There’s a few elected officials coming around to endorsing Bob “Crooksy” Brooks for Congress. They are unconcerned that he stiffed his mother-in-law, among many other questions about Crooksy. They’re unconcerned that it’s starting to get noticed. They’re unconcerned that the appeals court rejected his appeal unanimously. The fact that this man calls himself a “family man” and isn’t doesn’t bother them. It’s interesting to say the least.

There’s also major substantive red flags here too. All of the folks endorsing him supported and liked Barack Obama as President, while Crooksy did not. They do not support “guns on demand” or school prayer, while Crooksy does. They’re concerned about political violence, while Crooksy is not. They’re not out posting a Colonial American flag and saying “Colin Kaepernick doesn’t like this flag, so I’m gonna share it,” while Crooksy was. They must not think Crooksy meant them when he said Democrats don’t know how to talk to the middle class anymore, but they were all running as Democrats before Crooksy. All of that is fine though.

Meanwhile there is a pair of high profile primaries going on at the state legislative level within PA-7 where these same folks are taking a different line. Taiba Sultana’s insane primary against Senator Lisa Boscola is no good to some of these folks because said insane things before and was accused of assaulting her son. CeCe Gerlach just could not be the pick to replace Josh Siegel in PA House District 22, so much so that some of the powers that be found a candidate who hadn’t even applied for the opening to be their candidate instead. At least some of them have suggested that Gerlach wouldn’t be trusted to side with the Democrats on key votes in the 102-101 chamber because she’s too extreme. So let me get this straight, the guy who stiffs his mother-in-law out of a court ordered verdict for money he owed her is a good family man, but the lady who was accused of assaulting her son is some violent nutbag. The guy who opposes Black men protesting police brutality, thinks Barack Obama sucked, thinks we need more guns, wants to bring back school prayer, and thinks the Democratic Party sucked before him is a reliable Democratic vote in a narrowly divided Congress, but the progressive lady that doesn’t side with the Republican Party on literally anything is not a reliable vote in the PA House? I think I sort of am starting to understand what’s being said here.

I’m not for Sultana’s challenge and I am for Gerlach’s, but the point remains the double standard is out in the open with a bright red light on it. If you hire John Fetterman’s consultant team, I guess you can literally chase a Black guy down the street with a gun and get away with it, or stiff your family out of money you owe them. It is pretty amazing to watch people attach themselves to this.

A narcissist generally thinks that when they do something bad, it isn’t really that bad, or people will understand, or people are out to get them if they bring it up. They bring up unrelated, totally random things to deflect from the bad things they did. They don’t understand why people are “picking on them,” and call and ask local electeds who are friends with those bringing it up (in this case, me) “why does this guy write this stuff about me?” You see it in Maine, where Mr. Nazi Tattoo was surprised his Nazi tattoo was a problem with people. And you see it here, where Bob “Crooksy” Brooks blames his own decision to stiff his mother-in-law out of money he signed to pay her on his lawyers, on his opponents, and really on anyone but himself.

I can’t blame Crooksy entirely for this mess though. Democratic staffers, consultants, the Governor, and God knows who else told him this was a good idea. Some of them who stood to benefit from him running told him his situation with his former mother-in-law was no big deal. He didn’t think his social media posts about guns, racism, school prayer, or Obama would ever come out, and now folks around him tell him they won’t derail him. National politicians like Pete Buttigieg endorsed him, and told a local Democratic politician from here that he did it because “we had a good phone call,” so even he didn’t vet the guy at all. His consultants that brought us Mamdani and Fetterman are out getting their other clients in Arizona and other far off places to endorse a guy they never met. By the end of this I wouldn’t be shocked if they have Michael Moore endorsing some guy he never met just to convince us that this really is a great idea. Meanwhile locally he’s promising former opponents and fellow members of his union jobs and God knows what else to stick with him. And so, of course, they tell him it’s a great idea. Look, this isn’t like Elizabeth Warren defending Graham Platner’s Nazi tattoo, past racist and homophobic posts, and other bad behavior, after she attacked Pete Hegseth for his tattoos last year. She was right about Hegseth. She’s wrong now, and she’s being wrong now because it’s convenient and helpful for what she wants.

Of course, political reality doesn’t change just because Bernie Sanders or anyone else tells you so. If you run for federal office, anything questionable in your life is coming out. Hell, that’s probably true for any state office too. You can make up any excuses for why they happened that you’d like, but eventually someone writes the article. And next thing you know the article gets legs, and then CNN and the Washington Post start to take notice and write more articles, and then suddenly people are finding out stuff about you that even you didn’t know. You may have done fairly normal things wrong, like screwed up your taxes, got a DUI, or defaulted on a debt, things that don’t really make you a bad person, but nevertheless are troublesome in a campaign. Look, I think people are crazy who subject themselves to the kind of vetting that comes with mid-level political appointments or seats in state legislatures or the U.S. House. It’s truly unfair, frankly. However, when you’re running and telling everyone you’re one thing, and your past says you’re something totally different, well, it’s worth a question or ten. Hypocrisy is a sign of trouble to come. If you need a reminder of how red flags work, go look at Crooksy’s consultants other big Pennsylvania client, John Fetterman, where people ignored the signs. Look at Tulsi Gabbard, who has proven herself to be both Putin and Trump’s favorite stooge, after claiming to be a progressive. The signs don’t go away just because you want them to. People aren’t going to not talk about Crooksy’s problems just because the Governor or anyone else ask them to.

So let’s just be honest and cut to the chase. All of these people know they’re full of shit, but they’re enabling him. Ask yourself some rather straight forward, simple answer questions that Crooksy and his enablers would all dance around if asked, and you’ll come to the obvious conclusion.

1. Crooksy’s ex-wife came out to defend him in the first article and alleged “over the following 12 years, my mother not once approached us to request payment for that land,” after they were gifted it in 2004. If that’s the case, why did the facts of the Superior Court opinion rejecting Crooksy’s appeal clearly state that they had them sign a promissory note to repay the costs in 2008?
2. Why didn’t Crooksy and his ex ever make any attempt to repay that debt at all? They signed the note, and didn’t contest that in trial. Look, if they just couldn’t make the payments or something, and truly tried to, wouldn’t they have at some point made some kind of payments? Even just a good faith payment? Maybe a month or two somewhere? Even a half payment? According to the court, they paid zero. Their excuses lack any credibility.
3. Crooksy told some local activists that this was “all a part of a messy divorce.” Fair enough. With who? His ex-wife who is out there defending him, or his ex-mother-in-law that she won’t even talk to. If this whole legal case and corresponding mess was just about the messiness of the divorce, wouldn’t the problem here have been with his ex?
4. Crooksy’s defense was that the promissory note was void because she waited too long to try and collect on it. So basically, he admitted he made no attempt to pay. Since we know they wanted payment because they had him sign the note, why didn’t he pay them anything?
5. Moving on to another topic, why did Barack Obama suck, in his opinion, as of September of 2012? Was it because his administration killed Osama Bin Laden? I doubt that. Did Crooksy not like the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare, which he now claims he will defend in Congress? Did Crooksy have deep thoughts on Dodd-Frank banking legislation? I’d be very curious to know what Crooksy didn’t like about BARACK OBAMA, given that he’s running in a Democratic Primary where most of us like him.
6. Has Crooksy changed his mind since August 4th of 2019, when he posted a 3%’er/Oathkeeper meme that stated “The problem is not guns, it’s hearts without God, homes without discipline, schools without prayer, and courts without justice?” Does he not think gun violence is a problem in America? I am not an atheist myself, so I’m for hearts with God, but should that be public policy? What does he mean by “homes without discipline,” is he agreeing with Markwayne Mullin, like his buddy Fetterman? Does he think we should bring back school prayer, and if so, in what form? And what does he mean by “courts without justice,” or more importantly, what did he mean in 2019?
7. Why did he post this just days after the mass shooting at the El Paso Walmart in 2019, which was political violence? Did he not think the guns were a problem in that case? Would school prayer have stopped the fanatic who shot the people? Or does he just not watch the news and totally unrelatedly defended guns?
8. What made Colin Kaepernick a “douchebag?” What about him was “helping bring people together again on something,” as of his post saying so on July 3rd, 2019? I mean, I don’t kneel during the national anthem, but I was certainly not coming together with far right wing radicals that wanted him banned from the NFL. Was he?
9. Why did he think Kaepernick didn’t like the 13 Stars flag? The opposition research given to me assumed that was known, and maybe it was, but if Brooks understood why a Black man kneeling for racial justice during the national anthem wouldn’t like that flag, that means he knows what is wrong with it. Calling him a douchebag for this also implies he agrees with that flag and the reasons Kaepernick wouldn’t like it.
10. If Bob “Crooksy” Brooks was just reposting stuff his friends were posting on social media (another excuse they’ve put out) what kind of people was he friends with back in 2019? I mean, I know who some of his friends were around Nazareth and the Valley, but we’ll leave them out of it for a moment. Just in general, what kind of militant right wing nationalists is this guy conversing with online?
11. Why did Crooksy decline to endorse Kamala Harris in 2024, both personally and as the leader of his union? Other statewide union leaders in unions whose international stayed out did endorse her. He and his folks did not.
12. What did Crooksy mean when he said “The party of labor, I believe, is the Democrat Party, but I don’t think the Democrat Party talks about or to the working class people anymore, and I think we need to get back to that. The Republicans, they talked about us, they talk to us, but then they go down to DC and they vote against us?” Did Joe Biden not bail out pension funds, walk picket lines, and try to advance more access to overtime, health insurance, and union membership as President and Vice-President?
13. Given that Kamala Harris was our last nominee for President and that Crooksy doesn’t think the party talks to or about the working class anymore, why does he think that? Does he disagree with CWA? Does he think PBS coverage of her was incorrect? Does he think she didn’t talk enough about the working class in this Pittsburgh speech? If it wasn’t her substance that he thinks wasn’t good, what was it about that woman?
14. Crooksy and his union actually initially endorsed Lamont McClure in this race. In fact, he said in a text message for McClure, “this fire is even too big for me.” So what changed?

Look, this clown couldn’t answer one of these questions honestly. He’ll cite his career, he’ll cite his endorsements, but what he won’t do is explain why every bit of tangible evidence says he is a right-wing lunatic, a racist, and a deadbeat. It’s because it’s all true. Some people think that’s fine. They would set every supposed value they have aside for convenience, even if it puts this race in danger. If I’m asking these questions, Ryan Mackenzie has the answers to them. The other three candidates in the race wouldn’t have to spend the millions of dollars that will be available to all of them in the general election explaining why they’re not a deadbeat, or worse. If this guy wasn’t running, I wouldn’t care. He’d just be another guy here in the Valley. He is running though, and frankly he’d be a disgrace in office.