search
top

Web Site Fail

From Capitol Ideas:

Looks Like Rep. Doug Reichley …
… may have a challenger in 2010. Patrick Slattery, a health care industry worker from Lower Macungie Twp. in Lehigh County, writes this morning to let us know he’s decided to throw his hat into the ring for next year’s contest in the 134th House District.
A look at Mr. Slattery’s campaign Web page reveals that he has a wife, family and an MBA. He also goes to church and appears to be active in environmental causes. Annoyingly, however, neither the Web site nor his press release make any mention of whether he’s a Republican or Democrat.
In the absence of such information, we’re pleased to inform the voters of the 134th District that Mr. Slattery will be the first Bull Moose candidate since 1912. So please join us in a hearty welcome to the state’s newest Bull Moose candidate. We’re glad to have you back.

You know, given how both the Republicans and Democrats have been performing, I have to wonder if this is actually fail, or a brilliant campaign strategy.

9 Responses to “Web Site Fail”

  1. Bitter says:

    Just as an FYI for any readers who might live in 134, you can find out his party if you follow his Facebook page since they require you list it. He’s a Democrat, and he’s challenging an A rated previously endorsed candidate.

  2. Mopar says:

    Where I live, there are more registered independents then any political party. As a matter of fact, I think there are more then all parties combined. Because of that, it’s very rare for a local politician to make any mention of their affiliation (except where required by law). You also don’t usually see an opponent mention it either, since of course the “favor” would be returned.

  3. Hello,

    I just came across these posts and thought to drop a note. I am a Democrat. Sadly, extreme partisanship is part of the problem in our state legislature among many other dysfunctions. We have one of the most expensive (per capita) legislatures in the country with little value provided to the taxpayer. I am unclear exactly what an “A rated previously endorsed candidate” means but I suspect that after some careful analysis, most would agree that current Rep. Reichley has done very little to effect change in Harrisburg. The far left and right may chose to focus on party affiliation, however, the R’s, D’ and I’s that I talk with in the District appreciate a person who talks about how we can do better for our taxpayers.

  4. Bitter says:

    Voters might appreciate you talking about issues, but if you never tell them which party you’re running with, voters won’t know whether they can even vote for you in the primary. As a candidate, I would expect you to know that only registered voters in a particular party can pull that primary ballot. As an independent, I pay pretty close attention to these things so I know whether I will even be able to vote. Registering in Pennsylvania was the first time I had to register with a party to vote in a primary in 10 years. Issues aside, your party affiliation is relevant unless the laws change.

    Beyond the practical voting issue, there are also issues related to party like control of the House, committee assignments, and where your funding might come from. It’s awfully idealistic to believe that party shouldn’t matter, but it is naïve to run a campaign that way.

    As for the simple terms “A rated previously endorsed candidate,” let me explain with the help of context that should have been evident from the About page/subtitle of this blog and Merriam-Webster.

    A – typically the top of most grading scales
    rated – to set an estimate on
    previously – going before in time or order
    endorsed – to approve openly
    candidate – in this case, the other guy

    Your opponent has an exceptional record on Constitutional rights, specifically the Second Amendment (or Section 21 for PA’s state right to bear arms). He has been rated A by the NRA – an organization to which most of the readers here belong – in previous elections, thereby earning the organization’s endorsement.

  5. Thank you for the feedback “Bitter” (although certainly a bit sarcastic). I understand full well how the primary process operates in PA. Do you think that we could change the system to allow Independents a voting role in the primary? Are there any PA gun control pieces of legislation that you are concerned with right now?

  6. Sebastian says:

    Patrick:

    The primary fight right now is over, generally, preemption, and more specifically “Lost and Stolen.” If you want more information about why I and other gun owners are opposed to that, I would recommend looking here:

    http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/03/31/philly-media-turning-up-heat/

  7. Thank you Sebastian.

    • Bitter says:

      I will also add that after the primary, presuming you’re the candidate who makes it to the ballot (I’m not following your race closely at this time), then you will receive a questionnaire from the NRA about your views on Second Amendment rights & hunting issues, both of which are big in this state. I realize that some candidates who avoid party labels sometimes also avoid responding to citizen group surveys. I will tell you now that it is a bad idea to take that attitude. Gun owners pay attention to these things, and, to be fair to citizens with other interests, other voters do, too.

  8. Thank you “Bitter”,

    I am planning to respond to such questionnaires. Thank you for the advice.

    Have a nice weekend and I suspect we’ll “talk” more as the campaign heats up (although I understand that my schedule will become much more grueling which is hard to believe considering the time that I am putting in so far). Working full time with wife, kids, church, sports and a campaign is tricky business but hopefully worth the effort.

    Take care,

    Patrick

top