State Representative and 2016 candidate for Attorney General Todd Stephens won the support of Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed.
Freed has served as Cumberland’s DA since 2006 and was the GOP nominee for Attorney General in 2012.
“I have been Todd Stephens’ friend since we were both young assistant DAs many years ago,” Freed wrote in his endorsement letter.
“Unfortunately, we have seen what happens when someone who lacks the appropriate training and experience holds this important job,” he continued referencing his 2012 opponent. “Now, more than ever, Pennsylvania needs an Attorney General who is truly qualified to hold the office and has the experience to run it in a way that puts politics aside.”
“I support Todd Stephens because of his experience as a trial team captain, courtroom prosecutor, and his continued commitment to criminal justice issues as a legislator point to the fact that he will be an Attorney General who will put the law and the criminal justice system first,” Freed concludes. “I believe Todd has the right experience to be the commonwealth’s chief law enforcement officer, and he has earned my support.”
Stephens is running against State Senator John Rafferty in the 2016 GOP Attorney General primary.
Loading ...
54 Responses
rsklaroff
Thanks for clarifying your previous gibberish on Toomey
Explicitly, I do NOT feel the base will abandon Toomey.
Notwithstanding concurrence with Guzzardi’s effort to educate d2, the claim that Toomey will be abandoned by the “base” in any major fashion.
Who is Mr. Stephens supporting Chairman of the Montgomery County Republican Committee?
For Dave’s further edification, the point of the Freed drop off of two lesser known and lesser funded candidates and then Corbett’s shellacking in 2014 is what it portends for Pat Toomey in 2016.
K Kane ran an excellent campaign first against Murphy and then against Freed but her electoral performance was aided by the abandonment of Freed by the base. I am afraid the base will as unenthusiastic for Gleason Asher’s Pat Toomey in 2016.
After slogging through Dave Diano’s pointless snark and fevered insults, it seems he missed my point.
My point was that:In the 2010 General Election, in the state wide races, FREED received 92,146 fewer votes than Diana Irey Vaughan and 235,261 fewer votes than John Maher in November 2012 election.
How is that Dave Freed who was as well known and well funded as John Maher did so much worse; 235,261 worse than John Maher and 92,146 worse than Diana Irey Vaughn?
Dave Freed was, certainly, better known and had much, much more money than Diana Irey Vaughn assisted by GleasonAsher/State committee’s organization and LeRoy Zimmerman’s connections.
Did John Maher or Diana Irey Vaughan run such stellar, well-financed campaigns that they eclipsed the Attorney General candidate because of their money and their campaign organization or was it something else? Clearly Diana Irey Vaughan, was not as well funded as Dave Freed.
Kathleen Kane did run an excellent and very well funded campaign which is why she won. My point did not relate to why K Kane won but why Dave Freed did so much worse than John Maher and Diana Irey Vaughn?
I contend that the Republican base abandoned a Corbett hack in anticipation of abandoning Corbett himself in 2014.Breaking promises to the base who elected you is not the path to re-election although Highway vendors and contractors did very, very at taxpayer expense.
I do agree with Dave that incompetence of state Republican leadership and incompetent campaign consultants were a factor.
While Freed may carry some political influence in and around greater harrisburg, this endorsement does very little in terms of giving clout to Todd Stevens. An assistant DA? I might be more interested if he was a county DA or even judge.
typo: “euphamistic” should be “euphemistic”
@ d2, gulag, and everyone else:
What has been demonstrated over the weekend’s posting-exchange is evasion of settled-facts by abandonment instead of recognition; the result has been resorting to reflex [false] opinion, wrapped around euphamistic ridicule.
The best example was the exchange about Santorum’s faux-conservatism; hyperlinked-documentation of a LIST of his abandonment of the base was met with silence rather than, perhaps, grudging recognition that incessant, prior characterization of his politics had been erroneous.
Going full-cycle, the reader-victim should recognize that this tangential discussion arose after Guzzardi and I injected a sense of realism into the wild [incorrect] claims emanating from “the usual suspects”; if this is the best blind, know-it-all, elitist-Dems can do against the likes of Cruz [amplified by the universal condemnation of BHO’s anti-ISIS speech on all 3 cable networks, this a.m.], the Dem-nominee [not Hillary, who will have been indicted by then, lest BHO face another “Saturday Night Massacre” debacle] will have to fight-off a tsunami against a party of defeatism that threatens fundamental American values and security.
rsklaroff
Wow. Try not to cry yourself to sleep over my spellchecker not catching a missing letter in your name after hundreds of posts.
You are really going to be upset when Hillary is sworn in. You might even kill yourself when she picks Scalia’s replacement.
gulagPittsburgh-
I think rsklaroff is going to be needing them when the Dems start their term on the PA supreme court.
@ d2:
By now, one would think that you would have learned how to spell my name; this sloppiness [along with grammatical errors] illustrates your frustration with my truth-telling, a realization that you should convert into repentance.
Don’t worry, David. Everyone knows that you understand the true meaning of “santorum,” so some diapers are “coming” your way too.
gulagPittsburgh-
Shh. Don’t spoil your Hanukkah present for rskaroff.
@ d2:
Here’s more documentation of the problem conservatives have with Santorum.
http://www.redstate.com/diary/Erick/2012/01/06/what-a-big-government-conservative-looks-like/
Don’t waste your time trying to refute multiple examples of info to which you obviously have been oblivious; chalk it up to another example of how you are going to have to use vacation-time to rectify your PoliticsPA errors.
Oh, and if you guys can spare some change, please go to my kickstarter page and give me some money. I need to buy some adult diapers.
rskaroff
The quote was not selective, but very definitive, and not out of context.
Did the GOP remember to check if he is on the porn email list?
@ d2:
rather than depend upon a selective-quote, don’t forget the title
also:
Rick Santorum: Radical Big Spender in Conservative’s Clothing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHWpLgrfRv4
*
finally, notwithstanding your grammatical error [“among” three entities, not “between”], you prematurely concluded: “there is no real daylight between Trump, Cruz and Coulter.”
Trump has so many positions on so many issues on so many times, that it’s difficult to feel comfortable comparing him with anyone; for example, for sure, Trump’s having dissed Pamela Geller [1st amendment] would not have been echoed by Cruz.
Coulter has been in the Trump camp since at least June (especially with his statements on immigration, which she took credit for).
She abandoned Christie 2 1/2 years ago, after Christie appointee Jeffrey S. Chiesa R NJ voted “Aye” on a bill she considered Amnesty.
As the contemporaneous article below notes, she immediately declared her support for Cruz (well before Trump got in the race). So, make NO mistake about it, Ann loves her Cruz juice just as much as you. Cruz is careful not to antagonize Trump supporters in hopes of capturing them if/when Trump collapses. So, there is no real daylight between Trump, Cruz and Coulter.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/28/ann-coulter-flip-flops-nj-gov-chris-christies-dead/
And, the only reason conservatives liked Christie was that he was a loudmouth who insulted the Clintons, and was considered a likely front runner at one point. But, his “hugging” Obama for his support after hurricane Sandy was too much for conservatives.
As for Santorum.. the excerpt below (from your link) supports my assertions. Thanks for proving me correct.
“But his critique of the GOP is mostly cosmetic: Santorum offers the same, tired Republican solutions of cutting taxes and domestic programs, deregulating Wall Street, promoting the fossil fuel industry and curtailing immigration. Contrary to his rhetoric, Santorum pushes a policy agenda heavily favored by Wall Street: repealing regulations governing the financial services sector and other industries, attacking the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board, rolling back the powers of the EPA, and, of course, cutting taxes for the very rich. Santorum perfectly embodies the spirit of the Tea Party as he makes overtures to voters who are upset by Wall Street’s behavior while pushing policies that allow Wall Street to continue that behavior unfettered. Santorum complements his message of economic populism with a crusading stance on social issues, arguing that the GOP must become more conservative, and more aggressive, if it wants to win. Shying away from social issues, Santorum contends, would only undermine the GOP.”
It’s sooooooo easy to debunk your rants:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rick-santorum-religious-right-crusader-masquerading-blue-collar-conservative
Also, Coulter’s support for Christie [for absurd reasons, noting his postures*] is emblematic of her diversion from Cruz.
*-Christie would stop SS-payments for higher-income retirees, he would support amnesty, he propped-up the Revel in a fashion that bespeaks big-government spending that is anathema to Cruz, etc.
rsklaroff
Santorum as a lib? LOL. This would be a front page headline if demonstrated.
Sure, Coulter uses hyperbole for her more “entertaining” posts/speeches, but I said their “positions”. That’s a checklist, not specifically their style.
Nice try.
Santorum, to ANYONE who has paid attention during the past quarter-century, is a domestic-spending lib; Cruz/Coulter are differentiated by both the hyperbole and the inconsistency of the latter.
rsklaroff
Santorum is synonymous with far right wing conservatism. No equivocation required. Your attempt to isolate him was your failed attempt to treat him as an outlier, rather than as a poster child for what is wrong with recent GOP conservatives.
Without attributions, I doubt if you or anyone else could distinguish between Cruz and Coulter positions. Birds of a racist feather.
@ d2:
First, it’s gratifying that you have learned how to “clarify”; your next threshold will entail recognizing how you corrupt.
*
“I didn’t retreat from Santorum. I debunked your attempt to portray Santorum as an outlier by pointing out that this lack of conservative purity [excuse] is pervasive at CPAC.”
You wrote that Santorum was a conservative, without equivocation [“…it’s always the fantasy of the extreme right-wingers like you and skaroff (misspelled) that the GOP losers weren’t conservative enough. This is the same asinine argument that Santorum made….”].
I then called-you out, disclaiming your characterization without discussing whether he was an outlier [he isn’t in the foreign policy realm, for example]; now, rather than admitting overstatement, you pulled a Trumpism and doubled-down, not anticipating the ability of a reader to trace back as I just did, rather than accepting your dummied-down iteration.
*
“Cruz is just as crazy as Coulter and isn’t espousing ‘populism’ but xenophobia and pandering to the racist base. So, if you support Cruz (who is now talking about bombing the crap out of Islamists), you are fully on board with Ann Coulter as well. (She will likely switch from Trump to Cruz if Ted takes the lead.)”
Strip away your customary diatribes and you commit the classic error of guilty-by-association; Cruz and Coulter are independent actors, overlapping and not overlapping depending upon the issue and the degree to which it is prioritized.
*
“They DO tend to cite Reagan (or more accurate mis-cite and misrepresent and completely ignore his occasionally more moderate stances of supporting gun control and raising taxed when the tax-cuts were too deep).”
RR included those–and the ’87 immigration-amnesty–as errors.
*
“But, keep living in your delusional world that perceives Cruz as a righteous guy, rather than a racist demagogue.”
Thanx for permission; beware the Cruz-Missile!
Clarification:
should have read:
this lack of conservative purity excuse is pervasive
as the reason the they think Romney lost
rsklaroff
I didn’t retreat from Santorum. I debunked your attempt to portray Santorum as an outlier by pointing out that this lack of conservative purity is pervasive at CPAC. Cruz is just as crazy as Coulter and isn’t espousing “populism” but xenophobia and pandering to the racist base. So, if you support Cruz (who is now talking about bombing the crap out of Islamists), you are fully on board with Ann Coulter as well. (She will likely switch from Trump to Cruz if Ted takes the lead.)
They DO tend to cite Reagan (or more accurate mis-cite and misrepresent and completely ignore his occasionally more moderate stances of supporting gun control and raising taxed when the tax-cuts were too deep).
But, keep living in your delusional world that perceives Cruz as a righteous guy, rather than a racist demagogue.
@ d2:
In lieu of documenting the fact that each sentence you typed corrupts truth [e.g., forgetting to use the antecedent word “illegal” before referring to “immigrants”], particularly when citing as authoritative the RNC-Establishment.
Perhaps you would reconsider jumping to conclusions, a characteristic of your postings; for example, I do not subscribe to Coulter’s rants [particularly noting how she flip-flops so stridently].
My goal was to rebuke your characterization of Santorum, and you retreated; just know that the populism espoused by Cruz will extend beyond the GOP, countering your claim [“The attendees believe that the voters will flock to a true conservative”] by simply citing “Reagan.”
rsklaroff-
I do agree that Santorum is not a “real” conservative, in the same way that you and your tea party pals are not. You are anti-govt anarchists who who treat basic govt services as theft from the rich and anti-discrimination as impinging on your “freedom” to be bigoted.
However, that brand of extreme conservatism is what dominates CPAC and the speeches of the most popular politicos. Ann Coulter does well there.
The attendees believe that the voters will flock to a true conservative.
This flies in the face of actual election analysis conducted by the RNC in the wake of 2012 that determined Republicans needed a bigger share of the Hispanic vote. The traditional religious appeal to this group has been undermined by the demonization of immigrants and the rampant xenophobia and fearmongering by the white Christian base. The conservative fight against health care and minimum wage increases hasn’t helped either with the majority that want both.
The denials of global warming also reinforce how out of touch conservatives are with reality. (Your buddy Cruz wants the gold standard back, despite economists abandoning it decades ago.)
So, keep up the good work of dumping resources into unworkable fantasies as the Dems keep the White House for the next four (eight) years.
@ d2:
You know not of what you type.
[“it’s always the fantasy of the extreme right-wingers like you and skaroff that the GOP losers weren’t conservative enough. This is the same asinine argument that Santorum made that he would have done better than Romney because he was a real conservative.”]
The race had nothing to do with political positioning within the GOP; you lose cred [again] when you abide blindly by Santorum’s self-serving self-characterization, for he was NOT a “real conservative.”
bobguzzardi
That isn’t why Kane won and Freed lost, though it’s always the fantasy of the extreme right-wingers like you and skaroff that the GOP losers weren’t conservative enough. This is the same asinine argument that Santorum made that he would have done better than Romney because he was a real conservative.
Kane won because she had a TON of name/face recognition from the Dem primary that carried over. Pat Murphy ads were mostly “endorsements” from all the “usual suspects” in Dem politics. But, Kathleen looked right into the camera, said she wanted to be Attorney General (not stealth Gov candidates), and asked for people to vote for her.
While the Kane haters like to question her sincerity/integrity in office, she delivered it in those ads and was likable. That wins elections.
Freed ran such a poor, lackluster campaign that on election day I barely knew who Kane’s opponent was, he was so irrelevant. (Though, to be fair, he might not have done much advertising in SEPA.)
The only reason Kane outperformed Obama is that Obama is black and there are still a few white Dems who are with us on unions and blue collar issues, but still too racist and GOP-leaning to vote for a non-white candidate.
But, PLEASE, go right on believing that GOP candidates lose for not meeting the tea-party purity standards. Push those extreme right-wing candidates that you think will inspire the moderate R’s and independents and conservative D’s to abandon all common sense and “see the light” in your failed economic policies and promotion of inequality. Keep fighting against a living wage, and affordable health care.
Had I not been distracted by this gambit with AG-Kane, I would have typed something comparable to what Guzzardi recalls.
A half-decade ago, I had two interactions with Freed [Republican Jewish Coalition meeting and Stu Bykofsky’s $-raiser] and was unable to extract a solid public/private commitment [respectively] to investigate AG-Corbett’s slow-roll investigation of Sandusky [blow-by-blow deferred], had he been elected.
If memory serves, he was chosen by Corbett to run, as Rafferty was left hanging.
Birds of a Feather Dave Freed; Loser…lost the base
In the 2010 General Election, in the state wide races, FREED received 92,146 fewer votes than Diana Irey Vaughan and 235,261 fewer votes than John Maher in November 2012 election. The Republican based deserted Corbett’s hand-picked hack and they are deserting Tom Corbett because he broke the promises he made to them in 2010.
Kane outperformed every other candidate, including Barack Obama, in 2012 and that is because the base abandoned Corbett-Freed and their betrayals.
I’d call it like the hopefully future pardon of Snowden.
I’d call it reminiscent of the corrupt Clintonian pardon of Mark Rich.
rsklaroff
Given Wolf’s capitulations on the budget, I’d support Josh over him already.
If Wolf tries to remove Kane, before she’s had a fair trial in open court, he would lose my primary vote against any challenger. If she loses in court, and forced out of office, Wolf could secure my vote via pardon/commutation that keeps Kane out of jail on these trumped up charges. Call it whistleblower protection.
@ d2:
Thus, if Wolf nails AG-Kane, you will advocate Josh primarily-challenging him.
Idiotic and, unfortunately for you, will be a tested-hypothesis.
rsklaroff
If Wolf keeps rolling over for a belly rub from the GOP, Marcel won’t have a choice.
@ d2:
All your machinations are ok [even typos, such as “wad”] until the last line; Marcel wouldn’t countenance challenging the Gov who installed him as chair.
rsklaroff-
On that we can agree. My distinct impression has been that Marcel and Josh are thick as thieves on advancing Josh down this path.
You’d have to ask Marcel whether he prefers Josh as A.G. or Gov, but Marcel and Josh owe each other much success in Montco, with Josh and Leslie breaking through to create a Dem majority on Montco commission, and the power (and fundraising) it added to the Montco Dem juggernaut.
I would be shocked if Marcel did not work hard to rig a state committee endorsement for Josh, but given the strong competition, it’s unlikelihood of anyone would meet the endorsement threshold. So, if Marcel/Josh fears that Josh would not be the top vote getter, I would expect Marcel to put “open primary” to a vote first, to avoid any potential embarrassment to Josh.
Given that none of the candidates may hit the threshold, they might not want to risk a vote either, with nothing to gain.
Let’s just say, there will be a lot of strong arming and vote counting behind the scenes, before any public/official vote is “allowed”. It’s the political equivalent of the lawyer mantra of never asking a question without already knowing the answer.
The state committee meeting is Jan 22nd. Given that Josh has to wait until he gets sworn in even to announce, the other candidates have almost three times as long to solicit committee support and endorsements.
I can’t wait to hear Josh’s raison d’être for running for A.G., when everyone believes his real aspirations are for Gov., and the Dems already have well qualified candidates, and Josh has all his 2015 election promises to fulfill in his 2nd term.
Oh, I would be remiss if I did not praise Josh’s fundraising. The commission win was an easy lift, given the huge Dem registration advantage in Montco. So, Josh is likely sitting on a large was of campaign cash.
The question is: piss it away on a run for A.G. or continue as commissioner and build the bankroll to Gov levels by 2018?
@ d2:
Marcel would probably promote his advancement, don’t you think?
Freed is a nobody. Who cares who he endorses. He was backing Mike George too!!
rsklaroff
My point regarding Josh for Senate is his legislative experience qualifies him for the job, and he was aggressively recruited for the race. Similarly, for Gov, Josh’s executive and budgeting experience/success qualifies him for Gov.
“when he can waltz into a statewide spot?”
Are you kidding?
No one is clamoring for Josh to leave Montco in the lurch to pursue A.G. as a stepping stone to Gov., except for maybe a few sycophants who think Josh is their ticket “up”. While Josh can easily handle the administrative and political aspects of the A.G. job, he’s got less relevant courtroom experience than a law clerk.
On the Dem side, we’ve already got D.A. John Morganelli interested. And, last night in Upper Darby @ campaign kick-off for Barbarann Keffer for St Leg (163rd), Jack Stollsteimer was recognized as a 2016 candidate. My understanding is that Jack was a federal prosecutor (which is a pretty strong qualification as well for the A.G. job).
So, Josh’s attempt to run for A.G. doesn’t make sense as a good career move, especially if he gets crushed in a primary because he’s been labeled “unqualified” by ALL the other candidates.
Considering how much you hate Josh (ie consider him a race traitor), your attempts to bolster him running for A.G. can only be considered attempts to sabotage Josh’s political career.
Maybe your support will help Josh come to his senses and skip tilting at this particular windmill.
Wait, what? –
Zappala? More info please.
@ d2:
I can’t believe i’m advising you on such simple stuff; why claim “Josh should have run for Senate” against an incumbent who has carefully avoided what might be viewed as extreme votes [and who, from my perspective, is superb] when he can waltz into a statewide spot? And why should he await the opportunity to primary an incumbent from the posture of a county commissioner? YOU need to be “smacked on the head” by a Dem-colleague before you post again…and make MORE of a fool of yourself among your Dem-friends!
Notwithstanding the fact that Shapito is completely and utterly unqualified for the AG job, word is out that Zappala is finally going to jump in and run State wide. That means Shapiro has Zero chance to go along with Zero experience
rsklaroff
Your racist views on Obama are not relevant for the A.G. race.
The good news-
That argument against Josh is well known. My point was more towards his decision to run NOW, rather than commit to his commissioner job, and the distasteful pattern of using the AG job as a stepping stone.
PA deserves an A.G. that actually wants THAT job.
If Josh wants to be A.G. so badly that he is going to submit ballot positions for a new 4 year job, less than a month after being sworn in for a fresh 4 year reenlistment of his current job, then he will be questioned on his “commitment issues” vigorously by the press and his opponents.
I think it’s a bad move, and whoever is advising him be smacked in the head. Josh has a great career ahead of him in PA, but running for A.G. within a month of starting his 2nd term as commissioner will hurt him and his momentum.
Josh should have run for Senate, on his legislative experience, or he should wait until 2018 to run against Wolf in a primary (assuming Wolf even still wants the job after the beating he’s getting from the GOP.
@ d2 [and Josh?]:
I know this article is ostensibly about Freed’s endorsement [and I have my own formulation as to what may transpire on the R-side], prognosticating on the Dem-side is at-variance from what I have perceived, for Josh is [if nothing else] methodical.
I’m not in the business of providing Josh any type of advice, beyond my having aggressively lectured him [even having provided an hourlong seminar from an academician to corroborate worriment] for a half-decade regarding the dangers of abiding by BHO’s Iranian policies. In that regard, y’all are referred to my 15th article [since July] dealing with this concern.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/262003-the-house-must-sue-to-block-illegal-iranian-nuke-pact
Nevertheless, noting that the minority-commissioner will be Joseph Gale, he cannot reasonably anticipate that “bipartisanship” will continue; furthermore, notwithstanding the claim that Wolf will lose votes of loyal-Dems such as d2, it would be unlikely that he would be displaced in a re-election effort [again, almost regardless of performance].
http://www.theintell.com/news/local/election/newcomer-republican-gale-earns-minority-seat-as-montgomery-commissioner/article_8829b4fc-817f-11e5-b1fd-8342d4bf7e73.html
Finally, because the AG-position is often viewed as a stepping-stone for Gov. [and beyond?], it would not be viewed by the general public to be too-aggressive if he were to become AG [for two terms?] and then be positioned to displace Stack as the Lt.Gov., as the latter then were to run in a ’22 gubernatorial race.
*
All of this presupposes PA remains “blue”…but the point, here, is that [provided in a disinterested fashion] Josh may justifiably be manifesting his [self-perceived] political ambitions [despite my attacks on his–and Marcel’s–obeisance to BHO].
Diano, your list of three concerns about Shapiro ignores the most obvious concern: he has zero experience as a prosecutor or courtroom lawyer of any kind. And don’t tell me that he only needs administrative skills to oversee the prosecutors. No, he has to set policy that depends on a detailed understanding of how cases are investigated by police and prosecuted in court. He has to oversee two other entire divisions that go into civil court and litigate complex issues of great importance to the Commonwealth. He cannot oversee what he does not understand at even a basic level.
I’m not sure I’d ever say this again, but I agree with you David Diano.
Word on the street is that Josh Shapiro had a poll conducted last week for the AG race.
Has anyone heard any more details about this?
Who paid for the poll? Has Josh formed an exploratory committee yet to pay for such a poll? Even if it was an inkind contribution or conducted by “friends”, it should show up in a campaign finance report somewhere.
Of course, the issues with Josh running for AG appear to be:
1) He hasn’t even been sworn in for his new term as commissioner
2) His desire to run for AG is the 2nd worst kept secret in PA
3) His desire to want to be Gov and use the AG job as a launching pad is the worst kept secret
Now, I like Josh and think he’s a smart, capable public servant who has done a great job in Montco, especially with the budget. I also think he would make a GREAT governor.
However, job-hopping his way by running for offices he plans to immediately abandon is not the way that’s going to endear him to Dems looking for real leadership.
My advice (which may or may not be worth two-cents depending on the current trading price of copper) is this:
Josh, if you want to be Gov, then keep kicking ass in Montco with the budget, and showing bipartisanship works. Wolf has completely disappointed all of us with his feckless and gutless handling of the budget against the GOP.
If Wolf folds and “does the bidding” of the Senate GOP with Kane, he’s going to lose my vote (and plenty of others) in a 2018 primary.
So, if you want to be Gov, DO NOT waste your time and ours running for AG. Challenge Wolf directly in a 2018 primary. You’ll have nearly two full terms completed as Montco commissioner to serve as “a model for the state” and have the street cred you need on the budget to replace Wolf.