I Guess It All Depends On How You Define "Town Hall" (Sen Toomey's So-Called "Town Hall" in Harrisburg)

Let's start here:

Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania explained why Republicans are having such trouble with health care. Speaking at a town hall during the July 4 recess, Toomey said, ‘I didn't expect Donald Trump to win. I think most of my colleagues didn't. So we didn't expect to be in this situation.' [Emphasis added.]

Actually if you read the entire piece, it's not only about health care. In fact very little of it is.  It's about how even the GOP got Trump wrong and now the party establishment has a problem on its hands.

From the piece:

No kidding. I too can report that, from June 16, 2015, to November 8, 2016, the feeling among the elected officials, party functionaries, consultants, strategists, and journalists in our nation's capital was that Donald J. Trump stood no chance of becoming president of the United States. And because the political elite held this view with such self-assurance, with all the egotism and snobbery and moral puffery and snarkiness that distinguishes itself as a class, it did not spend more than a second, if that, thinking through the possible consequences of a Trump victory.

Among those consequences: The expectation that Republicans might actually try to keep the promises they've made to voters over the last eight years.

Among these promises: Obamacare.

But I want to get back to my start. Was it a "town hall"? I guess it all depends on how you define "town hall."

If you read Time (and there's hardly a less mainstream news source than Time), it was certainly called that:

Speaking at a town hall Wednesday, the Pennsylvania Senator said that Republicans were having difficulty crafting a law to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act because they hadn't planned for it to happen this year.

 But what were the parameters of this so-called "town hall"?

From Pennlive:

Sen. Pat Toomey next week will appear in a televised town hall hosted by ABC27 News.

The event, scheduled for 7 p.m. Wednesday at the news outlet's Harrisburg station, will be broadcast by other ABC affiliate stations in Altoona, Wilkes-Barre and Erie.

Viewers will be connected with the Republican senator during the live event via social media. ABC27 will take questions for Toomey on its Facebook page.

Because of capacity limitations at the station, admittance to the town hall is by invitation only.

There it is: "by invitation only" with questions streaming in over the TV station's Facebook page .

What sort of town hall is that? 

It's a pretty safe guess that the protesters outside this so-called "town hall" were not among the invited:

[The protesters] then jeered Toomey as his vehicle arrived at the station on the other side of a barricade and row of police officers.

It was "by invitation only" AND protected by a "row of police officers" AND a barricade?

What sort of town hall is that? And I have a question: who chose which questions the Senator would hear? Was it Toomey's office or the TV station, if it's the latter, were there any parameters set up beforehand as to what Toomey would hear?

I only ask because in a real town hall meeting, citizens can walk up to any microphone and be heard by their elected official.

That's obviously not what happened in Harrisburgh over the July 4th weekend. We should stop calling it a "town hall."

Toomey "Virtual" Town Hall Recap

Caller: "Hi. This is Linda from Pottstown. First time caller, long time racist."

Sen. Pat Toomey: "Thank you for your support, Linda."

This has been your Toomey "Virtual" Town Hall Recap.

Sen. Pat Toomey Announces Statewide Listening Tour

Joe Sestak Walks Across Pennsylvania (UPDATED)

In case you missed it, Joe Sestak has been walking more than 400 miles across Pennsylvania for (as his website puts it) "accountable leadership in the US Senate."

Yesterday, he was in Coraopolis:

He started the walk on March 4:

Former Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak formally launched his long-expected challenge to Republican Sen. Patrick J. Toomey Wednesday, setting up a possible rematch in one of Democrats’ best pick-up opportunities.

During an announcement outside Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Sestak said he is running to “restore the trust deficit,” according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. After showing up in a pair of old sneakers, Sestak vowed to walk across the state in a pair of Army boots — to walk symbolically in the shoes of Pennsylvanians.

Apart from anything else, kinda shows a deep level of commitment if a Navy guy can walk start a 400+ mile walk [See update below] wearing a pair of Army boots.  (As I have zero military experience perhaps I am making too much of this military detail.)

The walking trip was punctuated by 2 dozen stops along the way, each with a different topic of discussion.  For example, yesterday his talk in Coraopolis centered around the environment and green energy.  On March 16, he was in Cumberland County discussing education.  On the 9th it was Chester County discussing women's issues.  And so on.

Yesterday's discussion was with a dozen or so potential supporters.  Though I have to add that Sestak, with a sincere grin, also welcomed to the room a guy named Ollie, who he said was the tracker assigned to cover the event by the Toomey campaign.  Nice guy - after the event, he and I joked about how it was snowing outside.  If yesterday's discussion is any indication, Sestak is looking to contrast his record with Senator Toomey's.

And the phrase "Hold me accountable." was repeated a number of times.

For example, Sestak spent a large chunk of his time contrasting Toomey's assertion that "we all want clear air and clean water." with, for example Toomey's cosponsoring of legislation which, according to Sestak's campaign material, "prohibits the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to address climate change."

This would be Senator Inhofe's Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011.

In order to dispel any ambiguity, here's the first sentence of the bill:

To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change, and for other purposes.

And it defines "greenhouse gas" as any of the following:

1. Water vapor. 
2. Carbon dioxide. 
3. Methane. 
4. Nitrous oxide. 
5. Sulfur hexafluoride. 
6. Hydrofluorocarbons. 
7. Perfluorocarbons. 
8. Any other substance subject to, or proposed to be subject to, regulation, action, or consideration under this Act to address climate change. 

Which is pretty much everything.  That's the legislation Senator Toomey cosponsored.

Sestak also pointed out something we've already blogged on - Toomey's contrasting votes on climate science:

• Toomey voted for an amendment that said that Climate Science was not a hoax
• Toomey voted for an amendment that said that "human activity contributes to climate change."
• Toomey voted against an amendment that said that "human activity significantly contributes to climate change."

Note: For whatever political cover Toomey has gotten from these votes, he's still a climate science denier.

Given some recent poll data from Franklin and Marshall:

Senator Toomey currently leads Democrat Joe Sestak by a five point margin, 34% to 29%, although most voters (37%) are still undecided about this race. Joe Sestak’s name recognition is relatively low, with nearly two in three (63%) of the state’s registered voters saying they do not know enough about Sestak to have an opinion of him.

And some recent reporting:

Anxious about a candidate considered to be an unreliable maverick and a political liability, Democratic Party leaders have undertaken a quiet, intensive search in recent months to recruit a serious primary challenger to former Rep. Joe Sestak, the party's Senate nominee in 2010 who is again running for Pennsylvania's Senate seat.

The effort has involved former congressmen, state senators, county leaders and, recently, even a prominent district attorney. Their anxieties are being driven by party officials, who are concerned that Sestak could cost Democrats a must-win state in 2016.

It seems to me that by walking across the state, Sestak is looking to establish two things; solid grassroot support for his campaign (for both the primary and Senatorial) and to show how utterly different Senator Sestak's record would be from Senator Toomey's.

I'll leave you with a question: who walks 400+ miles in a month in Army boots but someone who's really really serious?

UPDATE: After a phone conversation with the campaign, I have a clarification regarding the boots.  Sestak only started the walk with the Army boots.  Along the way he's worn sneakers, hiking boots, snow boots and so on.  I was going by what I read at RollCall.  My apologies but mostly because it kinda kills my joke.  I did get some more info on the walk itself.  Sestak walked the complete 422 miles over the 25 days.  If he had to stop for some reason (for example to travel to a radio station for an interview) a marker would be put down in order for him to return to the same spot on the route that he left.  Army boots or no, that's still impressive.

PoliticsPA Didn't Do It's Homework (Toomey's Climate Vote)

Remember this?

It was only from a couple of days ago.  It as a blog post about Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey's recent climate contradictory amendment votes - wherein he voted in favor of the idea that climate change is real but against the idea that human activity significantly contributes to it.

And in doing so he showed us again he's denying the science (but at least he's trying to give himself some political cover).

At the end of the blog I wrote:

And if no one in the media calls him on it, we'll know they didn't do their homework. Or they did and they're giving him a pass on it.

Well it didn't take long.

Take a look at this from PoliticsPA.  In a short piece titled:

PA-Sen: Toomey Balances Right and Center Ahead of 2016

We read how he's trying to "balance" Right and Center:

For example, last week Sen. Toomey was one of only 15 Republicans who voted for an amendment to express that humans contribute to climate change.

The Senator’s spokeswoman, Elizabeth Anderson, asserted that Toomey’s views on climate change are nothing new. “Sen. Toomey has always said that human activity contributes to climate change,” she said. “The degree to which we play a role is clearly up for debate.”

Note how the vote against the amendment containing this text:

...human activity significantly contributes to climate change

Was omitted in this coverage of how Senator Toomey is looking to "balance" his conservative credentials with some more supposed centrist ones.

It paints an incomplete picture of the Senator's position on climate change in that he's still denying the science.

And PoliticsPA didn't do it's homework - or it did and it's giving Toomey a pass.

That didn't take long at all.

Senator Pat Toomey - A Science Denier, Still

Let's start at PennLive:

One of the thorniest issues pestering Republicans these days - climate change - was front and center in the U.S. Senate this week, but if you try to make sense of what happened, you might get a headache.

On the surface, it might seem as if Republicans, after long being reticent about the issue, finally came out on the side of most Americans and voted to affirm that climate change is real and not a hoax. But beyond the surface little has changed.

Sen. Pat Toomey is a good example. Long non-committed on his views about the scientific basis for climate change, the Lehigh Valley Republican this week voted in favor of the so-called "hoax" amendment.

This is absolutely true.  There were three amendments to the Keystone XL Pipeline Act voted on by the US Senate this week - and Toomey's changing vote tells us where he stands regarding science.

First the amendment he voted for.  This would be the amendment submitted by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and it reads like this (from the Congressional Record):

SA 29. Mr. WHITEHOUSE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 2 proposed by Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. RISCH, Mr. LEE, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. DAINES, Mr. MANCHIN, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. GARDNER, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. ALEXANDER, and Mrs. CAPITO) to the bill S. 1, to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 3, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:

SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING CLIMATE CHANGE.

It is the sense of the Senate that climate change is real and not a hoax.

So Senator Toomey voted for that.

Then a few minutes the Senate voted on another "Sense of Congress" amendment - this one submitted by Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota.  For the sake of this discussion, the important stuff is this:

(1) ``[W]arming of the climate system is unequivocal and each of the last [3] decades has been successively warmer at the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850.'';

(2) ``The [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], in addition to other institutions, such as the National Research Council and the United States (U.S.) Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), have concluded that it is extremely likely that global increases in atmospheric [greenhouse gas] concentrations and global temperatures are caused by human activities.'';

And this:

(1) climate change is real; and

(2) human activity contributes to climate change.

Senator Toomey voted for that one, too.

But then there was another vote.  For this Sense of Congress amendment.  The important stuff is this:

(1) ``[W]arming of the climate system is unequivocal and each of the last [3] decades has been successively warmer at the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850.'';

(2) ``The [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], in addition to other institutions, such as the National Research Council and the United States (U.S.) Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), have concluded that it is extremely likely that global increases in atmospheric [greenhouse gas] concentrations and global temperatures are caused by human activities.'';

And this:

(1) climate change is real; and

(2) human activity significantly contributes to climate change.

Senator Pat Toomey voted against that one.

Notice anything different?

The word "significantly."

Let's sum up.  According to his voting record this week, Pennsylvania Senator Toomey agrees with each of these statements:

• Climate change is real
• Climate change not a hoax
• Each of the last 3 decades has been successively warmer
• The IPCC concluded that it's "extremely likely" that increases in greenhouse gas concentrations and global temperatures are caused by human activities
• However, human activity does not significantly contribute to climate change.

That last statement is exactly not what scientists have been telling the Senate for almost 30 years:

The earth has been warmer in the first five months of this year than in any comparable period since measurements began 130 years ago, and the higher temperatures can now be attributed to a long-expected global warming trend linked to pollution, a space agency scientist reported today.

Here's the thing.  Senator Toomey is up for reelection in 2016.  He's going to be out on the campaign trail talking about a number of issues for some time.  And presumably someone somewhere is going to ask about his views on climate change.

If he says that he agrees climate change is not a hoax and that human activity contributes to the warming of the planet but fails to mention that he doesn't think that that contribution is significant, we'll know he's lying.  It'll be a straightforward lie by omission.

And if no one in the media calls him on it, we'll know they didn't do their homework.  Or they did and they're giving him a pass on it.

As of right now, he's still a climate science denier, no matter what sort of political cover he thinks those first two votes gave him.

Comments, Senator?

Torture Follow-Up Questions For Senator Toomey

Now that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has released its report showing Bush-era torture, it might be a good time to follow up on what some local Pennsylvania politicians have said regarding the torture.

Let's start, since he's approaching a re-election campaign, Senator Pat Toomey.

We visited this issue in 2010 where this happened:

However, on the hot-button issue of torture now under debate in Washington, Toomey twice refused to reveal his position on the interrogation method used on suspected terrorists which simulates drowning.

"My understanding is that [waterboarding] revealed some very, very important information that saved a lot of American lives," Toomey said Monday during a Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon, where he was the guest speaker.

Senator, please tell us, in light of the Senate report that found that:

At numerous times through out the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program, CIA personnel assessed that the most effective method for acquiring intelligence from detainees, including from detainees the CIA considered to be the most "high-value," was to confront the detainees with information already acquired by the Intelligence Community. CIA officers regularly called into question whether the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques were effective, assessing that the use of the techniques failed to elicit detainee cooperation or produce accurate intelligence. [Emphasis added]

 Do you still think that the torture revealed important information?  And if so, what?

And if you still believe that the torture was valuable, how do you square that assessment with the fact that it's against the law?  Is it not against the law simply because some say that it "saved lives" (even though the Senate report said it didn't)?

I think Pennsylvania voters are entitled to an answer to these questions.

Follow The Money - PATownhall

A week or so ago, I stumbled across this website.  It's "PaTownHall - Pennsylvania's marketplace of ideas" and it describes itself as:

PA Town Hall is a cooperative project involving over 20 center/right organizations and columnists from throughout Pennsylvania. It is a "one stop shop" for readers to view the latest policy papers, news releases, newsletters, polls, blogs and columns as well as listen to radio programs produced by participating organizations.

The site piqued my curiosity, to say the least.  Where did it come from?  Who hosts it?  Who's paying for it?  And finally, HOW MUCH SCAIFE MONEY IS ENTWINED IN THE PROJECT?

So let's follow the money.

On the "About" page we learn that:

PA Town Hall is owned and operated by the Lincoln Institute of Public Opinion Research, Inc. The Lincoln Institute is a 501c3 nonprofit educational foundation based in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The mission statement of the Lincoln Institute commits the organization to "the conduct of an extensive public information and educational program designed to foster federal and state public policy based upon traditional American values."

Ah, The Lincoln Institute.  According to the Bridgeproject, the Institute has received overall $1.428 million dollars over the last 20 or so years - 68% of which ($980,000) came from the Scaife controlled Allegheny Foundation.

But what about those "20 center/right organizations" that make up the project?

Let's take a look.  Here's the page titled "Member Groups".  Alot of the list is made up of individuals, so let's set them aside and just concentrate on the some of groups on the "Member Group" page that have received Scaife funding (all info from the BridgeProject):

• Allegheny Institute: $6.484 million total, 89% ($5.8 million) from Scaife foundations
• Commonwealth Foundation: $7.523 million total, 35% ($2.667 million) from Scaife foundations
• Foundation for Individual Rights in Education: $9.865 million total 14.7% ($1.45 million) from Scaife foundations

And so on.  I note that our good friend Salena Zito is also on the "Member Groups" list.  She's a staff writer and editorial columnist for the Tribune-Review

Here's a thought experiment: What would PATownhall look like had it never received 68% of it's foundation funding from the Scaife Foundations?  What would the political geography of the state look like without all that money coming from those three sources all controlled (until recently, of course) by one very rich white guy?

Here's a couple more: The next time Salena Zito mentions anyone else (individual or organization) on the PA Townhall "Member Group" (for example Senator Toomey) will she, in the spirit of full disclosure, mention their common membership on that list?  

Next time Lowman Henry is so lovingly profiled by the Tribune-Review, will they point out that their former owner shuttled hundreds of thousands of dollars Henry's way to fund the Lincoln Institute?

Follow the money.

Meanwhile, Just Outside...

From Time Magazine:

April was the first time the monthly average of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere passed 400 parts per million, a threshold that the U.N. says has "symbolic and scientific significance"

It's from this press release from the World Meteorological Organization:

CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Its lifespan in the oceans is even longer. It is the single most important greenhouse gas emitted by human activities. It was responsible for 85% of the increase in radiative forcing – the warming effect on our climate - over the decade 2002-2012.

Between 1990 and 2013 there was a 34% increase in radiative forcing because of greenhouse gases, according to the latest figures from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

According to WMO’s Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere reached 393.1 parts per million in 2012, or 141% of the pre-industrial level of 278 parts per million. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased on average by 2 parts per million per year for the past 10 years.

I am wondering if Pennsylvania's Republican senator, Pat Toomey, has changed his mind from a few short years ago when he was quoted as saying:

My view is: I think the data is pretty clear. There has been an increase in the surface temperature of the planet over the course of the last 100 years or so. I think it’s clear that that has happened. The extent to which that has been caused by human activity I think is not as clear. I think that is still very much disputed and has been debated.

Actually Senator, it's not in dispute.  Hasn't been for a long long time.

But the quote is still from a few years ago, has there been a change of mind from the Club For Growth Senator?  I tried searching for the word "climate" at his Senatorial webpage and found nothing.  Samething for the phrase "global warming" - nothing.

I haven't been able to find any change - but that could be my lack of google skills.  Does anyone know if we can still assume Pat Toomey to be among the science deniers in the Senate?

Unless there's evidence to the contrary...

Senator Pat Toomey Misleads On The Minimum Wage

In case you missed it:

The Senate voted on Wednesday against going ahead on a bill that would gradually increase the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour, another rejection for legislation that has been a major focus of the Democrats' 2014 midterm campaign.

The final vote count was 54 to 42, with Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), who supports the legislation, taking the procedural step of voting against the bill so that he can reintroduce it at a later time.

Of course, our Republican Senator voted against:

"The last thing the American people need is a bill coming out of Washington that would wipe out hundreds of thousands of their jobs. Yet this is precisely what the Senate voted on today. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Senate Democrats' minimum wage bill will eliminate 500,000 jobs nationwide. And according to other studies, as many as 118,000 Pennsylvanians could lose a paycheck under this measure.

"Even worse, this bill will hit people who have fewer skills and younger workers the hardest -- the very people who most need an opportunity to get into the workforce, get their first job, and start their way up the economic ladder.

"I do not support government policy that puts hundreds of thousands of people out of work.

Ah, but Senator. You left out some very important CBO information, didn't you?

From the CBO webpage called The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income, we read:

Increasing the minimum wage would have two principal effects on low-wage workers. Most of them would receive higher pay that would increase their family’s income, and some of those families would see their income rise above the federal poverty threshold. But some jobs for low-wage workers would probably be eliminated, the income of most workers who became jobless would fall substantially, and the share of low-wage workers who were employed would probably fall slightly. [Emphases added.]

You left that out, didn't you?  You had to know it's there because you cited the CBO report but you decided not to tell us about how raising the minimum wage would boost the pay of most low wage workers.

Why?

So how many people are we talking here?  How many would see their incomes boosted?

Luckily the CBO report you only partially cited has an answer (it's on the same page, btw):

Many more low-wage workers would see an increase in their earnings. Of those workers who will earn up to $10.10 under current law, most—about 16.5 million, according to CBO’s estimates—would have higher earnings during an average week in the second half of 2016 if the $10.10 option was implemented. [Emphasis added.]

16.5 million??

Yea, ya left that part out, dincha?

I'd say that by withholding this rather important information, Senator, you're misleading your constituency.

Oh, and one last thing.  You say in your statement that:

We need to stop this bad legislation in its tracks and move ahead on proposals that would actually spur hiring and economic growth...

And yet that very same CBO report says:

Once the increases and decreases in income for all workers are taken into account, overall real income would rise by $2 billion.

Isn't that economic growth?

The Casey-Toomey Porter Deal Hits The News

A scant 2 full weeks after I blogged on it, the P-G is reporting on the deal:

Pennsylvania progressives are looking to scuttle an apparent backroom deal on judicial nominations that the state's two senators are negotiating.

The arrangement would have Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., sign off on Pittsburgh lawyer David J. Porter's nomination to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In exchange, Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., would defer to Mr. Casey on at least three of Pennsylvania's other eight judicial vacancies, according to opponents of the deal.

By the way, all those petitions?

33,000 people signed them.

Why would they?  Perhaps here's the reason:

In a post on its website, Keystone Progress characterized Mr. Porter as an extreme conservative who opposes abortion rights, gay marriage and restrictions on gun ownership. It notes that Mr. Porter leads the Lawyers Chapter of the Pittsburgh Federalist Society, that he opposed the 2009 nomination of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, that he wrote a Post-Gazette opinion piece asserting that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional and that he is a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association.

The writer of the P-G piece, Tracie Mauriello, gets another side of the story - the local attorneys who believe Porter's not the ideologue that all those 33,000 petition signers believe him to be.  Take a look:

"He's a brilliant lawyer and he's fair-minded," said attorney Tina O. Miller, who has known Mr. Porter for several years. "I have never found David to be overly political. Whether it's as a lawyer advocating for his client or in bar association and community activities, he has always been willing to listen to everyone's viewpoint and give consideration to everyone's viewpoint and to be fair. "Those are exactly the qualities I would want in a judge."

Mary Austin, a health care attorney in Pittsburgh who considers herself a liberal, said she has never seen ideology influence Mr. Porter's legal work in the decade she has known him.

"I really don't know [his politics]. We've never discussed it," she said. What she does know is, "David is a very good lawyer and has shown very good sense."

That may well be the case.  It may well be the case that he's a brilliant lawyer and that whatever his politics, the people of Pennsylvania should set aside them aside and simply judge him by the quality of his legal work.

Yea, tell that to Debo Adegbile.

Toomey, Casey And Porter (A Petition Update)

Hey, remember this?

That was a blog post where I ask my Senator, Senator Bob Casey, what he's thinking making a deal with my other Senator, Senator Pat Toomey, to get David J. Porter a judgeship.  The thing is, while I am sure David Porter's a fine attorney, his politics lean heavily right ward.  That in itself should not disqualify him for a judgeship, the fact that a Democratic senator is looking to get him onto the bench is somewhat troubling.

Huffingtonpost wrote about it a few days ago (and, uh, a few days after I wrote about it - just sayin').

Well a few petitions have been set up (here, here and here) and guess what?

From Huffingtonpost:

Progressives in Pennsylvania have been working for weeks to derail an apparent deal between their U.S. senators to submit a conservative Republican judicial nominee to the White House -- and it looks like they're gaining momentum.

More than 20,000 people have signed a petition urging Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) not to recommend corporate lawyer David J. Porter to President Barack Obama for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. A coalition of state lawyers, advocates and community members collected the signatures and plans to deliver them to Casey on Monday, according to the Pennsylvania Coalition for Constitutional Values.

So what, again, is the problem:

"The coalition isn't just opposing Porter because he's a right-winger," said Michael Morrill of Keystone Progress, a statewide progressive advocacy group. "He is a radical right-wing activist and leader in anti-choice, anti-marriage equality, anti-environmental movements in Pennsylvania who is so far out of the mainstream that he can't adequately represent everyday Pennsylvanians."

And Rick Bloomingdale, the president of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO had some issues as well:

Bloomingdale said he plans to personally talk to Casey about Porter next Monday when the senator is in Pittsburgh for an annual AFL-CIO convention. He said he understands that, in a state with a senator in each party, there are deals that have to be made on judicial nominees. But it's "troubling" to him that Toomey is pushing a nominee like Porter after holding up some of Casey's labor-friendly nominees in the Senate.

"So if he's going to play the ideological game, we certainly ask Sen. Casey to say [Porter] is too extreme for Pennsylvania," said Bloomingdale. "He's not going to be impartial on the bench."

Toomey blocked some of Casey's nominees and STILL Casey makes this sort of deal?

That is troubling.

Senator Casey needs has to ask himself this question:  If the GOP controlled the Senate and White House would Senator Toomey make a similar deal for a union friendly judicial nominee in exchange for three Porters?

I would think not.  I would think that if that were the case, the GOP would demand "bipartisanship" and then quietly redefine "bipartisanship" into "do what I tell you and we'll call that bipartisan."

Senator, if this is a deal as described above we need to know the details.  Your constituents and more importantly the people who voted for you have a right to know what you're getting in exchange for David J. Porter.

UPDATE: Thinkprogress is reporting this now.

Senator Casey, What ARE You Thinking?

Received this from Keystone Progress last night:

Keystone Progress has learned that a backroom deal by Senators Bob Casey and Pat Toomey may result in President Obama appointing a Tea Party lawyer to serve as judge on the Western Pennsylvania District Court in Pittsburgh.

The nomination of David J. Porter is working its way to the White House as part of a deal between Pennsylvania’s two United States Senators. Senators Casey and Toomey are expected to jointly present Porter to President Obama any day now as part of a deal that will allow Casey to nominate people for 3 other vacancies.

Senator Casey, is this true?  But before we go any farther, who's David J Porter?

Well, he's a shareholder at Buchanan, Ingersoll and Rooney.  No big deal there, but he's also a trustee of the (let's be honest - right wing) Grove City College and a contributor to college's Center for Vision and Values.

Let's all take a moment to remember what the center is all about (from their own webpage):

Herein lies the difference between our approach to the pursuit of personal, political, economic, and religious freedom and the reigning viewpoint in higher education. We believe that God is sovereign. We believe that man is made in His image. We believe the Bible is indispensable to understanding the truth about our relationship to God, to our world, and to each other. These core beliefs ground human dignity and freedom in God’s revealed truth, a truth that animates our mission as we affirm the eternal relevance of Jesus’ challenge in John’s gospel, “And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

That's John 8:32, by the way.

Then there's the membership in the Republican National Lawyers Association and the Pittsburgh chapter of the rightwing Federalist Society.

None of which would actually disqualify him to a judgeship but we're not talking about that.  We're talking about the deal supposedly set by the Democratic Senator from Pennsylvania, Bob Casey, to get this guy on the bench.

By the way, Porter was then-Senator Rick Santorum's attorney when lil Ricky was facing all that trouble with his residency.  From Scaife's Trib:

U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum lives with his family at a Virginia house when Congress is in session, but state and federal laws allow him to keep his official voting residence in Pennsylvania, his lawyer wrote in a letter to Allegheny County.

Wasn't Santorum running for office then? And wasn't his opponent a guy named BOB CASEY?

I realize there's a tradition in legal circles not to criticize an attorney for who his/her client is.  Everyone's entitled to a vigorous defense.

But didn't both Senators Casey and Toomey vote against Debo Adegbile precisely because they didn't like his client (the Mumia Abu-Jamal)?

So my questions for Senator Casey:

• Who are your three candidates for those 3 vacancies?
• What happens if, when you propose any or all of them, the other republicans in the Senate filibuster them?
• Why would you make such a deal anyway?

Feel free to email me with anything on this.

If you feel strongly about this, feel free to sign the petition.

Senator Toomey Defends His (Shameful) Vote

First, his video:


Transcript:

Today was a good day for Pennsylvania and for the United States and for anybody who cares about our criminal justice system and the integrity of that system.

Mumia Abu-Jamal was a cold blooded murderer who shot and killed Danny Faulkner when Danny Faulkner lie helpless, wounded, and unarmed on his back on a street in Philadelphia.

What later happened was sickening. A campaign to turn Mumia Abu-Jamal somehow into a victim, to make him a celebrity and to use him to run a political campaign that would attack America, condemn America as a racist society and indict our criminal justice system.

It made a mockery of what this country stands for and our justice system and the fact that Debo Adegbile would participate in this campaign through his supervision of the LDF attorneys who were actively participating in it, in my view, disqualified him from such an important post as the head of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.

Today a majority of my senate colleagues agreed with me, including seven Democrats and all the Republicans. I appreciate the bipartisan support and the support of the FOP, across Pennsylvania especially, the Philadelphia FOP. I appreciate the support of Seth Williams, the District Attorney of Philadelphia.

And I am very pleased with the outcome of this vote.

Now, let's take a look at the facts.  The Washington Post has a good summary:

It's the cop-killing that won't go away.

More than 30 years have passed since the Mumia Abu-Jamal was convicted and sentenced to death for the killing of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner. But the case remains an internationally-known political lightning rod. And, this week, lightning is striking in D.C.

The latest incarnation of the Abu-Jamal trial comes as it threatens to derail the nomination of Debo P. Adegbile, President Obama's nominee to head the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. He previously worked as legal counsel to the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund, which helped Abu-Jamal get his death sentenced overturned and has represented him at various points since.

So it wasn't about guilt or innocence of Abu-Jamal, was it?  It was about his death sentence and whether the decision to impose it was reached fairly.  Turns out it wasn't.

But before we go on, let's take a look at the Post's very next paragraph:

While Adegbile's involvement with the Abu-Jamal case was limited -- and came well after the death sentence was tossed -- Faulkner's widow, the Fraternal Order of Police, and Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) have mounted a crusade to block the nomination. And recent development suggest they might prevail.

And they did, of course.  Despite the fact that Adegbile's involvement was limited and came well after the death sentence was tossed.

Back to the case.  This is from the LDF:

Mr. Abu-Jamal is on death row in Pennsylvania for the 1981 murder of a police officer in Philadelphia. His death sentence was vacated in 2001 after the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found constitutional error in the jury instructions and verdict form used in his 1982 penalty phase. That decision was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 2008 but then sent back to the Third Circuit by the United States Supreme Court in 2010 for further review.

By the way, the Judge who issued that ruling, William Yohn, was appointed by George H. W. Bush (a Republican President of the United States).  The (H. W.) Bush-appointed Yohn was the one who tossed the death sentence and sent it to the Third Circuit for review.

The three judge panel of the Third Circuit that affirmed the Yohn's judgement included Chief Judge Anthony J. Scirica (who wrote the opinion) and Judge Robert Cowen, who were both appointed by Ronald Wilson Reagan (another Republican President of the United States).

That same (mostly Reagan-appointed) three judge panel reaffirmed its earlier decision in 2011.  It is about this time is when the Adegbile supervised LDF got involved in this case:

On January 28, 2011, Mumia Abu-Jamal retained the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) to represent him in the ongoing appeal of his capital murder conviction and death sentence. LDF will serve as co-counsel in the case with Judy Ritter, Esq., of Widener Law School in Wilmington, Delaware, who has represented Mr. Abu-Jamal since 2003.

So what was Adegbile's sin according to Senator Toomey?  Defending (or whatever attorneys call it) the 2008 decision by a mostly Republican-appointed panel of judges that this mostly Republican appointed panel then reaffirmed a few months later.  It was about protecting the constitutional rights of someone found guilty of murder.

Even those found guilty of murder have constitutional rights, you know.

But punishing the attorneys who defend that idea is "protecting the integrity of the criminal justice system" to Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey.  You're wrong, Senator.  This was not a good day for those who believe in the criminal justice system.  Shame on you.

And we can not forget the other Pennsylvania Senator, Bob Casey (a Democrat), who also voted against his party and against his President in voting against Debo Adegbile's confirmation. 

Good going, Senator.  When you're on the same side as Pat Toomey, you're almost always on the wrong side of an issue.  Without a doubt.  Shame on you, too.

The VOTE

Ok, so the disaster's been avoided.  For now.

From the AP (by way of the P-G):

Up against a deadline, Congress passed and sent a waiting President Barack Obama legislation late Wednesday night to avoid a threatened national default and end the 16-day partial government shutdown, the culmination of an epic political drama that placed the U.S. economy at risk.

The Senate voted first, a bipartisan 81-18 at midevening. That cleared the way for a final 285-144 vote in the Republican-controlled House about two hours later on the bill, which hewed strictly to the terms Obama laid down when the twin crises erupted more than three weeks ago.

In The House, they made a few changes. From the NYTimes:

Most House Republicans opposed the bill, but 87 voted to support it. The breakdown showed that Republican leaders were willing to violate their informal rule against advancing bills that do not have majority Republican support in order to end the shutdown. All 198 Democrats voting supported the measure.

So they sidestepped the Hastert Rule.  Interesting.  Here's how the AP characterizes the bill:

Simplicity at the end, there was next to nothing in the agreement beyond authorization for the Treasury to resume borrowing and funding for the government to reopen.

But I'm more interested in the 18 Senators and 144 House members who voted against the bill.

Against a bill that averted a national default (and the resulting economic chaos that was sure to follow).  Against a bill to reopen the guv'ment (allowing hundreds of thousands of guv'ment employees to get back to work).  Who could possibly vote against that?

Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey, Pennsylvania House Members Scott Perry, Joseph Pitts, and of course, Keith Rothfus, that's who.

They voted to keep the memorials closed, they voted to damage the nation's credit rating and send the world into another economic crisis.

All in a stupid attempt to stop the Affordable Care Act.

Something to remember when they're up for re-election.  Or they're quoted in the news about anything.

The Commonweath Foundation

Found in The Nation:

The Commonwealth Foundation, a right-wing think tanks in Harrisburg, is plotting to go after public sector employee unions. In a letter from Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) on behalf of the Foundation, the think tank announced “Project Goliath,” a new effort to make Pennsylvania the next Wisconsin or Michigan. The Commonwealth Foundation is one of a fifty-nine-state network of similar think tanks that have vastly expanded since 2009. The letter makes clear that conservatives believe that right-wing political infrastructure—the organizing institutes, the partisan media outlets, the rapid response efforts—has helped turn the tide against labor unions.

The piece posts (and quotes) the letter and you can read it for yourself here.

There's something I want to add to the piece (but this isn't a criticism of the writers reporting - he was looking at a particular section of the story and so there's no reason he had to include anything else).  If it's a warning for PA residents about an upcoming effort by the legislature to undermine the state's labor unions, then we can probably expect to see some reporting about it by the Tribune-Review.

And if Toomey's letter lauds the Commonwealth Foundation (a right-wing think tanks in Harrisburg) and if the Trib covers the story in some way, then we want to get out front to point out (yet again) Trib owber Richard Mellon Scaife's financial connections to the Commonwealth Foundation.

Check out this page from the Bridge Project.  It lists all the foundational support given to Commonwealth.  By my math and at this time it adds up to a little over $6.6 million dollars (unadjusted for inflation from 1988 to 2011).  Of that foundations controlled by Scaife make up more than a third ($2.5 million out of $6.6 million).  In fact, in the first five years of foundation support all but $25,000 of it came from foundations controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife ($450K out of $475K).  In the first ten Scaife's foundations constituted about 57% of all the foundational support ($900K out of about $1.6 million).

The fun part is to look at Toomey's letter itself or more specifically the Commonwealth document attached to it.  Included in the letter are some accolades about the Commonweath Foundation from some other conservative think tanks.  There's praise from:

• Cato Institute ($2.4 million in Scaife money)
• Competitive Enterprise Institute ($3.6 million in Scaife money)

So whenever the Trib starts reporting on the Commonwealth Foundation's efforts (or the legislature's efforts spawned from it) to pass any sort of "right to work" legislation, we should keep in mind the millions Scaife's already spent on it.

Tweet of the Day

In 5yrs when you can't buy a gun b/c a doctor says ur crazy for believing in a resurrected Jesus, thank @sentoomey
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) April 11, 2013

(h/t to Spork)

How did they get here? (Updated)

Looking at our stat counter, it appears that quite a few people have arrived at this blog in the past few days by way of a two-year old post -- this one:

Pat Toomey: "My idea of gun control is a steady aim"

Hmm, I wonder if he wants to revise that statement?

UPDATE: Here's video of Toomey making his "joke" (Thanks, OPJ):

Follow-up to "We Won't Be Sold Out" Rally

We blogged about the "We Won't Be Sold Out" rally yesterday. Here's a snippet of video (courtesy of Joy Sabl) from the event which occurred in the pouring rain:

  You can see the text of a follow-up email which was sent to Sen. Bob Casey's Pittsburgh staffer by Democracy for Pittsburgh after the jump.

"We Won't Be Sold Out" Rally and more today

Fuck the Fiscal Cliff
Via One Pittsburgh press release:

Frustrated community leaders, activists and organizations like One Pittsburgh are joining thousands across the country in a collective “What gives?!?!?!” to elected officials like Senator Bob Casey who didn’t seem to get the memo back in November. On December 10, hundreds will gather to say it bigger and louder: We want jobs, not cuts, from our elected leaders.

There will be several actions happening today including:

On December 10 we’ll make hundreds of phone calls while hundreds more participate in a Facebook flash mob, demanding that Casey stick to his word and fight for the middle class, One Pittsburgh will be flying a very large message over the city, a message that neither Sen Casey nor Sen. Toomey can miss, or misunderstand.

Rally info via Facebook:

"We Won't Be Sold Out" Rally
When: Monday, December 10, 2012, 2:30 PM
Where: 11 Stanwix Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15222