Race #1: Governor:

Dan Onorato

Dan is the front-runner for the governor’s race: polls suggest that he has all-but-clinched the Democratic nomination. One of his strongest advantages is that polls show him doing well against the likely Republican nominee. Dan is a former county executive who appears, based on his position papers and newspaper articles to be a reasonable, competent man who I would be happy to support for governor.

Joe Hoeffel

Joe Hoeffel is an unabashed liberal (sorry: conservatives have made that a bad word, so now they call them “progressives”). His publicly taken positions include support for gay marriage and imposing a progressive income tax. What can I say… I liked most all of his positions.

Anthony Williams

I advice anyone NOT to vote for Mr. Williams. It appears to me that he came from nowhere with significant amounts of funding from what was basically a single rich source. And his major issue appears to be school vouchers: moving money out of public schools when students go to private schools.

Jack Wagner

I learned much less about Mr. Wagner in my research. He presented himself rather well in the debate, but did not (in my mind) distinguish himself.

I will be voting for *Joe Hoeffel*. I agree with his positions on basically every issue for which he had a position paper — including some which were rather controversial.  And since it appears that Dan Onorato has the nomination sewed up I feel I can vote my heart rather than trying to vote strategically.

Race #2: Lieutenant Governor:

Jonathan Saidel

Jonathan Saidel, former Philadelphia comptroller, has political experience, money and democratic endorsements.

Scott Conklin

Scott Conklin is a state House representative from a rural area. He seems generally to be thought well of, and he secured the endorsement of the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Doris Smith-Ribner

Doris Smith-Ribner is a former judge who is running for the office. Her campaign seems less “professional” than the others.

This article, from the Pittsburg City Paper seemed to lay it out best: Smith-Ribner is not a serious contender, Conklin may be up-and-coming, but Saidel is tried-and-true and will be an asset to the ticket. I’m planning to vote for *Jonathan Saidel*, but wouldn’t be disappointed if Conklin won.

Race #3: US Senator: This may be the most important race on the ballot!

Arlen Specter

Look, if you don’t know who Arlen Specter is, then you shouldn’t be voting. He has been a Senator from PA for 30 years! Of course, he was Republican for all but the last year or so. Here’s the deal: I always respected Specter as a member of the “other side” who was willing to be reasonable and to cross party lines. He says that he changed parties to have a chance of getting re-elected (I believe this) and he also says that the Republican party moved to the right rather than he moving to the left (I believe this too). And I strongly want to encourage moderates to leave the Republicans and join the Democratic “big tent”. So I decided long ago to support Arlen Specter.

Joe Sestak

If you are not from my district, you may not know Joe Sestak. He’s a former 3-star Navy Admiral who went into politics in the US House from my district. He has his flaws (he’s more conservative on some issues than I would like, and he seems to have a bossy personal style with his subordinates), but he is very smart, very reasonable, and rather charismatic. He represents the up-and-coming future of the Democratic party.

All other races in my district are uncontested. I’ll happily vote for anyone brave enough to put their name on the ballot.

Late Breaking Correction:

I just got back from the polls, and it turns out there is another contested item on the ballot: selection of 5 men and 5 women for the “democratic committee” (what’s that?). There are just 5 women running, but 8 men. I didn’t do any research on this so you’re on your own. (The democratic party has official endorsements.)

To the FCC:

Some form of “Net Neutrality” is essential, and it is up to the governing agencies to determine what form and how.

The general principle holds that government should regulate as little as possible in order to allow citizens to innovate. However, there are some places where that principle must give way to other important principles. The building and deploying of a worldwide network is a vital public good, but because of very strong network effects (please pardon the pun) the network itself will tend to be run by a very small number of large corporations.

Soon, that network will transport nearly all communications in this country. It will be (already is!) vital to citizens’ ability to communicate: to speak with each other, to associate freely, to petition their government, and so forth. It will also be (already is!) vital to business: many businesses exist solely on the internet (YouTube, online retailers, eBay sellers, iPhone applications) and even more physical industries rely on the internet for communications.

The important point is this: the small number of companies that are responsible for the infrastructure of the internet do not have the ability to completely silence someone: if AT&T or Verizon were to cut off internet access for anyone who took a particular political position the resulting hue and cry would lead to legislation to prevent such behavior. But they WILL have — in fact, already DO have — the ability to have a more subtle effect.

Companies could, with very plausible technical excuses, provide a small degree of preference for one customer over another. Perhaps they would deliver video slightly faster (so it works in realtime) for a major studio who paid them but not for the independent film producer. Perhaps they would block certain protocols that allowed anonymous communication while allowing others (this has already happened). The point is that the fundamental ability to communicate is too important to be allowed in the hands of a small number of companies, no matter how well intentioned.

This, then, is one of those rare situations where minimal government regulation IS called for. Rules are needed which will still permit companies to manage their traffic, but will prohibit them from discriminating on the basis of the origin, destination, format, or content of that traffic. And now is the time for such rules to be put in place.

Michael Chermside

If you feel similarly, I would encourage you to send your own message. But hurry. The last day on which they will accept public comment is April 8th.

WARNING: Some local district lines were moved at the last minute (AFTER the primary). To verify your proper polling place, use this link.

President of the United States:

• Bob Barr/Wayne A. Root (Libertarian)
• John McCain/Sarah Palin (Republican)
• Ralph Nader/Matt Gonzales (Independent)
• Barack Obama/Joe Biden (Democrat)

Given the billion or so that has been spent by the candidates plus untold more spent by news media, you have almost certainly made up your mind already, and my opinion here means little. Suffice it to say, that I have great respect for John McCain — he is a man I would have voted for in a different election. But the positions he has taken to satisfy the Republican base disturb me, and his selection of an abundantly unqualified candidate for vice-president is unfortunate. On the other side, Barack Obama is exactly what we need. He is a charismatic leader, with an interest in bringing the country together. At the same time, his positions on many issues are much closer to mine than most politicians. He gives every indication of being a highly intelligent and thoughtful person — even in the book which he wrote before he considered entering politics. And his background as a community organizer and a constitutional lawyer are just what this country needs if we are to have any hope of recovering from the appalling damage of the past 8 years. I have contribute time and money to Obama’s campaign, and I will be out working for him on election day.

US House of Representatives

• Joe Sestak (Democrat)
• W. Craig Williams (Republican)

Joe Sestak is a former senior military leader (3-star admiral!) who has been serving for a term as a Democratic representative from a Republican-majority district. His stated priorities for this election are (1) economics, (2) health system, (3) economics, (4) energy (he wants to promote alternate energy AND drill more oil) and (5) defense. Frankly, I like this set of priorities. I have met Joe Sestak and I find that although I definitely do NOT agree with him on many issues, he was reasonable and thoughtful, had real reasons behind his choices, and was willing to explain those reasons to a constituent.

Craig Williams is his Republican challenger. Craig’s main points seem to be (1) Sara Palin endorses me, (2) we need to drill more oil to solve the energy crisis, (3) Government is too big and should regulate less — for instance, they shouldn’t allow airline traffic over our district [no... this doesn't make sense], (4) Health care should be fixed by privatizing it [yes, that IS what we already have]; specifically we should provide prescription drugs for senior citizens, “emphasize personal responsibility”, and put an end to “frivolous lawsuits”.

On the whole, Craig Williams’ proposals do not even seem sensible, and Joe Sestak has proven to be quite reasonable and effective in his time so far. I intend to support Joe Sestak.

Attorney General

• Tom Corbett (Republican)
• John M. Morganelli (Democrat)
• Marakay J. Rogers (Libertarian)

John Morganelli tells the League of Women Voters (and posts on his own website) that his #1 plan is to “Pass a gang statute that makes gang membership a crime so as to attack the gangs before the commit their next murder or drug deal”. Perhaps he does not quite understand what the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association means. Another proposal of his is to “Abolish parole for violent criminals.” Our prison system assigns one to serve a range of years for a crime depending on the judge and jury’s evaluation of the seriousness of the crime and on the individual’s behavior afterward. To completely ignore the latter in the name of “punishing violent criminals” is foolish and unwise.

Tom Corbett has been Attorney General for the past several years. As far as I can tell, all evidence suggests that he has done a reasonably good job.

Marakay Rogers is a bit more unusual — she has a history of running under various third parties. She has managed to get endorsements for various offices from the Libertarian party, the Green party, the Reform party and Ralph Nader. She feels evidence of racially unbalanced enforcement of the death penalty needs to be addressed. She questions Pennsylvania’s high rate of incarceration (3rd highest in the nation). She objects to the REAL ID act as violating PA constitutional privacy rights, and speaks out for the rights of immigrants.

I would feel very comfortable voting for Tom Corbett, who is qualified and competent. I would also feel comfortable voting for Marakay Rogers. Polling shows something in the neighborhood of 43% for Corbett to 31% for Morganelli to 3% for Marakay.

Auditor General

• Chet Beiler (Republican)
• Betsy Summers (Libertarian)
• Jack Wagner (Democrat)

Betsy Summers has not bothered to put up a website for her campaign, to populate the web page that her party provides for her, or even to answer questions for the League of Women Voters, so she is not even worthy of consideration.

Chet Beiler has a history as a successful businessman in a number of enterprises that he grew and ran successfully. He does not have a history of political involvement and bills himself as “not a career politician”. Jack Wagner is the currently serving Auditor General. I have read at least 5 different newspaper endorsements of Jack Wagner (I couldn’t find any newspapers endorsing Beiler). All of them said essentially the same thing: “In his current term, Jack Wagner has done audits that revealed serious issues (curiously, each newspaper seemed to list different audits) and has gone after mismanagement of funds. He should be returned to office to continue the good work.” With widespread endorsements like this, I intend to support Jack Wagner.

State Treasurer

• Tom Ellis (Republican)
• Berlie Etzel (Libertarian)
• Robert McCord (Democrat)

Tom Ellis failed to answer even the simplest of questions from the League of Women Voters; Berlie Etzel did that much but seems not to have a website (or event to have populated her page within her party’s site). Thus, these candidates were more difficult to research (Robert McCord has plenty of information available about himself and his positions.)

From what I can tell, Tom Ellis and Robert McCord have similar backgrounds. They are from the same area, both have political experience and business backgrounds, and both would be new to this office. McCord appears to have the ability to raise much more money – 23x as much – and to spend vast sums of his own money as well, but I mistrust that as an indicator in this case; I think it is likely to be due to large donors he knows rather than broad support.

Without any strong reason to prefer either candidate, I will probably select a candidate based on party endorsement (in my case, choosing McCord as the candidate of the Democratic party).

State Senator

• Daylin Leach (Democrat)
• Lance Rogers (Republican)

Lance Rogers and Daylin Leach must have spent a fair amount of money because I got several mailings from them. Unfortunately, all of the mailings were either attack ads or responses to attack ads. The gist of it seemed to be that Rogers accuses Leach of having tried to weaken laws against drunk driving, but independent 3rd parties seem to claim that Leach was actually just changing the laws in an attempt to strengthen not weaken them. Frankly, I’m not impressed either way, and I wish they’d found a better way to spend their campaign dollars.

Rogers says his top issues are: (1) cutting government perks, (2) cutting taxes and spending, (3) fixing healthcare, (4) promoting jobs, (5) promoting green space and green construction/energy, and several others. Leach says his top issues are: (1) education, (2) environment, (3) political reform, (4) healthcare (he worked to get prescription drugs for those receiving health insurance from the state, and he works on women’s health issues).

On the whole, there is not a lot there on which to base a decision, but I tend to favor Leach’s approach. And I don’t like politicians who start very dirty negative campaigning (which is how independent parties characterized Rogers’ mailings). So I’ll be voting for Daylin Leach.

State House of Representatives

• Stephen D’Emilio (Republican)
• Greg Vitali (Democrat)

Greg Vitali is a hero of mine. I still recall when the Pennsylvania legislature voted themselves a massive, undeserved and blatantly unconstitutional pay raise in the middle of the night. (The constitution forbids the legislature from raising its own pay during its term, so they effectively raised the amount of expenses allowed and said they wouldn’t be expecting to see any receipts.) Greg Vitali spoke out against this at the time. He spoke out so vocally that his own party stripped him of committee positions and power in an attempt to silence him — but he was not silent. Greg vitali has my vote and will continue to have my vote for a long, long time. It helps that I agree with him on many other issues, but ultimately, integrity is the most important issue for me.

And if you didn’t find THAT convincing enough, read our local newspaper’s article on the two candidates (which does not endorse a candidate).

Referendum on Bonds for Water and Sewer Improvement

Do you favor the incurring of indebtedness by the Commonwealth of $400,000,000 for grants and loans to municipalities and public utilities for the cost of all labor, materials, necessary operational machinery and equipment, lands, property, right and easements, plans and specifications, surveys, estimates of costs and revenues, prefeasibility studies, engineering and legal services and all other expenses necessary or incident to the acquisition, construction, improvement, expansion, extension, repair or rehabilitation of all or part of drinking water system, storm water, nonpoint source projects, nutrient credits and wastewater treatment system projects?

I intend to vote “Yes” on this measure. I have read newspaper editorials both for and against the measure. It was my opinion that the “yes” editorials backed up their position with sensible arguments about the state of our water and sewer infrastructure and an analysis showing that this would not affect the state’s bond rating, while the “no” editorials backed up their position by simply saying “government spending is bad… they should take the money from cutting government waste”. But ultimately, these were not what swayed my opinion — the economy was. During a recession, governments should be using their creditworthiness to borrow in order to pay for public works projects. (And during boom times they should pay down debt and set up rainy-day funds.) This kind of behavior is what smooths out the extremes and restores our economic stability, from which we all benefit.