Should GOP Cultivate Black Voters

Should the GOP in 2010 and 2012 spend time and money trying to attract Black voters? If I were forced to give a one-word answer right now, it would be: No.

In 2008, Obama carried 95% of the Black vote. If I had a crystal ball, I'd predict (and be right) that Obama's share of the Black vote will be roughly . . . 95%.

In 2006, three outstanding Black candidates, Lynn Swann in PA, Ken Blackwell in Ohio, and Michael Steele in Maryland, ran for high offices (two for Gov. and one for the U.S. Senate). They ran against white candidates, none of whom was exactly Abraham Lincoln.

How did those fine Black candidates do with Black voters? Very poorly. In PA, Democrat Govenor Rendell paid top-dollar (half-a-million-dollars in Philly alone) to precinct "leaders." Rendell won the Black precincts in Philly by huge margins.

One of my Black friends suggested that the GOP should establish store-front operations in depressed areas, as the liberals have. My question about those store-front operations is this: what exactly have they accomplished for the Black communities?

When Ed Rendell first ran for Governor of Pennsylvania, he touted something known as "The Philadelphia Miracle." Apparently, the miracle was that Philly was still classified as a city.

Consider this: In Philly, the murder rate is off the charts, the schools are in disarray, and the unemployment rate is high. But the good Black folks of Philly go merrily along voting for the same people who put them in their current pickle. Philly is about one-fifth the size of New York, but in 2009 the number of murders in "the city of brotherly love" may top that of the Big Apple.

There are people out there (not enough, though) like Larry Elder, who are willing to speak some hard truths to Black voters. I hope they are successful, but I'm not going to hold my breath. Bill Cosby tried in the last generation, and all he got was a bunch of blank stares.

Yeah, I'm angry at most Black voters. They seem to have to lost touch with reality and essentially offered their votes to the highest bidder. That's bad for America and bad for the communities, because the handouts delay the actions that are necessary to bring about real . . . change.

Pennsylvania: Ominous Signs for Obama

Hillary Clinton giving advice to her door-to-door campaign workers in Philadelphia, April 19: "Well, I think, just knock on the door and say 'She's really nice,' or you could say it another way, 'She's not as bad as you think.'"

"Seventeen percent of Pennsylvania voters said they will either not vote if Mrs. Clinton gets the nomination or will vote for Mr. McCain; 25% said they will do likewise if Mr. Obama wins the nomination." (The Economist, April 26 - May 2, 2008)

If Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, he absolutely must prevail in Pennsylvania -- the nation's sixth largest state -- if he hopes to win the election. But the exit polls in the recent primary show that the Illinois Senator is unlikely to win the Keystone State.

Consider the views of Catholic voters -- about one-third of registered Democrats -- in Pennsylvania. Of the ones who voted in the primary, six-out-of-10 say they'd vote for Obama in the general election. However, more than two-out-of-10 (21%) say they'll vote for John McCain.

Among white voters, almost one-in-six (16%) said that race had an influence on their vote. And of those, nearly one-in-twelve (8%-plus) said they would not vote for Obama in November. When Gov. Ed Rendell make a similar observation months ago, he was condemned as uttering racially insensitive comments. Insensitive? Perhaps. Correct? Absolutely.

In the Pennsylvania exit polls, many Democrats made reference to Obama's "bitter" comments (about people clinging to religion, guns, racism, and xenophobia). Some of those voters joked that they were much too "bitter" ever to vote for Obama. Others, according to The Economist, accused Obama of "clinging" to a religious figure (Rev. Jeremiah Wright) notable for hating America and white people.

Especially in Rust Belt States (including Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, and Michigan), Obama has a real problem attracting white voters. According to the Senator's campaign managers, that's because the the voters don't "know" him. But whose fault is that?

Many Caucasians are evaluating Obama on the principle that you know a man by the company he keeps. As long as that company includes Rev. Wright, terrorist William Ayers, and influence-buyer Tony Rezko, the electorate doesn't like what it sees.

Pennsylvania the Key in 2008

Recently a reporter asked Hillary Clinton about the rumors that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Apprently, her answer was that he's not a Muslim "as far as I know." I doubt Obama called to thank her for that response. "All's fair in love and war."

Note: Within one hour on another blog (http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com/), I got visitors from Canada, Portugal (two), Japan, and Spain, as well as several from the U.S. I have no idea what brought them, but I hope they return often. My main blog is at: http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com/.

Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell, a traditional back-slapping, arm-twisting Philadelphia politician and staunch backer of Senator Hillary Clinton. Rendell is thoroughly corrupt and (of course) a great fundraiser, but on the positive side, he's generally amiable. Who wouldn't be?

"We don't hide from history.... We make history." (John McCain, last night in Dallas)

Pennsylvania seems destined this year to make some history of its own . . .

I started writing today's column, and then the power went out (destroying what I'd written) for two-plus hours. Ah, the wonderful (?) weather of western Pennsylvania in winter. At least, it didn't destroy my capacity for alliteration!

Much to the amazement of most of us who live in Pennsylvania, the April 22 primary here this year will really matter, at least for the Democrats. We are the last big state left that hasn't yet held a primary, although people in Florida (a huge state) and Michigan might disagree. Those two states, stripped of their delegates by the authoritarian national Democratic Party, are in political limbo.

(Oops, the power went out again, proving that this probably isn't my day!)

The Pennsylvania Primary will be an important one. Knowing what I know now, I expect the person who wins a majority of the votes in PA will be Hillary Rodham Clinton. There's no reason she shouldn't do as well here as she did in Ohio. I predicted (see below) that she'd win that state by a comfortable margin, which she did. (I also predicted she'd win Texas by a relatively narrow margin, and she carried that state by almost 100,000 votes out of roughly 2.75 million cast.

(There are problems with the Obama Campaign that even the notoriously clueless media are starting to pick up on. Mrs. Clinton has been attacking him on his thin national security credentials and his shaky views -- whatever they are -- on NAFTA. After taking off like a rocket, Obama shows some signs of falling like a rock. He is not a credible candidate for President, although he may end up with the nomination.)

Since I'm making predictions: I believe the Democratic race will be decided at the convention in Denver. I have a feeling that a significant majority of the Democratic "Super Delegates" are going to discover that Obama is not ready for Prime Time. If that happens, Mrs. Clinton could end up with the nomination. But that's a a long way away . . .

If Pennsylvania will be significant in April, it will be profoundly so in the general election. This is a state that's difficult for Republicans to win -- Gore carried it in 2004 and John Kerry won by a small margin in 2004 -- but it's one that John McCain probably has to win if he's to prevail next November.

Why? Because Ohio, the state that put GWB over the top in 2004, is looking as if it will go for the Democratic candidate (probably Obama). In presidential races that Republicans win, they generally have to carry Ohio. However, that state's generally miserable economy, especially in manufacturing, could put it in the Democratic nominee's column.

Pennsylvania is an unusual state in its politics. Statewide, the Democrats have a big registration edge (about 600,000), but many of the Democrats here -- including those in Beaver County, where I live -- are moderate or even conservative. The state has a huge number of military veterans, many of whom will be attracted to John McCain, who of course is a veteran and a former POW.

The key for Senator Obama will be the Black vote in Philadelphia and, to a lesser extent, in Pittsburgh. The rest of the state -- literally every county other than Allegheny and Philadelphia -- should go for Hillary Clinton. The Governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell, an old-time back room, arm-twisting politician, is strongly behind Senator Clinton, and his support will help her.

Be aware that Gov. Rendell has a big mouth. He said a few weeks ago that a good segment of Pennsylvania white Democrats wouldn't vote for a Black candidate. He's probably right, much as I hate to admit it. Look for Rendell, a Super Delegate, to make other colorful statements in the next seven weeks. He claims he doesn't want the vice-presidential nod, but many of us don't believe that. Ed Rendell's "wants" are boundless.

Much more on Pennsylvania to come.

If you're a real political junkie, buy a copy of Michael Barone's The Almanac of American Politics, 2008 edition. Barone knows a whole lot about Pennsylvania and its unusual politics.

MURTHA: BUYING VOTES IN PENNSYLVANIA

In 2002, Edward Rendell, a candidate for Governor, spent a huge amount of money on his campaign: $42 million. For Election Day "activities," he spent $700,000. Of that money, $450,000 went to Rendell backers in the 66 wards of Philadelphia. (Note: This information comes from The Almanac of American Politics, 2008 edition.)

In Democratic Party tradition, the $450,000 is known as "walking around money." It goes to individuals -- usually in cash -- who are supposedly getting out the vote for the Democrat, Rendell in this case.

Gee, does some of that vast sum of money get spent to pay people to vote for someone like Rendell? Of course it does.

But isn't buying votes illegal? Technically, yes. However, it occurs all over the country, mostly in heavily Democratic areas -- and usually in mostly Black areas.

How did Rendell do in Philadelphia? He won 79% of the vote there. He prevailed statewide by 57% to 43% -- even though he carried only TWO counties outside the Philly metro area. The massive vote for Rendell in Philly obliterated the large vote against him outside his home turf.

How did Philadelphia do under Mayor Rendell? It became the Misery Capital of the U.S., with extremely high rates of poverty, murder, and hopelessness, as well as an educational system in a state of collapse. A man with no sense of irony, Rendell called it "The Philadelphia Miracle."

Does John Murtha buy votes? Surely you jest: of course he does.

In a previous column, I noted that Murtha spent nearly $1.6 million on his campaign in 2004 -- when he was unopposed. He got 100% of the vote.Could he won if he had spent, say, $0? Yes, and he still would have gotten 100% of the votes cast, because there was no one opposing him.

But why would companies, executives, unions, and lobbyists have given him $1.6 million IF HE HAD NO NEED OF THE MONEY?

I regret to inform you that they gave him the money "for services rendered." He designated tax monies -- YOUR tax monies -- to various organizations that rewarded him with his "cut" -- that is, his portion of the tax monies. If you have another explanation, I'd love to hear it. I'd also love to hear Murtha's explanation, although that will not happen in the lifetime of anyone reading this.

In his campaigns, Murtha spends lots of monies on private investigators. Among other tasks, they exert a lot of energy trying to dig up dirt on Murtha's opponents, perhaps including yours truly, but certainly including opposing candidates.

He also sends money to various printers, political hacks, and old friends who make sure Jack Murtha gets re-elected until the time when God in His infinite wisdom "takes him home."

John Murtha is not a candidate who has anything so mundane as a campaign slogan, but if he did, it might be: "You scratch my back; I scratch your back." Or, if he went for just a few words, it could be: "Let's make a deal."

People ask me: "Why on earth would the good people of the 12th District vote for such a corrupt cynic as Murtha?" Many people do so out of habit. Others have given up on politics and don't vote at all -- one reason the 12th has the lowest vote totals in Pennsylvania. Still others are afraid that without Murtha an economically distressed area -- which most of the 12th is -- will collapse and start resembling the economies of Somalia or North Korea.

In fact, the greatest barrier to economic growth in the 12th -- a beautiful area with hardy people -- is Murtha himself. What companies are going to invest in an area where the federal representative and his cronies always have their hands out for "donations?"

Even in Murtha's hometown of Johnstown, the Median Household Income is about half the total for the U.S. as a whole. Population has been declining in Johnstown for 60 years -- it has lost an additional 6% in this century. It has many buildings named after John Murtha and his relatives, but not many local residents actually working in those buildings. The young people get good educations at the University of Pittsburgh-Johnstown and other institutions, but after they graduate, most of them leave to find real jobs.

My bet? That John Murtha will not buy able to buy enough votes this year to win in the 12th congressional district. Lt. Col. Bill Russell is his worst nightmare -- and the best hope for the people in this long-neglected district.


I wrote the following to a (small) conservative group that spends a lot of time deciding the (long) list of Republican candidates they won't vote for. In politics, there's always one candidate who better than the other one, so we vote for the best one -- period.

I usually find out that people unwilling to compromise their "principles" are the ones that really don't have any. Having a bunch of ideological crochets and misinformation is not a sign of principle. There's an old saying that we "all have a right to our own opinions, but we don't have a right to our own facts." So-called principles based on fear and isolation aren't worth a pistachio nut.

I've spent more time than I should talking about the pros (many) and cons (some) of Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and other candidates. My strong impression is that most people know very little about those candidates or their histories. Instead, they have half-baked opinions mostly based on the latest uproars from Michael Savage or Rush Limbaugh, two highly verbal individuals who lack any sort of basic education or ability to look at any issue in a balanced way.


Somebody recently wrote about how young people (ages 18-30) don't matter. I have worked with conservative (mainly Christian) young people on politics for nearly 40 years. We Republicans and conservatives got skunked in 2006 by younger voters voting for Democrats. The young people apparently assumed the Democrats cared about them while we didn't. There's some truth in that assumption.

We conservatives have written off a majority of the American people: Hispanics (legal ones, the largest minority group), Blacks (the second largest minority group), young people, women professionals (teachers, businesswomen, doctors, lawyers, and journalists), gays/lesbians, people who are pro-choice, and on and on. We can't win much of anything (outside Mississippi and Alabama) with that strategy.

I mentioned that Republicans and Democrats had equal numbers in 2004. Now, the Democrats (the liberals!) have a 10-point advantage.

People can say what they want, but shouldn't we be talking about ways to make the Republican Party (or whatever) more competitive? People telling me that voters were disappointed in Republicans so they voted Democratic aren't really helping much. They're essentially saying we should do more of what turned people off in the past. That makes no sense.

We need to be smarter about how we look at politics. We need fewer opinions (mistakenly called "principles") and more facts. We also need to get more in touch with the American people -- and less in touch with people who share our prejudices.