Rick Santorum: For More Candidates, Except When He’s Not

Out in Harrisburg, representatives of the Republicans, Democrats and Greens are still bickering over whether third-party Green candidate Carl Romanelli should stay on the ballot. Romanelli, who would theoretically take away votes from Bob Casey, has taken lots of money from Republicans, who helped him get on the ballot.

Rick Santorum, of course, would like Romanelli on the ballot. It’d give him a chance to win. But, oh no, that’s not what Santorum spokeswoman Virginia Davis told USA Today on Tuesday:

Santorum spokeswoman Virginia Davis admits that the campaign advised contributors to help Romanelli qualify for the ballot. “We encouraged those who inquired to help with the Green Party effort,” she says. “We welcome Carl Romanelli’s entry into the race because at least he’s expressed a real interest in being up front and honest about where he is on the issues.”

Okay! Open access! More candidates! Hooray democracy! Unless… unless, of course, you’re a Republican running against Rick Santorum in the primary. Way back in March, from a Daily News article:

Scott Migli, executive director of the Republican State Committee, said more than 1,000 of [Republican Senate candidate John] Featherman’s 2,021 signatures, filed last week, were questionable.

Featherman violated a number of rules, Migli said. Some of the signers appeared to be registered Democrats and not all of the people distributing petitions were registered Republicans.

And the fact that he submitted slightly more than the required 2,000 names “threw up a red flag,” Migli said. Usually people try to get thousands more, to protect against any problematic signatures.

So, the state Republicans are for open elections with as many candidates as possible. But only when it helps them, of course.

Politics as usual.

Third candidates could tilt number of races [USA Today]
March 16: A million tears: Non-wacky Republican drops out

A million tears: Non-wacky Republican drops out

The other day, I discussed the non-wackiness of Republican Senate candidate John Featherman, who was fighting to beat Rick Santorum for the Republican nom.

He’s liberal on social issues but also pretty libertarian, which means he’s someone who I’d totally vote for if I were a Republican. And I supported him, despite the fact he wasn’t wacky. But now, sigh, all dreams must come to an end: Featherman has pulled out of the race.

The problem was that the state Republican party challenged the signatures on his nominating petitions, and Featherman said he “didn’t have a leg to stand on.” Sigh.

The problems with his petitions:

Scott Migli, executive director of the Republican State Committee, said more than 1,000 of Featherman’s 2,021 signatures, filed last week, were questionable.

Featherman violated a number of rules, Migli said. Some of the signers appeared to be registered Democrats and not all of the people distributing petitions were registered Republicans.

And the fact that he submitted slightly more than the required 2,000 names “threw up a red flag,” Migli said. Usually people try to get thousands more, to protect against any problematic signatures.

Well, it was a good run. Although, well, the fact that Santorum challenged you to a debate right before your signatures were about to be invalidated… well… let’s just say, “Politics as usual.” Even if it was unintentional.

Santorum’s primary rival withdraws after petition challenge [Daily News]
Tuesday: Politicians: So not ‘wacky’

Politicians: So not ‘wacky’

It’s no secret that I’m not quite fond of politicians. Sure, they’re okay when they do things like lower my taxes or help the poor or do something unintentionally hilarious, but other than that, what are they good for? Invading Iraq? Protecting the constitutional rights to not have two men or women enter into a lifelong legal contract? Being corrupt?

Right. The only politicians I am a big fan of are underdogs, be they third party candidates or underdog Democrats or Republicans in primaries. That guy in Ohio who wants to make homosexuality a capital crime? Love him. Sure, he’s a bigot, but he’s only going to embarass himself (and people like him) by running in this election and saying he wants to ban gays and evolution and Islam and whatever else. (Oh yeah: He’s a Democrat.)

Anyway, the current underdogs in the 2006 Senate election are Chuck Pennachio and Alan Sandals on the Democratic side and John Featherman on the Republican side. This blog is oh-so-down with them and their miniscule chances. Republican incumbent Rick Santorum recently agreed to debate Featherman, and I wrote that Featherman is “one of those wacky libertarian/socially liberal types who’s Republican just, well, because.” I didn’t think this was all that much of a shot at him, and not something to be taken seriously. (I did say John Street wanted to steal your soul, after all.)

Featherman, though, didn’t agree. In my email box this morning:

To: dmac@philadelphiawilldo.com

From: John Featherman
Subject: My good name

Mr. McQuade,

I do not think we have ever met, but you have labeled me as “wacky” on your blog. Can you please explain why you are publicly staining my reputation? Have I done or said anything you find offensive? Have I taken any public positions you find “wacky?”

I work very hard as a Realtor, instructor at Temple University, and privacy advocate. I spend a lot of time helping people that have been victims of identity theft, stalking and scams. You are welcome to come to my classes at Temple.

I would appreciate to know why you make fun of me. Perhaps if you met me and you knew my history as someone who overcame a tremendous physical handicap you might think differently.

I emailed him back saying that “wacky” was indeed a compliment on this blog — kind of like what happened to “queer,” I’m trying to reclaim the word (and, yes, if you’re wondering, I just made this up now) — but that I’d delete it in a special one-time-only offer since he took the time to email me. Plus, if someone wants me to delete a compliment I made, I will gladly delete it.

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know. Consider this a correction: John Featherman, socially liberal and fiscally conservative Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, is not wacky. Philadelphia Will Do regrets the error.

John Featherman
Senate hopeful says world’s turned from God [Sandusky Register]
Yesterday: Quickies: Business as usual
March 2: John Street has really, finally, officially joined the ranks of the great Philadelphia mayors

Politicians: So not ‘wacky’

It’s no secret that I’m not quite fond of politicians. Sure, they’re okay when they do things like lower my taxes or help the poor or do something unintentionally hilarious, but other than that, what are they good for? Invading Iraq? Protecting the constitutional rights to not have two men or women enter into a lifelong legal contract? Being corrupt?

Right. The only politicians I am a big fan of are underdogs, be they third party candidates or underdog Democrats or Republicans in primaries. That guy in Ohio who wants to make homosexuality a capital crime? Love him. Sure, he’s a bigot, but he’s only going to embarass himself (and people like him) by running in this election and saying he wants to ban gays and evolution and Islam and whatever else. (Oh yeah: He’s a Democrat.)

Anyway, the current underdogs in the 2006 Senate election are Chuck Pennachio and Alan Sandals on the Democratic side and John Featherman on the Republican side. This blog is oh-so-down with them and their miniscule chances. Republican incumbent Rick Santorum recently agreed to debate Featherman, and I wrote that Featherman is “one of those wacky libertarian/socially liberal types who’s Republican just, well, because.” I didn’t think this was all that much of a shot at him, and not something to be taken seriously. (I did say John Street wanted to steal your soul, after all.)

Featherman, though, didn’t agree. In my email box this morning:

To: dmac@philadelphiawilldo.com

From: John Featherman
Subject: My good name

Mr. McQuade,

I do not think we have ever met, but you have labeled me as “wacky” on your blog. Can you please explain why you are publicly staining my reputation? Have I done or said anything you find offensive? Have I taken any public positions you find “wacky?”

I work very hard as a Realtor, instructor at Temple University, and privacy advocate. I spend a lot of time helping people that have been victims of identity theft, stalking and scams. You are welcome to come to my classes at Temple.

I would appreciate to know why you make fun of me. Perhaps if you met me and you knew my history as someone who overcame a tremendous physical handicap you might think differently.

I emailed him back saying that “wacky” was indeed a compliment on this blog — kind of like what happened to “queer,” I’m trying to reclaim the word (and, yes, if you’re wondering, I just made this up now) — but that I’d delete it in a special one-time-only offer since he took the time to email me. Plus, if someone wants me to delete a compliment I made, I will gladly delete it.

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know. Consider this a correction: John Featherman, socially liberal and fiscally conservative Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, is not wacky. Philadelphia Will Do regrets the error.

John Featherman
Senate hopeful says world’s turned from God [Sandusky Register]
Yesterday: Quickies: Business as usual
March 2: John Street has really, finally, officially joined the ranks of the great Philadelphia mayors