My Coffee With Keith

Keith Rothfus likes to meet his constituents at coffee shops and other restaurants rather than a formal town hall like many representatives do.  He usually has these during the week day, and based on the pictures from his Facebook and Twitter pages, they are attended mostly by seniors.  I always wanted to see what one was like, so I found my chance when he scheduled an early morning one before work.  I attended his recent “Coffee with Keith” at the Coffee Buddha on Perrysville Avenue in Ross Township. 

The coffee shop is very small, but the coffee was very good.  I would certainly stop there again if I was in the area, but it is a little out of the way for me.  It has a front sitting area with a few chairs, and a couple chairs to the right of the counter.   That is about it.

I was expecting a sign or something announcing that Congressman Rothfus was having an event there.  Instead, he was sitting in the corner to the right of the counter with a couple people and two staffers.  I would not have known he was there if I wasn’t looking for him.  It seemed like a typical morning for the coffee shop.  I am guessing other patrons didn’t realize he was there.  From their point of view, it looked like a couple people sitting around kibitzing and drinking coffee.

This is the extreme opposite of a formal town hall I attended with Jason Altmire.  His was held at in a library meeting room which was packed.  The front row was Tea Party members all with video cameras on tripods to record his every word.  Jason seemed to know them all by name from attending other events.  His relationship with them seemed to be a strange combination of friendly and hostile if that makes any sense.  It was a loud and emotional event with people firing questions at him from all sides of the political spectrum.

The first thing I thought was that the coffee shop seems to work for Keith Rothfus.  I have met him a couple times in the past before he became a Congressman, and he has the same low key personality.  I don’t think he could command a big room like I have seen Jason Altmire or Erin McClelland do.  He doesn’t have the imposing physical presence or the personality for that.  I am not sure how he would handle an audience like a town hall that wasn’t completely friendly, but I don’t think it would go well.  I would love to see him have one in the evening to prove me wrong.

The coffee shop also forces the discussions to be less emotional.  The discussions were in hushed tones, because you were in a coffee shop and didn’t want to disrupt business during the morning rush.  A bunch of pissed off voters would have disrupted the business, and they are the ones that would have looked bad and be blamed.

I found the location affected the tone of the questions I asked, and his answers were not as ideological as you see in his speeches, and in his Facebook and Twitter accounts.  It was more conversational than question and answer.  For example, I asked him what he was doing to cross the isle and foster bipartisanship, and he talked about building relationships and focusing on getting to know his fellow freshman congressman.  He told a great story about going to Arlington with a group of freshman congressmen.  I suggested that maybe he should be in Washington rather than being off from early August until after the election except for one week, and he sheepishly agreed.  

Conversely, I came across a video of a debate he had with Mark Critz, and when asked about polarization in Washington, he blamed the Senate and the President and sounded like he would be part of the problem and not part of the solution.  This is consistent with what he posts in social media, and what his supporters expect to hear.  I would have liked to include a link to the video, but it was “unlisted,” so I did not think it was appropriate to include here.

I could have gotten into more controversial topics with him like his voting against Hurricane Sandy relief and the violence against women act, his blaming everything that is wrong with our healthcare system on the Affordable Healthcare Act or his denial of climate change, but a coffee shop with two other people just didn’t seem like the right place.  These are issues that he should discuss with his constituents, but in a more appropriate venue like a town hall.

The debates with Erin McClelland will not just be a clash of ideologies, but a clash of personalities as well.  Erin McCelland is very high energy, aggressive and can take over a room.  It will be interesting seeing how Keith Rothfus confronts that.  Two confirmed debates are the Beaver County Chamber of Commerce Debate on October 15^th at Penn State, Beaver Campus, and October 28^th at Laurel View in Davidsville, PA.

What does "done" mean?

I am a software engineer, and last week we had a discussion about what it meant to be “done”.  Some thought it meant when you get your work completed, and it went to the quality assurance group.  My boss thought it was when it got the quality assurance group’s blessing.  I tend to take it a step further and think “done” is when the customer is using it and it meets their needs.  Anyway, it got me to thinking about what Congress thinks “done” is.

Our former Congressman Jason Altmire’s definition of “done” was easy to find.  The one thing he was most proud of was the 29 bills he introduced that were passed by both the House and Senate and signed into law by the President.  For him, “done” meant at the very least that the bill became law.

Erin McClelland is running for the House of Representatives in my district (PA-12).  Her definition of “done” takes it a step further than that.  She talks passionately about solving problems and that passing bills are simply steps along the way to solving the problem.  It seems that for any problem, she has a solution, a plan to implement it and facts to back it up.  For her, “done” is when the problem is solved.

Now let’s get to the House of Representative’s definition of “done”.  ­Speaker­­ John Boehner has often said “The House has done its job.  It’s time for the Senate and the President to do theirs” just before leaving town for one of their many vacations.   

Their definition of “done” is when they pass a bill and throw it over the wall to the Senate.  It is more than just talk, because you can see it in the quality of their work.  When your definition of “done” is simply completing a task with no concern for where it goes from there, then the quality is secondary.  You are just checking off an item and saying you did it.  I see that when a software engineer thinks “done” is when he or she can check off that something was completed.  If often comes right back with a bunch of issues.

The border security bill they passed in August was a good example.  After saying they couldn’t pass anything and that the President should deal with the child immigration problem himself, they passed the bill on August 1^st just before leaving on a month-long vacation.  They had no concern whether it would pass the Senate or be signed by the President.  The President said he would veto it before it was even voted on.  Their one and only goal was to pass something, so they can say they did it.  As far as they were concerned, they were ‘done”, and Speaker Boehner said as much.

The other problem with their definition of “done” is that they are more likely to pass bills to make a statement like voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act at least 50 times, or to sue the President for doing something they wanted to have happen anyway.  One can go on and on about times Congress claimed they were “done” knowing that it will never become law.

If I just threw something over the wall with no concern for whether it can make it through to the next step in the process, I would be fired.  I would never let my son get away with that either.  However, that seems to be how the House works.

My own Congressman, Keith Rothfus, has been remarkably short on solutions compared to his predecessor, Jason Altmire or his possible successor, Erin McClelland.  His definition of “done” seems to be limited to pointing fingers and “holding people accountable”.  He has shown little interest in coming up with solutions and solving problems.  Most of his speeches focus on identifying problems and assigning blame rather than solving them.

Erin McClelland’s definition of “done” means that quality matters. Bills are written with the intent that they can pass the Senate and will be signed by the President, because they are intended to solve a problem and not just make a statement.  It means getting people together with different interests to agree on a solution that can make it to the President’s desk, because you or your party can’t just do it yourselves.

It is very easy fulfilling the House’s definition of “done” or Keith Rothfus’s definition as well.   It is hard work fulfilling Erin McClelland’s definition of “done”, but she has a history of getting things “done” in the healthcare field both in her own business, and using her expertise in fixing medical errors.

Our government needs more people that believe that “done” means that the problem is solved no matter how difficult the solution might be.  Replacing Keith Rothfus with Erin McClelland would be a very good start to changing the definition of "done".

Gridlock is the problem

I believe that our government can help improve the conditions to promote job growth and grow the economy, but they choose not to implement it.  It is not about doing what is best for the country, but all about winning and losing.  Republicans have voted against bills they wrote and sponsored only because President Obama said he supported it.  Time is wasted writing bills to make one side or the other look bad knowing full well they will never become law.

President Reagan would have gotten no where had he not had a partner in Tip O'Neill.  Barack Obama has no such partner.  Even when he takes a Republican position, the Republicans vote against it, because it would make Obama look good or help the county before the election. 

President Obama is regularly derided as foreign, socialist or worse than that.  How can you negotiate with someone you disagree with after you personally demonize him?

Even if the Republicans win the Presidency, keep the House and take over the Senate, they will not be able to implement their plans just as Obama can't implement his.  Turn about is fair play, and to think that the Democrats will not filibuster everything like the Republicans in the Senate do is just plain foolish.

We should electing people to Washington who believe firmly in breaking that gridlock and moving this country forward.  No matter who is elected President in November, Tea-Party candidates Kieth Rothfus and Tom Smith would contribute to that gridlock and make things even worse.  Electing them would reward gridlock and insure that it continues.

Their opponents, Mark Critz and Bob Casey, have shown that they can work with Democrats and Republicans, and can help to break the gridlock that is paralyzing the country, and move us forward.

Keith Rothfus and my family concerning healthcare

The Republicans have been running ads claiming that Mark Critz voted numerous times to not repeal Obamacare like Keith Rothfus wants to.  They never say what they would replace Obamacare with, so my only guess has to be to return to the status quo of 2008.  It got me to thinking about what would happen to my family if Rothfus gets his way concerning Obamacare and the Paul Ryan budget which I assume he would support.

• My mother, mother-in-law, aunt and other older relatives could fall back into the Medicare prescription drug doughnut hole that was closed under Obamacare.
• My nieces and nephews who are currently covered under their parents' health insurance because of Obamacare would lose their coverage and be on their own.  My son will have to deal with this as well when he is older.
• When my wife and I retire in 20 or so years, instead of getting covered under the Medicare plan that we have paid into for the last 30 years, we will get the equivalent of a store discount coupon under the Ryan budget for our health insurance and told we are on our own to find private insurance.  Wish us luck with that one.
• Insurance companies would no longer be required to spend 80% of their premiums on patient care as they are required to under Obamacare.  Instead we will have to continue paying premiums to build palaces like Highmark's or paying Highmark's CEO a multimillion dollar salary.  Keep in mind that Highmark is supposed to be non-profit.
• I could go bankrupt without Obamacare if god-forbid, I have a serious medical condition.  I also would need those savings to pay for health care in retirement since Medicare would become a discount coupon.  Of course, that medical condition would qualify as a pre-existing condition later in life, so I couldn't get health insurance anyway.
• We would again have to pay co-pays for preventative treatments like mammograms and colonoscopies.  I can afford it, but how many family members might forgo that to save money.

I suggest you look at your family's situation to see what would happen to you under a Republican administration.

Keith Rothfus again

What is it about this congressional district that Republicans have to lose twice?  Melissa Hart lost twice to Jason Altmire and Tim Burns lost twice to Mark Critz.  Keith Rothfus is taking his second shot this time in the new district against Mark Critz.  It caused me to look back at when he ran against Jason Altmire in 2010:

• Keith Rothfus wants to defund Supreme Court decisions he disagrees with
• Post Gazette Endorsement from 2010

The issues haven't changed much and it looks like Mr. Rothfus will simply be replacing Jason Altmire with Mark Critz in all the talking points he used 2 years ago.  His first comments after the primary reflect that:

“The Cook score acknowledges what we already knew about PA-12, that the people of Southwestern Pennsylvania are concerned about the direction this country is headed, and that Keith Rothfus is primed for victory. Indeed, there are major differences in this race. Unlike Mark Crtiz who received only a 57% pro-life rating from the National Right to Life, Keith Rothfus will be 100% pro-life. Keith is dedicated to protecting the most vulnerable members of society, not the least of which are our seniors. It is Obamacare that ends Medicare as we know it, as it strips Medicare of $500 billion in funding at the same time the Medicare population is set to increase by 42%. Mark Critz supports this gutting of Medicare as he voted against repeal of Obamacare and voted to keep in place the panel of bureaucrats given the power to make our personal healthcare decisions. Keith Rothfus supports restoring the doctor-patient relationship and saving Medicare.

Mark Critz supports President Obama’s reckless fiscal agenda. Mark Critz represents the failed policies that have resulted in the unemployment rate being above 8% for 38 months. These policies have led us down an unsustainable path of debt, and Mark Critz seems quite comfortable with asking all of us to hold China’s water as they continue to be the United States’ lender of first resort. Keith Rothfus understands that we need to bring jobs back to Southwestern Pennsylvania, and that economic growth will generate new tax revenues to help us pay for the critical social programs that take care of and protect our seniors. He will fight hard to protect our seniors, protect our businesses, and be a good steward of the taxpayers’ dollar, a much needed change in this time of uncertainty."

Just replace Mark Critz with Jason Altmire and you are transported back to 2010.  I'll be writing about how Keith Rothfus wants to "save" Medicare and how his policies will negatively impact our families.

I also find it interesting how organizations like the National Right to Life come up with these ratings.  53% sounds pretty bad if you are a solid pro-life voter until you look into the numbers.  I looked at the National Right to Life website.  It was based on a grand total of 7 votes in 2011-2012.  Mark Critz voted on what they consider to be the wrong side of 3 of the 7.  Two of them involved repealing Obama Care, and it is a real stretch to say they had anything to do with abortion.  The third vote was an amendment that he voted against to cut funding for Planned Parenthood even though the money can't be used for abortions, but  then he voted for a different bill to cut funding for Planned Parenthood.  The remaining 3 votes really had something to do with abortion and he took the pro-life position on all three.  Just to show the value of these ratings, Mark Critz has a 100% rating from the National Right to Life in 2010, but it was on one vote that again had nothing to do with abortion.  To somehow claim he is less pro-life than Keith Rothfus is just plain silly when you look into the details.

Keith Rothfus wants to defund Supreme Court decisions he disagrees with

In case you had not heard...

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/21/rothfus-defund-scotus/

Add this to the current list:

• Wants to repeal health care reform rather than fix it.  This means that we all lose out on the benefits that some are already enjoying.
• Doesn't believe global warning is real.
• Criticized the stimulus bill, because it should have cut taxes instead.  I guess he didn't realize that a significant portion of the stimulus bill was a tax cut.

The list of wackiness is starting to grow.  I can't imagine what else he is hiding.

Post-Gazette Endorses Jason Altmire

4th U.S. House: Altmire is the better choice for Congress

It is a pretty normal endorsement, but a few things stood out to me:

• "He favors repeal of the federal health insurance law, calling it unconstitutional and unprecedented in expanding government power."  Jason Altmire didn't vote for the law as well, but is taking the common sense approach that we need to fix what is wrong with it rather than just repeal it and replace it with nothing.  If Rothfus had said something similar rather than just parroting the Republican talking point, I might have taken him seriously.  Rothfus is also forgetting to mention that the health care law was based more on Republican ideas and proposals than "Government Run Healthcare" that progressives would have preferred.  As with many, many Republican ideas like Cap and Trade, if Obama supports it, it is suddenly socialist and evil.

• "He called the $787 billion stimulus "an abject failure" and said Congress should have cut taxes to stimulate growth." A large portion of the stimulus was a tax cut that we all enjoyed. Keith Rothfus didn't know this?  The problem with the tax cut was that we got it through reduced withholding taxes rather than wasting our tax dollars like Bush did by sending out physical checks, so no one noticed.  Most economics also agree that the stimulus also prevented a depression.

• "Mr. Rothfus is not convinced that human activity is causing climate change." So he is a climate change denier as well. He is probably also in support of global warming as well, because it is opening up shipping lanes through the Arctic Circle.

I met Mr. Rothfus and he is a nice enough person.  The problem is that he is nice, and will simply be John Boehner's lap dog (I picture him as a little white terrier.).  He will be a reliable 100% yes vote for the Republican agenda with little ability to make a difference.  His campaign is a boilerplate Republican campaign that Melissa Hart used twice and lost.  He brings nothing new to the table, and simply echos the Republican talking points.  Has he said anything original?

If you want someone who will vote 100% of the time for the Republican agenda even if his district is against the Republican policies that will increase the deficit by trillions of dollars go ahead and vote for Keith Rothfus.

Primary Thoughts

I worked at my local poll after work Tuesday. There were two people that I noticed voters were genuinely excited about. On the Republican side was Keith Rothfus who easily dispatched Mary Beth Buchanan. I was really hoping Buchanan would win, because it would be fun watching her blow her top on a regular basis. Too bad we will miss out on that.

"Experts" are already dismissing him and practically giving Altmire his seat back. The rationale is that he isn't the fundraiser Buchanan was. I think it will be a hard fought campaign with Rothfus running a low budget campaign working mostly on the ground and Altmire mostly on the air, because that is where their strengths currently lie. No one should forget that Altmire won a similar low budget ground campaign 4 years ago against a well financed Melissa Hart.

The person on the Democratic side that people seemed to be excited about was Dan DeMarco. Maybe they were just excited about another write-in opportunity on the voting machines. There were 4578 write-in votes for the Democratic nomination to the State Senate. We won't know the results for some time, but I have a hard time believing that a majority of those write-ins voted for Jane Orie.

DeMarco will also have to run a strong ground game, but will have the benefit of Jane Orie's indictment and her overall disposition which lately has not been very positive. Just looking at their campaign fliers, he looked warm and friendly, and she looked like she was going to bite my head off. I think DeMarco will be well served to maintain the positive vibes against Orie's negative vibes.

Later, I'll post on the Governor's race where John Corbett seems to be losing it (I hope I don't get subpoenaed for saying this.), and the Senate race where I think the more you find out about the real Pat Toomey the less you will like him.

The last very local race is for State House which will pit career politician Mike Turzai against Dr. Sharon Brown. She got 4166 votes in the Democratic primary which is significantly higher than any other nominee for Turzai's seat in the last 10 years. If you add in the votes Turzai received, she got 37% of the overall vote. That is a pretty good starting point considering that in the general election, the closest a Democrat got was 28%.

She will also need a strong ground game as well and might be well served to work with Dan DeMarco. The two of them working together against the pair of Mike Turzai and Jane Orie might be a good tactic.

They could tie Turzai in with Orie's troubles and also benefit from the anti-incumbency mood. No one that we will vote for in the fall has been in office longer than Turzai and Orie. Both are career politicians just like the kind that people hate. The only other incumbent that we will vote for is Jason Altmire, and he has only held an office of any kind for 4 years. That is hardly a career.