Never one to let the facts* get in the way of a microphone, former Gov. Ed Rendell is making a splash by saying Mitt Romney has a chance to be the first Republican presidential candidate to win Pennsylvania in a quarter century.

From Huffington Post coverage of roundtable in New York:

On occasion, however, Rendell's pronouncements can cause headaches. When Rendell was asked, at that same event, whether the president would win the Keystone State in November, his inability to answer with a definitive yes seems likely to create one of those instances.

"It's going to be a close election. The president is not going to do well in the west. He lost 11 of 12 southwestern Democratic counties in 2008, even though he won the state by 11 points," said Rendell, who was at the event to promote his book, "A Nation of Wusses." "I think he will improve the vote there because a number of them are construction workers, etc. ... and I think they know what is going on. I think he will do better there. But I don't think he will carry there. The election will be determined by basically the four Philadelphia suburban counties."

. . . "Oh, it is definitely in play," Rendell replied. He went on about how bizarre it was to read reports that Republicans weren't making investments in the state. "Can't be right. I mean why would you do that? And why would you make that judgment now?"

We'll let Charlie Mahtesian at Politico start the takedown:

But in the southeastern region – essentially the populous Philly suburbs and exurbs but not the city itself – Romney’s numbers are far too weak to justify an investment. He trails Obama 54 percent to 31 percent.

That’s not only a very big spread, it’s a very expensive one – closing it would require a serious expenditure of cash in the pricey Philadelphia media market.

That might explain why Republicans seem so unenthusiastic about competing for a state that Rendell says "is definitely in play." It very well might be, but given the cost and the odds of winning – remember, the GOP hasn’t won the state since 1988 – the smart move might be to resist the temptation and concentrate resources elsewhere.

Of course, if Pennsylvania isn't in play Rendell's noted political acumen wouldn't get as much attention, would it?

*See: Polls, advertising spending, and both the Obama and Romney campaigns

UPDATE 11 am: "There’s 'off message.' And then there’s former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell" writes Tom Fitzgerald at the Inquirer. This morning Rendell said Hillary Clinton would have been more effective than Obama with the stimulus and health care reform.

As of Wednesday night not a single Democrat is even attempting to take convicted felon Jane Orie's place in the state Senate north of Pittsburgh.

The McCandless Republican's fate was sealed for weeks before she was sentenced to jail Monday but apparently the Democratic party hasn't been able to attract a single candidate to run for the Aug. 7 special election to fill the 2.5 years left on her term. It's a Republican-leaning district anyway, but the party seems poised to let Melissa Hart (or the other Republican hopefuls running) take the job with no competition whatsoever.

Democratic committee members are supposed to vote Thursday night on their candidate (and had promised letters of intent by 5 p.m. Tuesday) but apparently no one has applied. We've asked for updates all day from officials from both the Allegheny County and state Democratic party organizations and have heard nothing in response. Nor has 2010 Orie challenger Dan DeMarco responded to questions.

Democratic committee members in the North Hills district (covering parts of Allegheny and Butler counties) are supposedly giving more attention to supporting former PSU professor Missa Eaton's challenge of freshman congressman Mike Kelly of Butler.

UPDATE 9 am: Party officials say they expect to have a candidate(s?) by this afternoon.

Both the state store clerks union AND the Corbett adminstration were right about a contract clause and its impact on liquor privatization efforts. That may be one reason Majority Leader Mike Turzai still plans to move on his privatization bill, maybe as early as Monday (says John Micek at the Morning Call).

A new contract for the Liquor Control Board's 3,500 unionized clerks indeed has a clause protecting them from privatization through July 1, 2015 (my story is here), but the language (often called a "successorship clause") would surely be challenged in court should the state sell off its liquor operations. That's the verdict of John T. Delaney, Dean of Pitt's College of Business and the Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business, and a nationally-known expert in labor issues.

"It isn't quite as clear cut as has been suggested by either the union or the state," Mr. Delaney said.

The clause in question -- forwarded by the United Food and Commercial Workers union -- is in full below.

The beginning and end of the clause clearly suggest the state and prospective private buyers would have to meet with the union, Delaney said, and make all sides aware that the contract language exists. The fights will be over Section C and the extent to which it is binding on private buyers of the government-run state store system.

"If an entity were to to acquire operations subject to terms of the contract, courts historically would look at how that acquisition takes place," Delaney said. "If it is a purchase, what is it that the private entity purchase? If it's assets, the courts would have to determine what the assets are. Are employees the asset? Are stores the asset? Inventory?

This would guarantee there would be arbitration and probably a court hearing about what the clause means."

The differences over what the wording means (and the fact Corbett administration negotiators didn't challenge the clause during bargaining with the union) probably means both sides know it will be a court matter if privatization moves forward.

"This was probably carefully vetted by both sides to allow everyone to make the claims they made," Delaney said. "Hence, in some ways it services the interests of each constituency. Someone else -- an arbitrator or a judge -- will determine what it really means."

{Jscribd document_id:=96191657 access_key:=key-2cexekhbje1ukz86scls viewmode:=List h:=500 w:=458}

ABC News has more on Rick Santorum's future plans. The former senator is looking to start a non profit (yup, one of those) to support social causes that have defined his political career.

From ABC:

On Tuesday, sources close to Santorum told ABC News that the former presidential candidate will be announcing the formation of a 501 c(4) organization that he will use to pursue a set of issues he has fought for during much of his political career.

This first wave of issues is likely to focus on an agenda that includes anti-abortion and faith and family causes.

However, another senior strategist with ties to Santorum cautioned supporters would have to wait until Friday to find out about Santorum's next move.

Though Mitt Romney is now at the helm of the Republican Party as its presumptive presidential nominee, it stands to reason that Santorum can still remain relevant as a de facto leader of social conservatives.

Last month the pro-Santorum super PAC, the Red, White, and Blue Fund, became a hybrid political action committee that will also work as a traditional leadership PAC to push Santorum's message, support his political travel, cover administrative costs and donate money to candidates he supports with similar views. This new issues-oriented push from Santorum could easily operate out of this leadership PAC.