Interesting stuff here–

On or about March 17, 2026, an Allentown resident – John Santana – observed that Crosswell’s red box content was set to password-protected, rendering it inaccessible to the general public. Santana also followed up four days later, only to find the red box still private. According to the complaint filed with the FEC, it “created a situation in which any outside group accessing and using this content could only have done so through direct or indirect coordination with the campaign,” in violation of FEC regulations.

The complaint also states that Crosswell “potentially facilitated illegal in-kind contributions to (his) campaign from outside groups operating on non-public materials.”

Campaigns post specific messaging requests, video footage, and voter targeting information (e.g., demographics) on their websites, often using a distinctively marked red box, notes the Campaign Legal Center. Often times, coded language is used, such as “see” for TV ads, “hear” for radio, or “read” for direct mail, to guide the outside group.

Redboxing also commonly involves posting footage and photos of the candidate, as well as strategy tips about the race. A super PAC supporting the candidate then uses the footage and photos along with the campaign-requested messaging in its ads.

I’ll say two things here- red boxes are completely legal. Second, and probably more importantly, there’s no reason on God’s Green Earth to put a password on your red box. Campaigns don’t use their websites to store their content. The only reason to have a red box is to make the information available to your outside supporters via one way communication. I have no idea what Crosswell, or for that matter Carol, had a password on their red box. Maybe they weren’t meant to be public yet for some reason. Or maybe they were giving the password out, as the complaint suggests. I don’t know how you ask the FEC to go find probable cause to investigate that though. I thought you needed probable cause to investigate.

Another thing that just peaked my “spidey sense” a bit here- the individual filing the complaint is an operative. It’s not clear who he’d be working for though. He’s worked for the PA Dems (So maybe Brooks?), Working Families Party (Brooks), Make the Road (Brooks? I haven’t seen who they’re supporting), and interned for former Congresswoman Susan Wild. Regardless of who he did this on the behalf of, he caught something here. Putting a password on a red box is weird.

I’m going to lay this out pretty simply. Who is the real you? Absolutely none of us are exactly the person that we think we are in our minds. No one thinks *they* are a bad person when they’re doing bad things. They justify it to themselves, and sometimes there’s even logic to it. Life gets in the way of our better ideals sometimes. We take inconvenient, contradictory positions. That becomes even more true in the pursuit of power, riches, and fame. It’s why politics in general is full of a bunch of kiss asses who want important titles and positions. It’s not that they want to be kiss asses, but sometimes life gets in the way. I lived that life for like 22 years. Now I really don’t give a shit who hates me, or what blacklist they’re going to put me on. I’m just happy to be alive. I really don’t care if I’m never chairman of the committee on whatsha-muh-call-it, or get to speak at next year’s awards dinner. It’s small stuff.

Actions speak louder than words though. A guy sitting at the house his ex-in-laws helped him get, posting Oathkeeper memes is speaking his truth. A political candidate trying to convince voters to vote for him to be their Congressman will lie. Oh sure, they’ll tell you and themselves it’s not a lie, they’ll make up a reason they converted and saw the light. But they do that after how many years? It was 22 years ago that Bob “Crooksy” Brooks accepted help from his in-laws financially, it was 18 years ago that he signed a promissory note to pay it back, it was like 8 years ago that he was sued, and it was like four years ago that he lost his appeal in front of the Pennsylvania Superior Court, and for like all of that time he and his ex sat by and didn’t pay back the money they signed a contract to pay back. I’m sure he’s justified it in his own mind. I’m sure he thinks you should justify it as a bad divorce or “hard times,” or whatever too. But for a period of time longer than too many people’s lives, he didn’t do what he said he’d do.

In 2012, Bob wasn’t a Congressional candidate yet. He wasn’t the President of a statewide union yet. No Governors were calling him up and trying to be his friend, no Senators in Arizona knew who the hell he was, and certainly Bernie Sanders wasn’t too concerned about him yet. He was a normal guy, on the internet, stating his truth. His truth? He thought Barack Obama sucked. Why? Did he hate Obamacare? Did he wish Osama Bin Laden was still alive? Did he wish all those UAW jobs in Detroit that Obama saved were gone? Did he think passing modern banking regulations, or putting in place the first coherent strategy for fight climate change was bad? Maybe he wished the American economy had fully melted down in 2009? I don’t know. Now he has his “friends” Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, Josh Shapiro, and Ruben Gallego telling you he’s some sort of progressive champion. He’s an every man. Does he mean “every” man, or does he mean every man that isn’t like Colin Kaepernick that wanted to protest inequities and biases in our society? What exactly made him say that Kaepernick was a douchebag? Listen, I don’t pretend to love that Kaepernick became a symbol of protest in our country while justifying not voting. Bob didn’t cite that though, kind of like he never told us why he disliked Obama at the time. The truth is that he did not agree with the majority of Democrats on Obama, or Kaepernick, but now wants you to know that he’s going to restore “true” Democratic values in Washington, if you just trust him. Kind of like he was going to pay back his mother-in-law, trust him.

Today Bob wants you to vote for him for Congress. In 2019 he was posting a “III%’er” meme saying we need school prayer and guns in our society. Today he’ll tell you he doesn’t mean that. Of course not, Democratic Primary voters don’t like that. Does Bob though? He will definitely tell you he didn’t mean it then, and especially that he didn’t mean it in the context of posting it days after an armed white nationalist lunatic shot up a bunch of people at an El Paso Walmart. Trust him, he’s telling you the truth now with his words, not with his 2019 actions. Trust him, like his mother-in-law should have.

You know, there’s a lot of people who express political views they come to regret later, some genuinely and some because it becomes a problem for them. There’s plenty of people who fight with their family and have money issues. There are literally millions of Democrats with mixed and even negative views about the direction their party has chosen to take, including the person you’re reading right now. I could almost give “Crooksy” a pass on it all today. Almost. He should have run as who he is, who he demonstrated he is by his actions over decades. Of course, he may not know who that is, since he originally endorsed one of his opponents and then decided to change his mind like a starf**ker once he got a little attention from some powerful people telling him he should run. But you see, that’s the thing- I get lying to yourself, anyone can be a hypocrite, but it’s that Bob lies to literally anyone. I mean, the guy’s argument for his 2022 appeal of the money he owed his ex-mother-in-law was mostly that she *waited too long* to try and collect it. Not that he didn’t sign it in the first place. He argued technicalities. But now he wants you to know that she never really wanted it anyway, even after having him sign a contract, and she’s not a great person. But you know, forget that he signed it, right?

Some people say we shouldn’t go negative in a primary. Still more say we should let candidates explain their past. Look guys, that’s just not how campaigns work. You either find out now and decide if you can accept a lying right-wing MAGA guy as your Congressman, or you find out in September and October when some shady super PAC pastes it on your eye balls with TV ads. Maybe you’re fine that he was funding election deniers and pro-lifers while not endorsing Kamala Harris from his post as a union leader. You should probably know that you need to be fine with that. All I’ve done about him here is tell you the truth, there’s nothing more I can do with it. As one family member said to me, “he’s the one that’s going to win.” And you know what, maybe he is. I mean look at all the people who initially said they’d support someone else, or were natural allies with the folks supporting another candidate, and now they’re all defending the indefensible because they’re afraid of retribution. As I said up top, it’s a business of kiss asses. People who want to keep their “important title/job” in the party. So they want people to keep quiet, in the hopes that they can ram him through the primary and hope that people are so sick and mad about Trump that they’ll still vote for this pile of slop. Then maybe sometime in the next couple of years before the guy loses when the political atmosphere evens out more, just maybe he’ll take a picture with them at a gala or endorse their candidacy for dog catcher in Podunk Township. That’s what it’s all about, right?

Forget all of that though, let’s just accept the obvious truth- Bob “Crooksy” Brooks believed everything he said online, everything he did in his life, and is exactly the person his actions suggest, he’s just sorry he got caught. Now that he’s a candidate he needs to be what John Fetterman’s consultants are telling him to be, to win this primary. I’m sure he won’t flip back to some of his old positions once he’s nominated though, it’s not like there’s other voters out there who do believe these things. There’s no way he was being honest as an actual “every man” citizen in 2019 or 2012, he’s being honest now as a candidate. I guess you could almost believe that if you’re just getting to know him now in 2026. Some folks knew him when he was the bartender he talks about on his commercials. They knew the real Bob “Crooksy” Brooks. The one he’s apologizing for now. They knew the “Crooksy” who wasn’t Congressional material. Be honest, you do too.

I spent months telling you all about Bob “Crooksy” Brooks. I told you how he stiffed his mother-in-law. I told you how he’s a religious radical and gun nut. I told you how he hates Barack Obama. I told you he’s a racist. I told you recently how his camp is getting aggressive lately with people. I’m going to be honest, this guy is by far the worst of the four people running. There were some people who said I was making things up or embellishing them. The truth was that I did neither.

Now the media is covering it too. MSN covered him being sued by his mother-in-law. Now the Washington Post is covering his racism and cultural radicalism. Last week, PoliticsPA covered how his campaign is hiding him because of his poor performances. Frankly, this should have happened months ago, but I’m glad they’re covering this.

There is a strain of thought that no one should say anything negative in a primary campaign. That’s stupid. There will be lots of negatives in a general election, regardless of how badly you don’t like that. It is better that these things reach the public early and are known ahead of nominating someone. If Bob wasn’t a candidate, none of this stuff would be relevant to public discussion. It’s relevant because he, and a few cynical folks who wanted him to run, got himself into this race. That was a mistake, and we need to make sure the public continues to hear about this information and knows it completely.

Bob “Crooksy” Brooks is a time bomb waiting to blow on the Democratic Party, and the Washington and Harrisburg establishments are trying to force him on us. He stiffed his mother-in-law out of tens of thousands of dollars. He hated Barack Obama. He hated Colin Kaepernick. He loves guns and school prayer. You wonder why the guy is a Democrat. It doesn’t look like he was before. His terrible beliefs alone would be worth hiding.

Of course, Crooksy’s handlers are trying to hide him:

PoliticsPA has learned that prior to the debate, representatives of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) informed the debate’s organizers that it did not want to make the video of the event available online without a disclaimer. The DCCC cited concerns that footage would appear in GOP attack ads against the primary winner in the general campaign.

To others, the suggestion appeared as a tactic to protect Brooks, who has received endorsements from Gov. Josh Shapiro, Sen. Bernie Sanders, and former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, among others.

And right on cue, a noun, a verb, and Josh Shapiro.

“D.C. Republicans and Bob’s political opponents are leveling desperate attacks for a simple reason: Bob is the candidate that Governor Josh Shapiro, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, countless local leaders, and working people agree is the best to take on Donald Trump, flip this seat, and fight for us,” said Brooks campaign manager Jenna Kaufman.

Countless local leaders? Not outside of Allentown. Not really anywhere else in the district either. Bob’s a creation of Beltway creatures and folks out in our Capitol on the banks of the Susquehanna. There’s no other substance with this guy though. Bob really has no idea why he’s running, other than people who benefitted asked him. He probably knows his own union’s issues well at this point, but he’s shown no mastery of anything else. The guy remains incoherent, months into his campaign. He can’t put together a full answer about any policy:

By some accounts, Brooks, the president of the Pennsylvania Professional Firefighters Association, had a difficult evening, barely answering the questions posed by journalist Ryan Gaylor, before returning to his talking points.

He was posed one question by Gaylor about how he would reduce the country’s climate warming carbon emissions and better prepare for the increasingly severe impacts on climate change.

All Brooks could offer was that all the climate cuts that President Trump made need to be “put back into legislation.” He then talked about his time driving a snowplow, before returning to “replacing the cuts that have already been put in place. It’s simply about putting the concept back into the legislature and covering those and getting them back into play because everything we’ve been taken out of, the kind of thing we’re looking at now.”

He was also asked to square the statement that he would ban money from political action committees in politics, yet, he has taken in more from PACs than the other three candidates.

“Don’t hate the player, hate the game,” replied Brooks. “I’m not a congressman. I can’t make those rules. The rules are made and you have to play by the rules that are in place.”

When pressed if he is making a distinction between corporate PACs that he opposes and PAC money that have donated to him, Brooks said, “Listen, I’d like to get all money out of politics, but you need to be able to work and be able to fund your campaign. And you can’t fund a campaign on 20 bucks.”

Don’t hate the player, hate the game. An incoherent answer on climate change. This guy would be an embarrassment in Congress. It’s amazing that people think he’s up to this challenge.

They don’t though. He’s just convenient for them. It’s so important for them that they drag him across the line that they’re starting to get aggressive with folks. Make no mistake, when both negative articles about Crooksy went offline yesterday after being published, I’m sure there was pressure involved. I mean, the DCCC asked debate organizers to not put the damn debate online. What does that tell you? They have a rutabaga for a candidate and know they need to hide him. It’s still worth it for their personal aspirations, so they’ll do it. They can’t possibly think this guy is coherent.

Look, it would have been best if this guy didn’t run. On the one hand, if he wins, the Lehigh Valley will be represented by someone who is incapable and personally embarrassing. If he loses the general election we continue to be represented by a Trump rubber stamp. If he loses the primary now, really to anyone, it will leave hard feelings, but better that than the damage he’d do beyond this point. Like anyone else with personal baggage like his, he should have dropped out and dealt with his lawsuit issue that he’s put off for 22 years. Instead he’s compounding that by bumbling through this campaign. People are starting to notice, and that’s sad.

I’m not really shocked anymore. Bob “Crooksy” Brooks has nothing to talk about. The guy doesn’t pay his debts. The guy believes right-wing radical positions. He’s a racist. He hates Barack Obama. He holds odd views about political violence. So he just repeats Josh Shapiro, Bernie Sanders, and Pete Buttigieg on a loop. He has no issues on which he’s campaigning, just vague “working class values.” He’s basically John Fetterman, but Josh Shapiro likes this version.

The heat is on Crooksy and his team, and maybe it’s a bit too much. His campaign is calling up people who support other candidates publicly and trying to make them listen to why they’re wrong. Since it wasn’t me, I won’t describe it as attempts at intimidation, but that was certainly my experience with them. One of their wannabe thug endorsers tried to get in my face about writing about their organization on here. When I asked her if I was wrong in what I wrote, all she could reply was “it’s not exactly how it went.” Of course she was probably drunk, which is fine and all, but I found it hilarious she thought she’d intimidate me. Lady, I’ve been to the brink of death, do you think I care?

Then there was the missed interview with Lehigh Valley News. Look, I’ll be fair to the staff people on the race here, every campaign makes some scheduling mistakes and forgets some stuff. Crooksy may have just honestly messed up. Or, he’s hiding away now. According to the commenters he skipped the ROAR candidate forum in Bethlehem. A person who was supposed to be a moderator for the Blue Ridge debate reports that “it sounds like Brooks is pulling out of it.” No shock. Let the commercials talk for them, because the candidate isn’t up to complicated answers. He pulled his shirt up over his face when asked about aid to Israel at one event last year.

Then there was his latest mailer, which sums up his campaign better than anything- zero substance and some endorsements from people using him. Bob is just going to DC for a good time and his endorsers just want him to go so it helps them. Kind of simple.

This guy is a zero. I’d take any of the others first. At least they didn’t stiff family.

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.