(Second in a series.)

Tragedies such as the Sandusky-Penn State scandal normally spit off nothing but victims.  This scandal had its share, but there was also one winner.

Gov. Tom Corbett, the only scandal player to control his own destiny, used his command position to maximum personal advantage.  If this was a chess game, Corbett, maneuvering his way to a four-year residency at the governor’s mansion, had two more Queens sitting on the sidelines ready to be called to battle.

Corbett was going to be elected governor regardless the damage to the reputation of Joe Paterno, the coach’s beloved Penn State, and one of the most admired football programs in the America.

Corbett controlled just enough of the events to insure fallout on his candidacy did not happen.  There is no proof that he broke any laws, although he would not be the first prosecutor to blur the lines.  Mostly he used his powers as Attorney-General to manipulate timing of events.  Here are some examples.

The Governor has been accused of “slow-walking” the investigation.  He first was aware of the complaints against Sandusky in March 2009, for certain, and maybe as early as 2008 while he was campaigning for a second term as Attorney-General.  Done with one campaign, the Allegheny County Republican geared up for the run for Governor in 2010.

Only a single investigator was assigned to the probe even though a Harrisburg sitting grand jury included it on their agenda.   By comparison, he had assigned a small army to probe the House of Representatives in the “Bonusgate” scandal, even getting a gang of Democrats to trial before the Governor’s election in 2010.

Corbett was not yet sworn in as Governor when an unusual event occurred in the grand jury room on Jan. 12, 2011.   Former PA Supreme Court Justice and also former Penn State Chief Counsel Cynthia Baldwin actually sat in the super-secret grand jury room while two University officials testified.  They believed she was representing them because, after all, she had driven them to Harrisburg in response to the subpoenas.  She maintains she was there representing PSU.

No attorney (or anyone else) is permitted to attend a PA grand jury process and this stunt could only have occurred with the approval of Corbett.

Jerry Sandusky, a former coaching assistant under Paterno, is accused of child molestation while he was running “the Second Mile,” a very popular charity that helps wayward boys in Central Pennsylvania.  Current and former board members donated over $200,000 to Corbett’s governor campaign while unknowing of the investigation into Sandusky’s activities.

Former Gov. Ed Rendell had given tentative approval to a $3 million grant to Second Mile which, due to timing of legal documents, had to be finally approved by Corbett.  Following the indictments against Sandusky, Corbett quietly Okayed processing of the grant.  When media began questioning his actions, he put a hold on the grant again.

Unless Corbett has a hook on the judges involved in the remainder of the proceedings he will not have as much control on the outcomes.  Corbett’s ideal is plea bargains with all defendants.  No trials and no appeals would end the scandal as a news event in the next few months, far in advance of his re-election campaign in 2014.

Corbett has benefitted from the state’s largest newspapers in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh not assigning reporters to the story and, with some events, using wire coverage.  Inside the state coverage has been more intense by the Harrisburg Patriot-News, highlighted by 24-year-old Sara Ganim’s Pulitzer Prize winning coverage.  TV bureaus around the state have also carried first-run stories.

In 2014 will the Democrats put up a “better-than-normal” candidate for the mid-term race and will Penn State alumni vote en bloc against Corbett.

For further reading:

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/7770996/in-wake-joe-paterno-death-sandusky-sex-abuse-scandal-power-struggle-spread-penn-state-state-capital

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/02/penn_state_legal_counsel_cynth.html

http://kstp.com/article/stories/s2367503.shtml

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/michael_mccann/11/15/sandusky.legal/index.html

http://chronicle.com/article/How-Penn-States-Sex-Abuse/129767/

By the looks of the lineups for Tuesday’s Primary Election, the Democrats again have little intention of trying to win back control of the PA State Senate.  Republicans have been in control of that legislative body for over three decades.  Democrats seem in no hurry to change the status.

Parties typically form legislative campaign committees which serve important purposes.  The committees seek qualified candidates for seats they intend to challenge or have been vacated, form issues and coordinate events that will focus on these races and, more importantly, raise funds to assist the candidates.

In 2012 a minimum of $300,000 is needed to win an open Senate seat and twice that to upset an incumbent.  The record for money spent in a PA State Senate race may have occurred in 1990.

Because those legislators elected that year would have a say in the reapportionment that would occur after the 1990 census and the Republicans had a smaller majority, both national Party committees poured over a million dollars into the state races.  Republicans were victorious and their skillful redrawing of voter registration lines in 1991 enabled them to widen their margins.

Success breeds more success and today Republicans hold a healthy 30 to 20 margin in the state, despite a one million plurality of Democrat voter registration.

These questions need answering:

Is the Republican State Senate campaign committee the most skillful and resourceful in the United States?  Or is the Democrat counterpart the dumbest, the most ineffective and/or the laziest?  More likely, the results over the past two decades are due to some verification of both.

PA Republicans have Gerrymandered voter district lines and achieved results in the last few years that have relegated Texas GOPers to a back seat.  Consider these results:

The year 2006 was a landslide year for the Democrats nationally.  There are 101 legislative bodies in these United States.  49 states have bicameral assemblies; Nebraska is unicameral for a total of 99.  Add in the US House of Representatives and the US Senate for a total of 101.  The Democrats made gains in all but one of those 101 legislative bodies at the 2006 elections.  In the PA Senate Republicans began holding a 29-21 margin and this margin held after the elections.

2008 was another banner year for Democrats nationally, but again that trend did not hold in PA where Democrats actually fell farther behind (now 30 to 20) in the Senate.

Each General Election (even numbered years) one half of the 50 PA Senate seats are up for election to another four-year term.  This year 15 of the 25 seats up for grabs are now held by Republicans and 10 by Democrats.

Republicans in four of the Districts are retiring and make these seats ripe for challenge.  However in two of these races (retiring Mary Jo White in the 21st and John Pippy in the 37th) Democrats have already forfeited by filing no candidates.

In six of the remaining 23 seats Democrats also filed no candidates.  Republicans waived a contest in only five of the 25 contests and will battle to win in the remaining 20.  Mathematically Republicans appear to be in better shape to hold on or even improve their margin.

The Republicans appear to be in danger of losing only one seat.  The 49th in Erie County has been held for four terms by Jane Earll despite an almost 2-1 Democrat voting edge.  The opportunity has drawn four Democrats to file for the primary.

Democrats are not counting their chickens yet.  President Obama carried Pennsylvania in 2008 but not because of the results in Erie County.  Additionally, Republican quality candidate Janet Anderson has been understudy to Earll for a decade or more.

How much longer will our “do nothing” Congress, do nothing?

The practical answer is a minute before midnight, Monday, December 31, 2012 . . . maybe.

Remember Congress and the President’s “chicken” deal of last summer to avert the debt-ceiling crisis?  In a rare display of bi-partisanship, Congress voted and the President signed certain triggering legislation to keep from defaulting on the National Debt.

In exchange for another of those very temporary increases in debt ceilings -- this one projected to take us until early in 2013 -- a panel of legislators (absurdly called a “Super Committee”) was to figure out a way to get our financial house in order.

Not everyone took the committee solution route seriously.  For example, PA Senator Pat Toomey voted against the creation of the committee then accepted an appointment to it.   Since the Super Committee failed to arrive at negotiated solutions, certain taxes are hiked and certain programs get funding cuts on the first day of 2013.

Those pesky Bush tax cuts will finally expire, ticking off one per centers and one-per cent-"intenders."  Drastic reductions to programs ranging from Defense to entitlements occur.

The resulting chaos will have two effects, say the experts.  First, a continually struggling economy will slip back into a recession.  More precisely, 2.8 per cent of the 3 per cent growth projected for 2013 will evaporate in the first quarter of next year alone as a result of these actions.

Second, again we will show the world we no longer have the resolve to solve our problems, creating jitters overseas and in the bond market.  Our credit rating will be lowered again, this time causing a hike in interest rates that the Federal Reserve can’t muzzle.

Could this crisis become the top campaign issue for everyone running for Federal office this year?  What a great opportunity to develop a creative resolution in the manner that has always set us above everyone else on the planet.

Dreaming on, compromise might no longer be the second least used word in political campaigns.  (Behind “draft” as applied to the military.).

The candidates claim they are giving us their positions on the important issues of the day.  Incumbents and candidates for House of Representatives, Senate, President and Vice President, are not talking about the next debt-limit showdown?

The first person to note absence of any dialogue on this impending crisis is Peter Coy, economics editor for Bloomberg BusinessWeek and probably the best current affairs reporter in the country today.  His article “The End is Coming: January 1, 2013”, appears in the magazine’s April 2-8 edition.

As guest on C-Span’s Washington Journal recently, Coy noted “everyone has to take a hit, not continue to tell the world (we) can’t manage our problems.”

Bitter partisanship has ruled Washington for a decade or longer.  Recent polls say 92 per cent of the voters are dissatisfied with the performance of Congress.  If an overwhelming majority of incumbents believe their conduct falls within the eight percent of acceptable behavior, look for two more years of bloodletting and finger pointing.

Please excuse Amanda Holt for trying to be a concerned citizen.

The 29-year-old piano teacher and Allentown area resident was not told she couldn’t have a say in voter boundary lines for members of the PA legislature and the US Congress.  She didn’t know that state lawmakers in Pennsylvania reserve these decisions for themselves.  How else could they protect their employment?

Ignorant of the above, Amanda drew up her own apportionment map.  She submitted it to the PA Reapportionment Commission this year.

She didn’t even know that as a Republican precinct committeewoman, she could be embarrassing her own Party.  Ms. Holt told the Harrisburg Patriot-News she “took on the project without thinking about parties” and has no intentions to run for an office.

Like it or not, some intentions or none, she has become the very brief face of redistricting reform in PA.  “Brief” because of how “reform” never stays on the table in this state.

Texas Republicans were known for the best “Gerrymandering “ (defined as “an unfair manipulation of an elected area for political advantage”), until recently.  Now PA has become the capital of distorted voter boundary lines.

This is not to say Republicans in those two states are necessarily more corrupt.  Rather, at least in PA, Democrats are lazy and dumber.

For example, Republicans have learned that the General Election in any year ending in a “0” is a must win because those in power over the next two years will redefine legislative voting districts.  In the five “zero-one-two” year-ending periods since one-man/one-vote, Republicans have completely dominated the process in three of these times and have shared power, forcing compromise, in the other two.

Pennsylvania Republicans have re-defined Gerrymandering in the 21st century.  How else does a state with a million more Democrat voters get divided 30-20 in favor of the Republicans in the State Senate?

In the 19 PA Congressional Districts, Republicans hold a comfortable 12-7 edge.  Their proposed redistricting plan had to deal with only 18 districts going forward and Republicans made sure that two incumbent Democrats are running against each other.

To get districts that will garner results like this requires boundaries that not only divide counties and small municipalities, but even voting wards, streets and roads.  The trick is to cram as many Democrats as possible into as few Senate Districts as possible.

Ignoring Ms. Holt’s testimony, the GOP 3-2 dominated commission opted for the Gerrymandered districts.  In the vote to reapportion state House districts the tally was actually 4 to 1.  Democrat House leader Frank Dermody also voted for the plan that made his district safer for him going forward.

The rush to Gerrymander has been derailed temporarily by the Supreme Court.  The Court is 4-3 Republican which includes Justice Joan Orie Melvin participating even though her sister is a State Senator and, at that time, would be affected by the outcome.

Obviously not following script, Chief Justice Ronald Castille voted with the three Democrats to force the Commission to come up with another plan.  Chief Justice Castille wanted to know why Amanda Holt developed a reapportionment plan that passes constitutional muster and the Commission could not.

The Reapportionment Commission reconvenes Thursday (April 12).  Will Amanda Holt’s plan be considered?