I've voted for Doug Reichley the past few elections including last time when he ran against Patrick Slattery. At the time I already had met Pat and genuinely liked the guy, but Reichley was a machine. I've always been impressed with the way he could remember names and faces. He was always very friendly the couple times I had a chance to meet him and I believe he was a great advocate for the community for a long time. For these reasons he always got my vote.
The upcoming special election for the 134th State House District is a big one. Who will replace the guy who held the seat for a decade? I am a Republican, but I very much employ a 'vote for the best candidate philosophy, regardless of affiliation.' I also trust my gut.
As mentioned above in regards to Reichley, when deciding who to vote for there are a couple characteristics I lean on heavily in local elections.
In local elections it's all about electing good people vs. party lines. My two primary attributes for defining a 'good candidate' in a local election are: 1. Honest ties to the community and 2. Intent.
After evaluating the two candidates my gut tells me to steer clear of Ryan MacKenzie. Here's why:
First I'm very disappointed the Republican Committee nominated the candidate with the least amount of ties to our community. At least two other candidates were better choices with real ties to and investment in our community.
Mackenzie has lived in Washington DC or Harrisburg the past 6 years. He is (though it's being challenged I believe) only eligible to run for office in the district because he's been using his parents address to maintain residency and has voted absentee in 10 of the last 11 elections. Huge red flags.
Secondly, I avoid "establishment candidates" who represent status quo. Status quo has put us where we are both locally and federally for far too long.
Next you have to ask about a candidate's motivation.
A candidate who worked in DC or Harrisburg for the past 6+ years and is supported by the establishment over better qualified local candidates, begs the question. Is this just a stepping stone? Is MacKenzie running because he gives a hoot about the community or does he have bigger political ambitions and this is the seat that happens to be open?
Slattery is extremely active in our community. When Mackenzie was off in DC/Harrisburg, Pat was here coaching at LMYA and serving on the Township Environmental Advisory Council. He has lent his voice fighting and going to bat for the Little Lehigh and on behalf of local residents united against the Jaindl development. He also helped a bunch of local people run for office (6 Republicans, 5 Democrats and 1 Independent). This clearly shows that he cares about our community and not party politics.
As per the issues, I do not want to short-change their importance, especially the broad reform topics PA MUST begin addressing.
Take the recent reform of unemployment (UC) compensation, for example. This is something I have long been on my soapbox about. Senate bill 1030 was passed nearly unanimously in a bi-partisan effort through both parties. An essential part of this bill is requiring people receiving benefits to show they are actively looking for work. On this important issue both parties get it (sometimes). On the big issues there is more agreement then disagreement. I'm tired of party line politics and talking points polarization. We need solutions! We need people who care, are invested and who are in it for the right reasons.
Due to a combination of my disappointment with the Republican nominating process, Slattery's ties to our community and a trust that he has what it takes to honestly tackle the difficult issues facing the commonwealth, Pat Slattery is getting my vote on April 24.
And for the record he has not done anything to lower taxes. That was debunked in the first week of his campaign. He actaully increased them if you look at the 3 year projections of those cuts on local tax payers.
The reality is, it was passed by a bi-partisan effort and unanimously I believe. Both parties understood the system was broke and worked together to fix it. What this was, was a great bi-partisan effort to fix a problem acknowledged by both parties.
Accusation: Mackenzie is 29 and has lived and worked in Camp Hill and Washington DC over the past 6+ years doing political work. Response: Being young is now a crime? We need energy and new ideas not tired old recycled big government tax and spend ideas which I suspect Slattery advocates. Oh, and what was he doing in Camp Hill and Washington DC, working for us saving over $150 million. Oh, now Patrick wants to do politcal work, DUH! Accusation: He voted absentee 10 of the last 11 elections Response: He was away serving the people of this Commonwealth. Is Slattery saying absentee ballots don't count? I find this highly offensive as we have many brave men and women in the Armed Forces who vote absentee ballots all the time while serving away from home. The fact that Mackenzie is legally registered in the 134th says to me THIS IS HIS HOME WHICH HE CARES ENOUGH ABOUT TO LEAVE FAMILY BEHIND AND FIGHT FOR US IN HARRISBURG. Accusation: He is unmarried and has never paid property taxes. Response: What? Are you people even remotely serious on this? Have you looked at your property values? They have plummeted over the last few years thanks to tax and spend and free money Washington(both D's and R's guilty). In my opinion, having avoided paying property taxes was fiscally astute, i.e. he understands economics. This is exactly the kind of person we need in Harrisburg. Not someone who runs a company into the ground.
Little of that would be the function of a business manager. Depending on the breadth (and/or level) of a particular business manager's responsibilities, he might be in charge of paying the bills, collecting the receivables, preparing or analyzing budgets and financial statements, facilities management, h.r. administration, or even sales and business development functions. For a lower level manager, it could be only one of these functions. I'm sure during the campaigns, we'll find out whether ot not the candidate is a big cheese or not.
I think he is following this discussion.......since he commented earlier when he tried to change any discussion about his professional record into an alleged attack on the 130 year old organisation. (see: Patrick Slattery,10:37 pm on Tuesday, April 3, 2012, "If anonymously attacking a 130 year old children's charity, KidsPeace, is what the MacKenzie campaign is about then I hope that the voters will clearly reject that type of behavior.") No one is doing such a thing - the problems at his employer are very well documented elsewhere in the press so people are naturally interested in his involvement. He could have simply denied that he was involved in its problems by telling us what he really does there as a "health care executive". I want the speculation to end as much as you do, but the candidate hasn't really helped himself at all by attacking the obvious questions.
1. Restore public trust in state government by embracing true transparency and reign in wasteful spending. Simply stated, the government should only do for its citizens that which the citizenry can not do efficiently or effectively for themselves. • With one of the most expensive legislatures in the country next to California and New York coupled with multi-billion dollar budget deficits, we have plenty of work to do! (NICE WORDS. SPECIFICALLY, WHAT WASTEFUL SPENDING HAVE YOU IDENTIFIED THAT SHOULD BE CUT?) 2. Concentrate on Education, Energy, the Environment and how these issues interact with the Economy. A thriving Economy in the 21st Century is generated by success in these three areas. A vibrant economy affords our best opportunity to meet the needs of taxpayers, businesses, families, children and seniors! • By shifting our concept of these issues as expenses or cost and looking at them as sound Investments in our future, we can begin to have real debates about how to make the needed improvements in our public policy. (IN LIGHT OF MULTI-BILLION DEFICITS CITED IN ITEM #1, HOW WOULD YOU PAY FOR THESE "INVESTMENTS"?)