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,
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.
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 info@coordinatedthreesixty.com.
Thank you for listening to commonalities.