrisburg in 2009,” Meehan campaign manager Bryan Kendro said in a statement Wednesday. “This is just another instance of Lentz saying one thing when he’s searching for votes, but doing something completely different once he’s safely in office.”

In a statement, Lentz campaign manager Kevin McTigue did not deny Lentz’s use of a state car, but tried to turn the focus back on Meehan.

“If Pat Meehan, who has spent the bulk of his professional life on the public payroll and drastically increased the budget of his office while District Attorney, wants to get into a debate on reform, Bryan Lentz is happy to do that and will help find a venue for the discussion,” McTigue said. “The truth is, in his short time in Harrisburg, Bryan Lentz has voted on numerous measures for reform. Surely Pat Meehan isn’t criticizing Bryan for using his existing budget to pay for necessary travel rather than taking reimbursements that would go in his pocket.”

The state’s AFL-CIO rolled out its latest mail pieces Monday, the third week in a row it’s hitting up homes across Pennsylvania. The new mail pieces, targeting Senate candidate Pat Toomey and six GOP House candidates, paint Republican hopefuls as friends of Wall Street who want to outsource American jobs.

They err on at least one count, the same count that has tripped up Democrats for months: As we’ve noted before, signing the Americans for Tax Reform pledge does not automatically make you a supporter of tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas.

Anyway, you can check out all the latest mail pieces for yourself. Click here for the one targeting Toomey. And here are the ones targeting Mike Kelly, Pat Meehan, Mike Fitzpatrick, Tom Marino, Lou Barletta and Tim Burns.

Meanwhile, here comes another surrogate for Democrat Manan Trivedi. Michael Dukakis, that former Massachusetts governor and presidential candidate who looked bad in an Army tanker, is headlining a fundraiser for Trivedi’s 6th District campaign Thursday in Philadelphia. The invitation we got a hold of says it’s going down early in the evening at the fancy Water Works restaurant, with a minimum $100 contribution. Folks on the host committee include prominent Democratic fundraisers Mark Aronchick and Ken Weinstein.

And lastly, the folks over at Democrat Bryan Lentz’s campaign have been having fun with some video from Lentz’s debate last week against Republican Pat Meehan. Maybe we went a little easy on Meehan in our coverage, because friend-of-the-site Bill Bender wrote (accurately) in The Daily News that “Lentz was clearly the superior debater Tuesday, delivering concise answers, while Meehan, sweating heavily, often fell back on generalities and stumbled through his closing statement.”

Anyway, the Lentz folks put together something of a brief highlight reel, modeled off those very memorable “Priceless” MasterCard ads. We’re not sure where Lentz’s people got their cash figures, and they probably won’t match up with campaign finance data—but hey, it’s a fun watch.

Team Meehan wasn’t laughing.

“For weeks now, Bryan Lentz has shown signs of a desperate and panicked candidate,” Meehan campaign spokeswoman Virginia Davis said. “All he is trying to do is distract voters from his support of Nancy Pelosi and the failed policies coming out of Washington.”

Check out the video below.