	Member login		Contact us		Join NN

NN's Garfield Rodgers questioning the candidates

February 20, 2010

The Debate Was Great!

Four Candidates Spent Quality Time with 350 Activists

By Stan Shapiro

Well, we had a forum the other night for the gubernatorial candidates sponsored by Neighborhood Networks and the Coalition for Essential Services, and cosponsored by about 90 other groups. Some of the candidates didn't really want to show up for it, and three stuck to their excuses and failed to appear. But four of the seven declared candidates did present themselves, including every Democrat but Anthony Hardy Williams.

...Continued from home page

They found themselves in quite a crowd. The church was packed. And the feeling in that room was electric, filled with a sense of accomplishment at putting together the first ever Philadelphia debate organized to highlight the interests, needs, concerns and goals of the majority of Philadelphia's people. I'm talking about people coming from all walks of life who have profound, immediate problems, and who need a politics that is real, rather than petty and personal. By their presence the candidates affirmed the importance of these communities of real folks, represented by both the 350-400 people in the room, and by the 90 advocacy organizations that had worked their butts off to make the event happen. The questions were substantive, the answers more or less so, but no one left feeling they hadn't learned a lot about who these people are that want to lead our state.

In this video our Chair, Gloria Gilman, put best why it was so important for NN members to devote their time and energy to making this event happen. And Garfield Rodgers, a new member of NN, asked what many of us thought was the key question of the night, namely, whether the candidates were willing to raise taxes in a progressive way to fund the essential services all of them claimed to support. Here's Garfield and the candidates' answers. (They answered in this order: Joe Hoeffel, Dan Onorato, Sam Rohrer, and Jack Wagner.)

The debate was great because certain things needed to be addressed. And were.

First there was a written set of questions that was sent to the candidates. The questions and answers were printed in a booklet, in Spanish and English, and distributed to everyone who walked in the door. (Hopefully we will be able to post this dialogue on our site soon.) The questions dealt with issues the mainstream media will never ask this or any other set of candidates for state office, such as:

1) progressive revenue strategies for maintaining essential services;
2) insuring that education funding meets the needs of educating children in poverty and English language learners;
3) increasing the welfare grant for the first time in almost 20 years;
4) requiring recipients of state financial aid to remain neutral in labor organizing drives;
5) dealing with the root causes of crime instead of mindless increases in the prisons budget;
6) making sure that all Pennsylvanians have access to affordable health care;
7) insuring that the State avail itself of all federal AIDS funding;
8) promoting syringe exchange programs;
9) ensuring that the lowest income Pennsylvanians have access to decent and affordable housing;
10) insuring that natural gas drilling is safe before it is permitted.

And they were addressed

These issues were addressed in writing, and then again before a rapt audience where questioners from a variety of affected communities were able to make themselves heard.

All in all, this was an historic night in which candidates learned that they would have to produce on substance, not just on their ability to charm, for them to win the votes of the thousands of Philadelphians whose representatives were in the room.

And there's more for those of you reading this page