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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
If you want to know where you’re going, you need to know how you got there. The Democratic Party is in a seeming civil war right now. This week it was Illinois, last week it was Texas. On one side, the Biden/Clinton coalition of voters from 2016/2020 and on the other, the Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren wing. The actual policy differences in the two are only marginal, really. Both favor expanding health care access, fighting climate change, funding things like public education, and access to reproductive health care. The disagreement is largely based on details and how far to go, from a policy standpoint. Philosophically they are different though. The Bernie/Warren wing of the party wants to build a Democratic Party that resembles a European Green/Social Democratic Party, or British Labour under Corbyn. The Clinton/Biden voter wants a more center-left party. How did we get here and how do you square the two?
To understand the modern Democratic Party I think you need to go backwards and start at there different dates- 1966, 1992, and 2006. They are actually not similar elections at all. Two are midterms, one a Presidential. Democrats won in 2006, while 1966 and 1992 are a mixed bag in many ways. So why these years? I’ll start with 1966, because to me it’s the beginning of all modern politics (not that nothing mattered before that, but nothing should really be viewed as modern). 1966 was the first election after the passage of LBJ’s Civil Rights agenda in Congress. It was the beginning of Democrats decline among white voters that truly culminates in the Reagan years, then relatively stabilizes with Clinton. Democrats started to see some losses in 1966. Many folks like to attribute Johnson’s fall in popularity with Vietnam, but any honest analysis tells you it was mostly otherwise. In 1968 the nation would move to electing Nixon on such themes as “the silent majority,” “law and order,” and eventually “peace with honor.” White voters began their move in 1966, but accelerated it in 1968 and especially 1972. Watergate did interrupt Republican dominance in 1974 and 1976, but by 1980, 1984, and 1988 Republicans were carrying Catholics, running 60% neighborhood numbers with White voters, and carrying the Midwest. They also began eroding the “Solid South” Democrats had enjoyed since the Civil War, which ultimately culminated in the 1994 takeover of Congress, but really took hold under Reagan. In fact, 1966 was the “canary in the coal mine” that foreshadowed Republicans winning five of the next six Presidential elections. Obviously that takes me to 1992 and Clinton. Clinton was the first Democrat to truly reap the benefits of the growing support the party had from Black voters. He also made gains with “soccer moms” and other “normie” voters who were alarmed by the “Christian Coalition” and other culture warrior conservatives. Bill Clinton pulled in white moderate voters and majorities with most non-white groups. Clinton largely abandoned the ideological left of the 1960’s politically. Clinton’s White House was less progressive dogma than his Democratic predecessors, even if that is a bit embellished by some (see his 1993 budget). Sure, Clinton invested heavily in education, the environment, and “built a cabinet that looks like America,” but he also did welfare reform, balanced the budget, was a free trader, and had “Sista Soulja.” Clinton aimed for broad appeal that made him less popular with left-wing academics, ex-hippies, and ideological leftists. He was really popular too, sitting in the 60’s through the end of his term amidst an economic boom. Clinton was personally problematic though. He had the Lewinsky affair. His Vice-President ran for President and lost a very, very controversial election. And probably most importantly of all, his wife became the first ever First Lady to run for office herself after the White House, winning a U.S. Senate seat in New York, which was of course not Bill’s home state. Of course we know the early 2000’s after Clinton were a tumultuous time as well, with 9/11 and the Iraq War dominating much of the discourse through the 2004 Election. And that pretty much takes us up to modern times.
The third year I put in there was 2006, and 2006 is truly the beginning of what the Democratic Party is now. George W. Bush was deeply unpopular by 2006. Iraq, Katrina, a failed Supreme Court nomination, and an attempt to privatize Social Security had worn him down. The Democratic Party was almost identity-less at that point though. The party’s last two Presidents, Carter (defeated) and Clinton (problematic personally) were memories by then. The last two House Speakers who had been run out of office in defeat (Jim Wright of Texas had been forced to resign and Tom Foley of Washington was defeated in his re-election). Tom Daschle’s brief period as Majority Leader in the Senate was a bad memory (Iraq, the Patriot Act, his own defeat in 2004). The Supreme Court had been narrowly conservative since the Reagan-Bush period. The party had no recognizable national leader really. And yet, the party won, and won a lot. Democrats took both houses of Congress in a wave election. Nancy Pelosi became the first woman to lead Congress as Speaker. Moderate mormon Harry Reid, a marginally pro-life Nevada Senator took over the Senate. Democrats took the House winning in places like Suburban Pittsburgh, took the Senate by flipping states like Missouri, Montana, and Virginia, and won Governorships in places like Ohio. This wave in non-traditionally blue areas set the stage for 2008 and the birth of today’s Democratic divisions, in part because the Democrats basically won Congress without a real ideological direction. They ran talking about the minimum wage, the war, health care, and ending corruption. It wasn’t exactly a far left manifesto.
A lot of people have revised the history of the 2008 primaries to fit their narratives that emerged after 2016. First off, the race was essentially a one-on-one race from New Hampshire on. Barack Obama’s coalition was built largely on Black voters, young voters, and progressive white voters. Hillary Clinton dominated among rural voters, older voters, and Hispanic voters. These coalitions dramatically changed by 2016, and even again by 2020. While Clinton won women on the whole pretty solidly, she lost young women in her 2008 run, and Black women. Obviously that was different in 2016. Obama’s coalition didn’t really crack based on age at all. Hillary continuously won in primaries, Obama won caucuses. Opposition to the Iraq War was a huge selling point for Barack Obama, particularly with lefties and young people. Obama’s coalition more closely actually resembled Bernie Sanders campaigns, and yet he was able to win. That was largely a product of Black voters sticking by him loyally. That’s about the only theme from that primary that holds up moving forward though. The rest of his primary coalition essentially forms the backbone of today’s populist left.
I think it’s fascinating to guess as to why most of the groups in the Obama coalition moved from him in 2008 to a more combative populist by 2016. There’s not really an obvious reason. Barack Obama, even today, polls as the most popular Democratic politician in the country pretty easily, and across most ideological spectrums. Some surmise that he wasn’t tough enough on Wall Street after the 2008 crash, or that he didn’t deliver a “public option” in Obamacare, or that he didn’t get out of Afghanistan and close Guantanamo, or all kinds of other theories of his shortcomings, and yet there’s not an ounce of data in polling that suggests these voters soured on Obama even a bit in his Presidency. Interestingly it does seem that Clinton’s coalition did crack quite a bit on their support of her. The more rural Democratic voters who had supported her in places like West Virginia and South Dakota joined young voters and progressive white voters in backing Bernie Sanders in 2016, while Black voters joined older voters and Hispanic voters in backing Clinton’s 2016 primary campaign. While Obama’s poll numbers stayed strong, something clearly had moved within his original base by 2016. Not only did a lot of his coalition move to Bernie, a fatally sizable portion of progressive whites, young voters, and even Clinton’s 2008 rural base either moved to Donald Trump or didn’t vote for her. While she got virtually the same amount of votes as Obama got in 2012, and won the popular vote, Clinton lost the election. Florida, Ohio, and Iowa moved comfortably right into Trump’s coalition. Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin moved towards Trump by the skin of his teeth. Clinton narrowly hung onto Maine, New Hampshire, and Minnesota. Obama had won all nine of these states both times, and rather convincingly for the most part.
The thing I find interesting about 2016 is that it really wasn’t supposed to happen. The progressive champion of the moment in 2015 was Elizabeth Warren, and she simply missed her moment in time to try and run for President. Joe Biden was probably the most bullet proof candidate the Democrats would have had at that time, and most of official Washington dismissed him as a candidate. There were some dead-ender “normies” that thought Martin O’Malley was a real alternative to Hillary, but basically the Beltway was ready to hand her the nomination. Bernie Sanders had some real people in Iowa and New Hampshire, but his national campaign apparatus didn’t read like a powerhouse. Republican operatives thought they were going to get a battle between Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Chris Christie, almost all of them thought Trump was a joke. Bernie and Trump were literally no one’s idea in DC. Then our politics turned on it’s head.
Of course 2018 did happen, but it now looks more like an anomaly than a sea change in our politics. Democrats made a real pivot towards nominating women for Congress in the aftermath of Hillary’s defeat and managed to take the House this way. Of course, Democrats had cultivated no new leaders in the time from 2006 until 2018 though, and Pelosi was back in the Speaker’s office. Pelosi is probably the closest thing to middle ground between the left and center in the Democratic national leadership, but even that isn’t neutral. 2018 brought a new majority in the House of Obama/Clinton Democrats, but also brought about “The Squad,” and did little to assuage the oncoming 2020 nomination fight.
The early portion of the 2020 primaries was a mirage. Joe Biden eventually was nominated by dominating with a coalition of Black, Hispanic, rural, and older Democratic primary voters that was both more moderate and yet more broad than Clinton’s. In the early going states of Iowa and New Hampshire though, he struggled while splitting his electorate with Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar. Once he edged them out in Nevada for second though, he consolidated his electorate in South Carolina and ran away with the nomination by the widest margin since Kerry in 2004. Bernie Sanders had some early success before fading, building largely off of a coalition of younger Hispanics, younger voters in general, and progressive white voters. Bernie also faced problems early on with splitting his vote, particularly the progressive female portion of it, with Elizabeth Warren. The other obvious weird part was Covid essentially interrupting the primaries shortly after Super Tuesday and making the primary seem to be over. Even so, Biden had built a substantial lead after Super Tuesday and lead every poll at that point.
Biden went on to win the 2020 election with the broadest coalition in American history, getting 51%, over 81 million votes, and 306 electoral votes. Democrats won the Senate and made Chuck Schumer the Senate Majority Leader along with Pelosi still leading the House. From there, things sort of went down hill. In 2021, Roe v. Wade was overturned, setting off rage within the Democratic ranks. In 2022, despite rising inflation and Biden’s unpopularity, Democrats lost single digit seats in the House, despite losing the popular vote by over 2 million votes and ultimately narrowly losing the House. Frankly, the defeat looked way better than it actually was, and the loss was foreshadowing of what was to come. Biden’s popularity continued to drain over economic concerns and worries about his age. He ended up dropping out in the middle of the 2024 Presidential race, despite what was essentially a margin of error deficit in the polls. He was largely pushed out by major donors, many of whom had been fans of his as Vice-President and even as a Senator. He was replaced by his Vice-President Kamala Harris, who immediately attempted to moderate her image more towards that of what Biden’s had been in 2020. She talked about her time as a Prosecutor, talked about fighting inflation, attacked Trump as an unacceptable, authoritarian figure, and tried to appeal to moderate voters with endorsements from former Republican electeds like Liz Cheney. Harris leaned into the image of a tough prosecutor type, something she had leaned far away from in 2020 when supporters of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren called her a “cop.” Republicans pushed back, seeking to use her 2020 campaign statements to cast her as a far left liberal and continuation of Biden’s policies, which by then they had cast as more liberal than he ran as. They hammered her on support for transgender people, support for a liberal border policy, and support for Biden’s economic policies. Data says it worked. While Harris bled out less votes from her own base than Hillary had in 2016 (it’s true, the left really did vote for her), she lost a lot of moderate Biden voters. Some flipped. More didn’t show up.
All of this brings us to today. The Democratic Party’s “brain trusts” in DC seem to be moving the party in a very different direction suddenly. They seem to think the way to bring back the “missing” Biden voters is to move which voters they are prioritizing with their messaging. Most of the front-runners for the 2028 Presidential race that are being created by DC consultants and the media are white men, many of them Governors. So in this group, think Shapiro, Newsom, Pritzker, Beshear, Gallego, and Murphy. The other group getting attention are non-white populist progressives such Ro Khanna and AOC, and while he’s not a Presidential contender, Zohran Mamdani is a figure they are pushing. Then there is a whole other element of candidate rising amongst the consultant class- the “white masculine man” that is going to bring back appeal to white men. This is a solution in search of a problem. as Kamala Harris actually did better with white men than Biden, Clinton, or Obama, even winning the college educated white men. Even so, we’re seeing the rise of candidates like Graham Platner, Bob “Crooksy” Brooks, and James Talarico. Even worse, the white guy governors seem to be embracing this crap too. Newsom is going to go on human pile of dogshit Hasan Piker’s podcast to talk. Shapiro is endorsing Brooks. Senators such as Gallego, Murphy, Heinrich, and Whitehouse are embracing Platner. The fix is in. They want to go all in on “manly” white men as their path forward. What problem does it solve? I’m not sure. They’re doing it though.
I think the clear thing to understand is this isn’t the party’s top problem, but the party’s lack of appeal to white people is a problem. If states like Ohio, Iowa, and Florida are out of reach, and states like North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Arizona, and Nevada aren’t firmly in the win column, the map tilts conservative. The reality is that further erosion could take Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin out of the Democratic column for good. Even more succinctly, while half the country is going to live in like 8 states that will be more diverse, the other 42 states are going to be decidedly white. The Democratic Party’s decline with white voters largely has stabilized for a quarter century though, and Kamala Harris did better with white guys than one might have guessed. I’m not sure what in our modern history suggests that we need to nominate Neo Nazis, crooked “every” men, and people who go on conspiracy podcasts in order to win? We got more votes than anyone in history in 2020 by running a moderate guy who had solid appeal to Black voters and didn’t seem like an extremist nut to white and rural voters. We’re risking our strongest bases of support- Black voters, Jewish voters, and educated White women to appeal to who exactly? The descendants of people who moved away from the party between 1966 and 1994? The last few Dixiecrats who ran away in 2010? People who came out of nowhere to vote for Donald Trump in 2016, 2020, or 2024? Do we really think going on Hasan Piker’s ridiculous podcast is going to make us look normal? Didn’t we learn our lesson from thinking normal people listened to Charlamagne? What in the last 60 years of the party makes us think we can get votes from people who don’t vote for us by being more like a New York City Mayor who won’t oppose saying “Globalize the Intifada?” Sure, I do think Democrats overreached with trying to normalize and formalize DEI, #MeToo, and other social movements that the country wasn’t ready for at this time, but are we now going to embrace terrorists and Nazis to chase mythical votes we haven’t received in decades? It should be worth noting that the only group to support eversuccessful Presidential candidate in recent times on the Democratic side are Black voters. Jewish voters are the only other group to support every Democratic Presidential nominee in recent history. Wouldn’t any modest gains made with guys with Nazi tattoos chopping wood in the rural South be offset with the losses we’d take with our base? Seems so to me.
Anyone to study recent American political history understands that the ideological left Democratic Party broke up as the electorate included more and more women, and Civil Rights finally let Black voters vote. Race and gender simply trump ideology in the American electorate. One that wants an ideological party could put in the time to organize and build support for their positions, maybe even try to pass some legislation that moves the ball forward towards their position. Instead, some think the right idea is to wholesale try to turn 60 years of political movement around by embracing lunatics and bigots. It’s a horrible strategy. It’s tone deaf. It’s historically ignorant. It’s a path to losing the 2028 Presidential election. Tread wisely, friends.
Bernie O’Hare reports that Ray Lahoud filed the challenge to Sultana, stating that she only has 484 valid signatures amongst her 901 signatures. He also says her statement of financial interests is invalid. They will now go to a hearing.
Sure, I told you he’s a deadbeat. Sure, I told you he’s a religious fanatic and gun nut. I told you he’s for political violence. I told you he likes election deniers. I told you he wasn’t a fan of Barack Obama. I told you he expressed racist views about Colin Kaepernick kneeling. I told you he’s a fake “everyman.” I told you about his awful endorsers. Hell, I even told you he’s the next Fetterman. I not only told you all of this, I showed you. I showed you his screenshots. I showed you the Superior Court opinion against him for stiffing his mother-in-law. This stuff isn’t questionable. This is the verifiable stuff. I didn’t go into the other stuff I heard, about his private business, about how he came into the Presidency of his union, about some of his friends he’s pals with from over the years, about investigations into him, or even that one of his superiors has a lot to say about him (and is giving it to the Republicans). I even stayed out of what he promised other candidates who exited the race for him. In general, I think you only fire verified shots. More so, I don’t think every past misdeed actually really should matter. Of course, that’s if you’re not a candidate for Congress. If you’re going to seek the nomination of your party for the U.S. Congress, you need to understand that the other side will find everything and make you look as awful as humanly possible. Look at the way Susan Wild was savagely attacked in the last election for doing her job as a defense attorney for Lehigh Valley Hospital. Look, you may not approve of what a client does in any given case, but the premise of our legal system is even that the worst scumbags deserve a lawyer to help them navigate the ordeal in the best legal way possible.
I’ll tell you what, I hope Crooksy has a good lawyer.
Let me give you some background. In 2008, his in-laws transferred a residential property to Brooks and his Wife #1. They even fronted the cost of subdividing the property to the tune of $55,000. Everyman Brooks promised to pay the money back but never did. Eventually, he and Wife #1 signed a promissory note for the money, but he never paid a cent. He was sued, and a $130,000 award was entered against him in 2020. In an effort to string things along, he appealed. He lost in a unanimous Pennsylvania Superior Court ruling. In 2022, judgment was entered against him for $130,000.
That judgment remains open of record.
After screwing over his in-laws, he and his wife eventually parted ways, with a divorce being granted in 2018. Then, in the midst of two mortgage foreclosures and lawsuits by two credit card companies, Brooks quitclaimed his interest in the property to a person who I thought was Wife #1 in 2022. But according to the lawsuit filed against Brooks, he actually quitclaimed his interest to Wife #2 in a Quitclaim Deed that both he and Wife #2 executed.
I’ve told you that Wives #1 and #2 have virtually identical names. Wife #1 is Jennifer Lynne Brooks. Wife #2 is Jennifer Lynn Brooks. There is no “e” in “Lynne” in Wife #2’s name. The lawsuit avers that the Quitclaim was a fraudulent attempt to obscure the real identity of Wife #2 in order to avoid paying a $130,000 judgment. As a bonus for Brooks, this alleged subterfuge would have enabled Wife #2 tro obtain a $330,000 mortgage.
According to the lawsuit, the signature in the Quitclaim is different than the Note signed by Wife #1 and Brooks for the cost of subdividing their property.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the mother-in-law, now seeks $160,000 from Brooks and from Wife #2. In addition, punitive damages are sought for “outrageous” and “malicious” subterfuge that “shock the conscience”
He’s no working-class hero. He’s shady. While there might be an innocent explanation to these allegations of forgery, there’s no denying that Brooks has adamantly refused to pay a family loan, not just a bank loan, for the home in which he lives.
I don’t even know what to add to this. The dude married a lady with the same name as his ex, basically, then pretended he was signing away the property he owed money on to his ex-wife? Remember, he was actually given this property in 2004, or 22 years ago, then signed the promissory note in 2008, then still hadn’t paid ten years later when she sued, then lost his appeal about four years ago, and then he did this. His plan is literally to con this woman out of the money that he signed that he would pay back forever.
I’ve had some Democrats say to me that they think he can get past this. I mean maybe, perhaps if Democrats win 40 seats or more and Josh Shapiro wins by 12 points it’s possible that just enough voters will overlook this man’s personal stench. I mean, Ryan Mackenzie has stayed true to his word and completely enabled a President cares not of constitutional rights, human dignity, helping his fellow man, or doing anything to improve life on this planet with his power, only that he protects himself from prosecution, exposure in the Epstein Files, and enriching himself. That may be enough of an albatross to sink Ryan Mackenzie even if we nominate a fraud who stole from his own family. Maybe. Or maybe Mackenzie slimes him up so badly with his personal baggage that 10-15% of Democrats are personally repulsed and either leave it blank or vote for Mackenzie who wouldn’t have against literally any of the other three. And perhaps we haven’t even seen rock bottom yet. No one has got into that divorce yet. No one has dropped all the stuff I just don’t feel is right to drop. One of his former bosses did give negative info about him to a DC Republican, we have no idea what’s in that.
Nominating this man is malpractice. Some folks are not Congressional material, and God knows that applies here. I get it, a lot of people are so partisan at this point that they’ll vote for Ted Cruz or a guy with a Nazi tattoo to vote against the other side. I guarantee you that’s not every last voter. And it won’t take much. Even in the best election imaginable, no candidate is winning by 10%. I guarantee you that 1 in 20 voters will see this stuff and want to puke before they’d consider voting for this guy. I might even know a few.
Petitions to be placed on the ballot for the May Primary are all done, so in theory we know who will be on the ballot now. Of course, members of your own party can challenge your petitions, either by stating they have a fatal defect, that you don’t have enough valid signatures, or that you are not actually eligible. There’s a lot more legalese than that, but none of you are here to read that. You want to know who is getting challenged. So I’ll tell you about what I know.
Taiba Sultana’s petitions to challenge State Senator Lisa Boscola in Senate District 18’s Democratic Primary are being challenged. Sultana has a rough history with petitions. Two years ago her petitions to challenge State Rep. Bob Freeman made waves when Boscola’s name was actually on her petition as a signer, but at an address that doesn’t exist and in a town which Senator Boscola doesn’t live in. Senator Boscola accused her of forging the signature, which was on a petition circulated by now-County Councilman Nadeem Qayyum, Sultana’s husband. Freeman decided not to challenge her petition, and he ended up beating her by over 50% of the vote, winning every municipality in the district. Supporters of Senator Boscola are apparently not giving Sultana the opportunity to get crushed this time, and they are challenging her petitions. I’m not sure what the challenge is this time, but we’ll hear soon.
The other challenge I heard about was quite interesting. Someone is apparently considering a challenge to Carol Obando-Derstine’s nominating petitions for the 7th Congressional District. I was sent the petition above (I screen shotted part of it) as an example of allegedly forged signatures in her filing. The person sending it also says there are other issues, and someone thinks they can drive her under 1,000 valid signatures with their collective challenges. I was told by a source closer to Carol that she filed over 1,800 signatures and they would be shocked if it’s an issue. I won’t post who circulated this petition, but they do work in government. If I didn’t know better, I’d think some of the Harrisburg boys who are pushing Crooksy want to send this woman a message about who she supports. Then again, Crosswell would also benefit from being the only Lehigh County candidate in the race. Hell, if we’re honest, all three guys would benefit at least a little if she was driven off the ballot. They better really have the goods though, challenging and failing would look bad to insiders (like that matters to any normal people though). You can be the judge of at least the sheet above, but it definitely looks like the same handwriting to me. One sheet wouldn’t be enough to win the challenge though.
We’ll know by 5pm tonight. I’m sure there’ll be more.
You know how sometimes a lot of stuff happens in a week, but really nothing stands out so you really don’t remember anything? Good times. It’s almost Spring. It’s St. Patrick’s Day tomorrow. No matter how bad life is, it’s good right now. Or it could at least be worse. It could still be early February and there could be snow on the ground. Lots of snow, frozen solid because it’s too cold to melt.
So March Madness is here. Locally, Lehigh University is in the big dance, as are two Philly schools, Villanova and Penn, while St. Joe’s is in the NIT. It seems like most of New York City is in, with St. John’s, LIU, and Hofstra in. I haven’t filled out my brackets yet (that’s tomorrow morning), but I think I’m split between Florida and Arizona at the moment, but also considering Duke. Here in Easton, PA, we celebrate March Matness religiously, with this week’s NCAA Division I Wrestling Championships almost being a religious holiday. I’m taking Penn State to win by a million. In the World Baseball Classic this week the United States and Venezuela have advanced to play a championship game tomorrow night filled with geopolitical irony this year. Phillies Cristopher Sanchez, Aaron Nola, and prospect Dante Nori have all stood out for their teams in this tournament, while Phillies Americans Brad Keller, Kyle Schwarber, and Bryce Harper will play in tomorrow’s final. I’m enjoying it. This past weekend was the New Jersey State High School Wrestling Championships, and while the wrestling was good, two tweets stood out- this one about the best Italian names in each weight class and this photo of an amazing scene at the end of a semi-final match on the IBEW Local 102 mat. Peak stuff. Also if you ever thought of giving up on something, 33 year old Izzy Balsiger became an All-American 13 years after previously achieving the honor at the NCAA Division III Wrestling tournament.
Last night was the Oscar’s. I watched Conan’s opening monologue and thought it was pretty funny, but Conan O’Brien is funny. “One Battle After Another” won best picture. Jessie Buckley won best actress for her role in “Hamnet.” Michael B. Jordan won best actor for his role in “Sinners,” officially making him the second most famous Michael Jordan. “Sinners” won four Oscars as a movie, while “One Battle After Another” won six. Nicole Kidman showed up Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez on the Red Carpet. And in my favorite win, “Mr. Nobody Against Putin” won best documentary feature, a big fuck you to Vlad. I still couldn’t sit there and watch the whole show though, ADHD gets in the way.
Well it’s just about St. Patrick’s Day. Go drink a green beer or some Guinness, throw on your Birds jersey for the day, and blast the Dropkick Murphy’s. Oh, and eat all of the corned beef and cabbage that I don’t get to first.
Way back on September 12th, 2025, Congressman Ro Khanna of California endorsed Bob “Crooksy” Brooks for Congress. Crooksy was very proud of himself. He said of Khanna’s endorsement, “My friend (and PA native) Ro Khanna has been a champion for working class people. Grateful to have him on board.” Ro said a bunch of nice things about Crooksy too. None of this is shocking, Ro endorsed Bernie Sanders for President and Bernard endorsed Crooksy on day one. It’s all one little corrupt crew of bros.
I wonder if Crooksy was still proud yesterday. Ro went on a bender of antisemitism and just outright lunacy. He defended left-wing freaks. He defended outright right-wing fascists. It was rather remarkable and stands right up there next to Wilt Chamberlain’s 100 point NBA basketball game as one of the most amazing feats of human achievement in history. Let’s take a look at Ro’s big day.
Defending Pat Buchanan
Ok, this is amazing by any standard.
You cheerled us into the war in Iraq. You called Pat Buchanan antisemitic for criticizing Israel's bombing of Lebanon in 2006. You are one of the loudest supporters for Netanyahu's war in Gaza. Your neocon ideology has done so much damage to America and people are on to it. https://t.co/PiLLRATjNH
This is terrible staff work. If it mattered to him though, he would have required actual work.
Ro Expresses Pride in his Antisemitic Friends
When you’re a United States Congressman, sometimes you just let some things go. Not everyone gets a response. A younger staffer at Third Way is probably not someone you should choose to go after.
I am proud to stand with @grahamformaine@ZohranKMamdani & join @hasanthehun feed. The problem is with the neocons in our party who blundered into Iraq, 20 years in Afghanistan, Libya, Gaza, & now support the Iran war. Out with the old guard. We need a new moral direction. https://t.co/GiTwPD7OSj
Now, there’s the whole issue of whether he should have engaged anyway, but this post comes out around the time today of the synagogue attack in Michigan. Necessary? Definitely not. Let’s go deeper though. He defended three specific people. Let’s look at them.
Khanna "condemns antisemitism" but wants to join the livestream of someone who called Orthodox Jews "inbred," said that those with any positive feelings towards Israel are equal to supporters of Nazi Germany, and praised Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. https://t.co/RCl0gjkym2
Hasan Piker is an asshole, again, pardon the French. I’m not sure why he got famous, but some people listen to him. Not shocking, people vote for Donald Trump. Not that long ago though, saying you supported Hamas, a terrorist organization that kills Palestinians and hasn’t held an election in Gaza in like 20 years was a deal breaker. Saying the same for Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that occupies Lebanese sovereign territory, was also a dealbreaker. And the Houthis? They’re newer to the public debate, but they’re literally shooting at foreign ships coming into their region. No thanks. As for Graham Platner, how about we just don’t add to that. The guy had a Nazi tattoo for decades, goes on Nazi podcasts, and retweets Nazis. Look, whatever good ideas he may have, he’s a Nazi, and I was always taught that’s bad. As for Mamdani, I’ve made it clear how I feel. He’s probably the least offensive of these three, and he’s still awful. I’m not embracing the Intifada, even if I think Israel’s war in Gaza is awful at this point.
To be clear here, we’re not going to claim that all of Ro Khanna’s nonsense is Crooksy’s responsibility- besides, he doesn’t pay up on his responsibilities. The bigger point here is that a lot of the same people end up showing up in all of this antisemitic bigotry. Ro Khanna, Ruben Gallego, and Bernie Sanders are all endorsers of Graham Platner and his Nazi tattoo in Maine, and they’re all endorsers of Obama-hating Bob “Crooksy” Brooks here in PA-7. Hey, at least Crooksy only takes his mother-in-law’s money, that’s a helluva lot better than getting a Nazi tattoo, right? Once Martin Heinrich joins they can get the whole band together. These folks want to effectively U-Turn the Democratic Party from where it’s been post-Barack Obama and take it to some sort of pre-LBJ version where we “prioritize” the “working class again,” which is really just code word with them for white guys (Kamala won every other “working class” demographic in 2024). They’re readily willing to toss aside Jewish voters, who are probably the second most consistently Democratic voting group in the electorate, to appease voters they can’t appease anyway. I don’t know why anyone would want to follow the strategy of a guy who lost two primaries for President by millions and millions of votes and has passed like three bills in thirty years in the Congress, but here we are. On the dumbest timeline. With the dumbest endorsers, endorsing a guy who pulled his shirt over his face when he was asked about funding Israel at a Lehigh Valley 4 All meeting (the video has since been made private by the group). We’re going to pretend there is some sort of morality here, some sort of strategic vision here, quite frankly some sort of brain waves here. Meanwhile this snake oil salesman is being endorsed by a Congressman defending Pat Buchanan. Great times.
Now, as I said, there was a second thing that happened. Last night Muhammad “Sef” Casim lost a special election for the Prince William County Supervisor race in the Woodbridge, VA district. Dems had held it for 38 years. “Sef” was a problematic candidate, not unlike Platner. He says really racist shit. Casim was also an outright antisemite. Republican Jeannie LeCroix beat him by 6% and almost 20% wrote in another candidate. After winning a primary running as a far left nut, Casim blew a lay up race, failing to even reach 40%. Much like Mamdani, the general electorate was less impressed with his left-wing populism and looked for literally any other option but to vote for this bigot. Northern Virginia, much like New York City, is very Democratic. Once you got beyond the primary, most Democrats don’t want this kind of vile shit.
The “new” Democratic Establishment, built of consultants and operatives from the Bernie and Fetterman world, are building a Democratic establishment that will cement MAGA control of the White House for years to come. It’s a road to nowhere. Here in PA-7 they are promising jobs to young candidates and electeds who endorse them, and painting a rosy picture of a future that looks very much like a Bernie rally. It’s fools gold. Bernie Sanders lost cleanly twice when he ran for President, because he couldn’t build a coalition of people who were bought in enough to vote for him against the “boring old” establishment figures that he and Mr. Nazi Tattoo want to create. Regular, real people who live in this country don’t want this shit. Most people want to be normal. Our party does not want a revolution:
Analysis of the data suggests the Democratic coalition can be broken into three distinct blocs. Moderates—voters who identify as moderate Democrats, independents, or anti-Trump Republicans—account for 47 percent. They are demographically diverse, older on average, and the most electorally flexible—only 45 percent say they have never voted for a non-Democratic presidential candidate.
A second bloc, Progressive Liberals, make up 37 percent. They are reliably left-leaning, whiter than the other blocs, and disproportionately concentrated in suburbs and on the West Coast.
Last comes the Woke Fringe—voters who identify as democratic socialists or Communist. These add up to just 11 percent of the coalition. The Woke Fringe is the youngest of the three groups, the most conspiratorial, the most likely to report poor mental health, and—not incidentally—the most likely to spend excessive sums of time on the internet. Notably, previous quantitative and qualitative Manhattan Institute research on the GOP coalition shows that the youngest and most hyper-online Republicans also skew hardest toward ideological wackiness.
So why the hell are we listening to a bunch of lefty white guys who want to expel Jews and welcome Chairman Mao to the party? It’s somewhat the fault of donors. It’s somewhat the fault of podcasters. It’s largely the fault of “the bubble children” in DC that manage the interest groups in between their stays at the party committees. What they are building is a party that isn’t likable. They are building a party that is weird, fake, and harmful in the eyes of most Americans. They’re building a freak show. We need to reject them. A fake “working class hero” movement lead by an 80 something year old that used his campaigns to make money isn’t useful.
Apocalypse Vibes 