3/13 Ups & Downs

Damaging emails, Super PAC ads and a quite notable letter. See who made this week’s list!

Down ArrowKathleen Kane. The Inquirer published an extensive and excellent report on the investigation into Attorney General Kathleen Kane last night. Among the revelations was that Kane’s then-top advisor, Adrian King, urged her in an email not to leak the grand jury information. Yet the AG testified that King agreed with the move. Given the fact that Kane’s appeal on the use of a special prosecutor is currently before the PA Supreme Court, this is bad news matched with bad timing. Increasingly, the Attorney General seems to be sinking deeper and deeper into this morass and it looks progressively less likely that she’ll be able to get out.

Up Arrow1Jim Kenney. The former Councilman won the race to the airwaves. Well, sort of. A Super PAC, backed by labor, launched the first TV ad of the Philly mayoral race this week. The video sings the praises of Kenney, painting him as a progressive champion ahead of the May Democratic primary. With presumed front-runner Anthony Williams having his own independent forces, this support is crucial for Kenney and could allow him to emerge as the State Senator’s biggest challenger.

Down ArrowPat Toomey. Signing Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton’s letter to Iran must have seemed a good idea at the time. Sen. Toomey (and most Republicans) have been vocal about their disagreements with the Obama Administration’s negotiations over a possible nuclear deal with Iran. The backlash to that letter surely caught the signees by surprise. The debate got so heated that some called the Senators “traitors” who were in violation of U.S. law. Even Senator Casey, who has a close relationship with his Keystone State colleague, criticized the action and by extension, Sen. Toomey.

Up Arrow1Seth Williams. The Philadelphia District Attorney has been locked in a personal and professional feud with Attorney General Kathleen Kane for quite some time. The heart of the conflict stems from the 2013 cases of corruption by Philly State Reps. that Kane choose to pass on. This week, Williams charged three more of the officials involved in that case. His battle with Kane has already brought the DA a higher profile and could end up being a boost to a future statewide campaign.

Down ArrowLynne Abraham. In a way, Jim Kenney’s gain has been Lynne Abraham’s loss. First, she now faces competition as the alternative to Anthony Williams ever since Kenney stepped down from City Council and entered the race. Then, the pro-Kenney Super PAC ad suggested she could fall behind in the money contest. As a result, Abraham’s campaign called on all candidates to reject “dark money” by signing a pledge. Finally, her team turned in a disappointingly low number of signatures to file for the ballot, trailing not only Williams and Kenney but also Nelson Diaz and Doug Oliver. It’s still early but the ex-DA will have to find a way to get back some momentum.

Up Arrow1Martina White. Recently retired Chief Justice Ron Castille made his first endorsement since his ascension to the PA Supreme Court when he backed GOP candidate Martina White in the HD-170 special election. Before he was elected to the Court, Castille served as Philadelphia DA and his support is still valuable. That fact, added to the labor endorsements she secured last month, shows White is running a campaign that has a legitimate chance to pull off an upset on March 24th.

The tweet of the week goes to the Inquirer’s Mike Sielski for reminding us of Chris Christie’s unforgivable sin…being a Dallas Cowboys fan.

27 Responses

  1. Who’s talking about wiping Iran off the map??? I don’t want to be accused of attacking the person, but Jared’s ideas are incredibly naive.

  2. Well I guess you must know what their intentions are and that there could never be any possibility of anything else. Maybe you would like to see them destroyed or prostrate themselves at our feet? Would that satisfy you? Even better a Carthaginian peace? What will it take? If your big issue is them saying they want to see us destroyed, how is your behavior towards them any different or better?

  3. Why have fossil fuel electricity at 3 cents KWh when you can have nuclear power at 30? Because it’s “their right?” Give us a break, that makes no sense. Iran’s intentions are clearly not for energy. North Korea is a place that could actually use nuclear energy and there’s no way that place is getting it.

  4. As for big boy stuff the Soviet Union was once dedicated to our destruction. I answered your question. Sorry you didn’t like it. I didn’t read the comments. Get over it and yourself. Also not too keen on nuclear weapons proliferation, but nuclear power is a bit different. You don’t like it fine, you don’t have to, but self righteousness only works when you are right, and This issue is a bit murkier than your absolutism.

  5. This is international politics btw. What do you think gives us the right to prevent genocide inside a sovereign country’s borders? What gives us the right to impose “sanctions” anywhere? You don’t give to Iran, who’s stated policy is to wipe the US and Israel off the map, nuclear capability. This is big boy stuff. This is the same busted liberal mentality that thinks murderers give a hoot about gun laws.

  6. “I would think a basic answer to this would be more important than challenging another’s intellectual abilities” I would think someone who complains about others not answering “a simple question” could answer a simple question. It’s clear you don’t want to because you know nobody agrees with you that giving Iran a nuke is a good idea. It’s embarrassing at this point.

  7. Sorry you don’t like my answer, but working in a commercial print shop can be a bit rough. With quick draw responses like that, seems you have an easier time of things. Good for you

  8. Pretty quick with that one. I just drove from a sub shop back to my house within 15 minutes. Guess you had that stock up in the bullpen?

  9. And now onto the other issue. You’ve trotted out the general line about giving them a bomb. To which I asked what terms in this attempted deal would be acceptable. Still no answer from anyone except that vague line. There is a slight difference between nuclear weapons and commercial power. I wonder what right do we have in denying them the ability to even have nuclear power but not weapons. And if you are in such a state over Iran possessing nuclear anything, would Russia or China merrit such treatment? Should they be subject to what we demand as what you seem to demand of Iran. I would think a basic answer to this would be more important than challenging another’s intellectual abilities or trying to pen them in as a racist, but it seems there are different priorities

  10. Jared, you missed the hundred racist comments of Chris Martinez and you want to be taken seriously in this conversation? That’s a great Clintonian answer. It’s just not credible or you don’t know enough to not chime in to cover for racists. I notice you still won’t admit being able to accept an Obama deal where Iran gets a nuke. Don’t worry, you don’t have to. Hypocrite much?

  11. He never answered. He gave some lame line. I Had to offer a suggestion myself because he nor anyone else was willing to apparently. As for Chris Martinez? I likely missed that, I don’t always catch every single story here. Kinda the price of the nature of my job working overnight I’m a bit tired and miss things at times. I was more making the point of trying to avoid being insulting and derogatory to someone you disagree with, like you yourself are doing with me. But that is of no matter. You want to lump me in saying I’m being racist well that is on your conscience, considering I never did such a thing. But don’t let that stop you from trying.

  12. Jared, I’m not sure of your reading comprehension but I’ve read this site for awhile and unsanctioned r’s observation is spot on. Maybe you’re new, did you call out Chris Martinez? Or are you of the same hypocritical ilk as Isaac l? As for for not answering your question??? I remember this a couple days ago. His answer embarrassed you badly! Answer us this, would you be okay if Obama made a deal that let Iran build a nuclear bomb? You wouldn’t last time.

  13. @unsanctioned R. im confused so you are calling all democrats racists? And then you’re telling someone else not to throw stones? perhaps you ought to follow your own advice considering you never seemed capable of answering a question I asked in ever increasing ease, I could apply some choice name calling to you, but I wont, it’s called being respectful. Which you have clearly shown you are not able to do. Perhaps you might want to be checking your privileges.

  14. Isaac, all the sycophant racist democrats on this site sucked up to Chris Martinez. I wouldn’t throw stones. I guess it’s only a racist shtick if a republican does it. Same thing with this Toomey letter, crickets from you when Pelosi meets with Assad, now all of a sudden it’s treason. Are you one of the tools being played or are you playing the fools too?

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17920536/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/pelosi-shrugs-bushs-criticism-meets-assad/

  15. Isaac L.:
    Focus; stop eating paint chips and loosen that physician-mandated helmet. You can’t deny the extra-constitutional ideology of the modern Democrat Party. If Republicans were able to apply the same expansive measures to the 2nd Amendment that you guys have argued for the “necessary and proper” and commerce clauses, I’d be able to conceal carry a tactical nuke.
    BTW: I’d put up the constitutional knowledge of any Tea Party
    member versus your shower-averse Ocuppy degenerates any day.

  16. Papundit – please, you guys know the Constitution about as well as the Bible: it says what you imagine it says. Where’s that verse about teach a man to fish? Right next to the one that says God helps those who help themselves but before the one where Jesus commands women not to have abortions? I’d be amazed if the average Tea Partier could even name the five freedoms of the First Amendment without looking them up. Actually, this could make a fun game show – I’ll give them five dollars if they can; they give me five dollars if they can’t. I’d be a wealthy man.

  17. Please, the only time Democrats consider the Constitution is right before they use it to wipe themselves in the Obama White House.

  18. Francois ought to move to his namesake country. The Constitutional duty is to give advice and consent (or rejection) to the PRESIDENT, not to foreign governments. Stupidity is self-evident.

  19. Those Emails can really be troublesome but then again a good lawyer will twist and wring the words until you feel you need to wrap your head in duct tape.

  20. Logan. Act violation? Bs. Toomey explained the constitution to them. A real waste of an arrow on this one. Kane should have gotten two of them.

  21. lol Sestak gets the nod Toomeys in like Flint. Or maybe Iran will be our ally by then!

  22. The Senators who signed that letter violated The Logan Act, which prohibits any citizen not authorized to do so from negotiating with a foreign government. The Senate is not authorized to engage in independent negotiations with foreign powers and the letter was a clear attempt to insert themselves into ongoing negotiations. They should all be charged.

  23. Not sure which constitution you’re reading. The advise and consent refers to working with the executive branch. It does not give Senators the right to conduct their own foreign policy, that is reserved to the executive branch. And while the down arrow refers to the letter, don’t forget they violated the constitution by inviting without the knowledge of the executive branch, a foreign head of state to speak to congress. George Washington defined the precedent that only the Executive branch can communicate with a foreign governor when the French tried to communicate directly with Congress and Congress responded to the French. President Washington put a stop to that immediately.

  24. Probably the same planet where the US Constitution provides only one way for the Congress to shape foreign policy, and that is through the purse strings. Money. That’s it. Republicans stepped out of bounds and now they are feeling the backlash for it.

  25. Toomey is DOWN for standing up for his Constitutional duty and obligation to “advise and consent?”
    What planet are you on?

Comments are closed.

Email:
  • Do You Agree With the Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade?


    • No. (50%)
    • Yes. (47%)
    • Not Sure (3%)

    Total Voters: 109

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser

PoliticsPA

To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen