- ----
- This Wiki page is locked. Feedback on this page is welcomed on the associated discussion page.
- Changes can not be made. Ideas from other campaigns are preserved for historical reference.
- Navigate to the "discussion page," by clicking the link at the top of this page.
- ----
Background[]
News[]
On October 17, 2005, Scranton formally announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for Governor of Pennsylvania in 2006. After it became clear that Scranton would not win the Pennsylvania Republican Party endorsement, his campaign called for Pennsylvania change to an "open primary" election.
After the dismissal of two prior campaign managers over strategy issues, in January 2006 Scranton fired his third campaign manager, Jim Seif, after Seif referred to leading Scranton opponent Lynn Swann, an African American, as a "rich white guy" during a television interview. In February 2006, Scranton announced that he was withdrawing from the race for Republican nomination for Governor of Pennsylvania.
Links[]
- Open Primary Elections-plank-Scranton
- Marriage-plank-Scranton
- www.pacomeback.com, official campaign site from spring, 2006
- Lynn Swann
- VIPs
- Wikipedia on William Scranton, father, former PA Governor, cover of TIME, 1962.
- Wikipedia on William Scranton III, born in 1947.
Profile from Pennsylvania Report harvested in May, 2006[]
The rumblings had begun before the end of 2003: onetime Lieutenant Governor Bill Scranton, who had returned to the state a few years before from California, was exploring a bid for Governor of Pennsylvania in 2006, twenty years after he was narrowly defeated for that office by the late Bob Casey.
That the first reaction to that news was skepticism would be a considerable understatement—but the ensuing year and a half have done much to persuade political observers in general, and Republican leaders in particular, that he should be taken a bit more seriously.
Who, then, is this once and possibly future candidate?
Any explanation must begin with his father, elected Governor after two terms in Congress in 1962; his era was the last in which Pennsylvania Republicans could regard victory as their birthright and is unsurprisingly remembered fondly by them for that reason. It was also the high-water mark for optimistic reformers, leading to the state’s Constitutional Convention in 1968, and indeed for Pennsylvania as the nation’s industrial heartland. It was a good time to be Governor of Pennsylvania, and "Golden Bill Scranton" made the most of it.
The elder Scranton left office 1967, the Republican era of the sixties ended four years later, and by the time of the 1978 election the reform movement of the previous decade was a hollow and distant memory. Enter William Scranton III, just past thirty and blessed with a famous name and tremendous connections among the industrial barons who still financed the state GOP—plainly the perfect qualifications to win the Republican nomination for lieutenant governor that year.
Eight years as Dick Thornburgh’s lieutenant governor follow, with the only real moment in the media sun coming during the Three Mile Island crisis a few months after taking office. Scranton did all the things an aspiring governor would be expected to in those years, from making endless rounds of county Republican functions to chafing at being excluded from the governor’s inner circle.
Scranton began 1986 as a solid favorite in the race for governor, an assessment that overlooked at steady trend toward the Democrats in western Pennsylvania during that decade, the degree to which Scranton himself was an untested candidate, and the tenacity of Bob Casey, who had three times before come up short in bids for governor.
Guided by a then little-know consultant from the bayous of Louisiana, Jim Carville, Casey ran a brilliant although relentless negative campaign, portraying Scranton as a callow, well-born youth who had experimented with drugs and Eastern mysticism as a young man. Famously, the campaign unearthed a picture of a much younger Scranton, with flowing hair and bedecked in beads and aired it with a sitar playing in the background. One can only assume that the "guru ad" was not what Carville had in mind a few years later as he attacked those who questioned the lifestyle choices of another client, Bill Clinton.
In the Pennsylvania of 1986 the ads proved just enough to derail Scranton as Casey made gains in conservative rural Pennsylvania and scored solid victories in the northeast and southwest.
Within months of leaving office, Scranton had moved to California for a new challenge, that of turning around a catalogue business. Not until the late nineties was he seen regularly in Pennsylvania, when he returned to take of the management of the Scranton family’s considerable assets.
As early as 2001, some Republicans were mentioning his name as an alternative to Mike Fisher; Scranton wisely passed on that prospective contest but his appetite for office was plainly whetted. Over the course of the last two years, he’s steadily traveled around the state, meeting with party leaders and fund-raisers, hired a staff, and formed a PAC to support other Republican candidates. Along the way, he’s startled more than a few Republican activists who either have no memory of his 1986 campaign or recall only a caricature of it with his seriousness, grasp on the issues, and fiscal conservatism.
Scranton has a long way to go to become next year’s Republican nominee for governor, much less Governor—but in a state in which second acts in political lives are the exception rather than the rule, he’s managed to get his second act under way quite effective, despite an intermission that lasted the better part of a generation.
Statements[]
Exit Statement from Feb 7, 2006[]
For the past two years I have traveled Pennsylvania, a state Maryla and I love and are proud to call home.
I’ve been to every one of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties. From rural fire companies and American Legion halls to the great urban centers of Pennsylvania, I’ve taken my blueprint for a state that can once again be a thriving home to this generation’s leading edge entrepreneurs and opportunity seekers.
I have spoken plainly and at times forcefully, about the need for Pennsylvania to change the way it does business. Lowering heavy tax loads, shrinking the size of a bloated state government, and rolling back the regulatory burden on hard working families and job creators have been hallmark issues of my campaign for change.
I’ve also challenged the status quo by standing with the people for clean government and honest reform. I believe Pennsylvania deserves a government that does its business openly, and in the clear light of day. Public service is the highest calling and it is the first duty of elected leaders to conduct the people’s business with integrity.
My campaign for governor has been about renewing Pennsylvania and calling on the leaders of the Republican Party to return to our historic platform of limited government and personal responsibility.
Without these changes, Republicans risk losing the confidence of the people and Pennsylvania’s stalled return to greatness may never occur.
Against the backdrop of these deeply held convictions and the growing realization that Pennsylvania’s Republican establishment is opposed to my call for an open primary, I have determined that my chances of success are minimal in mounting a grassroots campaign effort.
While I am confident in our hopeful message of reform and renewal, I am less convinced in our ability to win the all important precinct-by-precinct battles against the operational resources of the state party.
Our campaign is strong, but not strong enough to defeat a candidate who has received the near unanimous backing of state and national party leaders.
I am grateful for the overwhelming support from thousands of committed friends and loyal supporters. Their hearts, their financial investment and their personal commitment to me and this cause mean more than I can fully express. Maryla and I are thankful for the friendships made and those renewed along the way – We will never forget the many sacrifices made on our behalf.
I wish the very best to Lynn Swann and Jim Panyard as they continue their quest for the Republican nomination. I commit today to extend my full, unequivocal support to the nominee that emerges in May.
Finally, I am truly convinced that the movement to transform our state and rebuild confidence in the Republican Party will not end with my exit from the primary election field. The passion and energy from thousands of activist citizens will go on until Pennsylvania’s Comeback is complete. I look forward to being an active participant in this great cause. Thank You.
-Bill Scranton
Q & A with Capital Wire[]
HARRISBURG (Feb. 3, 2006) - Former Lt. Gov. Bill Scranton dug in his heels during a question-and-answer session last week with several members of the media at the Primos-Secane Fire Company in Delaware County.
He said he had nothing more to say about former campaign manager Jim Seif or the effect on his campaign of Seif’s saying “the rich white guy in this campaign is Lynn Swann.”
Scranton vowed to stay in the primary election against Swann and Jim Panyard, critiqued the state’s environmental initiative “Growing Greener II,” and attacked Swann, saying he had only shown voters a façade so far. He said Swann had to tell voters more than, “Me too, that’s what I agree, too.”
Scranton also said he supported a state law to legalize vouchers so that taxpayer money could be used by children attending private school, but declined to say what he would do to cut business taxes, cut property taxes or redesign economic development programs.
Scranton spoke Wednesday, the day after the Southwest Caucus of Republican State Committee appeared to clinch Swann’s victory for the GOP state committee endorsement. Capitolwire’s unofficial tally shows that with 180 votes needed to guarantee the GOP state committee endorsement, Swann has 209, and Scranton 140, with nine votes undecided. Here is the transcript:
Q: Do you expect to win the endorsement?
SCRANTON: At the state committee meeting?
Q: No no no, here in Delaware County?
SCRANTON: Yes. But you ask them.
Q: OK. State committee?
SCRANTON: We’ll see when the votes are counted at state committee.
Q: But you’re going to run, irregardless?
SCRANTON: Yeah, I’m in there. Absolutely.
Q: Any thoughts about Jim Seif and about how that might have affected your campaign?
SCRANTON: You know I’ve said as much as I should say about that; at the time, obviously when you have a distraction, even if it’s momentarily, it’s a distraction. But we’re pretty focused on our business and that’s what we’re doing.
Q: One thing that came up, you mentioned the Growing Greener program. Is that something you would continue?
SCRANTON: Yes, but I wouldn’t do it the way that Rendell has done it. I actually opposed the second Growing Greener bond, because I didn’t think there was any accountability in it. We didn’t know how it was going to be dispensed, or what accountability there was to it. I think the Ridge approach had far more specificity and accountability to it. I think if you are going to make those kinds of investments ...
Q: What do you mean no accountability to it?
SCRANTON: We didn’t know who was going to make the decisions as to where the money was going to go, or what follow-up there was going to be to see how effectively the money was being spent. It was a very vaguely worded referendum on the ballot that had no specificity about how it’s going to be used. And you can waste a lot of money that way. If you are going to have a government program, you need to understand who is going to be administering it, who’s going to be making the decisions, how they’re going to be selected and then, how, how that money is going to be held accountable? In other words, what standards are going to be used to measure the investments you are doing? What ones were worth it? What ones were?
Q: One component of that was economic development factor.
SCRANTON: Sure, but the devil’s in the details and execution. There was no apparent discipline.
Q: Were any of these flaws corrected in the enabling legislation?
SCRANTON: I’m still not very happy about the public accountability part of it. Where is it going? Who’s monitoring and how is it going to be reported and those results be made available to the public?
Q: I can go to the DCNR website and see how the money is being spent …
SCRANTON: Yeah, but you don’t know when the project is done, whether it worked, whether there were project cost overruns. There was just no cost discipline. Number two was designed a lot looser than one. I do like the Growing Greener approach. You have to be sure the money is not being wasted and that it is going for really essential environmental programs.
Q: You are in favor of anti-sprawl measures that are called “smart growth.” You touted those years ago as a member of Gov. Tom Ridge’s 21st Century Environmental Commission. Back then you said they needed to be imposed at the local or county level, not by the state. Do you still take that view, even though many of your fellow commissioners say local measures and state incentives have not worked fast enough?
SCRANTON: It has to be local. I would oppose imposing them from the state level. If you do that, the local people, the people who are most affected by it, have no local recourse.
Q: Have you begun organizing the three debates proposed by the Swann campaign with KDKA and WGAL?
SCRANTON: We have not talked to WGAL or others, we have just said we’re ready to do it, we’ll do it. We have not talked to WGAL, they’re [the Swann campaign] the ones that talked to ‘GAL. We’ll debate whenever they are held. Yeah absolutely, if the sponsors are willing to have them early, we ought to have them early, and we ought to have them throughout the primary. The more we have them, the sharper we are going to get.
Q: If you lose the endorsement, there will be pressure for you not to run in the primary. Gov. Tom Ridge, among others, said he wants a meeting after the endorsement, to discuss what is best for the party?
SCRANTON: I have definite views about what’s best for the party; I think an open primary is best for the party.
Q: Are you definitely going to stay in until you have the opportunity to debate Lynn Swann?
SCRANTON: That’s my plan, that’s what our intention is. Our goal is to do this right through the primary. And we want to debate. I answered that debate challenge as soon as it came back to us. I said yeah, let’s do it. Now I’m sure all the details of it are kind of awaiting the machinations of what happens at state committee, but we’re committed to doing those debates.
Q: What do you say to state committee people and Republicans who remember you as running a disappointing campaign in 1986?
SCRANTON: I say this to all of the state committee people. One of the questions Bill Scranton had to answer is does he have the fire in the belly, and is he willing to put the work in?
Now I will take exception to the fact, I don’t know how that reputation came, because I said to all of my staff, when I hired them, I said, go back and look, and I gave them all the schedules that I had in the 1986 campaign. And I said if you don’t think I worked, go back and look at those schedules.
But whatever reputation lingers out there, the only way I know to erase it is to just work your tail off. So I have traveled this state for a year and a half, I’ve gone to all 67 counties, I have been up early at night [early morning hours] and in bed late at night, and the only way I know to do it and answer those concerns is to show them. And I think those concerns have evaporated. You talk to most of the state committee people who have seen me, we are not hearing that anymore, OK?
Q: Here in Delco, you are supposed to win 20-0 among state committee voters. In Chester and Montgomery, you are supposed to lose 15-0 and 24-0, and in Philadelphia, you are supposed to win 16-0. Why are these counties split from each other, when they usually agree?
SCRANTON: I know.
Q: And why, with this kind of split, are the counties unanimous inside each? … What is going on in this primary that the normally solid Southeast is split?
SCRANTON: Well, look at the splits in the normally solid Southwest too. I mean, we’ve got a lot of support in Southwest. Look at Allegheny County. I mean it is that kind of primary. I’m not enough of a political scientist to explain why it’s happening. But there are strong views in this party, which is one of the reasons why I think a primary would accrue to our benefit.
Q: How do you differentiate yourself from Lynn Swann?
SCRANTON: Look, I have been out from the very beginning, and my issues have been very clear. You are not hearing this kind of reform agenda from Lynn Swann. You didn’t hear him call for a repeal of the pay raise; you didn’t hear him come out strong against the pay raise; yes, he said, ‘I’m against it,’ but didn’t hit it hard. He hasn’t; it’s really a question, you can always say, “me too, that’s what I agree, too.” It’s a question of whether you are really willing to go out and hammer those issues, put yourself in front of audiences, answer questions about them. Which is my whole problem with, with Lynn not debating. I mean, there’s no question he, Lynn, has presence and celebrity. There’s no question. But is there anything under it? And we don’t know and the only way you know that is by going out and championing those issues. He can say, “I agree.” For instance, constitutional convention, I think one time they asked him about it and he said, ‘Yes I’m for it, but it’s going to be too confusing.’ You don’t quite know what’s there. And look, there may be something there. But, it’s gotta be shown in the course of a primary.
Q: You talked again tonight about broadening the sales tax.
SCRANTON: Yes.
Q: Do you have any items or industries on which you want to impose it yet?
SCRANTON: No. We are going to wait to see what comes out of the General Assembly. And if a satisfactory response doesn’t come out of the General Assembly, we will have our own proposal in time, well in time before the primary.
Q: When your party is pretty much stymied, the House is closer to your proposal and Senate Republicans are unwilling. Do you and Lynn owe it to your party to lead on this issue and put pressure on the leaders by coming out with your proposals?
SCRANTON: I think it is incumbent on the current governor to provide the leadership.
Q: He has said what he wanted …
SCRANTON: Yeah, but is he in there really pushing for it, you know? And I don’t see him there, doing it. You can make a pronouncement, but you talk to people in Harrisburg, he’s not engaged in the process.
Q: Do you think a significant portion of the state’s economic development, much or most, should be switched from what is called “corporate welfare” or “incentives,” to broad-based business tax cuts, so that you are rewarding all businesses to some extent, not picking winners?
SCRANTON: Yes. Well, I’m not saying we are taking every economic development program and gutting it. The first priority would be to cut business taxes, over new programs or enlarging current programs. The second thing we are going to do is look at all the economic development programs and say, are we actually investing in, are we actually trying to subsidize an economy that’s gone? And not doing the kind of knowledge-based investments that are really going to be critical to our growth. So that’s where economic development and education come together.
Q: It sounds like you are leaning towards fewer giant checks handed out to an individual company, and more using that money for business tax cuts.
SCRANTON: Absolutely. That’s right. That doesn’t mean we don’t have to play that game to some extent, OK, but Pennsylvania has been relying too much on it and I would rather see the tax cuts. That would be my priority is the tax cuts. Because then we don’t have to pick winners and losers, which we haven’t been very good at doing in the past.
Q: Are there any programs you know now you will cut or abolish to use the funds for tax cuts?
SCRANTON: We will be talking about that as we go. Now? No.
Q: You talked about your support for education choice. Does that include vouchers?
SCRANTON: Yes.
Q: Did you agree with Gov. Thornburgh on his initial doubts and ultimate support for the PACE program?
SCRANTON: Yes.
Q: How much more quickly would it be phased out under your administration than it would be under the current law?
SCRANTON: I would make sure we didn’t delay it. We haven’t committed to a time frame on it, but we want to kill it as fast as we can. You can’t delay the law. It is my hope to speed up the time frame. That is going to be a priority in my administration. We have to get rid of that tax.
Road to Reform Leads to Secane[]
- Source: February 02, 2006, By WILLIAM BENDER, Delaware County Times
UPPER DARBY-Republican gubernatorial candidate Bill Scranton brought his "Road to Reform" tour into friendly territory Wednesday night, talking up his platform at the Primos-Secane-Westbrook Fire Co. The stop comes 10 days ahead of a full vote by the Republican state committee in Harrisburg. Unofficial tallies put former Pittsburgh Steeler Lynn Swann ahead of Scranton in securing the endorsement.
Scranton, a former lieutenant governor, is asking the state committee to hold an open primary, though he has vowed to stay in the race regardless of which way the endorsement goes.
"You're not going to buy a car before you drive it. You shouldn't pick a candidate before you've seen him in the field of battle," Scranton said, receiving heavy applause from an audience that included many of the county's Republican leaders. [Watch Video]
If elected, Scranton said he would work to slow government growth, cut business and property taxes and modernize the state's education system.
"Education is so incredibly important to prepare our workers for the future," he said. Scranton, who supports giving homeowners the ability to vote on property tax increases, said his first priority in office would be reducing that tax.
He would call a constitutional convention to make "fundamental changes" to the Legislature, which could include reducing the number of seats in the 253-member General Assembly.
On government reform, Scranton called for lobbyist disclosure laws that would post all spending on the Internet.
"You know what happens if you don't have that? I'll give you two words: Jack Abramoff," he said, referring to the disgraced Washington lobbyist.
Republican organizations in southeastern Pennsylvania are split on whether to endorse Swann or Scranton.
Though Montgomery and Chester counties are backing Swann, Delaware County's 20 votes in the state committee are expected to go for Scranton, along with Philadelphia.
After his speech, Scranton met with Delaware County Republican Party Chairman Thomas Judge Sr. and Springfield Republican Chairman Charles Sexton Jr.
The candidate had a receptive audience Wednesday that included Michael Hodges, 28, who traveled to the firehouse from Philadelphia to hear him speak.
After seeing Swann at the city's Crystal Tea Room, Hodges said he is outmatched by Scranton's experience.
"He just comes across very well answering questions and on the issues -- beyond just football stories. He's more qualified," Hodges said of Scranton. Hodges said Swann reminded him more of a "motivational speaker."
Thornbury GOP Chairman William Lovejoy agreed. "He has a tremendous knowledge of government and how it should work. He's been around it his whole life," Lovejoy said of Scranton, son of former Gov. William Scranton.
After the talk, Scranton chastised Swann for not debating and said the fact that he was discussing his platform with a live audience meant he had a better grasp of the issues.
"It's a question of whether you're really willing to go out and hammer those issues, put yourself in front of audiences to answer questions," he said. "That's my whole problem with Lynn not debating. There's no question he has presence and celebrity, but is there anything under it? We don't know. And the only way you know that is by going out and championing those issues."
Scranton offers ideas, critique of governor[]
- February 01, 2006, BY BORYS KRAWCZENIUK STAFF WRITER and on Scranton's site.
In a recent interview, current Republican governor candidate Bill Scranton talked about what he thinks the governor has done wrong and what he would do differently.
Q: What do you think is the number one thing that he’s done wrong?
A: His idea for property tax was, in my view, a non-starter from the beginning ... And I think he needed to have a hook to get gambling and so he took the property tax ... And so what we’re looking at is gambling that’s not going to work very well because, it’s, frankly, the regulation on it is pretty sloppy. And property tax, that’s gone nowhere. His view on economic development is ... the government stimulus package ... which is you borrow a billion dollars, and you spend it liberally, and that’ll generate the economy ... Maybe it never worked, but it certainly doesn’t work in this day and age.
Q: Chris Doherty loves it. Look down the street, there’s two new parking garages built with state money.
A: But you know having lived here, and I know having lived here all of my life, we have had very influential politicians bring largess to Northeastern Pennsylvania. My father, Bob Casey, Joe McDade, Dan Flood. We have this project and that project. And that has helped keep us on what I say is life support ... But that isn’t what makes a kind of vibrant economy. It may keep you alive, but it doesn’t get you out of bed ... You can hand out all the checks you want, but if you have a (tax) structure that repels investment, which is what we have, you’re sending good money after bad.
Q: Here’s what Rendell will say ... And that is since December of 2002, the month before he took office, there are 167,000 more Pennsylvanians working than there were then, and 69,000 fewer unemployed, and the unemployment rate is down from 5.8 percent to 4.6 percent.
A: Sure, and I won’t argue with those numbers. The point is that he had nothing to do with that. Those are numbers that reflect the national recovery. If you take a look at it, his economic recovery plan, which was based on the stimulus package, that stimulus package never even floated bonds until the end of last year .
Q: So what do you mean when you talk about restructuring government?
A: Just take each department and say “What are we trying to accomplish here? Can we do it cheaper? Is there a way for us to be more productive? How do we get more productivity out of this department? How do we collapse the management hierarchy?” Every information technology allows you to collapse hierarchy. This is an era of networks, not of hierarchy ... Every company, General Electric, IBM, now has a lighter, smarter management structure. But government is still heavy and relatively dumb.