Palin-Obama and Toomey-Specter

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over-and-over . . . and expecting a different result."

I've been a conservative activist since the Goldwater days. But many of my fellow conservatives who are asking us to appeal to the "base" are wildly exaggerating the size of said base. (In the 2008 election, 23% of those voters identifying themselves as "conservative" cast their ballots for . . . Barack Obama.) There may be 10 million very confused "conservatives" out there. People in denial almost always do not win elections.

Right now in my home state of Pennsylvania, the big question is whether conservative Republican U.S. Senate candidate Pat Toomey can beat "moderate" (i.e., liberal) Democrat Arlen Specter in the November 10, 2010 election.

Frankly, most careful observers wouldn't bet even their coffee money on Toomey. Consider: Incumbent Republican -- and uber-conservative -- Rick Santorum spent $26 million in 2006 - and got just over 40% of the vote. Pennsylvania is a Blue state, and it has been getting bluer.

Is there any way Toomey can win? One very thoughtful Republican analyst, Mike Avery, of the Lehigh Valley, thinks there is, and he has many suggestions (see below) for Toomey. Will Pat be wise enough to follow them?

I don't know. What I do know is that Pat is a "coat-tie-and-wing-tips" Republican in a "jeans-tee shirts-and-Reeboks" state. If he focuses laser-like on the base and peddles nothing more than the GOP's version of "old-time religion," he will get about as many votes as . . . Rick Santorum.

Mike Avery believes it doesn't have to be that way. His approach is part of the answer for Toomey, and it should work for other Republican candidates, including my particular favorite, Gov. Sarah Palin.

When the McCain Campaign decided to pull out of Michigan last October, Sarah Palin opposed the decision. She said she and Todd wanted to go into the auto plants and seek votes from the autoworkers. Frankly, she regarded them as "her people" -- something very unsual (but necessary) for a Republican candidate.

McCain thought he could win in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania with the GOP base. That proved to be a fantasy.

The rest is from Mike . . .

If the events of today, April 29, [with Specter becoming a Democrat], don't mobilize Republicans, we might as well as give the keys to the Republican party to the Democrats and get ready to become "subjects" for the rest of our lives.

James Carville has a new book entitled "40 More Years"; the premise is this: Republicans have been so stupid that the Democrats are going to be in power for the next 40 years. Do you "resemble" that remark by Carville, or do you resent it? Speak up!

Let's review today's events: Arlen Specter has become a Democrat. That's a good thing, because now we can beat him twice.

But not the way we are going. GM & Chrysler are now owned by the government and the UAW. This is the beginning of the end of our country unless we start now to fight back.

Attention Pat Toomey: Do you know that truck drivers are Republicans? When have Republican candidates ever made a trip to a truck stop in their "straight talk express" motor-homes? Never, is the answer. Another question: When have Republican candidates ever made a trip to Sturgis, SD, for biker week? Never is the answer. Did you know that bikers are Republicans? You have never thought about it, have you?

So I ask you, Pat Toomey, do you want to win the Senate seat now held by Arlen Specter? If you do, we can help that happen. Put on some jeans and sneakers, and wear a "Pat Toomey for Senate" T-shirt, get into your motor home and start going to truck stops, biker events, into the inner cities and to the outer cities, go to the Wal-Mart parking lots and to the shopping malls, to the church parking lots after services, and anywhere else "street-level" Americans live & congregate.

Right now, we are seeing a Republican Party being led by the same people doing the same thing over & over again expecting a different result each time. It's not going to happen, unless we begin to take in new people with new ideas and then implement them. Think of it this way, the Democrats are just jumping for joy seeing the same old people trying to lead the Republican party... they know it's a win-win for them. And a loss-loss for us.

So, we have nothing to lose by inviting a better class of losers [campaign advisers and activists] to give it a try for us... hey, they might even help us win.Pat, are you going to help change things? Or are you going to be satisfied with losing?

Self-serving [and self-deluding] we lose. Together we can win. -- Mike Avery

Steve adds: How much of Mike's piece do I agree with? Every word. Let's no recapitulate the failures of Rick Santorum. Instead, let's be brutally honest, figure out what's absolutely necessary to prevail . . . and then act like winners.

The Conscience of a Conservative

Me, Myself, and I -- very much "at home" in Beaver County, PA

A liberal reader of mine from eastern PA (I live in western PA) wrote me a long, mostly autobiographical e-mail asking why I -- living in a supposedly semi-distressed area of Beaver County -- believed generally in conservative principles. He (?) also asked me if I voted for GWB and Rick Santorum (our former Republican Senator). I replied at length, focusing mainly on why I oppose Obama and support McCain. In case you've been wondering about similar things, here's my reply:

Did I vote for GWB? Only twice. I think highly of him and his family.

Did I support Rick Santorum? I supported him when he ran the first time in 1994 against Harris Wofford, who was a man of extremely limited talents. I voted for him when he ran against Ron Klink (2000), but I always had problems with Santorum as a person. I can support individuals of various views -- I might vote for Specter in the primary and general election -- but I do want to see in any candidate signs of real affection for our diverse and sometimes irritating fellow human beings. Over the years, I started to see less and less of that in Santorum (whom I know but not really well).

Senator Bob Casey: I don't believe he is a honest man. If he's so ardently pro-life, which I don't for a minute think he is, why did he support the most pro-abortion candidate in American history: Barack Obama? This is not an issue of whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, but rather a question of basic honesty. I didn't like the Santorum-Casey choice, and I wasn't at all surprised when the electorate sent Rick on his way. My wife despises Santorum.

I believe most people can rationalize endlessly when it comes to political choices. I don't do a lot of rationalizing. For example, do you believe Rev. Wright's views really came as a surprise to Barack Obama after he spent 20 years listening to Wright's views? If your answer is "no," then of course you would have trouble voting for Obama (although you might do so).

There, I just screwed up any serenity you might have about voting for Obama. (It's what I do.)

Beaver County: I believe its future over the next generation can be very bright. There is good public transportation in the country and back-and-forth from Pittsburgh. The people here are generally wonderful. I have Black neighbors on both sides of our (modest) house -- we live right across from Ambridge H.S. Everything I need (almost) is within walking distance. It surely isn't suburban, affluent, but for our purposes it's a great place to live.

Members of my family, including two daughters, are like the many people who voted in the Primary, and thus opted for Sen. Clinton. I voted for John McCain in the Republican Primary.

The folks here in small-town Beaver County are not the "bitter" people that Obama described as clinging to religion, guns, racism, and xenophobia. (Yes, those are the people whose votes he now covets.) Obama knows nothing about the people in Beaver County or the many similar counties in PA, OH, IN.

His foreign policy adviser (Samantha Power), the one who called Hillary a "monster," also called the people of Ohio (I mean almost all of them) "obsessed." I don't know exactly what she meant, but I think it was a forerunner of the bitter comments.

Generally, I'd call the "race relations" here in this county very good. They are a whole lot better than what exists in Obama's Chicago area, such as Cicero, which MLK described as the worst he ever saw.

Philosophically, my problem with liberalism is that it preaches collective responsibility while denying the existence of individual responsibility. It's a view that makes no sense. How are we to take care of others if we can't take care of ourselves?

People who absolutely can't take care of themselves should receive help from those who can provide it. My wife has been disabled since 1991, but she does a great job of taking care of herself -- with some assistance from me and a daughter and some from Social Security/Medicare.

Many years ago I had a girlfriend in my single days. She told my mother (an artist and writer), "Oh, Mrs. Maloney, Steve and I will always take care of you." My mother said, "C, I think I'd prefer to take care of myself." The girlfriend was something of a legendary Democratic political figure in the Pittsburgh area. We eventually parted ways.

I haven't answered all your questions, but I've tried to be as candid as I can. Of course, I've also been challenging your beliefs, which is the way I conduct my life. As I suggested earlier, several of the members of my immediate family voted either for Mrs. Clinton or Sen. Obama (in various primaries).

The children are a very diverse group, and that's fine with me.

I spend a whole lot of my time "campaigning" (mostly online) for Senator McCain and others in whom I believe. I very much fear an Obama presidency because of his weakness and self-absorption. I read a while back that 20% of Democrats are rooting for the U.S. to lose the war in Iraq. I believe much of Obama's financial support comes from that group -- Moveon.org and Daily Kos types.

I am going to be writing this week about some of the comments in my "Black Conservatives" group. A big issue there is whether Obama's policies would help or hurt the Black community. I may send you one or two of the pieces I'll be using.

Sometimes policies designed to "help" people end up hurting them unintentionally. For example, the welfare policies of the Great Society ended up providing economic incentives for families to splt up. Thus, we now have twice as many single-mother Black families (percentage basis) as we did a generation ago. Obama alluded to this in his Father's Day speech but didn't seem to grasp exactly what had happened.

As bright as he appears sometimes, Obama is generally clueless about his own country.

As for me: To paraphrase Albert Camus' description of Sisyphus, "one must imagine Steve happy." I hope you and yours also are.

Steve Maloney
Ambridge, PA

THE BATTLE FOR MCCAIN'S SOUL

“We’ve discovered that Barack Obama was not born in a manger.” (Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader)

“This week in the New Republic we have an article comparing him [Obama) to George McGovern.” (Mike Allen, Politico.com)

John McCain speaking about the anti-Obama ad he asked the NC GOP to withdraw: McCain said the ad was described to him: "I didn't see it, and I hope that I don't see it."

I’m looking forward to writing this week about “The Battle for McCain’s Soul.” I’ve become increasingly convinced that John McCain is not being well-served by some of his advisers. Frankly, they are covered by a veil of illusion about the character of their main opponent, Barack Obama, and the nature of the campaign that will be waged against them.

Some weeks ago, Senator McCain went across the aisle to see his presumptive opponent, Barack Obama. McCain reportedly shook Obama’s hand, smiled broadly, and joshed animatedly with the Illinois Senator.

At the time on the campaign trail Senator Obama was saying that McCain wanted to continue the Iraq War for perhaps another hundred years. In terms of the economy, Obama, the Democratic Party, and “independent” left-wing groups were portraying McCain as the Second Coming of Herbert Hoover. Somehow, back-slapping and breeze-shooting didn’t seem quite the proper reactions on McCain’s part.

Unfortunately, John seems to regard the U.S. Senate as a gentleman’s club, something it hasn’t been for at least a generation. In the old gentleman’s club, of course, it would have been proper to give “the distinguished gentleman from Illinois” the benefit of the doubt. McCain does that when he claims, on the Chris Matthew’s “Hardball” show that, although Obama’s San Francisco remarks on small-town Americans (of which I’m one) were “elitist,” although he refuses to characterize the Senator himself as an “elitist.” Good grief.

Frankly, an elitist is someone who makes elitist comments. Barack Obama and his wife, who wants to become First Lady, regularly make such statements – as with Mrs. Obama’s “America in 2008 is a mean place.” As for Obama, he says he “respects Sen. McCain for his [military] service to his country.” Apparently, he has found no other reason to respect the Senator.

In the case of the North Carolina GOP ad, McCain’s actions were not only wrong but irresponsible. He asked the Party to withdraw an ad that was thoroughly appropriate – and he did so without even bothering to see the commercial he was excoriating.

Who “described” the ad to McCain – and who asked him to condemn it and call for its withdrawal? I assume Campaign Manager Rick Davis was involved in the decision. If that’s the case, then McCain should be asking himself if he wouldn’t be better off without Rick Davis.
One of the “narratives” Democrats are going to spin about McCain is that he engages in temper tantrums. Some of the Arizona Senators former colleagues – one being Pennsylvania’s hapless Rick Santorum – are saying that he’s a bully. Heavy-handed actions such as the one directed against the NC GOP reinforce that image.

One other figure in the McCain Campaign is Patrick Hynes, who sends out daily updates about what McCain is doing – and what’s being done to him. Patrick’s updates regularly complains that the national media is “not doing its job” of looking in depth into the Obama campaign. He also notes that Obama is misrepresenting McCain’s stands on the issues.

With all due respect to Patrick, he’s being naïve. In fact, the national media – particularly the New York Times, Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Time, Newsweek, and NBC – see their “job” as advancing the cause of Barack Obama. Seeking fairness from such sources is like Diogenes looking for an honest man.

Is anyone from the above media outlets going to ask the Senator from Illinois if he shares his wife's distaste for and lack of pride in America? Not in this lifetime. Are they going to ask them if his monolithic support from Black people is skewing the primary results? Surely you jest.

The Senator’s hope for basic fairness in coverage lies with the “new media,” such as this blog. If he looks to today’s yellow journalists for support, then he’s looking in all the wrong places. People like Patrick Hynes have to acknowledge that fact and move on.

Also, asking Obama to be more honest in his descriptions of McCain’s issue positions is a request that’s never going to be fulfilled. Obama and his buddies in MoveOn.org look at Senator McCain, an authentic American hero, as a right-wing troglodyte and warmonger. Obama his left-wing supporters are the political heirs of the 1960s radicals who used to chant “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today.”

I don’t believe Senator McCain’s advisors are serving him well. They’re apparently not making clear to him the avalanche of slime Obama and friends are beginning to spew.

Do I know why the Senator and his key aides are taking the positions they are? Of course. The Senator wants to wage an honest and decent effort, one free of “negative” campaigning. They want to return to a kinder, gentler era – perhaps to the 1950s when Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson waged campaigns where there was nary a “discouraging word.”

When a candidate like Obama has major flaws -- in his policies, character, and associations -- it's not inappropriate to point them out. The McCain Campaign shouldn't have to rely almost exclusively on "Saturday Night Live" and "FOX News" to carry the fight against the Democrats. When Obama is behaving in a haughty manner, it's okay to use the "e-word," elitist.

My own advice to Senator McCain is this: understand the nature of the “enemy.” Recognize that when they make false or defamatory statements about you some members of the voting public are going to believe them. Yes, the public generally expresses its disapproval of “negative” campaigning, but in fact negative comments – when they are true – are not gratuitous. If you doubt that, check out how Mrs. Clinton did in Pennsylvania. She "went negative" and won by a huge margin.

In the battle for Senator McCain’s “soul,” it’s essential that the realists win. It’s time to put the padlock on yesteryear’s “Gentleman’s Club.” Otherwise, Obama will end up controlling the campaign agenda – and McCain will end up losing the election.

As usual, comments are always welcome. If any bloggers would like to use all or part of the above material, please be my guests. If you do use it, please give my blog links: http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com or http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com.

OBAMA FAVORS INFANTICIDE (CHILD KILLING)

Barack Obama, in Africa, demonstrating his "Yes we can" solution to the problem of high gasoline prices.

In regard to my blog headline above: unforunately I'm not making it up. The following column which appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer) is by Rick Santorum, who served two terms as a U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania. As many of you know, I disagree with Rick Santorum on a number of issues, but on this matter of "live-birth-abortions," he's right on target. Thanks for visiting. As always, your comments are welcome. I'll write more today on this subject. If you're looking for the photos that tell us a lot about Obama, please scroll down.

The Elephant in the Room:

Obama: A harsh ideologue hidden by a feel-good image
By Rick Santorum

American voters will choose between two candidates this election year.One inspires hope for a brighter, better tomorrow. His rhetoric makes us feel we are, indeed, one nation indivisible - indivisible by ideology or religion, indivisible by race or creed. It is rhetoric of hope and change and possibility. It's inspiring. This candidate can make you just plain feel good to be American.

The other candidate, by contrast, is one of the Senate's fiercest partisans. This senator reflexively sides with the party's extreme wing. There's no record of working with the other side of the aisle. None. It's basically been my way or the highway, combined with a sanctimoniousness that breeds contempt among those on the other side of any issue.

Which of these two candidates should be our next president? The choice is clear, right?

Wrong, because they're both the same man - Barack Obama.

Granted, the first-term Illinois senator's lofty rhetoric of bipartisanship, unity, hope and change makes everyone feel good. But it's becoming increasingly clear that his grand campaign rhetoric does not match his partisan, ideological record.

The nonpartisan National Journal, for example, recently rated Obama the Senate's most liberal member. That's besting some tough competition from orthodox liberals such as Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer.

John McCain's campaign and conservative pundits have listed the numerous times in Obama's short Senate career where he sided with the extremes in his party against broadly supported compromises on issues such as immigration, ethics reform, terrorist surveillance and war funding.

Fighting on the fringe with a handful of liberals is one thing, but consider his position on an issue that passed both houses of Congress unanimously in 2002. That bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

During the partial-birth abortion debate, Congress heard testimony about babies that had survived attempted late-term abortions. Nurses testified that these preterm living, breathing babies were being thrown into medical waste bins to die or being "terminated" outside the womb.

With the baby now completely separated from the mother, it was impossible to argue that the health or life of the mother was in jeopardy by giving her baby appropriate medical treatment. The act simply prohibited the killing of a baby born alive.

To address the concerns of pro-choice lawmakers, the bill included language that said nothing "shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right" of the baby. In other words, the bill wasn't intruding on Roe v. Wade.

Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn't kill a baby who was born? Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL).

Obama, however, is another story. The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee's chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.

Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby.

Infanticide - I wonder if he'll add this to the list of changes in his next victory speech and if the crowd will roar: "Yes, we can."

How could someone possibly justify such a vote? In March 2001, Obama was the sole speaker in opposition to the bill on the floor of the Illinois Senate. He said: "We're saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month child delivered to term. I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal-protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child."

So according to Obama, "they," babies who survive abortions or any other preterm newborns, should be permitted to be killed because giving legal protection to preterm newborns would have the effect of banning all abortions.

Justifying the killing of newborn babies is deeply troubling, but just as striking is his rigid adherence to doctrinaire liberalism. Apparently, the "audacity of hope" is limited only to those babies born at full term and beyond.

Worse, given his support for late-term partial-birth abortions that supporters argued were necessary to end the life of genetically imperfect children, it may be more accurate to say the audacity of hope applies only to those babies born healthy at full term.

Obama's supporters say his rhetoric makes them believe again. Is this the kind of change and leader you believe in?

Here's the link to the Santorum Op Ed: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080228_The_Elephant_in_the_Room__Obama__A_harsh_ideologue_hidden_by_a_feel-good_image.html

Steve says: Hillary Clinton has been making the case that Obama is getting a "free ride" from the media -- that they fail to examine his record carefully and refuse to ask him tough questions. I'm not a big fan of Mrs. Clinton, but on this issue -- as on many others -- the media should be ashamed of themselves. As The Economist magazine recently indicated, Obama is a man associated with soaring rhetoric combined with inaction at times -- and highly questionable activities in other cases.

One question the media need to ask Obama is: why doesn't his support for "universal health care" apply to injured babies gasping for life?

Obama and the Politics of Personal Deceit

Thursday (tomorrow) and Friday I'll be writing about the strange candidacy of Barack Obama, who is running as something of a Democrat moderate always ready "to reach across the aisle." The main problem is that Barack -- the most left-wing of all Senators -- rarely if ever reaches across the aisle, a point made by Rick Santorum in the piece above. As Santorum suggests, Obama is running as two separate personalities.


Obama, along with his wife, who "not proud" of the country that's given them both so much, is a person of great ambition and little accomplishment. John McCain recently asked the following about Obama: whether America will "risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested invading our ally, Pakistan." It is an extremely good question.

A CONSERVATIVE DEATH-WISH?

I sent the following to members of a conservative group on Yahoo. A member of the group was complaining that Nancy Pelosi and friends had bascially gutted spending for the Border Fence designed to keep out illegal immigrants. My response speaks to the current situation, where single-issue conservatives are doing great damage to the conservative cause.

I have been talking on here [in this group] about the practical politics -- the kind that ends in electing good (not necessarily great) people to Congress and passing good (not great) legislation. My impression is that I'm talking to myself.

In 2006, the American people (a large majority of them) voted for candidates who opposed border security and voted against candidates (e.g., George Allen, Rick Santorum) who supported border security. That is called a political reality.

Now, we're reaping the fruits of the 2006 disaster. The Democrats would not be doing what they are if they didn't feel 2008 will be a bigger disaster for Republicans. They're raising twice as much money as we are, which is a very ominous development.

Many of my fellow conservatives have reacted to the situation I described by attacking . . . Republicans! People like John Kyl and Lindsay Graham and John McCain are not the problem. That is obvious to anyone with eyes to see.

In many states (see Santorum mention above) opposition to illegals is NOT a winning issue. In 2006, it wasn't even a winning issue in border states, where the Dems did very well. No Democrat who opposed the fence was defeated in a re-election bid. NONE.

The prevalent notion in this group seems to be that Republicans got beaten becaus4 they weren't "conservative" enough. There is no evidence that point of view is correct.
The way you win on issues is NOT by attacking your political friends. It is by building coaltions of like-minded citizens. It is also by contributing to conservative candidates, something the Republican base has NOT done.

As long as Republicans continue shooting the (Republican) wounded things will go from bad to worse. Ideological fantasies are not going to repair an awful situation.

We conservatives have to stop blustering. We need to wake up and wise up. Otherwise we will have no real say in what our government does.

steve maloney

Schwartz, Murtha Say "Bah Humbug"

John Murtha Showing His Joy at Seeing Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco Oufit

This weekend I'll be writing about political guru Lee Atwater and his political tactics as outlined in John Brady's book Bad Boy. Atwater knew how to get the extra 3-5% that makes the difference between winning and losing an election.

Lee has a way with words. As George H. W. Bush's campaign head in 1988, Atwater said of Michael Dukakis, "I'm going to strip the bark off him." About Dukakis' "furloughing" of a murderer and rapist, Atwater promised, "I'm going to make Willie Horton [the rapist] his running mate."

But my emphasis is going to be on the practical side of Atwater's campaigns. In his early career, Atwater emphasized the use of billboards and, especially, radio spots during drive time. Those are favorites of mine also.

Winning campaigns is not a matter of spending huge amounts of money. If it were, Rick Santorum (who spent $27 million in 2006) would still be the Senator from Pennsylvania. Rick probably spent around $12 million on TV ads, and he might as well have saved his money.

If you're going to one political good deed this December, I suggest that you contribute to William Russell's campaign.

What Do Allyson Schwartz [and John Murtha] have against Christmas?
Posted by Brett Lieberman/The Patriot-News December 12, 2007 16:22PM
Categories: Federal government, Murtha, Schwartz, U.S. House

The Philadelphia Democrat was one of a handful of House members and one of two from Pennsylvania who didn't vote Tuesday night for a resolution that recognized the importance of Christmas, the Christian faith and condemning Christian persecution.

"Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz decided to simply vote 'present' rather than take a stand on such a controversial issue as Christmas," noted Diane Gramley, president of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania.

Speaking of presents, we're wondering why Schwartz was even in the House chamber last night rather than spending time at home with her family spinning the dreidel, eating potato latkes with sour cream and applesauce, and opening gifts during the last night of the Jewish Festival of Lights, aka Hanukkah.

Schwartz is the only Jewish member of the state's House congressional delegation.

Even without Schwartz' vote, the non-binding resolution narrowly passed 372 to 9.

That distinction, or religious tolerance for that matter, didn't matter much to Gramley, who noted all nineteen Pennsylvania House members voted for an equally non-binding resolution in October supporting the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

"Apparently on that day Congresswoman Schwartz did not hesitate to vote for a resolution supporting the religion of the nineteen hijackers of 9/11 who brought down the World Trade Center, flew their airliner/missile into the Pentagon, and caused the death of the crew and passengers of Flight 93 as it crashed into a field outside Shanksville, PA," said a statement from the conservative group.

"I believe there are more Christians in her district than Muslims and they deserve an explanation for her vote last night," said Gramley.

Schwartz's office had no comment this afternoon.

U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown, was the only other Pennsylvanian not to support the Christmas measure and was among 40 members who did not cast votes.