Background Checks!

I've been reading a few articles recently about candidates that have criminal backgrounds. I can't believe that anyone that has been accused of theft of monies from the government would think they could ever run for public office. Maybe that is because the mindset of the people that would steal from the government find a way to justify it by blaming that they were caught on someone else.

Simply put, if you have a criminal background that involves theft of public dollars I don't expect the voters to be able to trust you with their tax dollars.

State House District 22:

Twelve years ago, Marty Schmotzer was charged with stealing $50,000 from county taxpayers while working as a deputy clerk of courts in the 1990s.

Eric Heyl's article in the Trib is a good read: Democrats' pick for House must fight temptation

The Pennsylvania Progressive wrote about Mr. Schmotzer's problems also: Another Black Eye For PA Dems

Past articles about Mr. Schmotzer's theft:
Auditors Track Down Funds
Row Office Clerk Pleads Guilty to Stealing $50,000.

State House District 20

In 1979 Mark Purcell was charged and plead 'no contest' to unemployment fraud while serving as a Ross Township Commissioner. He continues to plead his innocence and claim that he took poor legal advice. As expected, these charges have been brought up every time he has run for office. When I mentioned these charges to Mr. Purcell in an email the other day this was his response:

"Since I know for certain you are part of the conspiracy, let me have you pass on some information to your friends…I have done my homework on the Ravenstahls and their inner circle extensively…Dzamko, Klinger, Quigley, just to name a few of these sleaze bags…..You, them, Schiulenberg could not hold a candle to my integrity. They don’t want to go there with me, it’s a battle they cant win."

Going through some old newspaper clippings, this seems to be Mr. Purcell's style. If you say anything remotely negative about him, he attacks back and points out that he is better than you. He used this technique with his neighbors (page 31) when he was a Township Commissioner.

Some articles about Mr. Purcell's 'no contest' charge:
Jan. 17, 1980

April 16, 1980

May 1, 1980

May 8, 1980

May 19, 1980

May 21, 1980

Oct. 17, 1997

State House 24

Joe Preston didn't get accused of stealing money from the government, but he does have some legal issues that have popped up in the past:

From the Tribune Review, Aug. 3, 2007: A state lawmaker accused of assaulting a former girlfriend was found guilty of a reduced charge by a district judge on Thursday. Rep. Joseph Preston, 60, had been charged with simple assault following an altercation in his district office Sunday, but District Justice Jim Hanley found him guilty of harassment. He was also fined $300.

Read more: State Rep. Preston guilty of harassment - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_520491.html#ixzz1r8NwlQlZ

Would you be willing to vote for any of these candidates?

The interesting mailings of State House candidate Mark Purcell

I received a copy of a letter that Mark Purcell sent to Democratic committee members when he was running for the endorsement for State House. Other than being long winded and negative they appear to be intentionally misleading and at least one 'fact' is pure speculation.

First off, this if just ridiculous if Mr. Purcell thought people might read this letter and think this is about Adam Ravensthal's campaign report. Luke's name was left off of every sentence and instead he was referred to as 'Ravenstahl' in hopes the committee members would think Adam Ravenstahl and Mike Turzai are in cahoots.

Secondly, you have to be kidding me that you think Luke Ravenstahl (cash on hand $342,000) and Mike Turzai (cash on hand $314,000) would risk their political careers for $1,000 donation to 'fix a legislative seat for Adam.' It is also crazy to think that Mike Turzai would fix any seat for a Democrat after the way the redistricting was handled. My sources tell me that any changes that were made to the 20th were between two Democrats (Adam Ravenstahl and Dom Costa) and that historically the majority party has allowed the minority party to swap parts of their districts between their own members.

Also, you might want to check some labor political action committees. They have given Republicans in the State Legislature thousands of dollars in the last few years including Republican Leader Mike Turzai.

There should be some accountability when someone makes a claim like this in a political mailer. Usually you see a footnote and a source.

Now let's talk about calling out everyone for being self-serving. Did Mr. Purcell really think that calling out Democratic chairs would win him the endorsement? (It didn't.) What happens if Mr. Purcell wins, does he think that Rep. Dom Costa and Democratic Leader Frank Dermody won't remember that they were called self-serving by the new freshman Representative? This sure won't be a conversation starter in Harrisburg as Mr. Purcell claims he will do on his website:

"The gridlock in Harrisburg and our national politics has a profound negative effect on all of us. We need to move away from partisan politics and move towards conversation and cooperation. I will work with both Democrats and Republicans for the good of Pennsylvania and its citizens."

This isn't the first time Mr. Purcell has printed misleading campaign literature. (Page 17)

Let the conspiracy continue!!

Altmire Mail! More on Critz's vote against Planned Parenthood funding

Sorry for the cutoff scans. The reader that sends me their political mail doesn't have a scanner big enough for this post card.

Altmire cares about of veterans

Very nice veterans mailing. One issue that always works for Democrats or Republicans is veterans' issues.

Critz's answer to attack ad ignores facts

This entire Critz meltdown because of the Altmire television ad is interesting.

In the ad, Altmire says that Critz voted present on the Tea Party budget. This is accurate. Critz voted present. Altmire voted no. Fast forward to last week's vote on the same piece of legislation,
Altmire and Critz vote no.

First off, Critz appears to being playing politics with his vote. Voted present in 2011, voted no in 2012.

In Critz's press conference to defend his present vote, he stated: it was “A decision by our leaders.” That’s nice, but what about the people that elected you? His loyalty should be with the people of the 12th Congressional District, not with his leaders. I have never bought into the concept that our legislators should only vote the way leadership tells them to vote. I have always believed that our representative should vote the way their districts wants them too.

Additionally, Critz ran to Steny Hoyer for his defense. (who ran against and defeated his old boss and predecessor, Jack Murtha) Hoyer defends the present vote. Why? Hoyer says: “House Democrats stood together and voted ‘present’ on the extreme Republican budget in order to expose its radical policies. Doing this showed the American people just how extreme House Republicans are and how devastating their policies would be for our nation, like ending the Medicare guarantee. This was a vote to protect Medicare and derail the Republican Budget,” said democratic Whip Steny Hoyer who organized the efforts on behalf of House Democrats.”

If the goal was it would pass, cuts would happen, and then the American people would blame the Republicans? Really? Is that how it’s supposed to work? I don't understand how a present vote would help the Democrats prove this about the Republican budget. They should of stood together and voted NAY.

I’m not sure why political reporters and bloggers have taken the side of Critz and are taking his statements at face value. Quite simply, he made a bad vote. Just like he made a bad vote to defund Planned Parenthood, not to repeal don't ask don't tell, and against the wall street reform bill.

That is why Critz is running on healthcare, because he can't defend some of his bad votes and hopes that people forget this ad that he ran in 2010:

20th District State House Handouts

I have been recently accused by Mark Purcell to be part of the 'conspiracy' because I questioned some of his opinions (or as he called them facts) about the 20th State House race in regards to the candidacy of Dave Schuilenburg.

I generally don't endorse candidates for office, but those that read my blog know that I do generally stick up for Democrats that are currently elected. I let Mr. Purcell know via email when he announced his interest to run again for State House that I thought it would be tough for anyone to beat Ravenstahl no matter what the map looked like. Simply put, Adam Ravenstahl has good name recognition and I believe that Ravensthal hasn't made any mis-steps as a State Representative.

So with hopes of not being accused of being part of the 'conspiracy' that is out to get Mr. Purcell here is some literature from Adam Ravenstahl and Mark Purcell.

I will of course be accused of my bias for Mr. Ravenstahl, but I have some real issues as a progressive Democrat (that supports public education) with a plan to eliminate property taxes. It may sound impressive on the campaign trail, but we have to make up that revenue somewhere. It sounds very Tea Party like.

The concept that the government can just clean up 'waste' to save money and it doesn't cost more is a misnomer that I have argued with conservatives about before. I believe that it would cost a lot of tax payer dollars to clean up welfare abuse. So I think it would be spending bad money for a net loss.

I agree that we need more moderate politicians on both sides to tackle the tough problems. However, that is a tough sell in Primary Election.

I find it ironic that someone that brags about their 20 years as a local elected official now wants to tell everyone that we need term limits and limit everyone's service to 8 years.




I agree with Mr. Ravenstahl about the size of the legislature, but also worry that it will make it harder for a grass-roots candidate to win a seat in the legislature.

Glad to see he voted against Marcellus Shale legislation and is making it part of his campaign.

Not that impressed by a legislator that shows up, that is their job.

Let the 'conspiracy' continue!

Altmire Mailer: He Listens to us

Another round of mailers from Congressman Jason Altmire. Sticking with the 'he listens to us theme: