I'm not really worried about the guv's race anymore. Rendell's pretty much got it...and he has my vote in November.

The race I am more concerned about at this point is in the 13th Congressional District (which for at least 2 years includes most of NE Phila): Joe Hoeffel vs. Melissa Brown. Brown using Section 8 as a scare tactic to get votes in the NE is incredibly sad...and dangerous, IMO.

Re: Re: Mike Fisher, or why I turned my radio and TV off
 

The way things are going in the Commonwealth right now, I see taxes being raised, regardless of which candidate wins.

Oh yeah, no question.

I really miss Kent Voss. His show was light, without being just plain stupid. (After a long day at work, I don't feel like listening to political blather, of any stripe.)

Re: Re: Re: Mike Fisher, or why I turned my radio and TV off
 

Of course, some variables in that are which taxes are raised (and which reduced) and what other related changes happen. Like the balance between municipal and state taxation, and amount of and formula for state aid to school districts. So it's not as if "they all will raise taxes so it doesn't matter".

I think the core Fisher message is "Rendell will raise your taxes more, and spend it less effectively." I also don't think it's a given that KenK would raise taxes if elected.

I also noted a complete elimination of telemarketing calls. However in the past two weeks, those calls are starting to return. Many calls to the answering machine from numbers 'that are not known'.

Of course with the new law, telemarketeers were going to stop - to reassess the law. But I think they now see no adverse consequences. After all, can PA sue a telemarketeer in Canada? IOW, the question is really about whether Mike Fisher's new law really had any teeth. It was an excellent platform to promote his name and candidacy. But was the law really enforceable?

It would appear to have been effective, by your own account. I don't think we're going to see a sudden spate of international boilerroom traffic.

It'd be nice if character was an issue in this race too...
<blockquote>
Rendell vehemently denied these charges: "The NRA ads are like the Casey ads. <b><i>They don't tell the truth. There is nothing that I want to do to take a gun away from a hunter or a law-abiding citizen."</i>,</b> Gun-control organizations campaigning for Rendell insisted he only wanted "sensible" gun laws. Just recently, Rendell again denied that he was a liberal on gun control.

Yet, because I have talked with Rendell during less guarded moments, when he was not focused on winning votes for governor, I know that Casey and DeWeese were telling the truth about Rendell's views on guns.

During 1999, when I was at the University of Chicago law school, lawyers for the city of Philadelphia asked me to participate in a panel on cities suing gun-makers. Rendell had been the first mayor to talk seriously about doing that, and he wanted a session to educate city lawyers about the issue.

Three-quarters of the panelists (including Rendell) supported Rendell's desire to sue the gun-makers. During the presentations, Rendell said again that he didn't want to take guns away from hunters or law-abiding citizens and that he wanted to use the suits to make gun-makers responsible for the costs that guns impose on cities.

At the debate, there were several representatives from the Violence Policy Center, a group that has long advocated banning guns and even sponsors the website banhandgunsnow.org. Rendell warmly greeted the Violence Policy Center people when he arrived and included one of their representatives on the panel, but they noticeably groaned and rolled their eyes when Rendell claimed he didn't want to take away people's guns.

After the debate, Rendell immediately headed over to the Violence Policy Center people. I wanted to follow up on the discussion, so I tried to catch up with him as he crossed the room. The Violence Policy people were still visibly disturbed by his comments, and Rendell put his arm around one of them, saying,<b><i> "I just can't say publicly what we want to do — we have to take these things slowly."</i></b> I was standing right behind Rendell when he said it.

When Rendell saw me, he angrily turned toward me, asking what I wanted. I said I had hoped we could talk more about the issues raised by the panel. I added that I understood the costs to cities of the bad things that happen with guns, but that I wanted to know why he didn't consider the benefits of defensive gun use and of victims defending themselves. Still quite angry, Rendell said that, as a city prosecutor, he had never seen a defensive gun use, and that as far as he was concerned, he had never heard of a defensive gun use. He said that he didn't believe they occurred.

I started to offer to provide him with examples, but he told me he didn't need any evidence, and walked away...
</blockquote>
http://nationalreview.com/comment/co...lott101102.asp
[emphasis added]

Okay, Maggie ... I gotta ask ... What are the DelVal Pink Pistols??

The Delaware Valley chapter of the Pink Pistols. Lots of background and other info at the websites. We get together once a month (third Saturdays) to have lunch and then visit a local range for practice.