Starting now.
Commonalities where guests find
common ground through uncommon
conversations, politics,
religion, finances,
all the topics your grandmother told
you not to discuss with friends.
And now your host, Matthew Dowling,
and today's guests commonalities.
Well, hello everyone, and
thank you for tuning in to, uh,
our first episode of Commonalities.
This is a show where we want to have
people that have different mindsets,
whether it be in the world
of politics or otherwise, um,
where they have a conversation and
try to come up with what they can
agree on. So we wanna find
a, a common placeholder, um,
that everyone kind of lives
by and abides by. And, uh,
I think these conversations
are extremely important.
I have two fantastic guests with
me today. First is Chuck Pasal,
um, and I'm gonna let him introduce
himself in just a moment. He is a,
a progressive, he's a Democrat.
And then, uh, a name that you,
you may have heard because he just,
uh, ran for Lieutenant Governor.
And our primary race is, uh, Jeff Coleman.
He is a conservative Republican.
So we're coming at it from
two different angles and, uh,
gonna have our conversation today.
Chuck will let you open up with, uh,
with kind of a little bit
of your background in some
of the things you're known
for.
All right. Thank you, Matt. And it's
an honor to be here on your first, uh,
show. I, I appreciate the
invitation and, and, uh,
obviously appreciate the invitation to
speak with my old friend, Jeff Coleman.
Um, I am, um, uh, an active Democrat.
I'm currently the county chairman of the
Democratic Party in Armstrong County.
Um, but going back in time, I
was, um, a school board member in,
um, uh, Leechburg for 16 years. I
was the mayor of Leechburg for four.
I currently on, uh, council in
Leechburg. That's by the way,
that's in Armstrong
County. Um, and, um, uh,
I, I'm an attorney. Uh, I'm
a criminal defense attorney,
as well as I do election law and as
well as some other things. And, um,
uh, been involved in the party
since the Democratic Party,
since I was 16 years old. Uh,
was represented by Jeff Coleman for
a while here in Armstrong County. Uh,
until, uh, there a rumor, uh, uh, uh,
came up that I might run against Jeff.
And then all of a sudden
I was redistricted out of
his district. And, and, uh,
uh, I was the only,
I was in the only municipality
in Armstrong County that
wasn't in his district.
So I'm sure that was a
coincidence. But in any case, uh,
Jeff and I have always had a good, uh, uh,
respectful relationship
and always had fun, uh,
on some local cable shows here in
Armstrong County. Uh, and, uh, it's,
I'm just happy to be here with, with,
uh, uh, Jeff and, uh, you, Matt. And,
uh, uh, we could talk about my,
some of my legal things. Uh, I've,
I've done election law. I've done, uh,
a lot of petition challenges on behalf
of Democrats. And, um, of course,
I'm a leader in, in the Democratic Party.
Been on state committee for a long time,
and I'm currently the
county chairman here.
Well, thank you so much, uh,
Chuck, and then Jeff, uh,
if you wanna tell us a little
bit about your background.
Well, I guess a little bit like Chuck.
Uh, I started, uh, my political life in,
uh, as a teenage Republican and
then a young Republican and, uh,
a Republican committee
man. And, uh, I was,
I was 13 years old when I signed
up for my first, uh, campaign.
Um, my dad was a pastor of a
little Presbyterian church in, uh,
in Southern Armstrong County in
Apollo. And, uh, my mom is where,
where I get my hair from
is a Filipino, and, uh,
there weren't that many
Filipinos in Armstrong County.
And so it wasn't a natural
starting point, uh,
for Republic office. But, uh, went,
went away to Liberty University,
it came home and, uh, challenged,
uh, an incumbent Democrat, uh,
who had been in office in some form,
uh, for the better part of my lifetime.
And, uh, was fortunate enough to
be able to, to win an election,
a couple of points, um, over the 50% line.
And, uh, really just meeting
people, knocking on doors, um,
asking for their support. And I needed to,
to get a significant number of
Democrats to cross over and vote for me.
So this isn't a new conversation from
me. Chuck and I, uh, our friendship,
uh, I mean, he was at my wedding. So
we're, we're more than than just, uh,
occasional sparring partners. You know,
this is a person that I have a
lot of respect for, um, knows,
know that at the end of a conversation
we can really disagree on some,
some core things about how we view
budgets or taxes or social issues
or, um, education. But in the end,
say that there is a lot
more that we have in common.
We care a lot about the same things, uh,
but maybe where we come at it is a little
different. Um, so as you mentioned,
Matt, I ran for Lieutenant Governor
this past year after being out of, um,
office for about 17 years. And, uh,
politics had changed a lot significantly,
just in that little span
where it is not just trill and
loud and name calling, but
it's gotten so deeply bitter.
And there are very few places that
you can travel anywhere where you
will have a conversation with
a Democrat or a Republican. Um,
you're not gonna find a
Democrat in a, in a church.
Often that's predominantly
Republican, vice versa. Um,
very few working environments now.
People can't even talk about politics
because it gets so bitter. Uh,
and then our Thanksgiving day,
um, is divided in America.
So we're, we're, we're Chuck
and I, and I know you are, uh,
Matt,
looking for ways to stitch together
a conversation where at least we
can get back to civil and reasonable
debate on things that really matter.
Yeah, and,
and Chuck and I were talking before we
went live here with the show today. Uh,
a little bit about, uh, working across
the aisle, and I was just saying, um,
you know, I'm retiring this
year, but also retiring is, uh,
my neighbor in the
legislature, Pam Snyder,
and Pam and I have had a
great working relationship.
And sometimes having a conversation with
someone from across the aisle actually
makes you think a little bit harder
about why your priorities are where
they are. And that's why I think
it's so important for us to have, uh,
conversations like this today.
We do have to get a quick
sponsorship break in, and, uh,
we'll be back in just a couple
minutes when we come back,
we're gonna be talking about kind of the
ideal setting, what we're looking for,
uh, in the political
landscape here in the future.
So we'll be back in just a moment.
You're listening to commonalities
or guests find common ground through
Uncommon Conversations.
We'll be back after this brief
break to recognize our sponsors.
When it comes to buying a home,
what you see isn't exactly what you get.
That's why home buyers should
call Dave Dowling At Grandview
Inspections at 7 2 4 2 0 8 4 1 0 8.
You'll see colorful flowers,
freshly painted walls,
granite countertops, fleeing
hardwood floors, and other touches.
What you can't see is the
cracks, ancient plumbing,
dangerous wiring,
or broken appliances that might
be revealed when you hire a
home inspector. And when it
comes to home inspectors,
knowing yours has the qualifications
and experience needed,
should be your number one
concern. Dave Dowling,
with Grand View Inspections,
is an architectural engineer with over
30 years of commercial construction
experience and hundreds of
inspections under his belt.
A home inspection is an opportunity
for you to hire an expert to walk
through the home and prepare a report
outlining the home's major components.
What needs immediate attention and
what will require maintenance after you
move in your home is one of
your biggest investments.
So make sure your investment is
everything you hoped it to be.
Call Dave Dowling at
Grandview Inspections at
7 2 4 2 0 8 4 1 0 8.
Is your business using analog
strategies in a digital marketing world?
If so,
then contact Matthew or Rebecca
Dowling at Coordinated 360 for a
professional consultation where we
bring in depth knowledge and functional
expertise with a holistic perspective.
Coordinated 360 provides
digital marketing, paid ad
and media buying services,
web design, social media management,
video production, and more for businesses,
organizations, and political
campaigns with decades of experience.
Matt and Becky at Coordinated 360 can
help you craft your unique message
and share it with the world.
For a no risk media evaluation
and recommendations,
call 7 2 4 3 2 0 22 12,
or visit us online at
www.coordinatedthreesixty.com.
Find us also on Facebook,
Instagram, and Twitter,
or email info coordinated three sixty.com.
Well, you're listening to
commonalities on WBS five 90 am
1 0 1 0.1 fm, and any place
you download your podcasts,
uh, find us in the Apple
Podcast store or on Amazon. Um,
I'm with Jeff Coleman today.
Uh, he's a Republican that, uh,
recently ran for Lieutenant
Governor and Chuck Pasco.
Chuck is a Democrat and
chair of his county party.
Um, so gentlemen, we wanna talk a
little bit about the ideal, and,
uh, Jeff, maybe I'll, I'll let
you start our conversation.
Well, I think the ideal is that you have
two, uh, two, maybe three, maybe four,
but at least two, uh,
schools have thought that are represented
on borough councils and legislatures
at the national level, uh,
where you have a philosophical divide
where you look at the a problem and you
say, all right, we can go this
way. We can go that way. And then,
and then you begin to
say, uh, each side, uh,
has to find out how do you get to at
least a little bit of what the other side
wants that you have. There's
a bit of a tug of war,
and then you have a civil process
with rules that govern it, decorum,
uh, there are Gavels and
Roberts rules of order. And, um,
in our case, uh, Matthew, um, the, uh,
Mason's manual that are the
guardrails around the debate that
keep it from turning personal, you
know, the, the rules that say, um,
we have to say the gentleman from, or
the gentle lady from, or Mr. Speaker,
Madame Chairman.
Those are the kinds of things that
people are often saying, well,
why do we have to be so nice and
kind to each other? You know,
why can we just get down to the
heart of the issue and put gloves on?
The problem is the people that were
sworn to represent Borough Council
Legislature, Congress, um,
don't have any action on the issues
that they are looking to have resolved.
And so the ideal is working
cooperative, controlled fighting,
uh, fighting with rules that don't,
that don't aim to destroy the other
person or eliminate them from the
discussion.
And Chuck, what does the ideal in the
political landscape look like to you?
As Jeff was kind of alluding to, you know,
those of us that are in local government,
and Jeff was in local government before
he, he, he went to the legislature,
uh, on school boards. Well, I mean,
school board is less so now, but,
but for the most part, but
Borough Council, et cetera,
there is no Democrat or
Republican way to fix a playground
or to fix a pothole or to pave a
street, right? Uh, on my council,
there are four Democrats and three
Republicans. Okay? We all get along.
We're all there for one purpose,
and that's to do what's the best thing
for our community and the people in our
community. And we talk to
each other. And, you know,
when we see each other, you know, out
somewhere, we'll have a beer together,
or we, after the meetings, we'll
go out for a drink together.
And that's the way it should be.
We're all there for the same purpose.
Now in the legislature,
and I know a lot of people
in the legislature on both
sides of the aisle and in
Congress lately, in the last 10,
20 years, maybe a little longer,
we've started to get to the point where
the sides really don't talk to each
other anymore. It used to be when I,
when I first got involved years ago, I,
you know, in, in the, in the
eighties, I knew in the nineties,
I knew that that legislators
on both sides of the aisle,
they would fight like hell on
the floor and in committee,
and then they'd be able to go out for
dinner together and go out and have a,
have a drink together and talk to each
other, and they were friends, right?
And that's how it needs to be. Again,
what we've gotten to now is there's
so much vitriol and so much like
distrust to the other side and, and,
and making the other side a demonn or
whatever, and it starts in the campaigns.
But it, but for some reason, you know,
we've always had tough campaigns,
but then it, it,
but now it translated over into
distrust among colleagues in the house
and, and, and the senate and, and
both the state and federal level.
And nothing gets done.
Nothing of value gets done,
and bills are ramp brew on party
line votes without real discussion
and votes. And, and,
and then we, you know,
then we read the bills and we're
like, well, they missed this.
There's the hole in this, this
thing's badly drafted, whatever.
Whereas if everybody talked
to each other along the way,
as friends, as colleagues
who disagree, no doubt,
who have philosophical
differences, no doubt.
But if they talked to each other and
trusted each other and liked each other as
friends, we could, we could have
much better legislation with,
with, you know, with much less
drafting errors, much less holes,
much less problems. Because when you,
when when you pass bad legislation,
you may have fixed one problem
that you've created five more.
Well,
and and so I want to shift our
conversation a little bit and talk about
where the system is broken.
And I want both of you to give
your perspective, but, you know,
as someone who is, is just
leaving the legislature,
something that I absolutely
hated was the weaponization
of the amendment process. Uh, and
what I mean, what I mean by that is,
you know, we refer to
him as a gotten replace.
If I'm a Republican running an
extremely conservative bill,
a Democrat will run a, uh,
an amendment that is a gut and replace
that takes all of the language of my bill
away and puts in his or hers. And, uh,
the process of talking out
problems in legislation
is ignored because, you
know, further than talk,
we have the ability to amend
and vote on amending an A bill.
But when we've rep weaponized
that process, then we,
we don't have the ability to have
that conversation and make functional
changes to make legislation
better. Instead,
we're simply grandstanding on one
side or the other side of the issue.
And I'll, I'll be honest with
you, in my six years experience,
I've seen both parties do
it. So it's not just a, a, a,
a hack of one party or
the other. So, uh, Jeff,
let's go to you and talk a little bit
about where you've identified that the,
the process is broken.
I think you talked about one of the
symptoms, the amendment process there, it,
the, the vote on, um, um, the
speaker, the, I mean, any,
any vote in the legislative process or
any vote at the local borough council
level can be turned into a
weapon. And the weapon is,
I'm going to expose you or embarrass
you in your local newspaper,
or I'm gonna make sure that,
you know, I'm giving, um,
giving a line or two in your
opponent's next mail or TV commercial.
Um, and so all of it though,
comes down to the lack of personal
respect, uh, between people. If,
if, you know, look over the,
the last many, many years,
there has been a major effort to
recruit, I'm just gonna say this broadly,
people of faith to come into
the political process. So what,
what exactly does that mean, especially
for those who identify as Christians?
Shouldn't that mean
there's a lot more, uh,
love and patience and kindness
and generalists in this process?
What you have though,
is you have people who are coming in
to make a name for themselves as a,
whatever the interest
group they represent, uh,
and then they find opponents in
the legislative body who instead of
making friends,
become examples of people
who they can go back to raise
money on, they can go back to their, you
know, their legislative districts. I,
I think a lot about this
scene on the steps of the US
capital after, uh,
nine 11 when you had people like
Nancy Pelosi and Rick Santorum
and all of the Republican and
Democratic members of the,
of the House and Senate standing
on the capital steps singing
God Bless America.
And then fast forward to a
couple years ago when you had,
um,
one of the fire firebrand
conservative congresswoman and,
and, uh, a firebrand democrat, uh,
two women standing on
the, on the same steps,
screaming at each other in front of about
200 photographers. And both of them,
I asked people, so who won that?
Well, both of them won because both
of them were able to raise money
off of this theatrical moment. That's
why you have young people saying,
I don't, I don't believe politics is
a serious business. It's all a game.
And you will say whatever you need to
say to raise money and get elected.
You know what, one of the things
that I've always wished was, uh,
that there was an on off switch for
campaigning because we come out of
a campaign and, uh, you know,
you fought tooth and nail,
and then it's time to
actually do the people's work.
And if we can't get outta campaign
mode where I'm always trying to get a
one line or a gotcha on you,
then we can't have realistic
change happen. And really,
I think that that drags government to a
halt. And, uh, you know, Jeff, I know,
uh, instead of having an on off switch
for your campaigning, you talked, uh,
a lot in your recent race for Lieutenant
Governor about having a different
type of campaign where you
didn't go negative. And, uh, and,
and if you wanna just
elaborate on that for a second,
and then we'll get to Chuck with some of
his feelings on where things are broken
as well.
Yeah, I don't think you can, there's,
there's, I don't think you can now, uh,
transition from a
campaign where, you know,
if a campaign is spending 20, 30, 40,
50 million destroying another person,
and then you say, just
kidding, or Let's shake hands,
or let's get back to work.
The leadership test that
you have as a governor or a,
a US senator or as a legislator
happens in the campaign.
The way that you campaign the, the,
whether or not you veto the
mailer that has the dumb picture
that was photoshopped by a young
designer somewhere thought it would
be funny to put a silly picture of the
opponent with some silly words next to
it. That candidate needs to have the
maturity and the temperament to say,
vetoed not gonna go out with my name
on it. In fact, if you put that,
that mailer out with my name on
it, I'll condemn it. And, uh, so,
and people sometimes are
saying, but look, uh,
this is how the professionals
say that I have to win.
I have to raise their negatives
and raise my positives.
And the only way to raise their negatives
is to spend, you fill in the blank,
whatever the amount of blank check in,
in many cases, to defeat this person,
you have to be convinced in your
heart that that person is an evil
person, and that you, you are the only
person who can stop them. And that's why,
eh, we've gotta get a little dirty, we've
gotta do some things we didn't like.
And then you're gonna go shake their
hand, look their spouse in the eye,
look their child in the eye
after and say, it was all a joke.
Or it was just business not
personal. No, nobody believes that.
You know,
in gone are the days where you can
throw away a piece of political mail and
it's, it's gone. Um, you know,
for those of us that have young
kids and are involved in politics,
I have a nine and a 10 year old. Um,
the negatives that were sent
about me will exist on Facebook
or Twitter. They, the internet
someplace for years and years to come.
Um, you know, so I, I think, uh,
we as the people who are saying yes or
no to those mail pieces that come from
our consultants, you know, and,
and I'll be the first to say,
I've okayed a couple mail pieces that I
wish that I didn't in the past because
they were just sill or foolish.
Um, and, and, you know, took a,
a pot shot at someone. Um, you know,
but those of us that are okaying,
those mail pieces need to think about our
ability to work with that other person
in the future. So, Chuck,
what do you think about, uh,
the system and where it's broken?
Uh, first of all, I wanna say that I
agree with everything that Jeff just said,
and that, you know, the, you're talking
about the amendment process, right?
But, but not just the amendment
process, but like, look,
everybody's vote is fair game.
Everybody's record is fair game
when it comes to a campaign.
The personal stuff is not
in my opinion, but the, but,
but the record is fair game.
But when you're talking about,
say for example, the school code
bill or the fiscal code bill, right?
That has 700 provisions in it
that all do different things,
you know, that no matter how the person
person votes on that, you can attack it,
right?
Because there's something in there that
you can attack because they put so many
things in there that, that,
you know, is like, okay, well,
I'm against this thing and this thing,
but I think I have to vote for
it because overall, whatever.
But some people have the
courage to vote against it,
and they vote against it because there's
something in there that to them is so
against their, their,
their belief system that it
overwhelms the majority of the stuff.
And then you say, well, this
person voted against, you know,
record school funding. Well,
yeah, but they also voted,
but the reason they voted for
against it was this other thing.
So it's gamesmanship.
We know we put everything in there so
that we can attack somebody on something
no matter how they vote. That's what
the legislator, the legislature does.
And it's, and it's the kind of thing
that gets back to not trusting and not,
and not liking your colleagues because it,
because everybody knows that
those are omnibus bills.
Everybody knows that
everything's in there.
Everybody knows that people should be
able to vote how they want on them,
and yet they are the source of attack
time. And again, I mean, in the, in,
in the recent election here, we've seen
that over and over and over again, that,
that people are attacked on bills that
are omnibus bills by pulling out one
sentence out of the bill and saying they
voted against this popular thing that,
now going on with that, with that, um,
theme and what Jeff said
earlier, you know, a,
a very good friend of mine is, is,
is running for an office next year in
Allegheny County. And as part of that,
we've been out talking to some
long retired legislators, okay? And from,
from Allegheny County,
and I remember these guys from
back when I know Jeff served
with some of them. And back
then, right? Back then,
you had some incredibly intelligent,
um,
thoughtful people who were all
about good policy regardless
of where it fell on the spectrum, right?
And they worked with the
other side to get there.
They were people who developed,
once they got their
subject matter expertise in
a particular thing,
they got on a committee,
they become the subject
matter expert in that thing.
And they were serious about policy.
And they're so much fun to
talk to about that even now.
And what we have now in the legislature,
and I'm not talking about you Matt,
but, but I'm just talking about
overall watching the legislature.
What we have now is a, is on both sides,
people who are performative,
performative politics,
but who don't, who, who believe
in certain things policy-wise,
but who never accomplish any of it because
they're doing performative politics,
right?
And they won't work with the other side
to actually get done what they want to
get done.
And it's a real shame because
the losers in that are the people
of Pennsylvania, the losers on it
on a national level in Congress,
are the people of the country that
we cannot get anything done. Every,
every vote is not every vote
clearly in the legislature,
but every vote in Congress
almost is party line, right? Um,
and I know Democrats and the legislature
complain they can't get any of their
bills up on the floor because whatever
people are just holding press conference
after press conference, after
press conference in Harrisburg,
as opposed to doing the real work and
getting the job done and doing legislation
because they will not talk to the other
side. And it's a problem on both sides,
but I think the majority has to be
open to it first, right? I mean,
the majority has to,
whoever the majority is,
has to be willing to talk to the
other side to try to get stuff done.
The minority can be willing
to talk to the other side,
but if the majority isn't willing to
talk back, it doesn't really matter's.
And I know people are hearing
this, Matt, and they're,
and hearing what Chuck and I
are saying and saying, oh, oh.
But what you're really talking
about is going back to the days of,
of smoke filled rooms and
politicians cutting deals,
and they're not being any
transparency and all that.
That's not at all what
we're talking about. We're,
what we're really saying is the same
rules that you would have in a classroom,
uh, in your home with your
parents, with your grandparents,
with your neighbors, uh,
when you go into a store,
just the common decencies of being honest
and, and keeping your word and
showing up on time, and, um,
having discussions about important
issues with just a baseline of
respect.
You don't go in to people you care
about and try to mock them or make fun
of them on social media because, you
know, that would destroy the relationship.
You know, you don't set people up, uh,
with comments in another
environment that's not political or
legislative and just set them up
so that you can go viral on TikTok.
But in politics, what, what
Chuck is talking about,
performative people on the
stage performing for people. Uh,
I I, I've been meeting with,
uh, some, some young, uh,
juniors and seniors in
high school, and, um,
ev to a person, I, very few of them,
of the 200 or so kids that I've met with,
maybe four or five of them think
politics is a serious business.
They all think government is serious,
and the work that's done
in government is serious,
but they don't think that the
commercials and what they see on tv,
what they read about, they, they think
it's all a, a play. It's all a joke.
Entertainment.
Entertainment. Yeah. You.
Know, I, I, I wanna get
to how we fix this issue,
but before we get there,
I wanna talk about who has the
power to fix this issue. Uh,
you would think that, uh, as,
as a politician, my boss is, uh,
is always the people that have
elected me and put me there and, uh,
you know, they have the control
to vote me out. Um, unfortunately,
and we could get into a long conversation
about how maps are drawn, um,
because our, our maps favor
definitely one party over another.
So maybe the people don't have, uh,
as much power all the time as they think
they do in congressional or legislative
districts, um, because that district
leans heavily one way or the other.
But isn't it the people that have the
power through the election process?
Uh, look, I, I think people have
the power, uh, but people are,
need to be very careful
to not be manipulated by
people that are running for office.
And, and what do I mean by that?
I mean that when you,
when you hear politicians speaking
to the things that you are
afraid of,
but they're positioning
themselves as the answer and not
saying, well, let's talk about how we
can solve this problem together. Or when,
if you listen carefully to
what a politician is saying,
and if the majority of what they're
saying is actually to get you mad at the
person they are running against,
so they'll actually benefit.
If you vote against
that person, then your,
your warning lights have to go on when,
and here's one little tell
when a politician is sarcastic
or, and there's just
some subtleties there.
When somebody makes up a nickname or
a rhyme for your political opponent,
and both sides are doing it, that that
alert should go off and you should say,
Hey, I have a lot of respect
for you, Mr. Or Mrs. Politician,
but I'm,
I want somebody who will be serious
about these issues and not just enter,
entertain me or make me laugh because
you can appeal to my base instinct,
but I want you to appeal to
something in me that wants me to,
to be inspired, uh,
about fixing my community or
fixing my state or my country.
Yeah, I mean, I mean, every once in a
while, a laugh is good, right? And it,
and it lightens the, that it can
lighten the mood and whatever,
but overall, they want somebody who wants,
who wants to be serious about policy
and fixing the problem, humor's good.
But it's a question of what that
humor is, how, how personal,
how biting the, that humor is.
Uh, but look, so, so, so Matt,
you asked a question who, right?
Yeah. The people are in charge,
but you know,
it's high time that people
who are elected, right?
Actually show leadership on, on, on
this kind of thing, saying, look,
you know,
we're not gonna just agree with somebody
because they're the leader of the
party, because they're the whatever.
We're just not gonna agree. We're,
we're not gonna just walk
in lockstep to whatever
we're going, you know, we believe
and, and tell the truth. You know,
tell the truth. If, if, if
there's a leader, you know,
I can't imagine who I'm talking about,
who's saying things that are completely
untrue and misleading people, okay?
If the elected people
of that person's party
at all levels, right?
Uh, uh, from down, uh,
down the whole way, had the
courage, had the backbone,
had a spine, and said,
you know, that's not true.
That's not true. Was this whole
thing about is the election? Are the,
are our elections fair? Was the election
stolen? Was this election stolen?
Was this, was this fraud? Was that
fraud? Okay, look, I'm a lawyer.
I litigate those things in
court. If there's evidence of it,
if there's evidence of fraud, I'm
gonna say there's evidence of fraud.
No matter who benefits from that,
okay? As a, as an election attorney,
as somebody who, who cares about that
a lot, I want our elections to be fair,
if I lose and, and there's
fraud that helps me be,
and I, and because I say it's
fraud, so be it. The point is,
it's not about what side you're
on, it's about what the facts are.
And the people who are elected
to office at all levels
have to say when they're, when, when,
when somebody of influence in their
party is saying something that is false,
that is misleading, that is dangerous,
they have to have the courage to stand
up and say what that person's saying is
false. There's no evidence of that.
And then what happens is the
few people that, that have done,
that have gotten their lives threatened,
have got, has been, been, you know,
violence threatened against
them. We have to stop that.
We have to stop having the kind
of discourse that is violent.
We're not a third world country yet.
Chuck. Here's what I hear
people yelling at us right now,
because they're saying, yeah,
but we tried nice before we
tried civil getting along.
And you know what? It doesn't
get us anywhere. So when,
so what I'm hearing people, cause
I heard this on the campaign,
you need somebody who's a little rough
around the edges, who isn't, you know,
so straight laced on, you know,
on in their personal life,
and they're a little bit,
a little bit willing to take risks
with their words and rough people up
a little bit, because that's the
only way we get things done. Now,
I know that people who are listening,
there are some who are cheering.
I'm saying yes, that's exactly what I'm
saying. I think we have to help people,
uh,
understand that what we
sacrifice when we allow
for certain kinds of behavior
is that not only does
everybody try to imitate that behavior,
but it becomes impossible to do all the
good things you actually cared about
long term. Because if you do it the
wrong way, if you don't persuade people,
the tidal wave comes
in, you get thrown out,
all of the things that
you thought you won,
<laugh> are suddenly gone because there's
no, you haven't persuaded the public,
uh, that, that your idea is the right
way. If you get it by hook or by crook,
there's a consequence.
There's nothing wrong with unconventional
rhetoric and unconventional
politicians and roughing people up.
And, and by that I mean verbally not,
not physically, right? And, and.
Clarifying that. Yeah. Right?
There's nothing wrong with any of that
if you're telling the truth, right?
Yeah. But if you're making up facts,
if you're, if you're telling lies,
if you're whatever,
and you somehow get a bunch of people
to actually believe those lies,
it's dangerous. Listen, as
I said, I as an attorney,
as an election attorney, I'm a partisan
short, but above all, I'm, I'm,
I'm for a fair election, right?
And if I looked at every
one of those things
that was said about, you know,
the election and all of that stuff, and,
and whether is it fraud and this was
done, this was this and this and that,
fine, bring it to a courtroom.
That's what we're there for.
That's what courtrooms are for.
Nobody brought evidence. So,
and here we are two years later,
still saying the same things that
there's still no evidence for,
and it's a disservice.
Let's debate issues.
Let's debate where we
want the country to go.
Let's debate where we
want the state to go.
Let's stop the performative nonsense.
Let's stop lying to people and, and,
and let's start solving problems. Cause
there was a lot of problems to be fixed.
And, and, you know, uh, Congress
goes and does very little,
the legislature goes up there to,
to Harrisburg and does very little.
And what they do do, in my view,
they screw up and, and you know, it,
it needs to stop. We need to start
working together again like we used to.
Well, I wanna get in, uh,
one more commercial break
before the end of the show.
When we come back, the question
I'm going to ask, uh, is,
what is an issue or a couple
issues, uh, that either of,
you know, the other would
disagree with you on? And, uh,
and after we have that conversation,
after we have that conversation,
I wanna see how we can get
to, uh, to some common ground.
So we'll be back right after this message.
You're listening to commonalities
where guests find common ground through
uncommon conversations.
We'll be back after this brief
break to recognize our sponsors.
Is your business using analog
strategies in a digital marketing world?
If so,
then contact Matthew or Rebecca
Dowling at Coordinated 360 for a
professional consultation where we
bring in depth knowledge and functional
expertise with a holistic perspective.
Coordinated 360 provides
digital marketing, paid ad
and media buying services,
web design, social media management,
video production, and more for businesses,
organizations, and political
campaigns with decades of experience.
Matte and Becky at Coordinated 360
can help you craft your unique message
and share it with the world. For a no
risk media evaluation and recommendations,
call 7 2 4 3 2 0 22 12,
or visit us online at
www.coordinatedthreesixty.com.
Find us also on Facebook,
Instagram, and Twitter,
or email info coordinated three sixty.com.
When it comes to buying a home,
what you see isn't exactly what you get.
That's why home buyers should
call Dave Dowling at Grandview
Inspections at
7 2 4 2 0 8 4 1 0 8.
You'll see colorful flowers,
freshly painted walls,
granite countertops, fleeing
hardwood floors, and other touches.
What you can't see is the
cracks, ancient plumbing,
dangerous wiring,
or broken appliances that
might be revealed when you hire
a home inspector. And when
it comes to home inspectors,
knowing yours has the qualifications
and experience needed,
should be your number one concern.
Dave Dowling with Grand View
Inspections is an architectural engineer
with over 30 years of commercial
construction experience and hundreds
of inspections under his belt.
A home inspection is an opportunity
for you to hire an expert to walk
through the home and prepare a report
out lining the home's major components.
What needs immediate attention and what
will require maintenance after you move
in your home is one of
your biggest investments.
So make sure your investment is
everything you hoped it to be.
Call Dave Dowling at
Grandview Inspections at
7 2 4 2 0 8 4 1 0 8.
You're listening to commonalities
on WBS five 90 am 1 0 1
0.1 fm,
and any place you download
your favorite podcasts. Uh,
I'm with Jeff Coleman, who
is a conservative Republican,
and Chuck Pasco, who is a progressive
Democrat. Now, before the break,
I said my next question was going to be,
what's an issue that you guys disagree
on and how do you come to some common
ground? We have just under four
minutes to wrap up the show,
so we're gonna have to speak in,
uh, in sound bites. But gentlemen,
tell me what you think.
Well, Chuck is wrong on all the issues,
but the first one that
he is wrong on is, is I,
I'd say probably education reform.
I support, um, a competitive system.
I think school choice is a good idea
and, uh, he thinks it's a bad idea.
And, uh, we, we can start there.
And there are many others.
<Laugh> and Jeff is wrong on everything,
but, um, no, I, you know, I mean,
you know, seriousness,
we have a public school system that
is meant to bring this community,
to bring our, our,
our communities together to educate
people who are rich and poor,
black and white, all races,
all backgrounds together,
and learn to get along.
Part of, part of the,
the problem in my view recently
is that we have allowed
and, and,
and perpetuated and promoted that
separation to the point where we do
not have, you know, the, the,
the kind of diversity in a lot of
public schools that we need to,
so that all people can work
together and learn to work together,
learn to get along, learn to
understand each other's cultures,
learn to understand each other's
backgrounds, and respect it.
And we've set up a system
not only where we have,
uh, uh, allowed, uh, that
that sort of thing to occur,
but also to,
to subsidize that choice,
subsidize that choice.
It used to be that people could make that
choice, but it was on their own dime.
And now the, the, the, the, the,
the people who live in poor communities
who live in poor school districts whose
school districts need resources are being
made to subsidize those choices made
by, by wealthier more,
more ad uh, advantaged, uh,
uh, people. And it's,
and it's not allowing the
understanding to that we used to have,
we all went to school,
those of us who went to public school
with people of all backgrounds,
and we learned to respect that.
But you know, what I hear
in Chuck is substantively,
he and I would agree that, um,
there are challenged
areas in Pennsylvania,
especially in the urban areas
that have underperforming schools.
If we can both agree on that,
we can both debate the solution.
I would say it's a competitive system.
He would say it is getting more
resources to public schools.
That's where you have the debate and
that's how you can have a legitimate
outcome, uh, where, where both sides
can come to some kind of an agreement.
But we have to agree on some of the
problems and on this issue, I know we do.
We used to be able to as, as parties
and as, as as elected officials,
whatever used to be able to agree
on what the problem was and then,
and then argue about the solution.
It's gotten to the point we can't even
agree on what, on what the problem is.
That's true.
Well, guys, we have, uh, come to
the end of our time here together.
You guys have been great guests and, uh,
I really appreciate you signing on for,
uh, for our inaugural episode of
Commonality. So thank you so much.
In just, uh, uh, under 10
seconds each, any final thoughts?
Well, this is an important show. I wish
you the best and I hope you have many,
many more conversations
just like this one.
Matt, it's been an honor to be on your
first show. Uh, I wish you the best, uh,
uh, thank you for trying to
do this. It is, it's awesome.
Thank you both. And, uh,
hopefully we will have you tuning in
for more episodes of commonalities.
Everyone have a great weekend.
May God bless you all.
This has been commonalities,
a show where guests find common
ground through uncommon conversations.
Copyright 2022 coordinated 360,
all public rebroadcast should be done
with prior written approval from Matthew
Dowling. All requests should be sent
to
[email protected]
Thank you for listening to commonalities.