Pennacchio-Sandals Debate: Harrisburg

Chuck Pennacchio and Alan Sandals had a two-hour moderated debate last night in Harrisburg sponsored by the League of Women Voters. Bob Casey didn't feel like showing up.

The Sandals camp sent out a press release announcing that they had "won" the debate. Interesting since the LoWV doesn't declare winners. I wasn't there nor do I know how many people were there, so I can't say if I thought there was a "winner" but I'm sure good points were made by both sides.

The release also stated:

In contrast to Democratic activist Pennachio [sic it's two Cs], who announced his support for an increase in the tax rate to 50%, Sandals said he could appeal to a broader set of Pennsylvania voters.

Once again, I wasn't present for the debate, but I've read two first hand accounts [by Pennacchio volunteers/staffers] of the night and one of them specifically stated that Dr. Pennacchio was specifically referring to a marginal rate, a progressive tax where the rich pay more:

Memo to Sandals' campaign: the marginal rate -- which is what Chuck specifically referred to -- is the the highest bracket paid by only the richest Americans. We have a 1-2 trillion dollar war debt to pay, in addition to our huge national debt and growing current accounts deficit. The marginal rate during the Eisenhower Administration was 92%, later reduced to 91%. And that was the marginal rate for ALL income; they didn't distinguish between earned income and capital gains back then. That's how our grandparents avoided burying us under a mountain of debt from WWII. How can you call your campaign "For our Future" and contemplate leaving that debt to our kids? Why not stand up to the tax-cut fundamentalists who got us into this indecent hole in the first place?

The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans have had a 5 year tax vacation (longer actually). Enough. Does anyone believe that a 50% top rate will result in poverty, or even a reduction in lifestyle, for the Paris Hiltons of the world? Heck, the Rockefeller's managed to soldier on at 92%. Maybe she could get a part time job or something.

I wasn't there for this one, but I'll be there for the next one and I think everyone in the Philly area should be there too. It's this Saturday the 28th at the First Baptist Church - 17th and Sansom Sts. It starts at Noon and it is free to the public. This candidates forum is sponsored by the Neighborhood Networks and the African American Heritage Coalition. I'll be taking photos of the event for Neighborhood Networks.

Don't let me or reps from either campaign decide what's best for you. Show up yourselves and see what the candidates have to offer you. See how they do in front of a crowd. See them think on their feet. Hear their actual words on the issues, not well thought out written statements on paper or online. But don't come to see Bob Casey speak, he'll be keeping his mouth shut some more.

Comments

[John Featherman]

I was at the debate last night. It was attended by roughly 30 people, the majority of whom were either campaign staff or supporters for either Chuck Pennacchio or Alan Sandals. There were a few members of the press, and one writer thought the most interesting question came from me.(http://www.pennlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news/1138098181314760.xml?pennnpol&coll=1)

In my opinion, neither candidate delivered a knock-out punch, but both were candid, cordial to each other, and, most importantly, gave the voters an opportunity to hear their views. The same can't be said for Bob Casey, who probably would have been humiliated debating them. While I personally don't agree with most of the fiscal views expressed by either Pennacchio or Sandals, they should be proud of themselves. They presented their plans, and they have ideas worth listening to.

I found their ideologies to be strikingly and predictably similar with a few caviats, but their presentations could not have been more different. The Associated Press (http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/politics/13694974.htm) called Pennacchio "fiery" and Sandals "subdued," which I found accurate.

Additionally, Pennacchio focused on the audience whereas Sandals often worked from notes.

I may attend next Saturday's debate, and what I'm looking for is more differentiation between Pennacchio and Sandals. There have got to be more differences, and I'd like to see them. They are both smart guys, but I was tired of hearing them say they were on the same page.

A final point. I just read Alan Sandal's press release (http://www.alansandals.com/press) "Alan Sandals Wins First US Senate Debate."

Who is the Sandal's campaign kidding? This wasn't a credible press release; it was poor propaganda.

I like both Alan and Chuck, and I'm glad they are in the race, but for Alan to claim victory is pretty lame. Additionally, they didn't even mention Pennacchio's first name -- a must in a press release -- and they couldn't even spell Chuck's last name correctly. They referred to him as "Pennachio."

Folks, there were no knock-out punches. But was a victor -- it was the voters in PA.

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

[Dave De Vetter]

There's of course one huge difference between Pennacchio and Sandals and that is that Chuck Pennacchio has Washington experience (As a personal aide for US Sen. Alan Cranston) and he knows firsthand how to win tough US Senate campaigns. He ran successful campaigns for Sens. Tim Wirth, Tom Harkin, and Paul Simon.

Plus, Chuck is out there all over the state meeting voters. As far as I can tell, this debate is the first time Sandals has been outside of SE PA.

Sandals is a nice guy with the right position on the issues, but he doesn't have Chuck Pennacchio's passion or his campaign skills.

[John Featherman]

I agree with Dave that Chuck Pennacchio has more grassroots and political experience than Alan Sandals. I also sense from the media reports and their Website calendars that Pennacchio has traveled more than Sandals.

As for passion and campaigning skills, last night's debate showed differences. Pennacchio can become very "fiery" and Sandals is more mellow and cerebral. I don't think that one is necessarily better than the other. Ultimately, I'd like to know which one will be more of a consensus builder in order to both inspire their party as well as coalition build with Republicans.

Saturday, Dave, will lend more insight.

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