Neighborhood Networks Candidate Forum January 2006

For those who have never heard of the First Baptist Church, this is what it looks like looking from the west side of 17th St. It's quite a gorgeous church from the outside. I've passed by it many times, but this was my first time inside the great church.

This is a view of the inside of the church from the second deck, I forget what this is called in church-speak. I realized while walkind around this gorgeous piece or architecture that it was my first time inside a church since moving to Philly over a year and a half ago. Peep that bajillion pipe organ. I have no idea if it is still functional.

But I wasn't there for a tour, I was there to take photos of the Neighborhood Networks - African American Coalition Candidate Forum with Chuck Pennacchio [the guy I'm volunteering for] and Alan Sandals. Liz already posted on the Pennacchio Blog, but here's my round up of the happenings of Saturday's forum. It was a good turnout. I'd say between 100-150 people showed up on the gorgeous Saturday afternoon. Young and old, political veterans and newbies who were energized by this particular Senate race.

Organizers Ron Holt and Vivienne Crawford from the African American Coalition flanking candidates Pennacchio [L] and Alan Sandals [R]. And that's an empty chair with a piece of paper with Bob Casey's name on it. What a dick Casey is.

[L to R] Marc Stier [NN], Vivienne Crawford [AAC/NN], Sandals, Pennacchio, Tracey Gordon [AAC], Gloria Gilman [NN].

Before the candidate forum began, Tracey Gordon of the African American Coalition gave a rousing speech on why the AAC was becoming involved in projects with NN. She's pictured here speaking of her group's action in clearing the Philly streets of the advertisement of 50 Cent's Get Rich or Die Tryin' which showed 50 holding a gun in his left hand and a mic in the right. The group successfully got Clear Channel to take down the billboards depicting the violent message.

And pretty Liberal Republican candidate John Featherman was in the house too. He as also at the League of Women Voters debate in Harrisburg last week. He was schmoozing with the crowd and stayed afterwards to talk to people as well.

The forum part was moderated by Ms. Crawford. It consisted of five questions which were given to the candidates all of about twenty minutes before the debate was to begin. She noted that neither candidate had any problems about this and that she was very pleased with that, no stuffy pre-meditated answers here. It was going to be off the cuff. The questions:

1. What improvements to the quality of life in Philadelphia would you seek to make through Senate action?
2. What do you think are the most pressing issues facing our nation today that the Senate should address?
3. What policies would you seek Senate action to address the survival of life on our planet?
4. Describe the role of the Senate in ensuring the balance of power in our government structure and what you would do about this issue at thsi time?
5. Why should we elect you instead of other candidates?

Each candidate would have [I think] three minutes to respond. After the questions, the floor would be open to questions from the audience. I wanted to follow the answers more closely, but I was there to ake photos and didn't want to put down the camera to take notes.

Chuck Pennacchio brought his kids to the event, Ben and Sophie. I think they're nine and seven. They were both interested in my camera gear. Pretty well behaved too if you ask me. They were unsupervised for the most part of the three or so hours there. Chuck spoke in his usual firey manner getting the crowd to yelp and clap some thunderous applause at some point during each of his responses to the questions.

Alan Sandals was his usual self as well, subdued and not so firey. Not to say that his responses weren't thoughtful, they were and he always has been when I've spoken with him, but just that he lacks that oomph needed to carry a crowd.

Here are Alan and Chuck sitting at the table in front of the massive organ pipes. Taken with the wide-angle 12-24mm Tokina.

I think the strongest point that Pennacchio made during the debate was that he already had a great grassroots network formed across the state consisting of 5000 volunteers. He's been working hard for the past year and a half forming this network of contacs throughout the state and that went over very well with this very grassroots oriented crowd. Sandals countered by stating that he already had television commercials on air and that going out to meet activists on the ground was an old-fashioned tactic. Me, I like meeting candidates and it has invigorated my political fire within. Meeting candidates on an almost weekly basis at the Center City chapter of Drinking Liberally [which Chuck and Alan have frequented] is quite an amazing experience. You can really corner a candidate and grill her/him about what they stand for. They can't escape and you're there one on one, pretty empowering.

After the candidates had their say they joined in a round of applause of the audience who had given up their Saturday to hear what their candidates had to say. After a few questions from the audience, the group broke for a yummy lunch downstairs where we sat by neighborhood and brainstormed a bit about the forum and beyond, but that's another post.

And a note on the photos: all taken by me and not for reproduction elsewhere without the express consent of me. The first four shots and the one of the candidates in front of the pipes were taken with my Tokina 12-24mm f/4 and all the others were taken with my Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8ED. Wanna use them? Get at me.

Comments

[John Featherman]

Albert's review of the debate was 100% accurate. I wholeheartedly agree that the strongest comment in the debate was Pennacchio's response to how well he has built his organization. It's easy to run as an issues candidate, but running as an issues candidate with an infrastructure helps build your credibility.

Since the mainstream media did not report on this event -- even though I did see an NBC-10 cameraman there -- I do want to add a few additional observations.

To be fair to Alan Sandals, although his presentation style is subdued, I saw strength in his demeanor. He made a point that I believe was the second strongest in the debate which was that he could debate Santorum with the same power with which he cross-examines witnesses on the stand. If you heard that remark, it made sense. It's fine to raise your voice and be passionate to pump up your supporters as is the case with Pennacchio, but Sandals makes an impressive case for a quiet person with great internal strength.

Sandals and Pennacchio can both appeal to progressive Democrats. Yet, as a Republican, I have wondered which can appeal more to Republicans and third-party voters in the general election, if they make it that far. Right now, I see opportunties for both candidates to appeal to a broader audience, but I also see obstacles.

I am no fan of Bob Casey, but his socially conservative views can take away votes from Santorum in which Pennacchio and Sandals cannot. I think both Pennacchio and Sandals need to think about what they can offer the other side. I have ideas, but they need to come up with their own.

Currently, I give that edge to Sandals, as he's made several remarks that suggest he would work with others. Pennacchio pumps the Democratic crowd and says he won't back down. You've got to admire that principle, but that doesn't get a lot done in DC. Pennacchio also referred to himself as a fiscal conservative in the Harrisburg debate, most notably, I guess, because he supports a balanced budget amendment. That can appeal greatly to Republicans. But there is a serious problem. When you support increasing the minimum wage to a living wage level, want taxpayer funded universal healthcare, are against free trade, and want to raise taxes, can you really say you're fiscally conservative without being laughed at? I suppose Pennacchio is the only one who can explain that.

Pennacchio from the start mentioned that he was the strongest candidate of the Democrats to beat Rick Santorum in the general election, which was true based upon the opednews.com/Zogby study. However, Sandals also noted correctly that Pennacchio and Sandals were in a statistical dead heat according to the poll.

Finally, Pennacchio and Sandals are very lucky. They should thank each other for being in the race. I know there are plenty of progressives who would rather see just one of them challenge Casey, but it's the candidates' choice to stay in the race. But the reason they are lucky is because they have each other. What do I mean? Well, they should be humming Sonny and Cher's "I got you babe," because without each other, there would be no debate, as is the case for John Featherman.

Santorum currently refuses to debate me, with his people saying I'm not on the ballot. Well, excuse me, but since November, Santorum has issued a debate challenge to Casey, saying he will debate him anytime between last November and next November. Can you say hypocrite?

John Featherman
Republican Candidate, US Senate-PA
www.featherman.com

[eRobin]

Excellent photos.
I'd love to get to a debate. And I'd love to see Casey show up to one.

[albert]

Why should Chuck back down at all on issues like choice, Alito, the war among other things when the opposition refuses to acknowledge that they're a bunch of loony wackjobs out to flush this great nation down the shitter? That's just ludicrus to ask Chuck to compromise on such important matters. I've had enough of Dems rolling over and dying on such imporant issues. There is no compromise on those issues and I don't see the Right getting ready to compromise either.

And yes, Chuck wants a balanced budget. Rolling back tax cuts will do an incredible amount to reduce the deficit. Taxing the top income bracket at 50% will do even more. They were taxed at 90%+ during Eisenhower's time and the rich did just fine then. One less Rolls Royce and maybe skipping that weekend excursion to Dubai won't kill them. Is cutting taxes in a time of war being fiscally conservative? No. Is restructuring the tax code so that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer fiscally conservative? No. I'm laughing at your party who used to laud their 'fiscally conservative' ways and their 'compassionate conservative' bullshit.

Increasing the minimum wage doesn't do enough. That still leaves millions under the poverty line. That is not acceptable. Lifting everyone to a living wage adjusted annually to inflation will help level the playing field.

I don't think Chuck and Alan are Worrying about getting socially conservative votes. While Casey panders further and further to the Right than Specter, he loses huge chunks of support from the Left, I don't think that's a good strategy.

Did Chuck say anything that wasn't true in saying that he polled at the top? Nope. He's still ahead after a margin of error is factored in, ahead of Sandals too, close, but still ahead.

Sen. $anorum and Casey have one more thing in common than I've previously noted, their hypociricy.

[John Featherman]

Albert,

You make strong points. I also admire that Pennacchio is principled and won't back down on issues of great importance to him. That's to be commended. I also admire, as I've told you, your loyalty to your candidate. We should all have such spirited volunteers and backers.

You have fair right to laugh at the Republican Party for not living up to its claim of being the party of small government. At this point, that claim is no more than rhetoric. We've always known that Democrats are big spenders and unapolegetic for being so, and I'm embarrassed that my party has become no different.

Yet, when we speak about being fiscally conservative, one can't have all the admirable social programs Pennacchio would like without significantly raising taxes -- not just for the "rich," as you put it, but for all. I would like to see how Pennacchio will fund his programs. I've studied the costs of universal healthcare, and the numbers are astronomical, even without considering that the healthcare received might be of the lower quality that we see and hear about from the Canadian model.

The problem, Albert, as I see it -- and we can debate whether my ideas are reasonable or not -- is that we don't have jobs. Raising the minimum wage doesn't create jobs. Taxing business owners more doesn't creat jobs. Having an almost 4% wage tax doesn't encourage workers to come to Philadelphia. And having a Draconian business privilege tax where we tax both profits and gross receipts tells small businesses "Don't come here."

I admire both Sandals' and Pennacchio's sensitivity to the worker. But the word "jobs" is just never mentioned by any of the Democratic candidates unless it's with respect to outsourcing.

I am pro-business, particularly pro-small business, and that's why I'm a Republican, even though my social views are liberal. Again, we can agree to disagree -- and I find you to be extraordinarily open-minded, Albert. So let's see if we can get the candidates to discuss how they will encourage economic development.

John Featherman
Republican Candidate, US Senate-PA
www.featherman.com