Sarah Palin Helping PA Candidates

I haven't forgotten about my Pennsylvania congressional races. The tremendous energy in the McCain Campaign -- and his real chance of winning the Keystone State in particular and the overall election in "general" -- have led to some exciting possibilities. Melissa Hart is now a slight favorite in her race against Jason Altmire. Lou Barletta could win handily against his thoroughly corrupt opponent, Paul Kanjorski.

Tom Manion could move a sliver ahead of Patrick Murphy. Candidates like Craig Williams (against Sestak), Toni Gilhooley (against Holden), and even Bill Russell (against the despicable Murtha) have something they didn't before: a chance to win. A lot of the thanks should go to Gov. Sarah Palin. Alaska is nowhere near Pennsylvania, but Gov. Sarah's very near to our hearts. Yeah, she clings to God and guns, family and country -- just like we do.

HILLARY CLINTON TO REPLACE JOE BIDEN?

I've been the main voice on the Internet discussing the story that Hillary Clinton -- early in October, it appears -- would replace Joe Biden on the Democratic ticket. I stand by this revelation because I believe it's true. The Houston Post-Chronicle recently printed a story suggesting such a "V-P Switcheroo" could be coming.

Remember that famous Friday a.m. (look back a couple of weeks) when I said at 2 a.m. that Sen. McCain would name Gov. Sarah Palin as his V-P? Many people, including some good friends, said I "must be mistaken." It must be Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty, right?

At 11 a.m. on Friday when it was clear the not-so-gentle lady from Alaska, Sarah, would get the nod, many members of the media were angry. Why hadn't anyone told them? Well, I told them. My view of the MSM is that it consists mostly of incompetents who couldn't break an egg let alone a real story.

One development you've been hearing little if anything about is the effect Sarah Palin's tremendous popularity is having on congressional races. Because of America's love affair with Sarah, many Obama Democrats are now afraid they will lose their seats. That has added to the desperation in the ranks of the Party's far-left wing.

Many of the members of Congress most worried are those who truly need their "job" and have been on the federal dole for many decades. Outside the comfy halls of Congress, a lot of these low-talent people would essentially be unemployable.

Thus, they despise Sarah Palin because she threatens their livelihoods. So, look for a growing number of calls for Obama to: (1) "get tougher" -- to sling more mud and be more negative than he already is; (2) get rid of Biden and replace him with Senator Clinton (or perhaps even someone else).

I hope all the thousands of bloggers and other onliners who are supporting McCain-Palin will highlight the "Hillary" story. That's exactly what Obama, Axelrod, Brazille, and Dean don't want you to do. Continued discussion will shed light on developments the Obama Campaign would rather spring on Americans at the last moment.

Note: If you start hearing more stories, as we did last week, of Senator Biden's "health issues" (in actuality, he really doesn't have any), you will know the time is drawing nigh for Joe to exit Left.

My predictions for the Oct. 2 V-P debate (if Joe makes it that far)? Sarah will mop the floor with him. His antics and windbag nature will turn off a huge number of women voters. Sarah will continue to look more "presidential" than either Obama or Biden.

In the 1972 presidential election, George McGovern named as his V-P pick Senator Thomas Eagleton (a fine man, by the way). Then, it came out that Eagleton had once undergone electro-shock treatments for depression. Calls came in from Party leaders to get Eagleton off the ticket.Senator McGovern famously said he was behind Eagleton "100% -- no, 1,000 percent."

The next day McGovern dumped Eagleton, replacing him with Sargent Shriver (JFK's brother-in-law).

In November, 1972, McGovern lost 49 states.Keep in mind the date October 5 (three days after the debate) :-)

GOP Candidates: Ferocity, Not Fecklessness

Republicans: get much tougher -- or stop kidding yourself about winning . . .

I'll be putting up a new column this weekend. I've been spending a great deal of time on matters pertaining to Barack H. Obama -- specifically, doing what I can to ensure his defeat. One point I've been emphasizing is the need -- nationally and in congressional races -- for Republican candidates to confront Democrats. I'm talking not only about butting heads HARD with their opponents, but also asking registered Democrats if they really want a Congress that's bent on doing great damage to the country. The failure of Congress over a period of many decades to permit exploring for and producing oil has led to a national crisis. If we re-elect incompetent Democrats, the crisis will get much worse.

It's long past the time when we needed dignified debates about the "issues." When your Democratic opponent is corrupt and irresponsible, it serves no good cause to treat him as if he were FDR or JFK. Also, when people like Jason Altmire, Tim Holden, Patrick Murphy, Allyson Schwartz, Joe Sestak, and Paul Kanjorski are taking positions on the War that endanger the lives of American soldiers, it's time to take off the gloves.

Running a "traditional Republican" campaign -- one with a great deal of timidity disgusied as "dignity" -- is a sure recipe for defeat. Frankly, with four more years -- or eight more years -- of Democratic rule in Washington, the U.S. will be lucky if it's still a country.

Republicans need to campaign not with fecklessness, but with ferocity. If you want the office, then do what it takes to get it! Voters -- even Democrats -- are not entirely robotic. Hit them in the mouth with the truth, and they will wake up and respond effectively.

Don't kid yourselves that your opponents are "good, but misguided individuals>' Misguided they are, but good they're not. They're on a path to wreck the economy and undermine the nation's ability to protect itself.

People who care deeply about this country should visit the following sites and offer your support. If they don't get your support, then get used to a government controlled by Nancy Pelosi and her minions.

http://peoplewithhart.com/
http://gilhooleyforcongress.com/
http://votemanion.com/
http://craigwilliamsforcongress.com/
http://katsforcongress.com/
http://loubarletta.com/

Note: I wrote the following on the "Black Conservatives Group" in response to Howard Deans' comment that the GOP was too white:

I live in Pennsylvania near the Ohio border. In the 2006 election, the Republican candidate for Governor in PA was Lynn Swann who, the last time I looked, was Black. He got 40% of the vote -- and 90$ of those votes (36% of the total) came from white people.

Something very similar happened in Ohio, where African-American Ken Blackwell ran against a white guy (Strickland), who picked up more than four-of-five Black votes. Michael Steele, also a Black man, ran against a white guy for Senate in Maryland. Steele was far the superior candidate and he got a majority of the white votes, but he was buried under votes from the Black community that went to the white guy.

I supported Swann, Blackwell, and Steele because they were better candidates -- and much better men.

In PA, Ed Rendell funneled three-quarters of a million in street money, mainly into Black wards in Philly, Pittsburgh, and Harrisburg -- basically a "dollars-for-votes" scheme. Rendell did very, very well in those communities.

As long as voters -- Black and white -- reject good candidates for bad ones, our politics will remain in a shambles. It's tragic, because it means that in many African-American areas things will NEVER get better -- until and unless people smarten up.

Fat Cat Democarts, Offshore Drilling

"New Jersey Governor John Corzine [Democrat, former Senator, and Obama supporter] doesn't think offshore drilling is the answer to high gas prices." John Roberts, CNN, 12:30 ET)

Of course, John Roberts, being one of CNN's robotic liberals, probably doesn't think so either, as suggested in the cocksure way he made his statement. Don't expect Roberts to throw anything at Corzine other than a steady stream of journalistic softballs.

Frankly, the Democrats are in a terrible bind on gasoline prices. As the material at the end of this piece indicates, Democrats have voted consistently about the production of oil and other forms of energy (including coal and nuclear).

For example, 96% of Republicans have consistely voted to increase refinery capacity, while 97% of Democrats have voted against it. How on God's Green Earth can we produce more gasoline without refineries?

A national commitment to energy production will not immediately cause a significant reduction in gasoline prices. However, it will send a message to energy-producing countries -- and to speculative buyers of high-priced oil contracts -- that the U.S. is finally serious about doing its part in dealing with the energy crisis. We can't depend on people like Hugo Chavez and the various Sheiks of Araby to bail us out of our energy problems.

The Democrats, from Obama on down, have been consistently in bed with what The Economist magazine calls the "hair-shirt crowd." Those are the environmental extremists who believe that we in the U.S. have been "bad" when it comes to energy consumption -- and that therefore we should suffer.

Notice I don't say "they" (the Democrats and their allies) should suffer. Most of them won't, because they're extremely wealthy. If gasoline cost $20 a gallon, it wouldn't put much of a dent in their fortunes.

John Corzine made hundreds of millions of dollars on Wall Street. In fact, Corzine -- like his friend Jay Rockefeller -- spent tens of millions of his own vast fortune to buy his seat in the Senate. Then, these filthy rich individuals spend most of their time in office lecturing the rest of us on our consumption habits.

Ted Kennedy and Jay Rockefeller inherited million of dollars. John Kerry married one of the wealthiest women (Teresa Heinz) in the nation. Senator Diane Feinstein and Representatives Jane Harman and Nancy Pelosi married mega-rich men. In this decade, Hillary Clinton and her husband have made more than $109 million.

OpenSecrets.org provides information about the wealthiest members of Congress. Perhaps to your suprise, most of them are Democrats. http://opensecrets.org/

When such gazillionaires tell us that they "feel our pain" over gas prices, we should be excused for letting out a loud guffaw. When John Corzine was injured last year in a huge SUV going well over the speed limit, he wasn't exactly searching for change to buy a gallon of gasoline.

The Democrats in Congress who vote constantly against energy production are not all as wealthy as the men mentioned. However, they have all have nice big salaries and the best benefits of any legislators in the world. So, when they tell us that they too are hit hard by $4 a gallon gasoline, we should disbelieve them.

I hear today that in one opinion survey Barack Obama has the support of 49% of the American people. I doubt half those people will end up voting for him when they learn that he thinks it's just great if gas prices go much higher. Obama is worth about $5 million. He's not worrying about where his next tank of gas will come from.

Obama -- and his allies in the House and Senate -- don't want us to explore for ans produce more domestic oil and natural gas. They don't want to build non-polluting nuclear facilities. They don't want to expand oil refinery capacity. They especially don't want to develop "clean coal" technology that's vital to Western Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio.

Melissa Hart's 4th district opponent, Jason Altmire, voted for the Democrats' recent weak energy bill. As Melissa noted, the legislation didn't even mention clean-coal technology. In fact, that important form of energy would be a tremendous economic boon in Appalachia. But Altmire still wants coal miners and coal communities to vote for him. Why on earth should they?

Today, on Harrisburg-area radio, candidate Toni Gilhooley, a wonderful woman, blasted her opponent, Tim Holden, for consistently opposing domestic energy initiatives. Holden likes to pretend he's a "moderate," which fools just enough people to give him a safe seat. In Holden's district, people depend on gasoline to get to work and to pursue their livelihoods. Yet Holden's answer is to have them pay higher prices. When on earth would anyone in the 17th district vote for Tim Holden?

Most Democratic voters in Pennsylvania are blissfully unaware that their federal legislators are the primary cause of skyrocketing gas prices. They've forgotten (if they ever knew) that Bill Clinton vetoed legislation that would have alloowed drilling in ANWR

When Republican candidates like Melissa Hart try to inform voters through Op Eds and other communications, the Democrat-leaning media refuses to print or air them. Those papers truly believe "silence is golden" when it comes to telling the truth about the Democrats' culpability.

The Democrats are now trying to pin the blame on someone, anyone -- ranging from the oil companies (forbidden by Democrats to explore or produce), the speculators (who have no control over supply or demand), or even President Bush (who strongly supports domestic production).

Let's face it: the Democrats have put the nation in a real bind. It's time for Pennsylvanians to stop voting for candidates who believe high gas prices are a fit "punishment" for American consumers. Our problems -- unlike most of our oil -- were produced right here at home.

Statistics below deal with how the two Parties have voted over the years on energy:
Congressman Roy Blunt put together these data to highlight the differences between House Republicans and House Democrats on energy policy:

ANWR Exploration
House Republicans: 91% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Coal-to-Liquid
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed

SUMMARY
91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.
86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas .

Republican candidates must hammer home the facts of the energy situation

Deborah Honeycutt: Defeating David Scott

I've been asking if this remarkable woman -- Dr. Deborah Honeycutt -- couldn't possibly be the first Black President -- and the first female President. Her record as an outstanding student, an excellent medical doctor, and a woman of great religious faith suggests she'd be a great one.

Dr. Deborah Travis ("DAnn") Honeycutt, running a tremendous campaign for Congress in Georgia's 13th District.

How does Deborah Honeycutt's campaign relate to the ones in PA and Illinois that I've been emphasizing? I believe all Republican congressional should run in essentially the same way. I sent the follow to the Steve Sauerberg campaign in Illinois -- he's running against the public menace named Dick Durbin.

I agree that candidates should "keep it simple" and focus on issues people really care about, including the Bill of Rights (2d Amendment) and gas prices. The Democrats are incredibly vulnerable on gas prices. The Second Amendment I would present as a matter of people protecting themselves and their families in every legal way. Some of the issues people (including me) thought would be important (Iraq, health care) are not as significant -- at least now -- as most of us thought they would be. In some areas, crime (Dems weak on that) is important. I'm sending a copy of this to a long-time Pennsylvania State Policewoman, Toni Gilhooley, who is running a great campaign for Congress in Harrisburg and surrounding counties. Toni spent 25 years in the PA State Police and her husband spent his adult life working in the same organization as a homicide investigator. They are great, great people. Her opponent is very vulnerable on gas prices/oil production and Toni is showing him no mercy, which I like a lot. I hope as time goes on people like Toni and Dr. Deb Honeycutt will work together, something that's usually unheard of but makes sense this year. Can Toni win? I believe she will win (and as you know, I rarely talk about winning and losing until Election Day). http://gilhooleyforcongress.com. She needs and deserves national support.

I've been speculating that -- just maybe -- Dr. Deborah Honeycutt could end up someday as the first Black female President. You can find the previous column on super-candidate Deborah and her opponent David Scott by scrolling down. The issue this column deals with -- gas prices -- is one every GOP challenger can use to crush his or her opponent.

One of the campaign "strengths" of Deborah Honeycutt's opponent, David Scott, is that he owns an advertising company. He funnels campaign money into it in ways that are at least unethical and probably against House of Representatives' rules. In the 2006, election, Scott effectively used billboard ads on the endless series of highways around Atlanta.

Deborah Honeycutt should also make use of billboards, ones placed as close as possible to Scott's. The billboards should contain a picture of Dr. Honeycutt, and they should refer to Scott (usually a campaign no-no). They should go something like this:

Like $4 a gallon gas?

"Thank" David Scott

He Blocks Domestic Oil Production

Vote Deborah Honeycutt for Congress

Support Sane Gas Prices

Of course, David Scott, being a good (robotic) Pelosi-type Democrat, voted against exploration and drilling in ANWR. Figuring out why he voted that way, representing an area dependent on the auto, boggles the mind.

Which other congressional candidates should use similar billboards? I hope every candidate I'm supporting -- in Pennsylvania, Illinois, and elsewhere -- will put up such ads. Just substitute names like "Altmire," "Holden," and "Murphy" for Scott.

The people who see the ad will be the same ones who just forked out $80-plus to fill up their gas tanks.

Issue #1 everywhere in the U.S. this year is going to be gasoline prices. The Democrats vote against domestic energy production (see below) and so the sky-high gas prices fall directly on their shoulders.


Note, Pennsylvania candidates-on-the-move, with chances to defeat incumbents, include: Melissa Hart (against Altmire), Tom Manion (against Murphy), Toni Gilhooley (against Holden), and Lou Barletta (against Paul Kanjorski). If John McCain carries PA by a large margin, as he should, all four of these candidates could win. They all need your support.

(More on Tuesday)

GA's Deborah Honeycutt: Fundraiser Supreme

Dr. Deborah Honeycutt, candidate for Congress in GA's 13th district, teaching kids about health.

Republican challengers like Melissa Hart, Toni Gilhooley, Tom Manion, Marina Kats, Dana Walsh, Steve Sauerberg, and others know that beating an incumbent Democrat is like drilling through a granite mountain. Dr. Deborah Honeycutt, a congressional candidate in GA's 13th district, apparently has a very big drill.

I posted the material below on Sunday, when most people are not in a blog-reading state of mind. I'll leave it up today and add more material late Monday. If any candidtes wish to speak directly to Dr. Deborah Honeycutt, her phone number at the GA campaign office is: 770-714-4781. Her campaign manager, Michael M. Murphy, ihas teh following email address: mmm@honeycuttforcongress.com.

As you'll read below, Dr. Deborah Honeycutt from suburban Atlanta is a formidable Republican candidate for Congress. If you scroll down see material about her opponent -- David Scott -- you will find that one independent (but left-leaning) group has named him one of the most corrupt members of Congress. Deborah is a tremendous fund-raiser, and all candidates, especially challengers -- can learn from the ways she raises money.

Unfortunately, corruption is common among Democratic members of Congress, especially the Black Caucus, but that doesn't make the crooks easy to beat. If anyone can dislodge Scott (before he's lead off in leg irons), it's Deborah Honeycutt, one of the most remarkable women in the U.S. Keep reading to see how she's going about accomplishing her Herculean task.

And here you probably thought the most corrupt members of the House were either Howard Jefferson (with $90,000 of bribe money in his freezer, or Jack Murtha, who has used your tax dollars to enrich his major campaign contributors. But if you scroll down to the italicized section, you'll find the all-time champion of official corruption, GA Democratic Cong. David Scott, who is opposed by Deborah Honeycutt.

This column and those to follow should have great appeal to Republican congressional candidates (in PA and elsewhere) and their supporters around the nation. It focuses on a particular candidate, Deborah Honeycutt, M.D., who is doing everything right, particularly in fundraising. The following columns will describe how she might do the impossible: defeat an entrenched (and corrupt) Black incumbent congressman in a district that's almost 50% Black and Hispanic. I'll post the column Sunday afternoon (about 2:30 p.m. ET) and added to over the next two days. Please visit -- and tell candidates and their supporters across America that it exists. Thanks.

Dr. Deborah Travis ("DAnn") Honeycutt, GOP candidate for Congress in GA's 13th district, caring for a patient. A challenger facing a strong incumbent (David Scott), Dr. Honeycutt is a model for Republican challengers around the country -- particularly in her tremendous performance in fundraising. It's not even July yet, and Honeycutt apparently has raised well in excess of $2 million -- more than twice as much as her opponent. How did she do it? Read below.

Almost every Republican congressional candidate running against a powerful Democrat incumbent has trouble raising enough money to get his or her message across. Dr. Deborah Honeycutt has no such problem. In 2008, she may generate more contributions than any other GOP candidate for the House. How has she done this?

Do I agree with Dr. Honeycutt, a staunch social conservative, on every issue? Nope -- but then again I don't agree with my wife (a supporter of Sen. Clinton) on everything. But Deborah Honeycutt has a clear outstanding of what's currently wrong with our country -- and how to fix those problems. This graduate of Illinois University Medical School is a thoroughly impressive woman.

In 2006, when she ran against David Scott, a totally self-serving man who votes to raise taxes but often "forgets" to pay his own, Honeycutt amazed the world by raising more than $1.3 million. This year she could conceivably raise more than $4 million.

She lost the 2006 race to Scott (a man who doesn't even live in his district!). According to Michael Barone in The Almanac of American Politics, the main reason for Honeycutt's loss was "lack of name recognition." The hard fact is that if people don't know who you are they're not likely to vote for you. This year, however, name recognition is not going to be a problem for Dr. Deb.

If you go to Open Secrets.org, you'll find fundraising information through March 31. You'll note that Scott has raised a little over $500,000 -- 80% of it from PACs. You'll also note that Honeycutt had raised nearly $1.7 million -- NONE OF IT FROM PACS. If she win the election, she would be the least PAC-tarnished candidate to serve in the last 100 years. (No, not all PACs are corrupt, but most of them are.)

Trust me, if the Political Action Committees were making contributions for "good government," the ethically-challenged and robotically Democratic Scott would have received nothing.

(To examine the fund-raising by Honeycutt and Scott please use the following link: http://opensecrets.org/races/summary.php?cycle=2008&id=GA13 )

Aside from the huge amounts of money Honeycutt has received, you'll find similar situations in relation to PACs with Pennsylvania congressional Republicans -- Melissa Hart, Toni Gilhooley, Tom Manion, Marina Kats, Bill Russell, Craig Williams, and Lou Barletta. The PACs now that these people are superior candidates, but hey, the PAC-men will say, "Business is business." The PACs are buying access (a votes), not character and judgment.

Most incumbents -- take a look at Hart's opponent, Jason Altmire, or Gilhooley's opponent, Tim Holden -- get the vast majority of their money from PACs, (Often, they also get a good chunk oftheir donations from individuals associated with companies linked to the PACs -- as happens with Murtha and Altmire in their vast donations from University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.)

But how does Honeycutt raise huge sums of money? She gets it from individuals who believe in her and the causes she represents. Refreshing, huh?

Honeycutt has raised most of her money through mailings to "values voters" -- social conservatives, the kind of people who strongly supported Mike Huckabee. There are roughly 15 million such voters in the country, and Honeycutt is using her own mailing list and the lists of third-party fundraisers. It's obviously working very well. She's appealing to people who have an inclination to donate and a history of doing so. (That's the same reason I receive a lot of mail requests for money from John McCain and [many] others.)

A lot of Republican challengers have a terrible time raising money. One reason is that they're asking the wrong people. For challengers, the "wrong people" include the vast majority of PACs. The "wrong people" also include individuals, including Republicans, who need political favors from incumbent Democrats.

Is there a flip side to Honeycutt's focus on mailings to values voters? Yes, because to raise big money requires the expenditure of significant sums. Third-parties who have "golden" mailing lists don't provide their services for nothing.

You'll see on OpenSecrets.org that Honeycutt had expenditures by April of $1.5 million. I dearly hope a good part of that spending went for ad buys (TV and radio), as well as billboards. (Her opponent, Scott, owns an ad company and is famous for billboard ads; I'll explain later today how Honeycutt can use billboards AGAINST the "billboard-man.") The Scott-Honeycutt material on OpenSecrets is very worth examining.

Luckily for Honeycutt (although not for the country), Scott has heeded Nancy Pelosi's admonition to vote against all forms of domestic oil production. My suggestion to Deborah is that she might use that fact on her own billboards on the highways in suburban Atlanta. In short, she has Scott dead-to-rights on high gasoline prices, which will be the biggest issue in this year's campaigns.

To my candidate friends in PA, as well as those in Illinois, California, and elsewhere, Honeycutt is woth not just knowing about, but also studying. She is very, very good at what she does. And as you'll read later, she is good at many things other than just raising tons of cash.

P.S. What's the downside to using third-parties to raise funds from groups. If you don't have a strong link to the groups -- as Honeycutt does with evangelicals, the "values voters" -- you probably won't generate a lot of cash. Also, you may have spend one dollar for every two you raise. However, in my modest town of Ambridge, PA, if you give somebody a five-dollar bill and he hands you back a ten-spot, we call that a great deal.

Honeycutt's Opponent Rep. David Scott: Scum-of-the-Earth

Those of you who've read the above about Dr. Honeycutt may be wondering, "Gee, Steve, don't you have anything to say about her opponent, David Scott, the 13th district Congressman from Georgia, who actually lives in Washington, DC?" No, I have nothing nice to say about Scott, who is a step or two below being the scum of the earth. He's a persistent tax-evader and a violator of House rules on campaign finance. Below is the report of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics and Washington, which lists Scott as one of the 22 most members of Congress.

Rep. David Scott (D-GA) is a third-term congressman, representing Georgia’s 13th district. Rep. Scott’s ethics issues stem from allegations of tax evasion and misuse of official resources for political campaign activity.

Tax Evasion

In 2003, Rep. Scott and his wife, Ms. Alfredia Scott, began missing federal income tax payments that now total nearly $154,000 and have failed to pay $23,200 in taxes on their Georgia home. In addition, their company Dayn-Mark Advertising, failed to pay over $4,600 in local and state taxes since 1998. At the same time the Scotts were failing to pay their taxes, they increased their stock holdings from $5,000 to about $67,000 and bought a $702,000 rowhouse in Washington D.C. More than 40 tax liens have been placed against Rep. Scott’s home and business.

Personal, Business and Campaign Finances

Since Rep. Scott’s first congressional bid in 2002, Rep. Scott’s wife, two daughters, his son-in-law and employees of Dayn-Mark have received disbursements from his campaign committee. From 2002 through the July 2007 FEC reporting period, Rep. Scott’s campaign committee paid a total of $124,795.98 to his wife, two daughters and son-in-law, and $491,382.00 to Dayn-Mark Advertising and its employees. Rep. Scott has reimbursed himself $98,952.75 for travel, billboards, and fund-raising expenses. In total, since 2002, Rep. Scott’s committee has disbursed $715,330.17 to his family, business, and himself. The payments to his family and company became larger and more frequent in 2003, around the same time Rep. Scott was falling behind on his taxes.

Rep. Scott, by failing to pay taxes on his home and business and by failing to pay property taxes on his Georgia home may have violated federal and state tax laws.

Misuse of official resources

In July 2007, The Politico reported that a staff member alleged Rep. Scott has misused his federally funded congressional staff and resources to run his political campaigns. The staffer, Robert Merrill, alleged that Rep. Scott had designated certain congressional employees to do only campaign work, that congressional employees often did campaign work on taxpayer time and used government office equipment, that on taxpayer time congressional employees engaged in political work from Rep. Scott’s advertising firm, and that these employees’ absences compromised the productivity of the congressional office.

By using congressional staff to engage in campaign activity on official time and with the use of official resources, Rep. Scott may have violated the prohibition on soliciting political contributions from employees, the prohibition on using appropriated funds for campaign activity, House ethics rules and the regulations of the Committee on House Administration.

Cynical Superdelegates & Hillary's Loss

Note to all visitors (Democrats, Republicans, and Independents): Please go now to the above web site -- http://clintons4mccain.com -- and join as a member. The group's goal? "We will vote for Sen. John McCain not out of anger, not out of spite, but because he is an honorable American who may not speak the most eloquent words, or give the greatest speeches, but when he does speak we can believe him. "

To All Candidates and Their Supporters: On my Hillary Supporters for McCain site (http://hillarysuportersformccain.blogspot.com), I repost Jean Avery's (http://moms4mccain.blogspot.com) interview with Randa from Florida, a lifelong Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton and now strongly backs John McCain. Please read Randa's comments, because they illustrate thoughts and feelings that are widespread among Democrats, especially women. You may be surprised to find out that you have a lot more in common with Democrat Randa, a mother of five, than you do many people on the Republican side. It's a must-read interview.

Oops, as one of the administrators at Clintons for McCain pointed out in a "comment," they don't accept contributions (which I discovered personally). I wish they eventually will accept contributions and play a major role -- perhaps as an independent 527 group -- in the coming election. I strongly recommend that everyone who feel sympathetic to the group (Hillary Supporters now backing McCain) would join and support the members.


[Note: I'll add later today to this column, reposted from http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com/, my national blog. On my http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com/ I have a separate column.]

I'm hoping many members of Clintons for McCain will support Pennsylvania candidates that include: Melissa Hart (4th district), Toni Gilhooley (17th district), Marina Kats (13th district), and Tom Manion (8th district). These individual's opponents all played significant roles in the shafting of Hillary Clinton, who won the Pennsylvania Primary by a huge majority.

Take as an example Manion's opponent Patrick Murphy, a first-term Democrat and a Superdelegate. Last August (!), Murply became one of the first Superdelegages to endorse Barack Obama. He has remained a staunch Obama backer and did everything in his power to ensure that the Illinois Senator won the nomination.

How effectively did Murphy reflect "the will of the voters?" He certainly didn't mirror the popular sentiment in PA, which Hillary won by 9.2%. But what about his own district, the 8th, centered in Southeastern PA" Bucks County? In the Primary, Mrs. Clinton won the vote by 70,253 to 41,791.

That decisive victory apparently impressed Murphy not-at-all. In essence, his motto was "The public be damned."

What about Melissa Hart's opponent, Democratic Superdelegate Jason Altmire? Again, Hillary carried his 4th district by historic majorities. She won my own county (Beaver) by 28,205 to 12,184. She won neighboring Lawrence by 12,581 to 3,349.

Gee, Altmire must have come out enthusiastically for Hillary, right? Surely you jest. On June 5, with Hillarey ready to concede, he told the RepublicanHerald.com that he remained "undeclared" but that he "supported Obama." Say what???

Rep. Tim Holden in Toni Gilhooley's district has earned a place in weasel-doom. Hillary carried his district (Harrisburg and surrounding counties) by a significant margin, but Holden never endorsed her. He also never endorsed Obama.

He now insists that the question of his vote is "moot." He may be the first elected official in history to vote "moot."Supporters of Hillary Clinton (or of anyone) can interpret for themselves what's going on here.

I'm supporting Melissa Hart, Toni Gilhooley, Marina Kats, and Tom Manion because they're superior candidates and superior -- as human beings -- to their Democrat opponents. I hope the people at Clintons for McCain will do the same.

There's a great deal more going wrong in the Democratic Party than merely the cynicism of people like Barack Obama, Howard Dean, Bob Casey, John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi. The shafting of Sen. Clinton is reflective of a political party that's rotten to the core.

GOP: Resurrecting It, Electing Candidates

Please visit the sites of the following outstanding candidates: They need your support, and they absolutely deserve it.

http://johnmccain.com/ (John McCain for President)
http://peoplewithhart.com/ (Melissa Hart, Western PA, 4th CD)
http://katsforcongress.com/ (Marina Kats, Montgomery County, PA, 13th CD)
http://livingstonforcongress.com/ (Michael Livingston, Philadelphia, PA, 2d CD)
http://votemanion.com/ (Tom Manion, Bucks County, PA, 8th CD)
http://gilhooleyforcongress.com/ (Toni Gilhooley, Dauphin County, PA, 17th CD)

The column preceding this one deals with an important concept: a unified, national effort to win the presidency and as many seats as possible in the House and Senate. If you're reading this piece, you're already a part of the national effort. You can advance this cause by going to http://mccainnow.com and joining hundreds of others (soon, thousands) dedicated to resurrecting the GOP.

Please tell your friends, family, and supporters about this web site -- and send them the link. Thanks. For Republican candidates, the people listed above in the opening sentence of this piece are willing to help you to the best of their abilities, which are considerable. If you're a Republican candidate or campaign manager and want such assistance, e-mail me at: TalkTop65@aol.com.

On Marina Kats Against Allyson Schwartz in the 13th District (from Keystone Politics):

13th-Kats could surprise the experts

If you look at it, Marina Kats will be the first real legitimate opponent who could knock Schwartz off in the general election. And remember, this district was created to be able to won by a Republican back in 2002.Allsyson Schwartz faced a Melissa Brown in 2004 who had spent all her money in a brusing primary and having lots of negative publicity from the media for using the Section 8 issue in 2002.And then last time, well the guy with the two DUI’s riding an elephant, that wasn’t much.Kats has the succssful American Dream story, the outsider label which will help this cycle and don’t forget her Russian community connections which will be real big in Phila.Might be much more interesting than most people think it will at the moment.

http://www.keystonepolitics.com/blog/mr-stuart/13thkats-could-surprise-experts

Note: I continue to believe that Republican congressional candidates should seek out the backing of those who supported Mrs. Clinton in the primary. As the following comments from my national blog indicates, the much discussed Obama-Clinton ticket is unworkable:

The pundits last night didn't really "interpret" Mrs. Clinton's "concession speech" (more properly, her "non-concession speech"). Instead, they mainly had a befuddled look on their faces. Some wondered if she was not perhaps launching the first shot in her 2012 campaign for the presidency. (I suggested that the next presidential election -- the one after this year's -- might end up pitting Senator Clinton on the Democratic side against Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for the Republicans. (In this scenario, President John McCain would have -- as we said in business -- "elected to take early retirement.")

Of course, the major question the Senator left is whether she wants (expects?) the vice presidential nod. CNN"s David Gergen suggested that Mrs. Clinton seemed to be indicating that she wanted Senator Obama to agree to some sort of "coalition" government -- or perhaps a co-presidency. On that point, what about a "troika," that would have three equal parts: Barack, Hillary, and -- of course -- Bill?


The problem with Hillary as a vice-presidential nominee is this: she has supplied the Republicans with all sorts of ammunition. Famously, she once said, "I have a lifetime of experience; Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience; Senator Obama has a speech [against the Iraq War] that he delivered in 2002." When Obama runs against McCain, he will hear those words used in ads -- again and again and again.

Mrs. Clinton's slogan in her campaign was "Ready on Day 1." She has implied that John McCain would also be ready to serve as President on Day 1. Of course, her words mean that Obama would NOT be ready. If she thought the Illinois Senator had the appropriate seasoning (and as Prince Hamlet said, "The readiness is all"), then her slogan would have made no sense.

Bill Clinton said on June 2 that the Obama campaign was "sliming" his wife. Again, if Hillary Clinton accepts (the proper word may be "seizes") the vice-presidential nod, Bill Clinton's words just might ring throughout the fall campaign. The former President indicated that Obama is relying on "surrogates" to hurl mud at his wife.


Are Hillary and Bill Clinton really ready to mend fences with Obama? Are they willing to say, in essence, "all is forgiven, Barack. We really didn't mean all those nasty things we said about you." Is this to be a ticket that contains a undertone of the following: "It's true that I said Barack wouldn't be ready on day 1; however, since he will have me with him (in the White House? perhaps the Lincoln Bedroom? the Oval Office couch?), he won't have to worry about not being quite ready for prime time."

And what would the presence of Mrs. Clinton on the ticket do to Obama's seminal message of change? In fact, the "Billary" triplex would be a continuing reminder of the ghosts of American politics past. Barack would learn that it's impossible to fire a vice-president (or a former President).For Senator McCain, campaigning against an Obama-Clinton team might not be the daunting task it appeared to be yesterday.

The Republican message -- one of them -- is going to highlight Obama's unsuitability for the highest office. And the main "spokesperson" for that position might not be John McCain, but rather Hillary Clinton -- with occasional assists from her husband.

Let the games begin!

Expanding Circles: Winning Congressional Campaigns

How Does a Republican Challenger Beat a Strong Democratic Incumbent?

Toni Gilhooley, Republican candidate for Congress in PA’s 17th Congressional District, served as a member of the PA State Police for 25 years. Her husband, William, served in the same organization as a homicide investigator. When talking about investigations, William says they are exercises in “expanding the circle.”

What he means by that is that his work began with a small circle – consisting of things like a crime scene, some relevant clues, perhaps a few witnesses, and perhaps a suspect (or “person of interest”) or two. Solving the crime meant building on the small circle, seeking out more details and people to bring the case to a good conclusion. In another words, it was necessary investigators to build bigger circles in order to solve the crime in a way that would result in a successful prosecution.

Politics functions in much the same way. A candidate starts out with a handful of staff members, a relatively modest group of strong supporters, as well as a small list of donors. In fact, many potential donors are afraid to contribute, because they fear the wrath of the incumbent. Other people who hesitate to donate would rather not back someone they perceive as a loser.

If an incumbent is to win, he or she must expand the circle. They must get more people to support them – and that, by itself, should lead to an increased number of contributions. Get a bandwagon-effect going, and you’ll be surprised by how many people start jumping aboard. Become everybody’s “favorite underdog” and you’ll soon start looking like the “overdog.”

As a candidate, you need to get supporters to reach out to friends, neighbors, and family members . . . and turn them into new supporters. The way to get support is to ask for it – or, perhaps, to get someone else to ask for it. Get one supporter to attract 10 others – and then ask the ten “newbies” to do the same.

Tell them how to do it (face-to-face, phone, or e-mail) and ask everyone who gets involved to “expand the circle.” Thus, ask people for their support – and get them to do the same with others. (If they send out e-mails to friends and families, ask them to copy you. Explain that the friends will receive exactly ONE e-mail from you thanking them for their consideration and asking them to visit your web site.)

Tell supporters exactly what kind of action – by them and others – is necessary for you to win. Explain also how you do need contributions – small, medium, or large – to get your message out. Point out to people of modest means that small contributions are welcome – and extremely helpful.

Everyone has an e-mail list. I have one with 500-plus activists nationwide, and it grows every bay. If people have a list with 10-20-30 or more people on it, send out e-mails that say, for example, “I met Toni Gilhooley, candidate for the 17th district seat in Congress. She spent 25 years working for the PA State Police, and her husband did the same.

“Toni’s a terrific candidate who’s really in touch with the views and needs of people in our area. I’d like to urge you to look into Toni’s candidacy and support her in any way you can. You can find out about her campaign at: http://gilhooleyforcongress.com/. Thanks for any help you can give Toni. I hope you’ll let your friends and family members know about her candidacy.”

Ideally, about 25,000 such e-mails and/or phone calls (and maybe more) would go out. Perhaps 8,000 of the people contacted would go to Toni’s web site, and roughly 400-600 would make donations. (There should be a bang-up video appeal for funds on the web site.)

Ask for votes. Ask for support (and give some specifics about what “support” means). And ask for money. And keep mentioning your web site.

If you as a candidate keep extending your “circles,” at some point a large segment of people in your district will vote for you on Election Day. But the key is explaining to audiences, large and small, exactly how they can help you to win your uphill battle against the incumbent.

On Monday, I’m going to use a football analogy – you can’t go wrong with football stories in Pennsylvania – to show exactly how a big underdog won a very important game. The team did so by figuring out exactly what they had to accomplish to win – and then went ahead and did it.

Right now, I’m one of the few people that believes Melissa Hart. (4th CD), Toni Gilhooley (17th CD), and Marina Kats (13th CD), and a few others (like Tom Manion, 8th CC) can win. They’re running against heavily financed incumbents who will do anything necessary to prevail.

I believe Melissa, Toni, Marina, and Tom can win – if they do everything right. Most importantly, they have to keep expanding those circles.

http://gilhooleyforcongress.com/
http://peoplewithhart.com/
http://katsforcongress.com/
http://votemanion.com/.
http://votemanion.com/
http://craigwilliamsforcongress.com/

All of these candidates are opposing well-financed incumbents.

Here's the key: The people who volunteer to help -- and actually do so, by putting up yard signs or going door-to-door -- are the most likely to recruit others who will help. The people who donate are most likely to know others who will do the same. Strength builds on strength. If someone contributes $200 or more, ask them if they'd like to serve on the Finance Committee. If someone contributes $2300, make them one of the co-chairs of the Finance Committee. Have frequent meetings with the entire Committee. Every dollar you spend should be getting you votes.

Toni Gihooley, Mike Livingston: Heroes

See Toni Gilhooley's important press release at the bottom of today's colum . . . Also, please visit my national blog (http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com) for a piece on why John McCain should choose Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his V-P running mate.

This weekend I'll start writing about Michael Livingston's fascinating race in Pennsylvania's 2d congressional district (Philadelphia west of Broad St.). Mike is running a smart campaign that's an essential step in beginning to change the political realities in his district. Every two years in that district the voters turn out en masse for Democrat Chaka Fattah and every two years absolutely nothing changes in the district. The educational system remains in a shambles, the crime rate is at totally unacceptable levels, and the poverty level (nearly 30%) continues at an alarming rate. Mike Livingston's campaign is a public service. He reminds me of the radio program many years ago featuring Father Keller of The Christophers group. He said, "It is better to light one little candle than to curse the darkness." In this year's race, Mike will light many candles, and he will bring hope to a district riddled with hopelessness.

The following bio will appear, perhaps with some minor edits, on Wikipedia.com, the world's most-used encyclopedia. Any Republican congressional candidates who would like help appearing on Wikipedia should contact me: TalkTop65@aol.com.

TONI GILHOOLEY
Antoinette “Toni” Gilhooley is running as a Republican candidate for the U.S. Congress seat in Pennsylvania’s 17th District. Her opponent in 2008 is Democratic Representative Tim Holden. Her web site is: http://gilhooleyforcongress.com/.

Toni was born in Steelton, Pennsylvania. She was raised in what she calls “a working class family that valued hard work, courage, and perseverance.”

Married to William M. Gilhooley, a retired Pennsylvania State Police Lieutenant, Toni and her husband are the grandparents of twin girls. She and William reside in Lower Paxton Township.

During her 25-year career as an officer with the Pennsylvania State Police, Toni was honored by the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence for her work with victims of abuse. She also served as a Peer Support Officer, assisting her fellow officers with various personal issues.

In retirement, she continues to work as a Peer Support Officer. In that role, she assists municipal police departments throughout central Pennsylvania and around the state.

She also has served a Victim Advocate and is a member of Dauphin County’s Domestic Violence Task Force.

Following Toni’s retirement from the State Police, Governor Mark Schweiker appointed her to serve as a Commissioner and Assistant Secretary on Pennsylvania’s Human Relations Commission.

Serving as a nationally certified Employee Assistance Professional, Toni has provided support and counseling to people in both the public and private sectors.

She has been involved in numerous business organizations, including: Central PA Association of Female Executives, the Business and Professional Women of Pennsylvania (where she served as State Legislation Chair), PA Association of Retired Employees, and the Dauphin County Council of Republican Women (where she served as President)

Toni is a member of PA State Troopers Retirees Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the National Rifle Association.

Regarding her run for the 17th district Congressional seat, she says: “I’ve spent my entire adult life in service to the people of the Commonwealth, and this effort is a continuation of my earlier efforts.” She adds, “I will campaign very hard, and with the support of my fellow Pennsylvanians and Americans, I expect to win.”

My thoughts: The 17th district, or any district in the U.S., would be lucky to have someone like Toni representing it in the U.S. Congress. (See Toni's press release below . . .)


TIM HOLDEN ADMITS THAT READING BILLS IS NOT WORTH HIS TIME

In an article dated May 23, 2008, by Ben Wolfgang of the Pottsville Republican & Herald, Tim Holden admits that he did not read the Farm Bill and that he does not read any other bill that crosses his desk.

Article quote:“When asked if representatives had read the 800-page bill, Holden said ‘No. Not any bill.’” Read full article >>

Toni Gilhooley, Tim Holden’s November opponent for the 17th Congressional District seat, said, “Tim Holden is apparently part of the problem in Washington. He admits that he hasn’t read legislation that is being passed. If we’re not paying Tim Holden to know what’s in congressional legislation and to vote responsibly, what are taxpayers paying him to do? If members of Congress aren’t even reading bills, why are they passing them? District 17 taxpayers deserve better.”

Republicans Can Win in Pennsylvania

Note: Someone asked me why I was leaving out Craig Williams, a fine GOP candidate for Congress in the 7th District (against Joe Sestak). I've had Craig's link up, and I'll begin discussing his race soon. In the meantime, I invite you to visit Craig's site at: http://craigwilliamsforcongress.com. Like so many Republicans in PA, Craig is in a tough race. If McCain does very well in PA, Craig has a great chance to win. In 2004, the Republican candidate won the district by 62,000 votes.

Note: John McCain's choice for a running-mate could very influence many races, including those in Pennsylvania. I strongly urge him to name Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska. I explain why she is the best choice on: http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com/ & http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com/. Sarah, a life member of the NRA, is particulary attractive to PA voters.

Later today (Thursday), I'll post additional material on this blog, mainly about the education issue (see the column below). For Republican candidates like Hart, Gilhooley, Kats, and Manion to win, they need to get across the point that they know how to solve the nation's problems -- and their opponents (all incumbent Democrats) don't. If the incumbents had a clue on how to deal effectively with issues like education, crime, and health care, presumably they would have done so. They haven't, and thus they don't deserve re-election. (In the case of Michael Livingston, his chances of winning against Democrat Chaka Fattah are from all appearances slim, largely because of the racial make-up of his Philadelphia district. However, he's effectively begun a process that will lead to his getting many more votes -- in the tens of thousands -- than any other Republican ever has in the 2d. My estimate is that Michael might have more "secret supporters" than any candidate in the nation.) All these candidates I've highlighted truly deserve your support.

This weekend I'll discuss Livingston's recent press releases, which have implications for all Republican congressional candidates in PA. "If you build a small army of dedicated volunteers, you win. If you don't, well, there's always 2010 or 2012." By October of this year, I expect Hart, Gilhooley, Manion, and Kats all will have gone above 45% (the tipping point) in polls. If they do so, there's a good chance most (or all) of them will win.

How Underdog Candidates Can Win

On my always-fun Hillary site (click), I write often about Democratic politics. I do so in a respectful way, except perhaps when it comes to Obama, who's a total sad-sack. At times, he makes Rev. Wright look good by comparison. When I started the Hillary site, I did wonder if I'd have enough to write about, but that hasn't been a problem. Here's what I'll be writing about there over the next 7-10 days: (1) Will Hillary sit the Election Out? (2) Why are the Clinton's long-time political allies deserting her? (3) Why did John Edwards endorse Barack Obama? (Hint: can you say vice-presidency?) (4) Why have Black voters deserted the wife of the man who used to be called "The first Black President?" (5) Why might Obama's almost-total lock on the Black vote actually hurt him in the General Election? (6) Why is the date May 31 critical to Hillary's future and her attitudes about supporting Obama? (And if it's okay for almost all Blacks to vote for a Black person, why isn't it okay for most whites to vote for a Caucasian?) I guarantee your favorite cable network (even the "sainted" FOX) won't be dealing with these issues. Come visit, okay?

To new visitors, and there will be many coming in over the next six-eight weeks, thanks for coming. I'm trying to bring this blog to the attention of 500 or so Pennsylvanian movers-and-shakers, so that it might have a real influence on the campaigns. I'm also asking my friends on BlogTalkRadio -- and I have many such friends -- to invite the candidates supported here to appear on various radio shows. I want to do my part to make the candidates famous (and for more than "15 minutes"). If you visit here regularly, tell your friends and family members that I exist! I believe that Patrick Murphy (see below) is sorry that I exist, but you can't please everybody.

Be sure to visit Tom Manion's site -- and offer him your support.

This blog exists to generate support for John McCain and several outstanding congressional candidates in the battleground state of Pennsylvania. Except on rare occasions, I won't be providing juicy tidbits (the pseudo "breaking news" you find on some blogs and in the media generally). Instead, the emphasis here will be on strategies and tactics needed for victory.

I'm focusing on several candidates: Tom Manion (8th district, Bucks County area), Melissa Hart (4th district, west and north of Pittsburgh), Toni Gilhooley (17th district, Harrisburg and points east), Marina Kats (13th district, Northeast Philly and Montgomery County), and Mike Livingston (Philly west of Broad St.).

All these candidates, with the possible exception of Hart, are big underdogs. Their Democrat opponent have now -- and will have -- a lot more money. As sitting members of Congress, the Democrats can hand out political "goodies" in the form of earmarks, basically handouts designed to buy votes.

My emphasis -- like the candidates' -- will be on winning. In the Bible, we read that the race doesn't always go to the "swift," but in politics the race usually goes to the hardest worker.

The way is to win is to confront as many voters as possible face-to-face. Ask enough people directly for their votes -- and, concurrently, for their money -- and you can win.

Yesterday, I received the following information from Melissa Hart's campaign:

Door Knocking with Melissa

Melissa has been out going door-to-door around the District. So far, she has been to Beaver, Plum and West Deer. The response has been great and Melissa is really enjoying hearing what is on the minds of people in the 4th District.

Let us know if you would like to join Melissa or can help get a group of volunteers together in your area.

Email Alicia@peoplewithhart.com or call the office 724-779-4750

If you live in the 4th district -- or nearby -- send Alicia an e-mail or give her a call.

Good for Melissa Hart, campaign manager Alicia Collins, and the many campaign supporters. If they knock on enough doors -- and I believe they will -- Melissa Hart can win against incumbent Jason Altmire. It's that simple.

Again, this site can play a significant role in the victories of some fine candidates. You can help by bring this site to the attention of friends and your local media, including the weekly papers that play such a big role in smaller communities. Thanks for your help!

Pennsylvania Congressional Candidates: Listen Up!

One of the main purposes of this blog is to have a continuing dialogue with the various Republican congressional candidates and their supporters. The key for Republicans confronting Democrat incumbents is to spend their scarce resources very wisely. Should candidates hire high-priced consultants? Only if those consultants are almost literally worth their weight in gold? Should the candidates spend large sums reserving TV time for commercials? Only if they've lost their minds.

As the election approaches, there will be hundreds of political ads -- especially for the presidential candidates -- airing. Left-wing special interest groups, such as the Democratic national committee, MoveOn.org and other entities will be airing nonstop "Hate McCain" ads. Viewers will be making liberal use of their TIVOs. Others will just engage in full-time channel switching.

Republican candidates need to create small armies of volunteers. Also, they need to start wearing out pairs of shoes going door-to-door and talking to small groups. Also, they need to do something many candidates hate: asking for modest ($50 or less) amounts of money, so they can keep their campaigns afloat.

In terms of appealing to voters, these Republican candidates need to make the point that they represent change. Voting to keep the same people in offices -- i.e., the Democrats -- represents not change but more of the same. They need to keep saying the following: "The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over again . . . and expecting different results."

I'm also strongly recommending that most Republican congressional candidates (although not all perhaps) need to explain why a vote for their opponent is a a vote AGAINST John McCain. The old concept that a candidate should not link himself or herself to any other candidate would be counter-productive this year. McCain is going to win MOST congressional districts by a wide margin.

Also, in most counties there is a great distaste for Obama, who has expressed contempt for most Pennsylvanians (in the "bitter" comments). The key is for the Republicans to say loudly and often that they support McCain -- while their opponent does not.

Candidates who have a good plan and carry it out rigorously should do very well. When anyone asks them, "How can I help?", they need to have something simple and effective to recommend.


This is an add-on to the column below. Pennsylvania Republican candidates facing off against incumbent Democrats must realize one important fact: their Democratic opponent are going to raise tons of money.

At this point, Allyson Schwartz apparently already has raised more than $2 million -- and it's only May! Schwartz is the wife of a super-wealthy cardiologist and a darling of Emily's List, Moveon.org and other radical groups who advocate an America that's nothing more than an oppressive nanny-state. Is Schwartz beatable (and add the names Holden, Altmire, and (Patrick) Murphy)? If Marina Kats (in the 13th district) can raise enough money to run a powerful volunteer-intensive campaign, Mrs. Schwartz could be beaten. In general, Schwartz backs an agenda that's deeply harmful to the people of Montgomery County and Northeast Philadelphia.

The key to beating an entrenched Democrat is to run a different kind of campaign -- one that's extremely cost-effective. Enriching the Philadelphia area TV stations is not a cost-effective approach. There are in fact ways to run inexpensive campaigns that are very effective. I keep citing Christy Whitman's campaign against Bill Bradley in the 1990 U.S. Senate race in New Jersey. If Mrs. Whitman could get nearly 49% of the vote in a campaign in which she raised $900,000, then Marina Kats -- an extremely attractive candidate -- can perform a similar feat with $900,000.

Allyson Schwartz could become the first $5 million loser in the history of the House of Representatives. Schwartz is a terrible congresswoman. Marina Kats could be a great one. That's a very effective selling point.

I've given the candidates (and, in some cases) their staff members a way to contact Sharon Caliendo. She's a political consultant and activist in Oklahoma who works mainly in OK and TX. She has been associated with many winning campaigns. Her emphasis is on low-cost, high-impact politics, where candidates get a major bang for their buck. Neither she nor I are currently being paid anything by any candidate. That's not to say it will never happen, only that it's not happening now (by design), and that's fine with us. I will continue to support the candidates I've named right through November 4. Sharon's e-mail is SKCalien@aol.com.

One critical thing candidates need to do over the next many months is to collect as many addresses (particulary e-mail addresses) of supporters. Then, after the election, whether you win or lose, keep your e-mail lists -- and stay in touch (monthly or every other month perhaps) with your supporters. That will make the next campaign a lot easier than this one.

"I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like victory." (Apocalypse Now)

I've never smelled napalm, and I hope I never do. However, I have experienced the scent of victory, and it always smells sweet.

About 10 days ago, I was talking to one of my candidates, and she confessed to occasionally being discouraged by Republicans who were fearful of going against her incumbent Democrat opponent. It's okay to be discouraged in campaigns, but it's essential to overcome the "down" feelings. The way you win is to act like a winner -- as Mrs. Clinton has done in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

I'm backing five Republicans, but they aren't -- or shouldn't be -- running primarily as Republicans. They should be campaigning as good people, which they are. They have to go up to people -- many thousands of people -- and say, "Look, I know how to represent the people of this district. I'm a better candidate than my opponent. I'm also a better person than he (or she) is."

The people who hear that message may still vote for (or worse, give money) to the Democrat. But they will feel a little guilty for doing so.

All the candidates I'm support will be outspent -- sometimes by three-or-four-to-1. But when candidates have millions of dollars they tend to throw a lot of it down political ratholes. In campaigns, the one who works the hardest usually wins (or at least comes close).

In June and July, I'm going to make a major effort to advertise this site to make more Pennsylvanians (and interested parties in other states) aware that it exists. In September and October (and November!), it's easy to get attention for discussions of races for federal offices. I want the Republican candidates endorsed on this site to know that I have genuine affection and respect for them. Whatever I can do to help them generate support -- including financial contributions -- I'll do. Winning is part of a process, and sometimes it doesn't occur as quickly as we'd like.

Ask my friend and political ally, Diana Irey, who ran so hard and well against John Murtha. I was involved in both of Newt Gingrich's first two campaigns for the House, in 1974 and 1976. Running against a deeply entrenched Democrat, he lost both times -- by identical percentages of 52% to 48%. In 1978, his earlier opponent, faced with Newt's relentlessness, retired, and Gingrich finally won the "prize." He would not be denied.

When Diana lost to Murtha in 2006, I was driving home and, although defeat is always bitter in some ways, my thought was of Diana and what a wonderful woman she was. There is a way to lose -- a graceful one -- that is almost (but not quite) as good as winning. Right now, Melissa Hart, Toni Gilhooley, Marina Kats, Mike Livingston, and Tom Manion all looks like winners to me. Keep your chins up -- and think "victory."

Hart,Gilhooley: Congressional Upset Winners

CLARIFICATION: My line that "A vote for Jason Altmire is a vote against John McCain" elicited a pig-like squeal from one Altmire backer. My point is simple: Melissa Hart supports John McCain. Jason Altmire, who did everything but kiss Barack during the primary, apparently supports Obama. Melissa Hart supports John McCain's positive agenda for change, and Altmire does not. Thus, "a vote for Altmire is a vote against McCain." Even Altmire's political boy-toys should be able to grasp that point.


BULLETIN: Scroll down to see Republican candidate Mike Livingston's (2 district, Philadelphia) press releases challenging Rep. Chaka Fattah's questionable fundraising practices. (More on this important subject tomorrow.)


Important Note: scroll down in this column for critical questions regarding Hillary Clinton and her campaign.

On my national blog today: "I wouldn't mind one bit if John McCain says -- in strong terms -- that the Democratic nomination was stolen from Mrs. Clinton. The thieves were Howard Dean and Barack Obama. The crime scenes were Michigan and Florida, whose delegates were denied Clinton." Say it, John!

"Let me win, but if I lose let me be brave in the attempt."

One thing I'm suggesting -- and everything I recommend is a suggestion -- is for Republican congressional candidates (all of them) to embrace John McCain. He has an excellent chance of winning Pennsylvania -- and frankly, of winning nearly every country outside the Philadelphia area. (He may not win Allegheny County -- Pittsburgh area -- but he will come close.)

For example, in my own district --the 4th, west and north of Pittsburgh -- Democrats hold a significant registration edge. However, based on past performance of Republican presidential candidates, John McCain could win the 4th by 40,000-plus votes. Most McCain supporters will vote for Republican Melissa Hart for Congress. (George Bush won this supposedly Democratic district in 2004 by 31,000 votes.)

I'm aware some consultants would advise Melissa to endorse McCain in a soft vocice but not to highlight the fact she's doing so. Their point would be that she does not want to turn off any potential Hart voters who are Obama supporters. That argument is absurd. How many Obama voters -- liberals to a fault -- are going to vote for conservative Melissa Hart? They might number in the low hundreds. They might number less than that.

Melissa should portray herself as part of the "McCain-Hart" team. She should rely on McCain's electoral strength to help take her over the finish line ahead of opponent Jason Altmire. Because Obama is unpopular in the 4th -- he lost my county (Beaver) by 28,000 (for Hillary) to 12,000 -- Altmire is going to pretend he never heard of Barack Obama, but I doubt Melissa will let him get away with it. She should pin Obama to Altmire like a tin can on an alley cat's tail.

I hope Melissa puts it this way: a vote for Jason Altmire is a vote against John McCain. She can justify that statement by saying she supports McCain's moderate-conservative agenda while Altmire opposes it. She can remind voters that Altmire fell all over himself to vote for far-left San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi for Speaker. She might add that her first action in Congress would be to vote against Mrs. Pelosi. (Actually, Altmire fawned all over Obama in the Primary -- until the Illinois Senator's "clinging" to religion and guns remark.)

I would give the exact same advice to Toni Gilhooley in the 17th District (Harrisburg and parts east). Run as part of the "McCain-Gilhooley" team.

Her opponent, Democrat Tim Holden, masquerades as a "conservative Democrat," which is less a political description than an oxymoron. If Holden returns to Congress, his first act -- like Altmire's -- will be to vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. Of course that will mean that Pelosi will not even allow a vote on any of the "conservative" measures Holden supposedly supports.

Frankly, if Holden wants to be a conservative -- or even a "moderate" -- he's registered in the wrong Party.In the 2004 presidential race, George Bush polled 48,000 votes more than John Kerry. If McCain's strength continues to build, he could win the 17th by 55,000 to 60,000 votes.

Because of that fact, I think Toni might give at least a fleeting thought to what kinds of drapes she'd like to have in her office in Congress. If she runs a great -- and cost-effective -- campaign, she can win this race. Right now, Toni, I, her husband and her closest supporters are the only ones who deeply believe she'll win, but we happen to be right -- check out those McCain numbers again -- and the conventional wisdom is wrong.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is going to be pouring money into the 17th District next October, money they don't current expect to spend. They will be in a panic about a possible loss by the colorless Holden of a supposedly "safe" Democratic seat. However, they will find that, just as "money can't buy you love," it also can't buy you an election.

One thing Toni needs to consider seriously -- and Melissa might also consider it -- is to seek out Hillary voters. Gee, how could they do that? Perhaps by showing how the Democrats' "old boys club" -- establishment people including Howard Dean, Jason Altmire, and Tim Holden -- shafted Mrs. Clinton. They did so, in part, by denying the seating of delegates from Michigan and Florida, two of Clinton's strongest states. They also did so by bullying her to get out of the race.

In Toni's district, as in Melissa's Hillary beat Obama like a rented mule. Having Obama at the top of the ticket is not going to be a pleasant experience for Holden or Altmire. They will claim to be running "their own campaigns." That means they hope Obama spends a lot of time in Oregon and Montana. No such luck, guys.

I predict a win by Melissa Hart. I predict a major upset win by Toni Gilhooley.

But for that to happen, they need YOUR support. I urge you to go right to their web sites and volunteer to help. It doesn't matter what state you're in. They need help from all over the nation.
http://peoplewithhart.com/
http://gilhooleyforcongress.com/

Tuesday morning: "Marina Kats: How to Defeat Allyson Schwartz" (I suggest that Marina, who emigrated from Russia and became an extremely successful lawyer and entrepreneur run as the embodiment of "The American Dream"). I also recommend she contest Schwartz for every one of the 77,000 Hillary (primary) voters in Montgomery County -- and then go after the tens of thousands of Hillary supporters in Northeast Philly. If voters in the 13th district want a strong, decisive, effective woman, then "Marina's their gal."

ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON AND HER CAMPAIGN (Will see endorse McCain?)

The following two paragraphs are from my new -- and popular (to my amazement) blog called "Hillary Supporters for McCain." From all appearances, Mrs. Clinton will not win the Democratic nomination for President, but she will continue to play a major role in determining who wins the general election. (I hope you take a look at the "Hillary" site. It is definitely not part of the usual "Hillary bashing.")

Dear Friends: I'm hoping this blog (the "Hillary" site) becomes one of the most fascinating -- and useful -- ones in the political blogosphere. You can help me achieve that end by taking various steps: (1) bookmarking the site; (2) visiting regularly; (3) sharing your own thoughts about the various articles (either through the "comments" or by writing me at TalkTop65@aol.com); and (4) telling your friends and political allies about this site and providing them links to it. Thanks for your support. On my Pennsylvania blog, I have a piece about two congressional candidates (Melissa Hart and Toni Gilhooley) whom I'm urging to link themselves closely to John McCain's presidential bid. It's a strategy I believe is applicable to most Republican congressional candidates across the nation. If you agree, please forward it to your own favorite congressional candidate.

One key question that hasn't been answered yet is whether Hillary supporters should back John McCain -- and if so, why? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this issue. Another critical matter is how Hillary should endorse Obama. If she believes he would be a bad President, should she endorse him at all -- or perhaps rest her wounded spirit incommunicado in Hawaii? If she has to choose between Party and country, won't she choose country? If I had any direct contact with Senator Clinton, these are some of the questions I'd ask her -- respectfully but forcefully.


BULLETIN: 2D DISTRICT CANDIDATE MIKE LIVINGSTON BLASTS CHAKA FATTAH'S QUESTIONABLE FUNDRAISING PRACTICES

The following are two press releases from Mike Livingston for Congress datedMonday, May 12. For those who may not have received it, I have also attached acopy or my initial campaign announcement February 12, 2008. More informationabout my candidacy is available at my website www.livingstonforcongress.com. Ican also be contacted by telephone 267-847-0528 or at this e-mail address. I am the Republican candidate in the Second Congressional District, the seat that iscurrently held by Rep. Chaka Fattah. --Mike Livingston

MAY 12, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

LIVINGSTON CHALLENGES FATTAH TO DEBATE

ON ISSUES

FACING SECOND DISTRICT

Mike Livingston, the Republican candidate in the Second Congressional District,today challenged the incumbent, Chaka Fattah, to a series of debates on issuesfacing the district."The Second District has not had a seriously contested election in more than adecade," Livingston said.

"I challenge Rep. Fattah to a series of debates onthe issues facing our district, including education, crime, taxes, the energyand housing crises, and national security issues. These debates could besponsored by the League of Women Voters, the Committee of Seventy, or othernonpartisan organization, and would be held at a time and place of our mutualchoosing. It appears likely that this years' presidential candidates will hold a series of similar debates; why not here in Philadelphia?"

In challenging Fattah to debate, Livingston said he expected domestic issues,notably taxes, crime, and education, to be the central themes of his campaign."In talking to people throughout the district, I have found that the sameitems--personal safety, school quality, worries about high taxes and declininghome ownership--come up time and again. My approach to these issues differsfrom that of Rep. Fattah, but I hope that we can have a frank and constructivedebate about them."Livingston also thanked voters who came out to support him in the April 22Republican primary. "It took a little bit of courage to brave the long linesof Obama and Clinton supporters and vote for a hometown candidate on a day whenthere were hardly any contested races in our party. I am grateful for yoursupport and will do my best to be worthy of it," he added.

MAY 12, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASELIVINGSTON, FATTAH

FILE FIRST QUARTER FEC STATEMENTS

Mike Livingston and his opponent, Rep. Chaka Fattah, recently filed quarterlystatements with the Federal Election Commissions. The reports say much aboutthe candidates and their campaigns.Livingston's report, filed April 15, shows $15,150 in contributions, all but$1,000 from individual supporters. While modes compared to some districts,this represents the largest sum raised this early by an recent Republicancandidate in the Second District, and is close to the largest amount anychallenger has raised in the entire election cycle. (Full information isavailable at www.fec.gov; to access the report, punch in the candidate's nameand follow the prompts for committee information and report history.)By contrast, Fattah reported receipts of $129,392 of which more than 3/4($98,500) consists of PAC contributions. While Livingston (like Barack Obama)relies principally on small contributions, the Fattah data, which include thelatter part of 2007, do not include a single contribution of under $500."The quarterly reports demonstrate the issues at stake in this election and theimportance of change in the Second District," said Livingston in a statement."While presenting himself as a champion of the weak and oppressed, Chaka Fattahremains one of the members of Congress most dependent on PAC money and oncontributions from lawyers and lobbyists with a stake in the political process.He is a charter member of the "pay to play" culture than I and others aretrying to change."

The next quarterly reports are due July 15.