i thought populism related to political movements that represented the interests of a majority of people. What are the interests you think a majority of Philadelphians share that would make the declaration of the existence of a populist movement in the city to seem credible?

but this, along with your prior posts, sure seem like an invitation to supporters of other candidates, particularly Nutter supporters, to throw their support to Knox. Yet you admit that you're "not entirely sure how Tom Knox would govern." In fact, there's no way for anyone to have a clue since he's had no public role whatsoever except in the shadow role he played for Rendell. Why would any of us want to take that kind of leap of faith, particularly in light of all the ugly aspects of his business life that Dan has so succinctly pointed out? Is that what our movement, to the extent it exists, needs? Is that the kind of risk we want the people of the City to take in order to further our movement? If so, I don't know why we would ask anyone to have any more confidence in our movement than they now have in the machine we're all supposedly fighting.

And that's the end of my vacation from this blog.

And they like it. That's WHY he's in first place!

Let me say at the start I believe Mike Nutter is the better reform candidate--NO DOUBT ABOUT IT--but I do not pretend Knox's ascent isn't tied to a real, honest rejection of the at least part of the city's Democratic Party power structure.

Before Dan recounts again how Knox went to Vince Fumo in 1999 and thus cannot be an outsider (not very relevant I think, see below), let me add that what his supporters like about Knox--I think--is that he would not OWE anybody anything if he got into City Hall. Like it or not, this is an advantage of self-funding. The Fumo story isn't relevant to Knox's supporters because they know Knox is NOT Fumo's candidate this year (Brady is), and thus Knox would not owe loyalty to Fumo if he were elected.

His supporters LIKE the idea that he would owe loyalty to no one. They like the idea of his independence.

They also believe he'd have a mandate to go after and eliminate patronage jobs and sweetheart contracts, the corrupt parts of the current political system that his supporters reject.

Knox's supporters want, I think, a shock to that system because they believe it has grown bloated and corrupt.

That should not be surprising. That's basically what attracted people to Sam Katz in 1999 and pre-bug 2003. Pay-to-play scandals in the intervening years added to that attraction.

And I have to admit not much of the above upsets me. My thinking is closer to Anne's than Dan's. If a reform mayor cuts patronage jobs and sweetheart contracts, he removes part of what sustains the entrenched party machine. That makes party bosses who rely on those jobs and contracts for influence--party officials, some Ward Leaders, some state legislators--vulnerable. Their vulnerability could lead to opportunities for people outside the system to replace the weakened party bosses. That could lead to chaos, but it could also lead to new ideas and better democracy. Sometimes a little chaos is necessary.

I take most of Knox's detractors seriously, however.

Knox anxiety among progressives seems to fall into three categories:

1) Those who disdain his spending millions to self-fund his campaign ("He's buying City Hall!")

2) Those who disdain his payday lending and not being straightforward when discussing payday lending (Everything Dan says. Btw, I looked again at the Inquirer article, a-a-and...I think the truth is somewhere between what he's saying and you're implying, and it just doesn't upset me that much. Sorry.)

3)Those who think he's going to take a scalpel to social programs, a la Ronald Reagan, in order to save money for rich people's tax cuts (What Ben says, and I'm sure Stan believes.)

I feel the first group's pain and disdain, but, as I said above, I acknowledge some advantages to Knox's financial independence. I agree with Dan that payday lending is bad, I just don't think it means Knox will be mean to poor people as mayor. (I'll add: to me, his having lived through poverty himself somewhat mitigates, makes me think he wouldn't be as heartless as Dan thinks). The third group thinks more like I do, wondering how a guy can save all the money Knox says he wants to save. Short answer: he won't save that much. Longer answer: Cutting social programs is just NOT what he's proposing. If anything, his proposals suggest he'd be overly ambitious in some social spending. FORTY new health centers? Sounds more like Fattah. Who will Knox be mean to? City workers, I'd guess.

Of course, I don't think we need to deal with the potential meanness and the far-fetched numbers in order to shake things up.

Mike Nutter is an independent, honest reformer with a record.

If people want reform they can trust, I think eventually they'll like Mike.

Proudly supporting the BEAUTIFUL Philly For Change Council Slate and MICHAEL NUTTER for Mayor

I thought Anne Dicker was working with the Brady campaign?

OK- empirically, what has Tom Knox done to help poor people in Philadelphia. He may turn out to be another Bloomberg (which I personally would love), but whereas Bloomberg has a long history of Philanthropy and has stated on numerous occasions that he will spend his vast wealth on helping others, what has Tom done?

I would say that your statements come a lot closer to fantasy (or at least wishful thinking) than anything approaching empiricism. You may be right about Tom, but your beliefs are based on wishes and faith, in so far as I can tell. Again, please prove me and everyone else on the site other than Susan) wrong: what has Tom done, outside of making himself money (sometimes at the expense of the poor and desperate), that should convince the "analytical" amongst us that he will not throw poor people, or their itnerests, under the bus if he becomes mayor.

And please don't repeat that "he was poor". So what? So was Al Capone, and so are many other criminals. Was Eliot Spitzer poor? Was FDR? My father, for example, grew up middle class and he has devoted his entire life to representing people without the means to get their own representation. What is the correlation between having lived in poverty and doing good? In so far as I can tell, growing up poor did not stop Tom from fleecing the poor- Federal and State regulators did (known in Tom's mind as "the Gestapo").

I really don't get why Tom can't just come out and explain his actions (other than by saying "hey, they were lining up around the block" to get ripped off)?

I work for Damon K. Roberts in his run for City Council. Unless otherwise stated this and every comment by myself is the opinion of myself, and not of Damon or any other candidate, organization, committee, etc.

I know you have to play defense on here a lot, but please don't lump me in with the "spinning the shit" Brady crew. I support Michael Nutter for Mayor, but I actually think Tom is ok and am legitimately trying to find out whether he is supporting Jannie Blackwell. I have heard that challengers in both the 1st and 2nd disctrict council races have accepted the deal with Tom to support Blackwell for council president in exchange for getting Tom's help. If that is not true, and I was instead fed some bull by a Brady supporter, then those challengers can come on YPP and say so (or choose not to). And if either one of them wins, we'll just have to wait and see how they vote for Council President. But I hope most people on this blog would agree, that anyone who aligns themself with Jannie "We're all ethic'd out" Blackwell should leave their "reformer" credentials at home when they step out the front door to hit the campaign trail. She's one of the problems on council, not part of the solution, and anyone who enables her should also be viewed as part of the problem.

My disagreement with Truthtold was not over whether we progressives should try to blow up the ward system. I don't think we should. I think we should reform it. And from my experience in this election, that doesn't mean replacing a lot of committee people and ward leaders but, instead, changing the context in which they operate. At the initial Neighborhood Networks conferenece I said that NN would help bring out the "inner liberal" in our ward leaders. It was partly a joke. But I'm finding it is not wholly a joke. There are a lot of ward leaders who acknowledge that real change is need in how the city operates.

I also think that we will find plenty of progressive, young and old, black and white, who want to do the work of committee people and will make time to do so. There are lots of such folks now. Again, change the context---create some hope that the city can change--and more of those folks will come out.

Changing how the city operates doesn't mean that committee people and ward leaders and council people stop solving the problems of individual people. That is always going to be necessary. But, as I tell folks at ward meetings, just once in a while, I'd like to see the Streets Department remove snow from every street in my division without my having to call them.

Finally, I want to call you on your continual denigrating of the progressive movement for being all white. It isn't. NN is about 15% black and is closely allied with the African American Heritage Coalition. My own work on the minimum wage coalition, the transit coalition, and the affordable housing coalition has been done in close collaboration with African American activists. I am campaigning heavily in North Philadelphia with the support of activists in a few neighborhoods. Progressive activists have worked with black candidates from different organizations in the city. I've worked closely with Cherelle Parker and LeAnna Washington. And you are working with Chaka now.

There are other ways whites can work with blacks in progressive politics besides the one you have chosen. That's not a criticism of your choice--I like Chaka and see why a plausible case can be made for him as Mayor. But it would be nice if you would acknowledge that there are other ways to create a integrated progressive movement than your own.

And it would also be nice if you would acknowledge how your own alliance with Chaka Fattah has affected your varied political activities over the years. Philly Against Santorum never even tried to organize African Americans. And this year, your choices to support some progressive candidates and not others has been influenced by this alliance.