Republican Tom Corbett has opened up a 13-point advantage in the race to be Pennsylvania’s next governor, according to a new poll.

The Rasmussen survey released Wednesday showed Corbett winning exactly half the vote, besting Democrat Dan Onorato 50 percent to 37 percent. Ten percent of voters are still undecided and three percent prefer another candidate.

It matches the largest lead Corbett has held recently, though most polls for weeks have shown the GOP nominee leading by either low low double-digits or high single-digits. Turnout models continue to forecast a higher proportion of Republicans going to the polls in a year when Democrats are expecting losses up and down the ballot. Corbett led by 10 points in the same survey just two weeks ago, and he recently went on the air with his first TV ad of the general election.

The latest survey of 750 likely voters, conducted Aug. 30, had a margin of error of four percent.

Democrat John Callahan has made this election season’s first TV advertising buy in the 15th Congressional District, and will be on the air in the Lehigh Valley as early as Thursday morning, a Democratic insider told pa2010.com.

Callahan, the Bethlehem mayor and White House recruit, has been a fundraising star for the Democratic Party as he seeks to unseat Congressman Charlie Dent (R-15). He has kept the money race against the incumbent close, allowing him to go on TV a full two months before Election Day.

The party insider did not disclose the specifics of Callahan’s first ad buy or the substance of the first commercial, but said it would be a “comparative ad”—presumably one that will mention both challenger and incumbent.

The counties in the district comprise a unique media market in Pennsylvania, cheaper than Philadelphia but more expensive than many other districts in the state. Philadelphia’s broadcast networks hit homes in the district, but the local network WFMZ is a news leader. Many cable networks touch areas within the district, but most service comes from one provider.

Callahan’s early ad buy could put the pressure on Dent to hit the airwaves soon himself. The race is currently No. 5 on the pa2010.com Congressional Power Rankings.

The claims are made so often, and so casually, that they’ve seemingly become part of Republican political DNA this year: the economic stimulus package didn’t create jobs, and Democrats have raised taxes.

In recent months, one or both claims have been made by, among other Pennsylvania candidates or their respective campaigns, Pat Toomey, Jim Gerlach, Pat Meehan, Mike Fitzpatrick and Charlie Dent.

Both claims are also false.

More than a year-and-a-half after the stimulus package was enacted, even conservative economists credit it with creating and saving jobs. Mark Zandi, the head economist at Moody’s at a former adviser to John McCain, has said the economy would have as many as 3 million fewer jobs today without the stimulus. And the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has credited with between 1.2 and 2.8 million jobs, making the the unemployment rate as much as 1.5 percent lower than it would have been.

That didn’t stop Fitzpatrick from saying in a recent statement that the stimulus “brought us less jobs.” Similarly, Toomey’s campaign said in a recent ad that the stimulus added to the deficit “without creating jobs.”

Other Republicans have been more careful with their rhetoric, correctly saying that the Obama administration had projected the unemployment rate would top out at eight percent if the stimulus passed (it eventually edged past 10 percent).

The claims that taxes have increased during the Obama administration are even more pervasive, seemingly infused in almost every GOP talking point and formal statement. An aide to Meehan recently said that the policies of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “have led to … higher taxes.”

But individual taxes have not gone up since President Obama took office, according to the Internal Revenue Service and numerous other independent organizations. While there are new business taxes that will phase in as the new health care law takes effect, none of those taxes have taken hold yet—with the exception of a tax on tanning. There is an argument to be made that some businesses saw a tax increase when Congress passed a $26 billion bill for aid to states, but that was offset by restricting the ability of corporations to avoid reporting income made offshore—not by actually increasing tax rates.

It is a measure of the poor messaging job done by Democrats that most Americans, according to polls, think their taxes have gone up.

The stimulus package actually included a tax cut for a large majority of Americans. Which means that Fitzpatrick was wrong on both counts when he said the stimulus yielded “less jobs” and “more taxes.”

Democrats are staying on the attack against Pat Toomey, using a new TV ad to once again blame the GOP Senate candidate for the financial crisis.

The new ad from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, embedded at bottom, comes two weeks after the party first went on the air in Pennsylvania, and just a couple days after Democratic nominee Joe Sestak started running his first ad. Toomey and his conservative allies have been hammering Sestak on the airwaves for months.

The latest 30-second spot seems to repeat the misleading claim that Toomey “pioneered derivatives” that “nearly wrecked our economy”—the same charge that fact-checkers took issue with in the DSCC’s last ad. In the 1980s, Toomey traded currency derivatives, but the so-called credit default swap derivatives that many blame for the 2008 financial crisis weren’t developed until Toomey left the industry. The DSCC is on slightly firmer ground this time in simply saying that Toomey “pioneered” derivatives and that derivatives “nearly wrecked” the economy—but the claim is still misleading.

“The evidence is clear,” the ad says. “Pat Toomey stands up for Wall Street, not you.”

The ad also continues the Democratic onslaught against Toomey’s position on Social Security. Toomey has long been one of the leading advocates for personal investment accounts as an alternative to Social Security—the plan pushed by former President George W. Bush that is widely referred to as privatization. Toomey has avoided the word privatization—language conservatives believe is unfairly loaded—but has maintained his support of the policy itself.

The ad says that Toomey’s plan would put “your Social Security at risk in the stock market”—a claim that is accurate in the broadest sense but still somewhat misleading. Most privatization plans call for only optional personal accounts, and even then, benefits would largely continue to come from the government-run Social Security program.

“Privatizing Social Security, helping Wall Street,” the ad says. “Pat Toomey: He’s not for you.”

Bethlehem mayor and Democratic congressional hopeful John Callahan rolled out his jobs agenda this week, a five-point plan that tracks closely with ideas circulated by some of the moderates in his party.

Callahan’s jobs plan, unveiled at a news conference in Bethlehem and during an interview with pa2010.com, centers on eliminating tax incentives for companies to outsource jobs overseas; enacting small business tax cuts; increasing financial aid for higher education; cutting “wasteful” spending; and streamlining federal regulations for small businesses. In a race that has just as often centered on local issues, Callahan used the focus on national policy to criticize incumbent Congressman Charlie Dent (R-15) anew. The race is currently No. 5 on the pa2010.com Congressional Power Rankings.

“No one wants to see our jobs go to Mexico or to China,” Callahan said. “It’s time for Washington to stop rewarding companies that engage in this culture of outsourcing.

“Earlier this month, Congressman Dent voted against closing some of the tax loopholes for corporations that export our jobs overseas… to avoid paying their fair share,” Callahan added, referring to GOP opposition to a $26 billion aid package for states that Democrats passed and funded by closing the so-called tax loopholes.

Callahan also chastised Dent for voting against the recent HIRE Act to provide tax credits for small businesses. Callahan wants to expand the measure, which would offer payroll tax exemptions for firms that hire unemployed workers and up to a $1,000 tax credit for each new employee. Opponents of the legislation question its effectiveness and criticize its $35 billion price tag.

In a statement, Dent insisted that Callahan is all about raising taxes.

“At least John Callahan is consistent,” Dent said. “His No. 1 plan is to always raise taxes—whether on income, sales, property, investment or savings. None of John Callahan’s tax increases will create jobs.”

Dent has been critical of Callahan’s leadership in Bethlehem, spotlighting the city’s budget deficit to say his opponent “has no credibility to talk about fiscal responsibility.”

But Callahan pointed to that same record in touting his understanding of how to streamline government regulations.

“When I was first elected as mayor, it took a small business 42 days to get its paperwork approved,” Callahan said. “But now… it takes just 14 days.”

This was a pretty stupid error to make. As usual, a reminder that you can always view all our corrections and clarifications by clicking on the Corrections tag.

•The headline accompanying an article Wednesday about Democrat Bryan Lentz’s contribution to Republican Rick Santorum’s campaign misstated the year in which the donation was made. As the article noted, it was in 2000, not 2006.

For almost a year, Democrat Bryan Lentz and his supporters have worked to equate his Republican opponent with former Senator Rick Santorum, the conservative who got washed out of office by the Democratic wave in 2006. Pat Meehan, Lentz’s rival in the 7th Congressional District, was a campaign manager for Santorum, and counts the former senator as a close supporter.

But Lentz, a two-term state Representative, was briefly a Santorum supporter himself—at least financially.

Lentz gave Santorum’s campaign $250 in the summer of 2000, according to campaign finance data. While only a drop in the bucket of the millions that Santorum raised that cycle, the donation came just three months before Democratic nominee Ron Klink faced him at the polls.

The contribution was pointed out to pa2010.com by the Meehan campaign.

Lentz had not yet entered politics back then, and was in private practice as a lawyer between his Army deployments.

“As a favor to a friend, Bryan gave $250 in 2000 to Rick Santorum,” Lentz campaign manager Kevin McTigue said. “There is a big difference between supporting Rick Santorum’s campaign with $250 as a favor and supporting Rick Santorums’ far-right agenda like Pat Meehan does.  If Pat would attend any of the Town Hall meetings Bryan’s been hosting, Bryan would be happy to discuss with him the difference.”

Santorum is the only Republican to which Lentz has ever donated, according to campaign finance data. He gave $400 to Bob Casey a year before Casey unseated Santorum, and has also donated money to Chris Carney and the late Ted Kennedy. Meehan, for his part, appears to have made only one campaign contribution over the last decade: a $250 donation to Arlen Specter’s campaign in 2008, a few months before the longtime senator switched parties.

Lentz’s contribution to Santorum was briefly an issue of contention for Delaware County Democrats when Lentz was first running for Congress in 2006, but never rose beyond the chattering class and comments on the blogosphere. Lentz eventually stepped aside for Joe Sestak.

Correction: The headline for this article originally misstated the year in which Lentz contributed to Santorum’s campaign. As the article noted, it was 2000, not 2006.

When I graduated high school in 1985, I went to the movies that summer to see “Year of the Dragon,” which starred Mickey Rourke and dealt with organized crime in Chinatown. One of my favorite scenes is when Rourke’s character, Captain Stanley White, lines up his weary police force to scold: “You look like the Chicago Cubs. Like you already lost.”

With all deference and respect to my friends who happen to be Cubs fans, the quote resonates with me. With all of the talk about polling, trends and “voter enthusiasm,” way too many pundits are basically playing “taps” for Democrats. The last time I checked, there were no crystal balls in Harrisburg or anyplace else in Pennsylvania. As someone who has been around politics for more than 20 years, one thing I know for certain is that no poll ever took the place of good, old fashioned turnout efforts and organization. Polls take the temperature of the voters at a specific time given a specific set of circumstances—that’s all.

I know it looks bleak for Democrats right now. But we’re several days away from Labor Day and families are still at the beach enjoying their last few days of tranquility before the summer season wraps up. The polls will tighten, the ads will fly, the mailings will be sent and the candidates will debate. I don’t know too many Democrats in any campaign who are strapping on the Cubbies pinstripes for a home game.

If anything, the dismal polls should energize people even more to work harder, smarter and more efficiently. I have yet to hear a compelling argument to elect Republicans in Pennsylvania. Their message is either negative or nonexistent.

Democrats will be like the Fightin’ Phillies. They’ll be there in the end.

The top man in the Democratic Party is coming to Pennsylvania to pitch in for congressional hopeful Manan Trivedi.

Democratic National Committee chairman Tim Kaine will be in Philadelphia Thursday, where he will headline a fundraiser for the 6th District candidate before he joins a meeting of local Asian-American leaders. For Kaine, it’s part of a tour he’s doing to help Asian-American and Indian-American candidates. Kaine will also be joined by Congressman Mike Honda (D-Calif.), the DNC vice chair who heads the Asian Pacific American Caucus.

Kaine’s appearance will cap a busy week of surrogates campaigning for Trivedi and other area Democrats. Senator Bob Casey and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz were both in southeast Pennsylvania this week to campaign for Trivedi and 7th District candidate Bryan Lentz.

Trivedi is trying to unseat Congressman Jim Gerlach (R-6), in a race that is currently No. 4 on the pa2010.com Congressional Power Rankings.

While we were reading through the details of Rasmussen’s latest Senate poll Tuesday, another survey slipped by us.

The good folks at Reuters and the research shop Ipsos got together and also polled the race. Their survey found Republican Pat Toomey leading Democrat Joe Sestak by 10 points, 47 percent to 37 percent. That’s a lead four points larger than Rasmussen showed. Toomey’s edge is smaller among all registered voters at three points.

And the poll also showed Republican Tom Corbett still holding a comfortable 15-point lead over Democrat Dan Onorato in the race for governor, 49 percent to 34 percent.

Meanwhile, our friends at FactCheck.org are taking a conservative group to task for its new ad targeting Sestak. We already pointed out some factual missteps in our initial coverage of the ad. But the expert fact-checkers go further, faulting the Karl Rove-connect group Crossroads GPS for “misdirection” and “faulty claims” about the newly enacted health care reform law. They key findings:

•The ad’s claim that “hard-hit families” will see $2,100 premium hikes is “not true for the large majority, who are likely to see somewhat lower premiums, according to the very source the ad cites. Any families that do see such large premium increases are likely to also get federal subsidies to help pay them, resulting in lower cost to most of them as well.”

•The ad’s charge that Sestak voted to “gut Medicare” is a “wild exaggeration. It’s true that the law calls for restraining the future growth of Medicare spending by about $555 billion—about a 7 percent reduction spread over the next 10 years. And millions who now have private Medicare Advantage plans are likely to see their extra benefits reduced. But that hardly amounts to eviscerating the program.”

And lastly, the National Republican Congressional Committee has added Mike Kelly to it’s so-called “Young Guns” program for tracking and helping House challengers. Kelly is challenging freshman Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper (D-3) in the conservative-leaning northwest Pennsylvania. And while he hasn’t had much fundraising success, he’s cut big checks of his own the keep the campaign going.

Kelly joins Pat Meehan, Mike Fitzpatrick and Lou Barletta as Republicans who the party see as their best pick-up opportunities.

The Senate race in Pennsylvania has narrowed somewhat, but Republican nominee Pat Toomey still holds a six-point lead over Democrat Joe Sestak, according to a new poll.

The Rasmussen survey released Tuesday found Toomey garnering 45 percent of the vote, compared to 39 percent for Sestak. Eleven percent of voters are still undecided and five percent prefer another candidate, according to the poll.

Much of the public polling over the last few months has shown Toomey ahead by low double-digits or high single-digits, reflecting the rough political climate for Democrats nationally. But some polls have occasionally found the race to be a dead-heat, and the latest results came as Sestak is hoping to close whatever gap there is with a soft launch to his TV campaign.

Two polls earlier this month showed Toomey leading by nine points.

The latest survey of 750 likely voters, conducted Monday, had a margin of error of four percent.

It seems that every story nowadays is a political obituary for Democrats at the hands of a revitalized Republican Party. Given recent polling, the intensity of the Tea Party movement and the historical trend of the president’s party losing seats in midterm election years, it’s understandable for Democrats to be anxious.

However, I saw none of this anxiety Monday when Senator Bob Casey joined 6th District congressional candidate Manan Trivedi in Ardmore.

I think I speak for a lot of Democrats in saying that I often find it disappointing how our candidates fold up and try to win campaigns by being as vanilla and uncontroversial as possible in competitive districts and, even worse, trying to co-opt Republican ideas in uphill races. That kind of mushiness—not rough polling numbers—is really what leads to a lack of enthusiasm from voters, donors and volunteers. I’m pretty sure most people don’t vote based on what the poll numbers say.

You also can’t win by just attacking the opposition. Too often candidates think they can just talk about how bad their opponent is and then hope that on Election Day, voters just pick the alternative without looking much further. It’s not really a winning formula. Sure, you need to make a distinction between the candidates, but more than just telling people what to vote against, you need to give them something to vote for or else you will fail.

Thankfully, I saw something different in Ardmore. If you thought that the Democratic Party was stuck in a malaise, you would be in for a surprise. About 60 people packed the Trivedi campaign office on Lancaster Avenue and there was a refreshing lack of trembling in their boots. Everybody was energized and excited to hear the candidate and the senator speak.

What I heard from Casey and Trivedi was reassuring. Instead of trying to be generic or defensive or Republican-lite, they both spoke with conviction and purpose. Casey has always been thought of as a moderate Democrat, mostly for his stance on abortion, so it might not be too surprising or notable if he tried to cool down the rhetoric. Instead, he gave a strong speech about what he thought needed done in Washington and why Trivedi was a good candidate. There was no holding back.

Before this event, I had yet to hear Trivedi speak. I had heard about his fascinating personal story and friends told me that he was a strong candidate, but I had yet to see him first hand. Thankfully, he, just like Casey, gave the activists in the room something to vote for instead of just red meat to make them angry to vote against someone else. He obviously takes the race and the responsibility of becoming a member of Congress seriously and, while he made contrasts with incumbent Congressman Jim Gerlach, he coupled that with his plans of what to actually accomplish in Washington were he to win. Most importantly, he reminded everybody that sometimes the best defense is a good offense.

Much of the attack by Democrats against Republicans over the past few months is that they are simply a Party of No. I agree that just being against the Democrats is a poor reason to vote for Republicans, but it is also true that just being against the Republicans isn’t a good reason to vote for Democrats. It would be best for Democrats to take a page from Trivedi and Casey and advocate for voting yes instead of merely standing up to the opposition.

Democrats surely have reason to be concerned about their chances in November. They will undoubtedly lose seats in both houses of Congress. However, their best chance is to make a case that they are worth voting for instead of just stoking fears of Republicans and stopping there. As I’ve often said, if you’re not willing to stand up for yourself, why should voters think you are willing to stand up for them?  Voters want someone who represents strength and confidence in their abilities, ideas, and philosophy, no matter their party affiliation.

There are still Democrats who are willing to stand up for themselves and their ideas. That is the best way to close the so-called enthusiasm gap.

A new TV ad from Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett talks up the attorney general’s pledge not to raise taxes—and waves off the bipartisan skepticism that he can keep the pledge.

The ad, unveiled by Corbett’s campaign in an e-mail to supporters Tuesday morning, is his first new TV spot since he cruised to his party’s nomination in the May primary. The size of the first ad buy was not immediately clear, but Corbett started the general election cycle with a substantial financial advantage over Democratic nominee Dan Onorato, who had to fight his way through a four-way primary.

The Republican leader in the state Senate is among those who have questioned how Corbett can handle Pennsylvania’s troublesome budget situation without raising taxes, and Onorato has has needled Corbett on the specifics of the pledge.

“The politicians were just as skeptical when I promised to fight corruption in Pennsylvania, and boy, were they wrong,” Corbett says in the ad. “So if any of them truly believe we can’t stop Harrisburg’s reckless spending and high taxes, just watch me.”

See the ad below.

Many Philadelphians have been developing a hate-hate relationship with a variety of government agencies over a long period of time. Some of these, for example, are the Delaware River Port Authority, Philadelphia Housing Authority and the School Reform Commission—or as some friends of mine over at Philadelphia Speaks coined it, The Axis of Arrogant Incompetence. All these agencies have been in the news a lot recently, and not for their redeeming qualities.

But there’s another aggravating acronym that has been flying under the radar, one that needs to be brought to the forefront for this election cycle: the PLCB.

The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board was formed when Prohibition was repealed by the 21st Amendment. The goal, as stated by Governor Gifford Pinchot, was to “discourage the purchase of alcoholic beverages by making it as inconvenient and expensive as possible.” It’s always nice to hear a government success story, because it has been succeeding at that goal for over 75 years.

It’s time for the PLCB to finally be privatized, and in this election cycle, who we elect as governor could either enshrine the existence of the PLCB for the next eight years or make pushes to change it.

Democratic nominee Dan Onorato’s campaign has told The Post-Gazette that he “is against the privatization of liquor stores.” This is a firm and unacceptable stance for this issue. Any elected official that believes the appropriate role for Harrisburg is to run a monopoly business gives me cause for concern and should concern everyone else as well.

On the other side, GOP nominee Tom Corbett hasn’t been exactly championing the privatization cause, but he isn’t against it either. The Times Leader reported earlier this summer that Corbett said he’d look into the matter.

Now, I will agree that is a very light stance to make a significant wedge out of an issue, but something rather more interesting developed recently that throws a lot of weight behind the idea of Corbett being more aggressive on this front.

In his August newsletter, Keith Wallace of the Wine School of Philadelphia made a pitch for Tom Corbett. As he says, “… I have gained assurances that Gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett will make reforming the PLCB an element of his administration.”

This is significant because, besides being a well respected person amongst the wine circles in the Philadelphia area, he also isn’t your expected Corbett supporter. “After all,” he says, “I am a former NPR journalist and Democratic operative [originally] from Massachusetts.”

This shows two very important things. First, the PLCB is a significant enough of an issue to get people to be a one issue voter across party lines. Second, while there is the debate between both sides on where the line is drawn on the appropriate role of government, the PLCB crosses that line for many people.

Whether you are for the PLCB remaining as is or you want someone to push for more significant changes, there are clear choices that can be made in November.

Breaking his TV silence more than three months after a wildly successful primary advertising blitz, Democrat Senate candidate Joe Sestak is up with his campaign’s first commercial of the general election cycle.

The 30-second spot, coming just over two months before Election Day, strikes a stridently populist tone, juxtaposing Republican nominee Pat Toomey’s previous statements about corporate taxes with news clips about falling tax payments by corporations. The ad uses a 2007 CNBC appearance by Toomey, who at the time headed the conservative Club for Growth.

“I think the solution is to eliminate corporate taxes altogether,” Toomey said at the time.

The ad buy comes after Toomey and his conservative allies have been pummeling Sestak on the airwaves with negative spots for months. Democrats only began to insert themselves into the air wars a couple weeks ago, when the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee launched a spot hitting Toomey on his past as a derivatives trader. The ad buy is also somewhat unusual for Sestak’s TV consulting firm, The Campaign Group, which is more often known for saving all advertising money for the closing weeks of a race.

But the ad buy is relatively small, according to The Inquirer, which first reported the new spot. Reflecting Toomey’s considerable financial advantage and the fact that Sestak is still rebuilding a war chest depleted by his competitive primary against Arlen Specter, no TV time has been booked in the expensive Philadelphia media market. The campaign has so far reserved limited time in the Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, Erie, Johnstown and Wilkes-Barre media markets.

Noting that Toomey was called “Wall Street’s Congressman” by the magazine Derivatives Strategy, the ad says “he’s for them, not for us.”

See the ad below.

Democrat Joe Sestak found himself under new scrutiny on that pesky subject of earmarks Monday, after The Morning Call reported that money Sestak earmarked for a non-profit foundation could instead end up benefiting a for-profit wind energy company.

At issue is $350,000 requested for the Thomas Paine Foundation, money to develop a new prototype, offshore wind turbine. The money was never actually appropriated, but long story short, the head of the nonprofit head who requested the money also runs New Way Energy LLC, which is developing the same type of turbines. New House rules prohibit earmarks from going to for-profit companies. And after Sestak’s opponent got some favorable ink when it raised hay over Sestak’s earmarking policy earlier this summer, Republicans were once again quick to pounce Monday. GOP Senate nominee Pat Toomey’s campaign was on offense, and the state party held a conference call for reporters.

“It’s bad enough that Joe Sestak repeatedly wastes Pennsylvanians’ tax dollars on outrageous earmarks like a Mule and Packers Museum in California,” Toomey campaign spokeswoman Nachama Soloveichik said. “It got worse when Sestak trotted out a phony ethics pledge against taking campaign contributions from people he funneled earmarks to, only to flunk his own ethics test. Now, Sestak is violating House rules by using a non-profit as cover for doling out tax dollars to his pet project. Joe Sestak and the Washington wasteful earmark game are so out of control that you can’t make this stuff up.”

Sestak’s campaign said the two-term congressman’s office had done its due diligence in scrutinizing the earmark request, and argued that nonprofit organizations headed by executives of for-profit companies should not be exuded from receiving earmarks.

“The fact is Joe Sestak has led the way to transparency and earmark reform,” spokeswoman April Mellody told PoliticsPA. “If we’re going to talk about earmark reform, then quite frankly Congressman Toomey should stop hiding his own earmark requests.”

Meanwhile, Senator Bob Casey rolled through southeast Pennsylvania Monday to stump for two of his party’s congressional candidates. First, Casey joined Democrat Bryan Lentz at a small business roundtable in Brookhaven. Lentz is running against Republican Pat Meehan in the 7th Congressional District. “Small businesses are the engines of our economy and job growth,” Casey said in a statement later. “Representative Lentz understands the imperative to listen to and then advocate for small businesses.”

A few hours later, Casey was in Ardmore, headlining the Montgomery County office opening for Manan Trivedi, the party’s candidate against Congressman Jim Gerlach (R-6). “Manan Trivedi will bring unique qualities to Washington,” Casey said. “As a doctor and a veteran, his experience will be helpful to Pennsylvania and the nation as the health care law is implemented and as we work to protect our troops and keep our promises to our veterans.”

And it seems like the impolitic comments from Republican Tom Marino just keep on coming. After basically saying his generation has to skip cashing in on that whole Social Security thing, Marino, the GOP hopeful in the 10th District, apparently shouted down some voters and asked if they were on welfare. The video embedded below, apparently from a Democratic tracker, clearly could lack some important context. But at least at first glance, it doesn’t look good.

Check it out.

Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D-11) has taken his reelection bid to local TV screens in northeast Pennsylvania, using his campaign’s first 30-second spot to pointedly attack Republican challenger Lou Barletta’s legacy as mayor of Hazleton.

Kanjorski’s started airing the ad late last week, and his campaign said media buys of both cable and broadcast would continue through Election Day. Reflecting the bitter rivalry between the two candidates and the reality that Kanjorski faces a daunting anti-incumbent, anti-Democratic climate, the ad focuses squarely and entirely on Barletta.

The ad criticizes income and property tax hikes that were enacted in the city’s most recent budget. It also noted that Hazleton recently had the highest unemployment rate in the state, although that number of 15.6 percent is not seasonally adjusted. The ad charges that Barletta’s city is the “worst run in the state.”

Kanjorski’s campaign has already made Hazleton a focal point of its argument against Barletta. Kanjorski has dispatched Barletta twice before, in 2002 and again more narrowly in 2008. Barletta began his advertising campaign earlier this summer.

See the ad below.

The folks from Republican Senate candidate Pat Toomey’s old stomping grounds are going to bat against his opponent, using a new TV ad to call Democrat Joe Sestak “very liberal.”

The conservative Club for Growth, which Toomey led until shortly before he entered the Senate race, unveiled the 30-second spot Friday, which it says will air statewide on both cable and broadcast TV. The precise size of the ad buy was not immediately clear—an independent expenditure report had not yet been published online—but the group called the buy “substantial.”

The ad hits Sestak for supporting the $300 billion mortgage bailout that passed with bipartisan support in 2008 and was signed by President Bush; for supporting cap-and-trade energy legislation that passed the House but stalled in the Senate; and for saying President Obama’s economic stimulus package should have been bigger.

“That’s Joe Sestak’s record, very liberal,” the ad says. “We can’t afford Joe Sestak’s liberal schemes in the Senate.”

There is some dispute as to the impact cap-and-trade legislation could have on jobs, but the ad remains factually in-bounds by saying the measure “could” cost jobs. The mortgage bailout bill was intended to help homeowners stuck with subprime loans to refinance at lower rates.

The Club for Growth is at least the fifth outside group to air a TV ad against Sestak in recent months. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee was quick to strike back Friday, saying Toomey had received a “Wall Street bailout” from the group, which was founded by Wall Street investors.

“Wall Street derivatives pioneer Pat Toomey said he stopped working on Wall Street two decades ago, but that hasn’t stopped his Wall Street buddies from rushing to bailout him out today,” DSCC spokesperson Deirdre Murphy said. “Already on the defense in all corners of Pennsylvania for his deep ties to Wall Street and over his history of pushing for Social Security privatization, it’s fitting that Toomey would turn to those closest to him for a bailout.”

See the ad below.

A simple campaign press release had never made my jaw literally drop—until I saw what Democrat Bryan Lentz’s campaign laid on my table recently.

“Lentz Campaign Calls For Meehan to Try and Win Votes with Ideas, Not Courts,” the headline screamed.

This is, of course, a reference to the fact that Republican Pat Meehan’s campaign in the 7th Congressional District has spearheaded a ballot challenge against Jim Schneller, the conservative independent candidate who got on the ballot thanks to help from Lentz allies. The controversy has made the contentious race between Lentz and Meehan even more heated.

“It is a shame how difficult it is for someone who’s demonstrated a sincere interest in being part of the democratic process to actually be on the ballot,” Lentz campaign manager Kevin McTigue said in the release. “Pat Meehan and his cohorts should be ashamed at the efforts they are going to to knock someone off the ballot who’s actually willing to say what he believes.”

Now, if you’ve been closely following this race, there’s really only one reasonable reaction to this statement: Whaa??

This is coming from the same campaign that brought ballot challenges of its own against all three of its opponents in both parties earlier this year, successfully knocking both primary challengers out of the race and unsuccessfully taking Meehan’s campaign to court over petition fraud.

Put your party affiliations and ideology aside for a second: This, my friends, is what we call hypocrisy.

Incredulous, I called up the Lentz camp, thinking maybe it was a (very) late April Fool’s joke or something. What I found out was even more confusing.

It turns out that aforementioned quote from McTigue was uttered verbatim in 2006 by one Virginia Davis, who was then a spokeswoman for Senator Rick Santorum’s campaign and is now Meehan’s spokeswoman. At the time, Davis was commenting on the fact that Democrats were challenging Green Party candidate Carl Romanelli’s spot on the ballot. The Lentz campaign quickly sent over a fact sheet full of the things Davis said about the Romanelli challenge back then, documentation it apparently had at the ready for when we Fourth Estaters called.

So, if I understand this correctly, this was some cute attempt to the bait the Meehan people into some kind of hypocrisy trap, using us unsuspecting reporters as the fishing rod. If that’s the case, they lost me on this particular one, and also left me feeling just a bit jerked around in the process.

Look, I know traps like this are set up frequently. Usually, they’re not so confusing.

But let’s look at the merits.

By throwing Davis’ 2006 quotes back at Meehan, the Lentz camp is making things more difficult for itself. If you want to call hypocrisy on the Meehan campaign for challenging Schneller (a fair point to make), just note that the very same campaign earlier this year decried ballot challenges as a waste of taxpayer money. I actually did that for them in this story. If you want to make the point that getting third-party candidates on the ballot to split the other side’s vote is standard fare for both parties (a very valid point to make), just say so. I did that for them, too.

But saying that Virginia Davis in 2006 = Pat Meehan in 2010 doesn’t hold water. In the public sphere, political spokespeople don’t actually have their own views. They speak for the candidates they represent. I know plenty PR pros who have had to forcefully advocate policies with which they don’t personally agree. If we journalists started holding these folks accountable for contradictions that arise from representing different candidates, we’d never be able to get of LexisNexis to report actually news.

More than anything else, though, going after Meehan on this subject when you’ve challenged everyone yourself and quietly helped another guy get on the ballot just seems like unnecessary rhetorical jumping jacks, an exercise that leaves the subject hanging by a substantive thread.

Next time, I hope they just say whatever they want to say.

Trekking through the state on his bus tour this week, Republican Senate candidate Pat Toomey offered up a playful remark on his thoughts about gun policy. “My idea of gun control is steady aim,” Toomey said Tuesday in York County.

A prominent Pennsylvania gun control group didn’t appreciate that.

CeaseFirePA hammered Toomey for the comment, which it called “disrespectful and disappointing for a candidate who seeks to represent Pennsylvania in the Senate.” The group also noted that 22 law enforcement officers have been killed in the state over the last decade, and that 46 municipalities have passed lost or stolen handgun reporting laws in the last year-and-a-half.

“Pat Toomey’s remark show he doesn’t get it—gun violence affects us all,” CeaseFirePA executive director Joe Grace said in a statement Thursday. “His remark is insensitive to victims of gun violence in Pennsylvania—and to family members, friends and colleagues of persons who’ve been shot and killed. Given the gun violence directed at our police officers in Pennsylvania, it also seems like Mr. Toomey isn’t paying attention to this important public safety issue. That’s not acceptable.”

Toomey’s campaign didn’t immediately comment Thursday evening.