Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Introducing John Schnatterly

I was able to reach John Schnatterly, and asked him to send me his bio. Mr. Schnatterly needs to get the Republican nomination on January 19, 2013. I understand  a rather new Friends of John Schnatterly page exists on Facebook. I wish him well.

John Schnatterly

Biography

John grew up in suburban Pittsburgh in the 60’s and 70’s, the 5th of seven children in the Schnatterly family. John went to West Allegheny High School where he met his sweetheart and future wife, Cindy. In 1978 John graduated Salutatorian and earned a 4 year Army ROTC scholarship which he took to Penn State. He was active in student government, various Army ROTC organizations, and a couple of honor societies. John and Cindy married in 1979 after Cindy had graduated from Robert Morris University. In 1982 John graduated with Highest Honors with a degree in Urban and Regional Planning and as a Distinguished Military Graduate. The day of graduation he also was commissioned a 2nd Lieutenant in the Regular Army.

John was trained as an Aviation Logistician and Helicopter Test Pilot. He served at bases in Virginia, Alabama, Germany, and California. While in Germany he turned around a helicopter maintenance unit that had been failing to one that exceeded all Army standards for readiness and was the highest rated in Germany. While serving in the Army John also worked on his Masters Degree in Business Administration and graduated in 1986 with distinction (Boston University). John received two promotions, up to the rank of Captain, and was poised to be considered for the next promotion when he decided to return to civilian life and pursue a new business career.

John and Cindy had four children while serving in the Army, and their fifth was born their first year in civilian life. The transition was difficult due to a poor job market back in their hometown of Pittsburgh. John worked a number of part-time jobs and received support from his extended family. Eventually John used his experience from one of those part-time jobs – in market research – to begin and grow his own consulting company.

Today John is President of V V G Marketing, a partner in Mega Associates, and a twenty-year contributor and project manager to Echo Strategies (all strategy, marketing, and research firms). He also just recently started a new company, NGV Group, which attempts to take advantage of our abundant natural gas reserves by converting fleet vehicles to run on natural gas.

John is a member of the South Hills Chamber of Commerce, a long-time chairman of their government affairs committee, and a former 2-term President of the Board. John was instrumental in the merger of what were then the Mt Lebanon Chamber and the South Hills Chamber. John served many years as Vice Chair (and still current member) of the Southwestern PA Regional Advocacy Council, a business group that advocates at the state and federal level for reform in legislation that affects businesses. Issues addressed included tort reform, phase out of Capital Stock & Franchise Fee, lowering Corporate Net Income tax, transportation infrastructure, pension reform, and many more.

John has been a member of Firearm Owners Against Crime and People Concerned for the Unborn Child for many years. He was Chairman of the Board of a Pregnancy Care Center for ten years and is still an active supporter. In the early 90’s John co-founded a local public policy organization that eventually became a chapter of a nationwide group to help inform Christians about important public policy issues.

John is a deacon, choir director, Sunday school teacher and occasional lay preacher. John and Cindy’s five children are all grown now. They also quasi- adopted a sixth who came to live with them after leaving a deteriorating home situation. She also is grown and has her own family now in Bethel Park. All but one of their children studied to be teachers and have taught in public, charter and private schools. One daughter is in business. John and Cindy have 2 grandchildren.

John has been an adjunct lecturer on marketing management in the Waynesburg University MBA program and is teaching marketing research at Pitt.

John has worked in campaigns from school board to U.S. President since leaving the Army. He has been a Republic Committeeman for most of that time. In 1994, while living in Dormont, John ran for State Representative in the 27th District against a 12 year incumbent (D) where Republicans had 30 percent voter registration. He ran a vigorous campaign, creating a campaign team in places Republicans had not run in a very long time. A ground game of daily door-to-door, phonebanks, postcards, and public appearances were utilized. John did not win in this challenging district, but gained invaluable experience. In 1996 John ran for an open State Senate seat (37th). This district covered much of the South Hills and part of the West Hills.

John, as usual, spent many days knocking on doors. A lot of those days he spent in Bethel Park with a campaign team of hard workers. John and Cindy were impressed with and enjoyed this community. So a year later, having outgrown their home in Dormont, John and his family moved to Bethel Park. In 1998 John challenged an incumbent who had recently won a special election for the 40th legislative district. This was another aggressive campaign where John raised many important policy issues and gained the attention of Republican leaders.

John is known as a dedicated Republican Committeeman in Bethel Park. He has assisted many candidates in the South Hills, Pennsylvania, and nationally over the years, including his former Republican opponents. In the last year John began writing a blog for fun - and to provoke some serious discussion on public policy (http://john-schnatterly.blogspot.com/ ).

John is a candidate for State Representative in the 42nd District because he is concerned that the American Dream of a better future and greater opportunity will be lost for the next generation. He is committed to the seeing the American Dream live on for his children and grandchildren and that they will have more opportunity than he did.


93 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm voting for Dan.

Lebo Citizens said...

Remely or Miller?
Elaine

Anonymous said...

His resume is impressive RCML, take notice.
Dan Remely's performance as a school board director is not.

I'm taking a chance with Schnatterly!

Besides, considering the RCML's record of backing and endorsing winners (they didn't endorse Kluck or Birk's) there's another reason to try out the new guy.

Anonymous said...

Let's compare:
Schnatterly:
"While in Germany he turned around a helicopter maintenance unit that had been failing to one that exceeded all Army standards for readiness and was the highest rated in Germany."
Remely:
Erects a ludicrous outdoor board, has a hillside collapse onto a public roadway and misses his educated "I have building maintenance experience" guesstimate for the HS project by at least $18 million.

Oh yeah, there's a doubt in mind who should get the republican nod!

Anonymous said...

Well, now that his full bio is out there, I give it about 72 hours before the scummy element of the Dem party starts emailing negative things about him. Come on, Posti and Birks, get moving. dont make me look like I'm off in my estimates.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, I know now that I won't be voting for this anti abortion gun nut!

Anonymous said...

I read his biography. Very impressive. I also read his blog. Very well-written, but he's way out there. He's got all the Todd Akin talking points. Gay marriage, abortion, contraceptives, Christians are being oppressed in the U.S. I know some of you believe that the Republican Party should take a hard line on those issues. I say go for it. You just lost a national election because of those social issues (would a pro-choice Mitt Romney have won? I think so). If you want to dig in further as the demographics shift against you every day, as a progressive, I say go for it. Happy Days are Here Again!

None of which obviates the respect I have for Elaine's work fighting cronyism in local politics.
--Neil Berch

Anonymous said...

4:08 so what are Dan Remely's positions on the same topics?

So Neil what are you saying republicans should transform themselves into progressive democrats (or RINOs if you prefer)?
And the Romney lost solely based on his abortion stance.
I'd like to see your evidence on that claim.

I can see the position that doing the same thing over and over again and getting the same results might be stupid, but voting for someone that will be supporting another trillion dollars in revenue (revenue for govt. = taxes) is pretty foolish also.

Ah yes, I know the democrats are proposing only raising taxes on the wealthiest of the wealthy and large corporations.
Wonder what public pension funds invest in, Solydra, Fiskar and why Hollywood, the land of the Rich & Famous got special tax breaks in the cliff deal.

Anonymous said...

"None of which obviates the respect I have for Elaine's work fighting cronyism in local politics.
--Neil Berch"

On this topic we do agree and why a unanmious vote for President and VP should be an insult.

Anonymous said...

Solyndra not Solydra

Anonymous said...

3:42 there it is... see 4:08's comment. The name calling begins!

He says he's a gun owner against crime so hey brand him a "gun nut"!

Nice community, eh?

I suppose Linfante's deer hunters will be engaging in pillow fights while they cull the over-abundant herd.

Anonymous said...

How come Linfante's not a gun nut. She wants to spend thousands and thousands of dollars hire 'gun nuts' to discharge weapons in MTL?

Oh that's different they're here to only hunt deer. Guess these pro hunters, go out and pick up a weapon for the first time if they get hired by our comissioner, then destroy the weapon and go home never to touch another one until they get another contract.
Gives me great confidence they'll hit what they're aiming at.

Anonymous said...

I'll hold my nose and vote for Dan Miller. I just don't agree with Mr. Schnatterly. Why should I care if my two female neighbors want to get married? How would their marriage harm me or anyone else?
I believe that assault weapons should be outlawed.
Abortion should be safe and legal, and Marijuana should be legal.
If that makes me a progressive or a libertarian, then label me, I don't care.
...and I have lived in Lebo all my life, not an "outsider". That complaint is ridiculous as well.

Anonymous said...

5:50 why should we have to hold our nose, that's the height of our expectations?

I too don't care if two female or two neighbors want to get married that's none of my business. A man and woman want to live together unmarried doesn't bother me either. Do I have to make some special concessions to any of the unions, thats where I start to have problems.

Abortion is up to the individual as is birth control.

Guns, I don't have a clue for a solution to this one, but a knee-jerk reaction to assault weapons isn't the answer.

Chicago, Obama's home town has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country. In a following post I will submit a list of 107 youth killed by guns in Chicago. Most I believe were not blown away by assault guns, but rather handguns.

You're just not thinking here or you don't know much about guns. I don't own any, but I can think of many very distructive weapons, none semi or full automatics that can be fired reloaded in less than 5 seconds. With a police response time of 10-15 minutes that's a lot of lying lead.

It's curious that you don't think you should push your view on marriage or abortion but it is your right to determine that a law-abiding citizen that has no history of harming anyone, ever can't own something they may enjoy.

I don't drink and I'm appalled at the number of people killed by drunk or ahem, have you forgotten so soon, marijuana influenced drivers. But I don't declare people that drink shouldn't be allowed to own a car.

Think a little bit, please.

Lebo Citizens said...

Please don't send the list of youth killed in Chicago. I believe you.
Elaine

Anonymous said...

550--what does abortion have to do with being a state representative? That's a federal issue.
As for being a "gun nut", ignorant clowns who post statements like that don't deserve the rights we have in the country. Guess by posting on this blog it makes one a "free speech nut"? Love how lefties try to win the debate by labeling opposition crazy or extreme. This is from the party that opposed civil rights, created the financial mess of 2007, blatantly lies to the public with respect to raising/not raising taxes and consistently tried to subvert the Constitution.

Romney lost for a lot of reasons. Who cares? It's time for the GOP to stop crying, get new blood in the party and start actually competing. Regarding the Remely/Schnatterly race, anyone who votes for Remely should have a mental health exam.

Anonymous said...

So how typical, we've heard why people aren't voting for the 'gun nut.'

But I haven't heard one individual attempting to explain or convince me to vote for either Remely or Miller.

They should get my vote because they're from Mt. Lebanon? That's it, that's the justification.

How about discussing real issues that can be tackled with a definitive outcome.
Property taxes, school financing, state liquor stores, charter schools & vouchers, teacher unions, public pension funding, the turnpike commission or privatization, rising state college tuition.

No The big issues for someone like 5:50 are... can two women get married, can they get high legally, and can they get knocked up and not have to keep it.

I'm beginning to think the first candidate that proposes one must take a test to prove they have an IQ in double digits will get my vote!

Anonymous said...

Correction: I'm beginning to think the first candidate that proposes one must take a test to prove they have an IQ in double digits before they can get to vote, will get my vote!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 738: While it's true that abortion is permitted under the US Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade, that same decision gives states significant latitude in regulating abortion. Pennsylvania tends to regulate it more than most states, but less than a few others. And there are open issues that are debated every year in the General Assembly regarding abortion regulation. It matters, to people on both sides of the issue.--Neil Berch

Anonymous said...

Yes that is a good point Mr. Berch.

So, again why do we engage in conversation like I'm not voting for that 'gun nut'?

Why not, I'm voting for Mr. _ _ _ _ _ _ over Mr. X because he's pro-choice or favors gay marriage and wants to outlaw guns?

Not accusing you Neil, you usually offer thought provoking contributions, but just once I'd love to see a race decided on why this candidate is better than the othera because...! Not because some blogger, strategist, r campaign chair paints the opponent as a nut, hater or lunatic.

Anonymous said...

OK, 10:16, fair enough.
1. I thought Dan Miller did a great job on the Mt. Lebanon Commission, and he was open to listening to all his constituents.
2. I would like to see the Democrats control the State House, as I agree with far more of their platform than I do with that of their Republican colleagues.
3. Unless Mr. Miller holds the same views as Mr. Schnatterly on contraception, reproductive rights, gay rights, and gun issues, I prefer Mr. Miller's views.
4. I don't think some of the things Mr. Schnatterly says on his blog about President Obama are especially constructive.
5. If Mr. Remely is the Republican nominee, I would say that Mr. Miller's public service compares favorably with Mr. Remely's. Together with my ideological proclivity, that makes it an easy call.--Neil Berch

Anonymous said...

Schnatterly has an impressive background and obviously isn't wet behind the ears when it comes to politics. If you don't agree with Schnatterly's views, what are the others' views? What do you know Mr. Berch? At least Schnatterly has the nads to state his rather than sneak around playing politics while deciding where the best back scratching is.





Anonymous said...

Neil - Sure, let the D's control the state house just like they control the Commission here, then the whole state can decline just like this community is doing. Sorry, but you are blinded by your Democrat allegiance or perhaps you don't see the sausage-making going on in our local politics. If you teach at political science at the university level as you appear to, you are an example of how academia is advancing the democrat agenda.

Lebo Citizens said...

Just so you all know, we have to wait and see who the RCML will be nominating. Will it be Dan Remely? Or will it be John Schnatterly? We won't know until January 19. If it is Remely, he will be running simultaneously for School Board. We just have so few viable Republican candidates, that we need him to run for both elections.
Elaine

Anonymous said...

Thanks Neil.
I'll offer mine.
I thought Miller did an admirable job as commissioner. A couple of issues didn't sit well, but he is a good listener, sincere.
On the state house I'd like to give the republicans another term. Corbett needs to get on track and quit screwing around.
Abortion, I'm AoK with Roe v Wade,wish we could move on. Gay rights, gay marriage isn't my cup of tea, legalize it, and move on. I don't need to see gay parades, or have special holidays for individuals sexual proclivities.
Gun rights if that is what Schnatterly is advocating he wins on that one. I firmly believe the founding fathers established that right for a very valuable reason. Do we need solutions to stop gun violence most definitely, but as of yet Miller or Remely don't offer one.
I have a lot of questions on the Obama agenda. Like rapidly escalating debt, runaway spending, sexual interest like Fiskar and Solunfra. Al Gore's green agenda bothers me too.
So on a number of the important issues none of the candidates have presented any definitive answers.
Remely unfortunately in his role as school director was a complete disappointment. I follow his promises closely and to date I don't believe he's delivered one. So for me he's out.
It's a toss up between Miller and Schnatterly. I've only just heard of him today, but I think overall he could be my candidate.
Miller, is a helluva nice guy and with overlooking a few disappointments I could live with him as our rep.
Both at this point are potential winners.
If either engages in a negative campaign or let's the attack dogs run their campaign they'll have lost my vote.

Anonymous said...

RCML, like the song says "turn out the lights the party's over".

If the R's choose Remely, they can kiss the house seat goodbye. Schnatterly looks strong, but why aren't there more options??

Anonymous said...

10:53: On a couple of occasions, I've surveyed my students (near the end of a semester), and the majority can't tell my political affiliation (which actually is Independent).

10:46: I think I've got a pretty good idea where Dan Miller stands on the issues, but I will be sure before I vote. In this past election, I wrote in a candidate for the U.S. House, because, while I find Mr. Murphy very disappointing, I could not bring myself to vote for someone (Mr. Maggi) who held such conservative views on social issues.--Neil Berch

Anonymous said...

Elaine: One process question: is it the RCML that makes the nomination? I don't see why that would be the case. I would think it would be the Republican committeepeople from throughout the legislative district. If so, that bodes somewhat better for Mr. Schnatterly's chances.--Neil Berch

Lebo Citizens said...

Neil, I believe you are correct. Sorry about that.
Elaine

Anonymous said...

I think the votes will be from the districts, but Mt. Lebanon has the majority of the votes, so if Schnatterly can get enough votes from Mt. Lebanon he will win because he has strong support in the other districts.

Anonymous said...

Hopefully, Neil we've established an intelligent conversation regarding the candidates and the issues.
As I said before, I'm undecided Miller vs Schnatterly and would even like to hear why Remely should get my vote.
I apologize for the spell check errors, I've as yet not found a way to override auto spell check even after previewing. Trying to fix mistakes seems to make things worse... guess that makes me a moron.

Anonymous said...

My understanding is that voting members of the various committees within the legislative district choose the candidate. It's definitely not RCML's decision exclusively. The Allegheny County RC may have input too.

Lebo Citizens said...

That is great news as we all know my feelings towards the RCML.
Elaine

Anonymous said...

You're not alone on that one Elaine. The RCML is probably the best ally the democrats could hope for.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Berch, I think you've made your point. Your views have been stated, though you still haven't articulated why one candidate is better than another. I don't blame you. There isn't much on which to base such a statement.
But I will once agian ask, what does abortion have to do with a race for state house? The answer--nothing. There are very specific parameters within which the state can operate but there are also boundaries, if you will, put in place by the Supreme Court's decision (which was actually outside the scope of their authority by creating a law instead of just interpreting one but that's a discussion for another forum). So, again, abortion is a non-issue for a state race.
As for Schnatterly's views on Obama, so what? His views represent at least 49 percent of active voters, and I would venture to say probably closer to 60 percent of the country as a whole. I realize being stuck in the world of academia shelters one from much of reality but this president is the most secretive, most corrupt, most dishonest individual to ever serve in that role. If Dems want to pretend everything is just fine, then shame on them. But the rest of the universe sees the STILL GROWING deficit, the refusal to cut spending, the push for extremists to serve in cabinet positions, the expansion (not just the continuation) of many of the Bush policies against which Obama railed, multiple vacations which almost no other Americans could ever afford yet we're paying for them, the Benghazi cover-up, a push to eliminate Constitutional rights including the individual right to bear arms (which, contrary to what liberals spout, has been up upheld by the SC in various decisions), Obama-care...the list could go on and on. And for someone to assert an American is a "nut" for adhering to his rights, the very rights he helped defend while in uniform, is sad and disgusting.
So, folks, here we go again. Another election, another slew of nasty, negative personal attacks instead of a discussion of the issues. Gotta say, in our state, there are much more important things to discuss than gay marriage, abortion or who supports the NRA.

Anonymous said...

Ignoring your cheap shot at my academic occupation, let's look at some facts.
1. You again assert that abortion has little to do with the states. You are simply wrong. In 2011, states passed more than 100 restrictions on abortion rights. In 2012, they passed dozens. Pro-choice and pro-life groups agree that the states are where the action is on this issue (look, for example, at Virginia's new law requiring an ultrasound before an abortion can take place).
2. Schnatterly's views on Obama don't necessarily represent those of 49% of voters. True, 49% didn't vote for Obama, but there is nothing to suggest that they hold the harsh views of him that Schnatterly does. And your claim that the 49% figure would rise to 60% in the overall population is ridiculous. All the polling evidence suggests that non-voters were more supportive of Obama than were voters.
3. As to the claim that Obama is "the most secretive, most corrupt, most dishonest individual to ever serve in that role", you might want to try producing a shred of evidence. I know it's all covered up by the liberal media, but you ought to be able to find something concrete (and compare it to the evidence regarding his predecessors).
4. Vacations? The evidence (ah, there's that troubling term again) shows that Obama takes about 1/3 the vacation time that Bush did, that he takes less "vacation" than virtually any recent president. And he pays for his vacations (we pay security, etc., just as for other presidents).
5. Spending? According to Forbes magazine (that well-known commie rag), spending has grown more slowly under Obama than under any of the past 7 Presidents. It grew fastest under Republican presidents.
6. Benghazi coverup? Senate reports (while critical of the State Department's preparation) showed no evidence of a coverup.
7. On gun rights, first of all, the courts haven't ruled that there can't be reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms, and second, the Obama Administration has yet to propose any such restrictions (something likely to change later this month). Finally, I didn't call anyone a gun nut.
8. As to the deficit, I assume you spoke out against the way it grew under Reagan and both Bushes (the Bush the elder took some responsible steps to slow that growth), and you applauded Clinton for achieving surpluses.

One of the things we do in academia expect that people back claims with evidence.--Neil Berch

Anonymous said...

8:58 You hit the nail on the head. As for Mr. Berch's "independent registration", give me a break. He's an I in left-wing progressive D's sheep's clothing, if it walks like a duck...

Anonymous said...

8:58 spot on. To refer to someone as a "gun nut" that put on a uniform and was willing and ready to risk his life to defend someone's right to call him a "gun nut" is reprehensible.
So Mr. Berch while there many issues that need to be resolved in the republican party there are just as many that need to be addressed on the democratic side.
We tried to have a intelligent conversation on the candidates and the issues, but who is first out of the gate with the name calling.
I'm still curious Neil, were you serious, Romney would have won had he changed his position on abortion? You think the nation was OK with everything else he campaigned on, but the abortion issue did him in? Amazing, the fate of the country turned on that one issue. Amazing, simply amazing.

Anonymous said...

Neil Berch, You say:

“One of the things we do in academia (is) expect that people back claims with evidence.--Neil Berch"

and you say…” I would like to see the Democrats control the State House, as I agree with far more of their platform than I do with that of their Republican colleagues.”

And you also say “Unless Mr. Miller holds the same views as Mr. Schnatterly on contraception, reproductive rights, gay rights, and gun issues, I prefer Mr. Miller's views.”

And we are supposed to believe that you have studied the platforms of all house republicans (can you even name them all?) and compared them to the democrat platform (what is that exactly anyway?), and we are also to believe that you know Miller’s views since you state that you prefer them? What views of Miller’s are you referring to other then the fact the he “listened” (a courtesy)? Do you know Miller’s view on abortion? Since you are so passionate about that issue in particular, then why have you come out swinging for Miller without knowing his position on such a critical issue in your mind?

Where is your evidence? Sorry, but I am not buying your academic snobbery, put your money where your mouth is.

Anonymous said...

"One of the things we do in academia expect that people back claims with evidence.--Neil Berch" 

Well on 1/8/13 4:13 pm here Mr. Berch said:
"You just lost a national election because of those social issues (would a pro-choice Mitt Romney have won? I think so). " 

There seems to be a discrepancy here. You admonish a commented with "2. Schnatterly's views on Obama don't necessarily represent those of 49% of voters. True, 49% didn't vote for Obama, but there is nothing to suggest that they hold the harsh views of him that Schnatterly does. And your claim that the 49% figure would rise to 60% in the overall population is ridiculous. All the polling evidence suggests that non-voters were more supportive of Obama than were voters."

I'm confused Neil, you claim non-voters were more supportive of Obama than were voters, yet you think if Romney changed his stance on abortion he would have won.
Call me a moron, but I need you to explain your assertions, after all academia expects people to back their claims with evidence!

By the way - "According to Forbes magazine (that well-known commie rag)," is this the way academics write today?

Anonymous said...

Elaine, I owe you an apology for calling  you on saying the bullies have taken over Mt. Lebanon. After reading just a few pages of this book, I'm convinced you're right. They have!  


A review of the book Bullies by Ben Shapiro
"The political left has successfully marketed themselves to the public as the champion of the world's underdogs.  Their battle is the fight for a never ending merry-go-round of victims: women, minorities, the "middle class" and on and on. Ben Shapiro's new book Bullies: How The Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America exposes this racket for what it is: subterfuge for the relentless, shameless bullying of those who disagree with the accepted liberal agenda.
Shapiro's book is a thorough documentation and analysis of the left's bully tactics and modus opperandi. Agents of the left coordinate and engage in name calling, incite violence using heated rhetoric, intimidate opponents, and then step back to claim clean hands and preach tolerance."

I think we're seeing a prime example in the posts by Neil Berch. I wonder if he has or would present this book in his classes in a fair an unbiased way? Maybe he has I don't know, maybe there are students that attended his courses that could answer? Mr. Berth claims he is an independent, an academic, but no professor I ever had in college would stoop to calling any publication a commie rag. They may have thought it, truly believed it, but come to think of it I never heard a professor use the word "commie".    They'd refer to people as communist, but never ever use or allow the word "commie." 
He doesn't sound like an unbiased independent to me. Just my opinion of course.

Anonymous said...

Answering my critics:
9:59: You are correct that my views fit in with progressive Democrats (or are to their left). I am an Independent because I don't approve of many of the actions of the Democratic party, particularly in state government. The point I was making, though, in response to an earlier comment about academics indoctrinating students, was that my students, after a semester, are unable to determine my political leanings to any large degree. That's because I point out hypocrisy on both sides.

10:11: I'm not the one who called anyone a gun nut. And the first name-calling in this thread came from 3:42, who talked about "the scummy element of the Democratic party".

As for whether Romney would have won if he were pro-choice (and maybe softer on some other social issues), yes, I think he would have. It's an opinion, but one gained from looking at the data. In exit poll data, Romney basically broke even on the economy. Where he lost was on social issues. Or take this anecdote into consideration: outgoing Republican Congressman Steve LaTourette of Ohio talked about how his wife, a Democrat, was all set to vote for Romney on the economy. She changed her mind on social issues. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rep-steve-latourette-slams-tea-party-criticism-of-weak-moderate-romney-thats-crap/

11:08: State parties have platforms. The Pennsylvania Democrats simply indicate that they endorse the national Democratic platform (with which I am in agreement on the issues you name). http://www.padems.com/issues/democratic-national-platform
And here's a synopsis of the state Republican party views (their platform page is out-of-date). Further, I've paid enough attention to the goings on in the legislature to know where the two parties stand on any number of issues (besides the ones listed, we can include Marcellus Shale, taxes, health care, etc.). So, yeah, I'm quite confident that I can choose between generic Republican and generic Democrat. If Mr. Miller surprises me greatly on some of these issues, I guess I could sit it out. Given, however, that Mr. Schnatterly is to the right of generic Republican, and given that I know I prefer Mr. Miller to Mr. Remely on in-office performance (for some of the same reasons that Elaine has detailed from time to time), I'm pretty confident in my tentative choice.

Now back to poisoning young minds.--Neil Berch

Anonymous said...

Fair enough Mr. Berch. And basing your conclusion on polls is fair, but that we all know how accurate polls are.
If we use them as a scuentific benchmark, the municipality should be divesting itself of MTL magazine. It's almost 2 to 1 that people throw it in the trash than read it. Not a very judicious way to distribute community information and certainly not very green.
As to your claim that your students don't recognize your political preferences. We do here and we're not listening to you lecture for several hours a week.
Do you have any published articles or text we could read. I heard your opinion on NPR right after the election, before I became familiar with your blog posting and figured you to be not independent but a democrat.

Once again, initially Schnatterly looks to be a candidate I could live with, but then so could Miller, based on his local history. But to date no one has said where he or Remely stand on those important social issues that started this conversation in the first place!

What happens if Miller's pro-gun, anti-abortion and a homophobe and Remely isn't?

Anonymous said...

While we on the topic of democratic and republican principles, I'd love to hear Mr. Berch (or others) speak on academia's position on this little news story? (sorry complete AP story won't fit text limits of the blog I made choices what to include)

"LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Al-Jazeera, the Pan-Arab news channel that struggled to win space on American cable television, has acquired Current TV, boosting its reach in the U.S. nearly ninefold to about 40 million homes. With a focus on U.S. news, it plans to rebrand the left-leaning news network that cofounder Al Gore couldn't make relevant.
The former vice president confirmed the sale Wednesday, saying in a statement that Al-Jazeera shares Current TV's mission "to give voice to those who are not typically heard; to speak truth to power; to provide independent and diverse points of view; and to tell the stories that no one else is telling."
The acquisition lifts Al-Jazeera's reach beyond a few large U.S. metropolitan areas including New York and Washington, where about 4.7 million homes can now watch Al-Jazeera English.
Al-Jazeera, owned by the government of Qatar, plans to gradually transform Current into a network called Al-Jazeera America by adding five to 10 new U.S. bureaus beyond the five it has now and hiring more journalists. More than half of the content will be U.S. news and the network will have its headquarters in New York, spokesman Stan Collender said.
Collender said there are no rules against foreign ownership of a cable channel — unlike the strict rules limiting foreign ownership of free-to-air TV stations. He said the move is based on demand, adding that 40 percent of viewing traffic on Al-Jazeera English's website is from the U.S.
Al-Jazeera has long struggled to get carriage in the U.S., and the deal suffered an immediate casualty as Time Warner Cable Inc., the nation's second-largest cable TV operator, announced it is dropping Current TV due to the deal.
"Our agreement with Current has been terminated and we will no longer be carrying the service. We are removing the service as quickly as possible," the company said in a statement.
But there may be a culture clash at the network. Dave Marash, a former "Nightline" reporter who worked for Al-Jazeera in Washington, said he left the network in 2008 in part because he sensed an anti-American bias 
AP Television Writer David Bauder in New York contributed to this report."

Anonymous said...

1:35 refers to Elaine's poll numbers on MTL magazine.

Anonymous said...

My, touched a nerve, did I? too bad you folks in academia regard your opinion as “evidence”.
1. My point on abortion, which you supported with your statement, is that the PA state house will not get to decided whether or not that procedure continues in the state. Thank you for agreeing with me.
2. I didn’t claim the 49% would rise to 60%. Apples and oranges, Mr. Berch. I asserted that Obama doesn’t represent 49 percent of those who voted but in terms of overall national support, I posit he doesn’t even go that high. Looking at poll numbers, his approval rating is currently in the low 50s, the highest it’s been in three years. So I will cede this point to you since I can’t find empirical evidence to the contrary.
3. Really? You need proof about Obama’s lies and dishonesty? There are literally scores of sites on the Internet that have documented it. But I’ll throw a few out there. In 2008, he pledged all the healthcare debates would be on C-SPAN. There were none for legislation that has resulted in what will be the largest tax increase in our nation’s history. 2009, he vowed to reduce the deficit by 50%. Wrong again, as the deficit has continued to grow under his watch (and he’s seeking even MORE money). How about his statement that the violence in Benghazi was due to an obscure video on Youtube? StatE of the Union address in which he asserted domestic oil production is the highest its been in eight years, and took credit for it. Um, not quite. His repeated statements regarding some alleged 80 percent of Americans who supported his approach to the fiscal cliff negotiations. I have yet to see any evidence (so your point is made again). How about the statement early on that Obamacare would pay for itself? That doesn’t seem to have worked out too well. Remember shovel-ready projects? Come on, Mr. Birch. All you have to do is watch one White House briefing conducted by that little weasel Jay Carney to realize the entire administration is devoid of any morals or honesty. You cannot, with a straight face, tell me they’re honest.
4. Vacations—you win. But I do think it’s rather distasteful for him to have jetted off to Hawaii while bemoaning some faux fiscal crisis he was perpetuating with his childish name-calling.
5. Spending has “grown more slowly”? Ha, semantics, Sir. That’s like hearing teachers complaining about “spending cuts” when their annual INCREASE is only 4 percent as opposed to 5 the year before. Please. You can do better than what Politifact offers. Once again tricky math, via using 2009 as the baseline, results in Obama looking fiscally responsible. But then, that goes again to his credibility and honesty. And there is none…
(continued in next post...)

Anonymous said...

(con't)


6. Benghazi. Oh, my. Have you read the report? I have and without going too far into the world of conspiracies, it’s a joke. A sad, expensive, unbelievable joke. There was ‘no credible threat” to the consulate/mission on September 11th? A fifth-grader could tell you that the date alone would have been a clue. It also fails to address administration claims of the video that was deemed responsible. And there are the four State Dept employees who were reported to be leaving as a result. They’re still working there. So, believe what you like. You’re basically asking me, as an individual, to start a private investigation into why the deaths of four Americans were blamed on a Youtube video. Got it.
7. Gun rights—again, you’re misinterpreting what I wrote. I’m fully aware that the courts have agreed with certain restrictions. What I said was, the Supreme Court has, as a result of various cases over the last decade, upheld the right of people to own firearms. And I’m fully aware that Obama and his minions have not yet formally rolled out any bills. I didn’t say he had? And Also didn’t blame you for the nut comment so have some chai and relax (why are liberals always so angry?)
8. I actually thought the deficit growth under Reagan was worth every penny, since you asked. Not so under Bush 1 and under Bush 2 I was livid.. Under Clinton, as you may recall, the surpluses were a result of working with the Republicans. So again, nice try but simple revising history on your own doesn’t make it fact. But that pales in comparison to the guy now in the White House. It’s been amateur hour for four years.
One of the things we do in the real world is deal with…reality. If I were one of our students and reading this, I’d go to the bursar’s office and demand a tuition refund.

Anonymous said...

Wow!

"I am an Independent because I don't approve of many of the actions of the Democratic party, particularly in state government."

But anyone that votes republican even though they don't agree with all the actions of the Republican party is defined as what: smoked cheese?

But here is the really astounding comment of the day from an academic that supposedily studies all the goings on in the parties and Harrisburg...

"If Mr. Miller surprises me greatly on some of these issues, I guess I could sit it out."

Here is this academic expousing why Schnatterly isn't his choice, telling us academia expects evidence, and then tells us if Mr. Miller surprises him... make note of that word... surprises, he will sit this one out.

How could Mr. Miller surprise you Neil? Did he tell you his stance on the issues brought up here and you're not sharing? Remember academics expect evidence to back claims, you must be willing to send Miller based on something, otherwise how do you get surprised.

But the kicker, is that this professor if his candidate surprises him, he will sit this one out. He will like 60 or 70% of eligible voters sit back and not get involved in the American system. Nice, that's what I want my kids to take away from college. Something doesn't suit your majesty, drop out.

Anonymous said...

A little background on Ben Shapiro and why Mr. Berch may want to avoid discussing his book.

"Benjamin Shapiro was born in 1984. He entered UCLA at the age of 16 and graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa in June 2004 with a BA in Political Science. He graduated Harvard Law School cum laude in June 2007.

Shapiro was hired by Creators Syndicate at age 17 to become the youngest nationally syndicated columnist in the U.S. His columns are printed in major newspapers and websites including Townhall.com, ABCNews.com, WorldNetDaily.com, Human Events, FrontPageMag.com, FamilySecurityMatters.com, the Riverside Press-Enterprise and the Conservative Chronicle. His columns have also appeared in the Christian Science Monitor, Chicago Sun-Times, Orlando Sentinel, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, RealClearPolitics.com, Arizona Republic, and Claremont Review of Books, among others. He has been the subject of articles in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Associated Press, and Christian Science Monitor; he has been quoted on "The Rush Limbaugh Show," "The Dr. Laura Show," at CBSNews.com, in the New York Press, in the Washington Times, and in The American Conservative magazine, among many others.

The author of the national bestsellers, Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth (WND Books, May 2004)
Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future (Regnery, June 2005)

Anonymous said...

"In Brainwashed, Shapiro tells the truth―that universities are forums of left-liberal indoctrination, where dissent is discouraged and penalized, with more restrictions on free speech rather any other part of American society. Parents who are paying for tutition might want to take note, and see what their hard-earned money is paying for." ―Michael Barone, U.S. News & World report and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics

"Welcome to P.C. 101. In ths trenchant insider's expose, Ben Shapiro bears witness to the modern American campus freak show. You'll get up close and personal with the Marxist loons, moral relativists, multicultural zealots, and American-haters who are corrupting young minds. Brainwahed reveals the ignominious lows to which higher education has sunk. Get deprogrammed. Buy this book!" ―Michelle Malkin, nationally syndiated columnist and author of Invasion

"Sharp thinking, tight writing, crazy-but-true stories: Ben Shapiro sees campus brainwashing and raises a national protest. This is a good book to give both freshmen who need warning and voters/alumni who need to take action." ―Dr. Marvin Olasky, University of Texas professor and editor-in-chief of World magazine

"A worthy successor to God and Man at Yale and Harvard Hates America in exploring the bely of the academic beast." ―David Horowitz, founder of Students for Academic Freedom and author of Radical Son and Left Illusions

Anonymous said...

Shapiro's column appears on ABCNews.com.
Must be another one of those what did you call them Neil - "commie rags".
I'm sure reading Mr. Shapiro's column or books is a required reading in Mr. Berch's classes. Anyone have the syllabus?

Anonymous said...

Remely's "company" was in bankruptcy ( who knows the current status?), the properties he manages are in horrible disrepair and his judgement regarding his role on the school board and the estimate on the renovation project has been completely out of touch with reality. (Not to mention his sleaze-factor M.O.) I wouldn't vote for him as dog catcher!

Republicans - wake up - Schnatterly has the only chance to win!

Anonymous said...

Wow! All these anonymous people seem to know an awful lot about me and about how I conduct my business. It seems unfair to continue to debate with people who know so much about me but I know nothing about. Anyone want to identify themselves? Can you at least give me a hint? Do I know you?

In any case, I'll answer all of these later, though perhaps after Elaine's bedtime.--NeilBerch

Anonymous said...

Wow, you really are that guy who thinks he's smarter than everyone else and never misses an opportunity to try to show it, despite being wrong about 90 percent of the time. By all means, keep going. It's pure entertainment at this point.

Anonymous said...

Neil,

You know us - we're your neighbors out working in the real world while you and your ilk continue to advance your left-wing and union mentality agendas to hold our paychecks and freedoms hostage to fulfill your own left-leaning agendas.

We are the people paying these ridiculous and soon to be higher school district and municipal taxes so there is a Taj Mahal high school for the "right-brained who will rule the world" and turf for the Dave Franklins' kids.

We are the elderly and now fixed-income people who can't afford to live here anymore even though we made this community a great one before the takeover kicked in. We are the people who have gone to work each day to provide for our families and not asked for other people to take care of us.

When the money runs out because the age of entitlement well has run dry, maybe you will finally understand. Perhaps the university subsidies will dry up. In the meantime, keep teaching those college classes and remember, your students will wonder what happened when they are living with their parents and working for minimum wage. Let's see where their votes along the lines you preach get them then.

Anonymous said...

Answers to 1:35:
1. There's a difference between a scientifically sampled random poll and one on a website like this. That said, I agree with you that the time for MTL Magazine has long past.
2. It's easy to figure out my ideology here. I'm posting my views on politics on a blog where people argue about politics. That's not what I do in class.
3. I've published on a number of topics, though only one journal article in the last few years (my responsibilities changed about 15 years ago when I took over as coach of the nationally ranked WVU Debate Team--10th in the nation just two years ago). Topics include the line item veto in the states, federal aid to the states, the impact of close elections on voter turnout, explaining tax incidence in the states, a couple of articles on what determines election of women to the US House, and one on the effects of challenger spending in US House elections. If you're interested in citations for any of them (and can't find them online), email me (maybe include your name) at berchnorto@msn.com
--Neil Berch

John Schnatterly said...

Thanks for taking notice Mt Lebanon bloggers and commentators. I hope you do not mind that I put in a few words in my own defense. And thanks to those who will give me a chance in the race in the 42nd legislative district.

I plead guilty to being a conservative - socially and fiscally. For those that are offended by that I hadn't realized that made one extreme today.

Please take time to review my platform in the digital brochure that Elaine was so kind to include. Read that to learn where I stand and not some of the descriptions offered up here. I realize that the specifics I offer could make me an easy target, but I am not going to throw out some meaningless political babble. I challenge any of the other candidates to offer up a more specific set of policies.

If you are concerned that the next generation isn't going to experience the American Dream like we did -where we had it better than our parents- then join me in defending Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Let's fight for a Pro-growth agenda for PA and give our kids and grandchildren a commonwealth of opportunity.

Anonymous said...

Neil, so you throw your publications and other accomplishments out there as if you have some upper echelon standing. I hate to tell you, but you are really on the same playing field as the rest of us. We have all experienced professional successes, you are not the only one. Sorry, but your self promotion doesn't mean a thing. You are not a greater authority on what is happening in this country than those of us who don't teach college but just happen to bust our humps making a living in service or production industries.

Neil, you really do need a large piece of humble pie.

Anonymous said...

Good luck, John! You are a standup guy unlike the other candidates who read this blog and hide in the shadows!

Anonymous said...

Re: 2:19 and 2:20:
1. My point is that the PA House (and Senate) could still vote on things like requiring ultrasounds before abortions and other restrictions. Of course, you're right that they can't ban abortion.
2. We seem to pretty much agree.
3. You point to two of my biggest disappointments with Obama. Despite his pledges of transparency, his administration has been just as secretive as those of his predecessors. I consider that a broken promise. I also agree that he hasn't followed through on his pledge to reverse Bush positions on, for example, Guantanamo Bay and the Patriot Act. Also broken promises. The pledge to cut the deficit in half showed a lack of understanding of the situation. BTW, his failure there is why I think Romney could have won if he'd stuck to fiscal issues and just promised to stay out of people's bedrooms. On the other hand, Obama kept some big promises, too (you may not like that): the stimulus, ending the Iraq War, Obamacare. In any case, I don't see anything in his first term that approaches scandals like Watergate, Iran-Contra, or sleeping with an intern and lying about it under oath.
4. OK, agreed.
5. According to Forbes (not politifact), annual spending has grown at 1.4% under Obama, less than the rate of inflation.
6. I'm not asking you to undertake an investigation. I'm saying that, contrary to what you (I think it was you) said earlier, the report said there was no coverup. As for the 4 State Dept. employees still working there, I'd like to see some evidence. If that's true, I agree with you it's outrageous.
7. I'll relax, but, frankly, I sound less angry than a lot of other people.
8. Clinton's surpluses were largely a result of his 1994 budget, passed without a single Republican vote, and probably what cost Democrats the 1994 congressional elections.
As for living in the real world, recall that I was the only one on this blog who predicted before the election that Obama would win. I said he would get 332 electoral votes. He got 332 electoral votes. I said he would win the popular vote by 3.5%. He won by 3.9%. All the anonymouses said Romney was going to win. Who's in touch with reality?--Neil Berch

Lebo Citizens said...

Hey Folks,
Neil has been nice enough to answer your questions, but this is not about him.

John, welcome! I hope to announce your nomination on the19th. Good luck!
Elaine Gillen

Anonymous said...

12:34/5:22/5:27: Sorry I missed your first post.
1. I wouldn't assign Shapiro's book in any of my classes, because it doesn't fit the subject matter. Wrap your brain around the fact that I assigned Glenn Beck last semester.
2. Mr. Shapiro's credits include WorldNetDaily.com. They're the same people who said last month that Republicans could prevent the reelection of Obama by refusing to show up for Electoral College meetings in states they won (they had a problem understanding the constitution).
3. I have read the book (well, part of it). The examples he cites are indeed pretty outrageous. Do they represent academia as a whole? I don't think so. Do they sound like what I do in my classes? No, and 20 years of students evaluations show not a single complaint of ideological bias out of thousands of students (and I've been on enough faculty evaluation committees to know that students do make such complaints).
4. The reference to "commie rag" was sarcastic. I was noting that the source for the Obama government growth figures was the very conservative journal, Forbes. I think most people got it.--Neil Berch

Anonymous said...

To 5:16: I have every reason to expect that Mr. Miller, who I believe (I could be wrong) was the head of the MTL Democrats and who worked hard on Matt Smith's first campaign, is pro-choice, etc. If it turns out I'm wrong and he has the same views as Mr. Schnatterly, I probably won't vote for either of them. You consider this dropping out; I consider it a valid choice (just as I wouldn't have blamed Elaine if she had decided not to choose in the general election between Joe and Kristen).--Neil Berch

Anonymous said...

To 9:09: I guess it's your call whether I'm respectful or not in my discourse. I'm doing the best I can.

To 9:14:
1. I'm against the turf.
2. It will probably make you happy to know that I'm not in a union and make significantly less than a MTL teacher with similar experience. I'm employed by the state university of the 49th wealthiest state, and one of the things we're evaluated on is how well our students do in the job market.
3. My wife works in the private sector.

To 9:33: I was ASKED to cite publications.

There! I've answered all the comments. I have (evil) work to do, and Elaine is right. This should be about Mr. Schnatterly, who I noted in my initial comments has an impressive biography, some strong ideas (many of which I happen to disagree with), and a very articulate voice. He's also put himself out front to run for office and, regardless of what I think of his views, I admire that. So, I cede the floor to Mr. Schnatterly and the very interesting discussion of who Republicans will pick to run for the vacant State House seat.--Neil Berch

Anonymous said...

So, candidate Miller, are you pro-life or pro choice? Care to clear up this speculation?

Anonymous said...

Neil - Wo ASKED you to cite publications??? Will you share that because it is an interesting situation!

Anonymous said...

What about Remely, since Berch thinks this is a salient consideration, is he pro-life or pro-choice?

To be fair, let's get these positions out on the table since Schnatterly is the only one being required to do so.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, WHO asked...

Anonymous said...

To 10:17/10:23, I was answering 1:35, who wrote, "Do you have any published articles or text we could read"

More generally, I agree with the several comments that it would be good if the other two candidates offered the same level of specificity that Mr. Schnatterly has offered. Voters should demand that from candidates!--Neil Berch

Anonymous said...

Neil - Miller reads this blog so it will be interesting to see if he is willing to open his political kimono. As for Remely, I'm not so sure that he is computer literate, would you be willing to contact him to ask his position on these matters that you consider deciding factors and post his responses? It would do the community a big favor.

Anonymous said...

Neil, thank you for the clearifications, you have been most respectful in your responses. Idid het your commie rag comment. And my referral to it regarding ABC was a little tit for tar.
Shapiro's books were not directed solely at you, but more of another position on "academia" and the liberalism in higher education. Does it exist, I'mof the opinion it does exist, you being in it suggest it is more unbiased than I suspect.
Elaine, is right this isn't about you and I find Mr. Schnatterly's contribution a good sign.
I wish the other two would engage since the original post is about whom we'll elect to represent the district.I'm glad you include Glenn Beck, he's an interesting study, probably not a good representation of Republicsn principals, economic principals but indeed a good topic if the subject is media and politics.
You have been,for lack of a better term - opponent and held your end up well. Thanks.
Mr. Schnatterly, just by showing up and explaining his opinions - for me is a point in his favor.
Dan Miller, John Schnatterly, right now today is going to be a tough choice for me. I do plan on pulling a lever or writing someone in, I have to. I consider it an obligation as a citizen. To study the candidates, the issues and pick the best man/woman possible.
I hope to read more and I'd consider anything you can contribute Neil. Unlike one of our elected officials I'd rather surround myself with people that don't agree with me.
I think it was George Patton that said something like, if everybody agrees on a plan, somebody isn't thinking.

Anonymous said...

"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking." - is the correct quote by George Patton

Anonymous said...

Neil, we do agree on voters should demand candidates spell out their positions as per your 10:37 comment. It might eliminate some of he animosity and comments that develop here.

Why someone thinks it's up to you to get Remely or Miller to respond here baffles me.
I would hope both read Elaine's blog, it seems to be the most active in the community and she makes it available for free. What a better way to reach your constituents without tapping into campaign funds.
Both I believe can be reached by email or I'd bet through their local party committees.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Schnatterly, thanks for entering the fray. Will you be holding any Q&As in Lebo so we might get to know you?
Are we correct that the RCML doesn't make the sole determination on the republican candidate?

Anonymous said...

11:23 Neil Berch suggested that certain issues e.g. abortion were deciding factors for him, and so it's logical that he would be interested in finding out the other candidates' position on them. It's not really baffling, just logical that he would want to pursue the answers to his questions.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Neil is interested and he sounds like the kind of guy if it's important he'll find out. It not up to him to do our work for us
I don't think he has a more direct line to the candidates than you or I.
Sorry to disagree.

Anonymous said...

And when the race shapes up as Mr. Miller vs. either Mr. Remely or Mr. Schnatterly, I'll pursue those questions (if Mr. Remely and/or Mr. Miller aren't forthcoming with answers, as they should be on a wide range of issues). In the meantime, this is a battle to be fought out by Republican committeepeople in the legislative district. I'm not part of that constituency, so I'll just see how things go (hard to predict this one, but my gut tells me to expect an upset).

Thanks to 11:00 and 11:23 for your kind words. I, too, benefit from being among those with whom I (often) disagree.--Neil Berch

Anonymous said...

If Schnatterly can achieve half these goals I'd be happy:
If elected, John hopes to:
1.Reform State Government
-Term limits for General Assembly
-State Pension Reform
-Privatize State Stores
-Abolish Property Taxes
2. Reform Education System
-Eliminate teacher strikes
-Expand school choice
-Revise charter school funding and improve accountability
3. Reform Business Taxes
-Phase out Capital Stock & Franchise Tax
-Remove Cap on NOL Carry Forward of CNI
-Reduce Corporate Net Income Tax

Richard Gideon said...

Mr. Schnatterly:
Thank you for posting on this Blog. Having looked over your digital brochure, and speaking for myself as a libertarian, I find most of your listed goals in line with the free-market and limited government philosophy of libertarians. However, I have a few questions for you on subjects not addressed in your brochure:
1. What is your position on Pennsylvania's civil forfeiture laws?
2. What is your position on decriminalizing marijuana?
3. Do you feel that the current "open records" laws of the Commonwealth are sufficient to force school districts to fully disclose their operations to local taxpayers?
4. Would you support legislation requiring school districts to periodically change auditors, say every four years?
5. What is your position on marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples in Pennsylvania?
6. Do you support the use of drones for surveillance (or even armed intervention) by state or local police forces?
7. Would you favor a limitation on sovereign immunity, particularly in the case of mistaken police raids on homes that result in damage or wrongful death?
8. What is your position on eminent domain as it is applied in Pennsylvania, and do you feel the Commonwealth has done enough to prevent abuses under Kelo vs. New London?

Although these questions may seem more fitting for your Blog, I am asking them here because Elaine's site has substantial traffic and is read by people of all political persuasions. I thank you in advance for addressing these points, and I hope the other candidates for State Representative in the 42nd District also post on this Blog.

Anonymous said...

Let's hear from Remely and Miller on answers to Mr. Gideon's questions as well !

Anonymous said...

Mr. Berch, it's almost futile to debate someone who doesnt have facts behind him. Clinton's "surplus" wasn't real. Like so much else you've tried to argue, it's semantics. And yes, I know it's a widely accepted lore there was a surplus because that's how our oh-so-impartial media reported it. Remember, this is the same media industry that saw nothing wrong with Clinton lying under oath and killing hundreds of innocent civilans in Bosnia as a diversioni... Clinton helped pay down public debt (with public money!) but national debt continued to increase under his watch. It takes about three minutes to find the CBO numbers and walk through them. The fact is, national debt went up every year Clinton was in office. Every year. A large portion of the fantastical "surplus" was derived from excess Social Security taxes. Have you ever played three-card Monte? Same principle. Just keep moving the money around and have people guess which card it's under.
You also fail to note that in addition to no Republicans voting for it, 41 Dems in the House voted against it, too.

Richard Gideon said...

Elaine:
I hope you don't mind, but since guns and "gun nuts" were brought up in this thread I'd like to contribute this bit of rational thought courtesy of the Reason Foundation:
5 Facts About Guns, Schools, And Violence ~~ What every legislator - and citizen - needs to know.

Richard Gideon said...

Humm..I don't know what happened to the link in the Reason story that I posted above, but let's try it again:

5 Facts About Guns, Schools, And Violence ~~ What every legislator - and citizen - needs to know.

Anonymous said...

Good questions for all the candidates Richard, but an opinion.
If the republicans are to win I think they are going to need to pass surrender some of the social issues. After all the Republican Principals say the Brst government is the one that governs least or ssmething close to that.
I consider myself closer to an R than a D. I don't care if my neighbor or daughter gets an abortion. It may not be something I would do or advise someone to do, but I sure as he'll wouldn't want my state rep making my decision.
Same with gay marriage, I don't go around checking whether my male female neighbors are married or not and what there sexual preferences are. They could be gay, I don't care.
On gun control, this may be crazy, but if we get people working and prosperous, get education back on track perhaps this might resolve itself on it's on.
What community has more churches, temples etc., than Mt. Lebanon. Because the people are relatively prosperous, they have more time for worship, social interactions and caring. We don't go around, shooting one another at the drop of a hat (knock on wood).
I may be crazy, but is that any more crazy than creating more gun control laws that don't work?
Berch is onto to something with his suggestion that Romney may have won if he loosened up on the social agenda.
I agree, if the republicans are going to keep the social issues in the limelight over the things government should be dealing with, then the RCML especially, should pack up it's circus tent and go home.
Hope the other candidates chime in here. Neil's right we should demand it.

Anonymous said...

Here's the first bullet in the Republican Principals--

The strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each personal dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.

I read that as meaning it is not government responsibilty to dictate whom I should love and marry, force me to have children I may not want, or dictate whether I own a gun or not.

I do read it that if anyone tries to interfere with my personal dignity, freedom and ability it's up to government responsibly protect the individual.

The rest of the principal's are an interesting read also. The republican party should read them.

Lebo Citizens said...

I would like to recommend that Mr. Schnatterly hold off for awhile, until the other candidates catch up, even though we know how Dan Miller and Dan Remely operate. Dan Miller reads this blog and being the kind of person that he is, will be open and approachable. He has encouraged me at commission meetings to continue what I do, even suggesting that I video tape the (at that time) untelevised discussion sessions.
Dan Remely, on the other hand, is a member of the School Board. They ignore me. In fact, they are spreading a rumor that I am behind the TERC petition! Yes, I am the second signature, but number one didn't start the petition either! Throw in Richard Gideon as number four, and the SD thinks they have a case.
Right now, it is the R's who need to come forward, specifically Dan Remely, who needs to answer questions.
Elaine

Anonymous said...

You're are right as usual Elaine.
Schnatterly has stepped up and now it's time that we "demand" the other candidates "catch up!"

Thank you for providing a venue.

Spreading rumors... seems to be the SB's MO.

James Cannon III said...

Elaine, I feel cheated. My name usually comes up when the school board goes on a tour-de-hate in the community. Can we start a petition to give credit to others for the TERC petition?

Richard Gideon said...

EG:
So I'm one of the people "behind" the Lebo Math Facts petition? That's too funny! Here is what is not funny: kids that are one or two years behind their math peers in other districts, and in districts in other states - not to mention other countries. And has the SD looked at some of the names on that petition? I think what they're really upset about are the number of doctors, scientists, engineers, and math teachers - other than me - who signed it.

I will say that if I had been asked to help formulate the petition I would have considered it an honor. But I was not, and for the Lebo Math Facts people it's just as well. However, I have promoted the petition; something the petition site encourages I might add.

As of this writing they have only 38 signatures left to meet their goal of 250. Go get 'em!

Anonymous said...

Richard, sorry to disagree, but I don't think they're upset with the numbers of doctors, scientists, engineers and math teachers that signed the petition.
I think they are upset that anyone has the audacity to voice an opinion on their school district.
Let's look at recent history.
Sablegate, "we don't have too explain anything."
The 4,000 signature petition. "we've got 4,000 proponents for the project. We won't show you evidence of that though."
Fraasch's audit & finance conclusions. "he shouldn't talk out of school!"
Taylor/CAC: "yeah you may be building experts, but we're still not going to revisit our plans."
JMA: "it's paid up, it isn't paid up and so what here's an extension- get lost."
And last but certainly not least: "we don't care if you don't think we can raise $30 million in donations, we're hiring PK to study it anyway."

John Schnatterly said...

Republican committee people from the the entire 42nd district will elect their nominee for state representative on January 19th. While Mt Lebanon holds the majority of those votes there are committee people from Bethel Park, Scott Twp, Green Tree, Rosslyn Farms and Thornburg who will vote. 80 in total.

Should I be fortunate enough to win 41 or more of those votes I look forward to many forums to discuss all the important issues with you and the Democratic nominee.

Thanks for the robust discussion here so far.

Anonymous said...

John,

Thank you for the respectful dialogue from one potential candidate to another, it was the best I experienced from any Republican candidate. While I differ from some of your conservative social convictions, I believe that you are the best candidate at this point because of your other beliefs around the role of government and taxation among other ideals that align with my own. I also believe that your social convictions will not play a role in the house seat membership. Best of luck!

-Charlotte Stephenson

Anonymous said...

Elaine does a beluga job doesn't she.
While she doesn't hold back her opinions (it's her blog after all) she doesn't shut away from letting people express theirs. Think that's why she gets so many hits.
Hope the RC committee read the comments here and under the Remely post.
If the RCML think Remely's the guy against Dan Miller they'll probably be disappointed once again.