Gutter: Damnit

Luke wins.

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/09139/971285-455.stm

Not that it's a big surprise. Just disappointing.

More tomorrow.

Peak: Go Pat go

Peak: Some questions on the eve of the primary

- Any other 6th or 9th warders out there looking forward to the trip to St. Mary’s Lyceum on Tuesday?

- Is it just me or does Tonya Payne have the biggest campaign ads of any candidate in the city?

- Upon seeing one of those omnipresent “Ravenstahl Getting It Done” signs, has anyone else had the urge to knock on that person’s door and ask just exactly what Ravenstahl has gotten done for them?

- Is it hard to not read too much into the fact that the Bakery Square site has two of those signs?

- And does anyone else see a certain “pandering to the lowest common denominator” in the Ravenstahl camp blatantly co-opting the whole “Git ‘R Done” subculture?

- Is it wrong if I vote for Anthony “Tony” Ceoffe because the Lawrenceville United newsletter makes for a nice bi-monthly toilet reading? (Okay, that’s probably not a good idea)

- Is it wrong if I vote for Susan Evashavik DiLucente just because those “I’m choosin’ Judge Susan” signs are stuck in my head?

- Are there any political leanings I should know about when weighing the Allegheny County Bar Association judicial recommendations?

- Do newspaper endorsements carry weight to anyone other than newspaper editors and campaign managers?

- Wouldn’t it be interesting if some of the current City Council members issued endorsements of their own in this primary?

- Would Carmen Robinson’s efforts have been better-spent in the District 6 city council race?

- Wouldn’t it be nice to get some sign of involvement, some sign that apathy has not completely taken over this city?

- And wouldn’t it be nice if the indication that apathy has not won comes in the form of a plurality for Patrick Dowd?

- Is a there a percentage of votes that gives Dowd - win or lose - some kind of moral victory?

- And if Dowd doesn’t win, does a strong showing give him any added political clout on council or in the city?

- Why didn’t this get more pub, particularly from the Dowd camp? (***Update below***)

- In the Post-Gazette’s Twenty Questions for the Would-Be Mayor feature on Sunday, how many of Luke Ravenstahl’s answers could have been summed up with the response: “the status quo is fine”?

- How many people in this city think the status quo is fine?

- Isn’t it obvious that certain notions - like transparency in government and accountability for city officials - are good things?

- As a matter of fact, can anyone give one good reason why Luke Ravenstahl should be re-elected?

- If I put a picture of me and a picture of Luke Ravenstahl next to each other, do you think I could convince people that the Mayor endorses this blog?

- And from there, how many steps will it take to get my name on a garbage can?

- At the very least, could I get invited to Ravenstahl’s Election Night Party at Hofbrauhaus in the South Side Works (since I can’t get a table there otherwise)?


***Update*** - Just got an e-mail from the Dowd people. They sent out a media advisory about the call, but apparently the local press didn't really bite on it. Here's the text of the e-mail that was sent to the media:

An interactive telephone town hall where voters will have an opportunity to ask Democratic Mayoral Candidate Patrick Dowd questions about his reform vision for Pittsburgh.

Patrick Dowd will bring cutting-edge technology to his grassroots campaign for reform, reaching out to tens of thousands of Pittsburghers in the decisive final days before Tuesday’s primary, something that has not been done before in a mayoral primary. “This campaign for reform is about giving Pittsburghers a voice.” Dowd said. “My campaign is grassroots – not astroturf – so I don’t have millions to spend on TV commercials. Instead I’m trying to find new ways to bring people together so we can talk about how to reform Pittsburgh, whether it's answering a voter's final question before she heads to the polls or talking to someone for the first time. Together, we can bring change.”

Personally, I think it's a pretty cool idea. We'll see if it helps tomorrow.

Peak: Fair and balanced

While my blog has been largely dormant for the past two years - with only smatterings of activity, generally between May and July - I haven’t lost touch with Pittsburgh’s online community. The list of links on the right side of this page includes the blogs I read the most, and if you keep a regular diet of those sites, you’ll generally have some sense of what’s going on in Pittsburgh.

Anyway, if you spend any considerable amount of time on those blogs - and their comment threads - you’ll likely encounter The Pittsburgh Hoagie, aka Matt Hogue, a member of the Allegheny Democratic Committee. Mr. Hogue is a political blogger who also frequently posts on other blogs, and it doesn’t take long to see where his alliances fall. Mr. Hogue is a staunch party member and his full support lies with Luke Ravenstahl.

As such, it has become fairly expected to see Mr. Hogue show up on local blogs announcing his support for the current Mayor in Tuesday’s Democratic primary. The problem is, Mr. Hogue’s support is so unfailing, so determined, and so relentless that it comes across as a blindly and thoughtlessly towing the party line.

Now, I don’t know Mr. Hogue. I’ve never met him, never corresponded with him, and only once or twice posted a comment on his blog. So I don’t wish to speak for his study of the Mayor or his challengers, Patrick Dowd and Carmen Robinson, and I am only presenting the perception of Mr. Hogue’s comments and postings, not his actual line of thinking.

Anyway, as I was reading the local blogs one day - probably a comment from Mr. Hogue (aka Matt H) like the one on this post, which offers very little insight and screams of blind obedience - I started thinking about the recurring themes in Mr. Hogue’s posting. And it occurred to me that, if Mr. Hogue truly is thinking for himself and not just following the line of the party, then the best thing he could do would be to voice his own concerns about the current Mayor. By showing some objectivity, Mr. Hogue might sway some of the perceptions about him that exist in the so-called “Burghosphere” (if he were so inclined).

But then I realized that what’s good for the goose is, indeed, good for the gander. If Mr. Hogue can grant himself some credibility by showing some critical thinking about the Mayor, then so should I. Throughout the recent history of this blog, I have spoken against Luke Ravenstahl and in favor of Patrick Dowd and Carmen Robinson.

But the truly informed, truly objective voter understands that there are no absolutes: Dowd is obviously not an absolute positive, nor is Ravenstahl an absolute negative. He became Mayor in September of 2006; surely something good must have happened in the past 32 months, right?

So, in an effort to be as objective as possible - and to convince myself that I’m not just following the “Anyone But Ravenstahl” party line - I set out to find some positive things the Mayor has done for the city of Pittsburgh.

I figured the easiest way to accomplish this was to go to the Mayor’s home court. There is no purer form of self-serving rhetoric - and I say this in reference to all candidates for all elected office - than a campaign year website. Surely we’ll find some positives in there, and then I can feel good about myself when I go to the polls on Tuesday and vote for Patrick Dowd.

So let’s see; what can we find…

Okay, here we go:

During his three years in office, Mayor Ravenstahl has been "Getting it Done" for Pittsburghers. Clean and safe neighborhoods, new development, balanced budgets, diversity, technology, transparency and green are just a few of the ideas that come to mind to define the Ravenstahl agenda.

Ugh. This is not going to be easy.

Safe neighborhoods - Yeah, no. Last year’s homicide rate kind of screws that one up.

New developments - Yes, I suppose there have been some new developments. But with the near-daily emergence of new developer-slash-campaign contributors who end up getting benefits from city government - check the sixth paragraph in this piece for a recent example - (with a hat-tip to The Radical Middle, as well as a thanks for the shout-out) the new developments all seem to carry a little stink.

Balanced budgets - That seems to fall under the umbrella of “things he takes credit for but doesn’t really deserve to.”

Diversity - I don’t have any real numbers on this but I have to say that it’s hard to imagine this administration really being that diverse.

Technology - Sure I guess the Mayor has probably kept the computers on Grant Street up to date. Or something.

Transparency - You’re kidding, right? This administration wouldn’t have half the problems it’s got right now if there was any kind of transparency. This one falls under the “It wouldn’t be listed here if Dowd didn’t say it so damn much” category.

Green - Yeah, the city seems to be making some strides on the green front. I guess.

Okay, so that didn’t go so well. There have to be some things that he’s done well, but since that blurb in his bio didn’t help, I’ll have to come up with some on my own.

The Pittsburgh Promise - This thing seems to have a lot of detractors, and I can admit that it’s not a perfect system, but it’s a good start and the intentions are at least headed in the right direction. Ravenstahl didn’t come up with it and he wasn’t the one who noticed it working in Kalamazoo and he wasn’t the one who decided to bring it to Pittsburgh, but he helped the process along once it got started, and I’ll give him credit for that.

311 - I don’t know what other people’s experience has been with 311, but I’m okay with it. I like the concept, and the few times that I’ve called it, I’ve gotten results. Plus, I’ve noticed a lot of patches getting done on streets and alleys around me - including the one that was used in the famous Pokey Politics video (watch the second video on the page) - and I’m assuming that 311 calls were the source of the fixes.

The baseball field in Bloomfield - This one hits home since I live in Bloomfield and have lived near the baseball field for more than six years. The ballfield under the Bloomfield Bridge used to be a mess. It had a bad turf rug that was always bunched up in numerous places, and I can’t imagine anyone ever really wanted to play on it. Now the field is really, really nice. Grass, good dirt, big foul poles, a warm-up bullpen beyond the outfield; I mean, I’d say it’s almost state of the art. And Ravenstahl was behind it; I know this because there was a sign with his name on it for a year or two after it was finished.

(Sorry about the quality of photo; my cell phone's camera lens is pretty dusty)

So I did it. I came up with three good things the Mayor has done for Pittsburgh. That’s pretty good, right?

Now I can feel a proper sense of self-righteousness about voting for Dowd on Tuesday because I am an objective voter. Hooray!

Peak: A good reason to run

Photo: Post-Gazette

In the past few weeks of blogging about next week’s Democratic primary, I think I’ve been pretty up-front about my opinions regarding the three candidates for the party’s mayoral nomination: Luke Ravenstahl, Patrick Dowd, and Carmen Robinson.

Not surprisingly, I’m pretty firmly in Dowd’s camp for a number of reasons. But lately I’ve been thinking back to the first time I met the District 7 councilman. It was back in January at one of his Council-to-Go meetings, which provide a unique opportunity to interact with the councilman in a localized small-group setting.

The Council-to-Go I attended was in Polish Hill. I was living in Lawrenceville at the time, but I couldn’t find any info about a meeting in my neighborhood so I decided to crash the party. At the time, speculation was running rampant that Dowd would be announcing a candidacy for the Democratic mayoral nomination so I figured I’d head up to Polish Hill and see if he’d say anything about that.

Naturally the Council-to-Go meetings are more geared toward the voicing of local concerns, and the Polish Hill gathering was very much in that vein. But at one point in the evening, a resident somewhat off-handedly remarked "So I hear you're running for mayor." A quiet, almost uncomfortable chuckle came from the group, but Dowd didn’t shy away from the question.

“We’re talking about it,” he said. “It’s about frustration, and maybe that’s not a good reason to run.”

That really caught my attention. Was frustration a sound reason to seek public office? That was the question I asked myself from time to time over the next month until Dowd officially announced his candidacy.

And as the campaign went on, I kept thinking back to that night in Polish Hill. After attending the meeting I began writing a blog post that never made it online, but here’s part of what I wrote/thought:

Is frustration a good motivational tool?

I’m really not sure. I think that running out of frustration is somewhat different from running in the interest of change/progress, and even if the two overlap and intersect in a number of ways, there are still some distinctions that could affect the end results.

And I tossed these questions around throughout March and April. But in the past few weeks, as I’ve watched the three candidates debate and I’ve read their comments in the press and observed their actions, I’ve come to believe that not only is frustration a good motivational tool, it could be the most appropriate cause for running in this election.

Frustration is - or at least should be - a major part of next Tuesday’s primary. For progressive, reform-minded voters and candidates, frustration is the driving force behind everything that will happen at the polls next week. With each new item of indiscretion and each new thwarting of responsibility that comes to light, the danger of Luke Ravenstahl and his administration becomes more and more threatening.

But it’s not just the threat of Ravenstahl that creates the frustration; it’s the complete and utter lack of - and disregard for - accountability and leadership that has led this city into its current state. And because the Mayor and his administration refuse to accept responsibility or even answer the queries about their actions of the past three years, the city’s residents grow frustrated.

And that frustration is the bond that links us - all of us, regardless of socioeconomic status - to Patrick Dowd, he of the doctorate in European intellectual history.

I didn’t get this at first. But slowly, Dowd’s frustration has come more and more to the forefront. I remember during the WPXI debate (can’t find any video to post) when the topic of trash cans came up, Ravenstahl famously accused Dowd of being on “three sides of an issue,” attempting to cloud Dowd’s accusations by juxtaposing the purchase of $1,000 trash cans with Dowd’s request for trash cans in his district.

The Mayor’s “logic” - at least as he stated it - said that, since Dowd requested trash cans, then he couldn’t criticize the Mayor for the purchase of $1,000 trash cans in the South Side. Obviously the rub is that Dowd likely never intended for his requested trash cans to cost $1,000, but it almost feels silly to point out how ridiculous Ravenstahl’s claims were, so I’ll leave to it The Radical Middle who summed up the situation pretty well:

Mr. Dowd again attacked Mr. Ravenstahl for buying $250,000 worth of garbage cans, and the mayor again noted that the councilman's office had requested the cans before twice criticizing their price tag.

"Mr. Flip-flop over there," the mayor called Mr. Dowd. "That's pretty creative. I didn't know you could be on three sides of an issue."

The Mayor is not that stupid. No one could possibly be that stupid. But he could, of course, be that disingenuous.

Okay, I’ll go with disingenuous. That makes the point.

But what was most interesting to me was that, as Ravenstahl was spewing this disingenuousness (which is actually a word), you could feel Dowd’s blood boiling. Hell, my blood was boiling. And as Ravenstahl spoke - with confidence, I might add - the “three sides of an issue” nonsense, Dowd was heard off-camera uttering the sarcastic laugh of a man who is debating with someone who is relying on twists of logic that few would actually believe.

It was the kind of laugh that you emit when you’re trying to avoid saying the words that are surging up your throat and into your mouth. Sometimes when you feel like you might throw up, a few hearty spits can do the trick to bed it back down temporarily, and that was the kind of laugh that came from Dowd.

Anyone who has ever been in a discussion/argument/debate with someone who is using poor logic and ridiculous miscontructions (not a word) of reason knows what Dowd was experiencing at that moment.

It was frustration.

And to further the dicussion of frustration, we have this (courtesy of The Pittsburgh Comet):



About halfway through, Dowd starts getting fired up, and by the end, he’s as animated as we’ve seen him in this election.

And I think it’s fantastic. Dowd is allowing the frustration - his original reason for running and perhaps the purest reason for running - to become his dominant emotion. He’s letting it all out, asking us all why we are sitting by and allowing these improprieties and illicit acts and everything else that has happened under this Mayor’s watch. He’s fed up with it, he doesn’t want it to go on any longer, and he believes that Pittsburgh should be in better hands.

Are his hands the best to do the job? Maybe. He seems to have a pretty good idea of what needs to be done.

But best of all, he has looked at the current situation and he is frustrated by it. That’s where he and I and hopefully many others share common ground.

Peak: Getting on board

Patrick Dowd was probably already the popular choice in the local online community. Now the local mainstream media is on board as well:

The Post-Gazette endorses Patrick Dowd for the Democratic nomination for mayor on May 19.

The editorial board starts off its approach to the primary the way most of us have:

By pointing out why you shouldn’t vote for Luke Ravenstahl.

The string of youthful missteps that marked Luke Ravenstahl's first months in office have evaporated and the mayor has matured in the job, but Pittsburgh still lacks a leader with a broad, deep vision for the city's future.

You don't lead by arguing that there is nothing wrong with city contracting practices, even if -- in the face of numerous examples of pay-to-play politics and an approaching election -- you eventually order a long-needed ban on most no-bid professional contracts.

You don't lead by announcing good intentions, as the mayor has done in backing city-county consolidation efforts, but then doing little to pressure legislators to support them.

And you don't lead by mixing politics with the provision of government services, as Mayor Ravenstahl did when he reopened a city police station in the West End, which didn't make sense given the zone's relatively low call volume.

With its shrinking population, impending contract negotiations with city unions and growing pension and debt problems, Pittsburgh doesn't have time to wait for Mr. Ravenstahl, 29, of Summer Hill, to gradually evolve toward more sound positions. The city needs a stronger, forward-looking mayor who can move Pittsburgh ahead now.

I can’t really disagree that the first conclusion you must reach in this primary is that Ravenstahl needs to be replaced (“needs replaced”?). And while the P-G goes on to point out a number of reasons why Dowd is a pretty good candidate to do the replacin’, I think that they hit on one of the biggest issues right off the bat:

Leadership.

In my admittedly nascent position as an observer of city government and politics, one of the main truths I’ve absorbed over the past two or three years is that possibly the biggest quality Pittsburgh needs in a mayor is leadership. Strong, willful leadership. While Ravenstahl is probably directly responsible for a fair portion of the nonsense and chicanery that has taken place and continues to take place around the city, a major part of the problem appears to be that there are plenty of people working throughout city government who have milked their positions for all their worth.

And it’s a lack of strong leadership that permits this kind of environment to fester and grow.

So, first and foremost, Pittsburgh needs strong leadership. A close second behind leadership in the city’s list of needs is accountability for that leadership. And to get the accountability, you need transparency in all city government acts.

Leadership. Accountability. Transparency.

Sounds like three Patrick Dowd talking points, doesn’t it?

If nothing else, the guy seems to get it, and I suppose that’s why the Post-Gazette - and me, and most of the local blogs I read - are on board with Dowd.

Gutter: More on the over-wrought front

In the aftermath of the first televised debate, I wrote two weeks ago about how Patrick Dowd’s shot at the pay-to-play culture in Pittsburgh missed the mark slightly because it was somewhat overwrought/over-worded/over-spoken. I argued that Dowd’s claim - which I agree with - would have been more effective if issued in simpler terms.

It’s not dumbing down your position; it’s making it more effective.

Now we get this from the Dowd campaign:



So let’s look at that.

“Luke Ravenstahl is making headlines for the wrong reasons, and it’s turned into a national embarrassment.”

Seems like an okay start, even if we ignore the fact that when the words “National embarrassment” are on the screen, they’re backed up by an image of an article by Rich Lord in the Post-Gazette.

“First, Luke’s 1,000-dollar trash cans.

Visuals: “Ridicule nationwide;” a trash can with a $1,010 price tag; and a USA Today article with the headline “Pittsburgh mayor puts his name on 250 trash cans.”

“Then, his risky Wall Street-style bond deal that cost taxpayers millions and put our city in more financial peril.”

Since most people in the city don’t really understand what the bond deal is - myself included - I suppose a six-second mention (from :10 to :16) isn’t really going to change anyone’s opinion on the matter.

“Now, Luke’s done it again, embarrassing himself nationally by taking credit for tax cuts he actually voted against…twice.

Which is backed up by an AP release headlined “Pittsburgh mayor apologizes for misleading campaign ad in which he touted mandated tax cuts,” with Los Angeles Times and Baltimore Sun logos floating around.

“It’s time to end the waste and political games. It’s time for Patrick Dowd.”

And those are all good points. Dowd picked his biggest issues - incompetence, misuse of taxpayer funds, and a lack of accountability and transparency - and jammed them all into a 30-second ad.

And by the end of it, what is the general impression the viewing public is supposed to come away with? I guess it’s that Luke Raventsahl has embarrassed the city of Pittsburgh on a national scale, and that’s why the people should elect Patrick Dowd.

Because anyone outside the 412 area code really gives a damn about Pittsburgh. Seriously. I watched The Hills Monday night and all that L.C. could talk about was how she couldn’t get over the fact that Ravenstahl has been trumpeting the tax cuts that he actually voted against…twice.

Okay, that’s a bad example. But have Ravenstahl’s antics really caused that much of a stir nationally? Maybe he made some waves for being so young when he took office, and maybe the Tiger Woods thing got a little attention. But we’re not talking about Kwame Kilpatrick here. Hell, even the mayor of Braddock seems to have gotten more national press than Ravenstahl.

So while Ravenstahl is something of an embarrassment to all of us living in the city, I’m just not sure that that’s the best angle to take in a campaign ad. There are so many things you could use as ammo to fire at the Mayor, but somehow the embarrassment claim just seems to miss the mark.

But I think the presentation of this ad is just as much of a problem, if not more. As I alluded to earlier, there’s a lot of info jammed into the 30-second spot (like the :06 appropriation of the bond deal). Upon posting video of the ad, our friend The Pittsburgh Comet made some inquiries into the Dowd camp and generally got this reaction to the ad:

"Luke has done so much awful stuff over the past three years, it was impossible to fit it all in to a 30 second spot."

(The Comet goes into a discussion of other issues that could be touched upon, and that’s a worthwhile read, but I’m going in a different direction.)

The Dowd people are right: it is impossible to fit the Mayor’s three-years’ worth of indiscretions into a 30-secodn spot. So don’t even try. I know you want to talk about garbage cans and bond deals and the political appropriation of tax cuts, but understand the medium you’re working with. 30 seconds is a short amount of time, but the most effective commercials - in any realm, be it political or otherwise - aren’t the ones that attempt to load as much information as possible into the spot. Rather the effective commercial lands a simple, solid blow.

“Under Luke Ravenstahl, Pittsburgh is for sale. Whether it’s illegal billboards, 1,000-dollar trash cans, or illicit sex clubs, the city of Pittsburgh has been open for business at the pleasure of the Mayor and his cronies for the past three years. So it’s up to you to decide who should be in charge of this city: the deep-pockets campaign contributors or the taxpayers, voters, and residents of Pittsburgh?”

Land a strong, solid right and get people thinking about the issue that you think is most important. And then close with something like:

“Because the city can’t afford any more Luke Ravenstahl.”

And boom goes the dynamite.

But instead, the Dowd campaign tried to get as much info and issues into one 30-second spot as possible. Just like when Dowd was asked in the first televised debate if the perception of a pay-to-play culture exists in the city of Pittsburgh and he responded:

“In this culture that we live in, given the administration we have, it’s easy to see that.”

When he could have just as easily hit with a hard “Yes, there are pay-to-play politics in this administration. There are too many dots to connect to feel otherwise.”

Dowd’s not pulling his punches in this campaign; in fact, I think he’s hit the Mayor with a lot of shots, assailing Ravenstahl’s record and integrity (and all with good cause). But the message needs to come through clearer.

Gutter: The debate in one overwrought sentence

It’s been two days since the debate with Luke Raventsahl, Patrick Dowd, and Carmen Robinson, and I still think the Mayor “won” the night, based largely on the old adage of “it’s not what you say but how you say it.” The Mayor’s points were largely based on half-truths and misleading statements, but for the city’s residents who were looking to the debates for guidance on which candidate presents the best options for Pittsburgh’s future, the young mayor was pretty convincing.

That is to say, if you didn’t know that much of what he was saying was illegitimate, you’d probably think he was a pretty good candidate. And since I suspect that a fair majority of the Pittsburgh voting public might not have seen through the Mayor’s crap, then John Q. Pittsburgh’s lasting impression from the debate will probably be something along the lines of “He’s got us heading in the right direction.”

Which is disappointing. Despite the fact that Dowd and Robinson both made relevant points throughout the debate, the Mayor came out looking the best due to an impressive display of politicking.

Dowd and Robinson each needs to focus more on relating to the viewer in that kind of forum and understanding how to best convey his or her points.

One specific instance stuck out. WTAE reporter Bob Mayo asked the candidates about the perceived atmosphere of so-called “pay to play” politics in Pittsburgh city government and whether each candidate felt that the perception was pervasive.

Dowd went first. Without an official transcript, here is my recollection of his response to the question:

“In this culture that we live in, given the administration we have, it’s easy to see that.”

I apologize if I didn’t get the exact wording - I typed as fast as I could during the debate - but you get the gist of it: verbose and over-spoken. To this point the debate, Dowd had been constantly on the offensive, going after the Mayor at every turn (even when it wasn’t appropriate or timely). And yet, when the question of pay-to-play came up, he dropped into some wordy near-hypothetical.

So I ask: why pull your punches? Or worse, why drape your punches in qualifiers and clauses? Hit him with a strong right and say what you feel:

“Yes, there are pay-to-play politics in this administration. There are too many dots to connect to feel otherwise.”

Now, Dowd did follow up his statement with some good talk about wanting “a government we can be proud of” and needing “strict measures” to be “in place for a long haul,” and he also reiterated his favorite talking point: transparency.

And I can get on board with all of that. But why cloud it up with a slow-to-get-rolling multi-clause statement about “in this culture we live in” and “given the administration we have?” Go for the jugular. Don’t let there be any doubt; I don’t think Dowd has any doubt about the existence of pay-to-play, and I don’t think he wants the public to have any doubt. But when you say what he said the way he said it, the forming of the sentence lends itself stylistically to creating doubt.

I’d be remiss to not mention that Robinson followed up Dowd’s response with one of the better points of the night, essentially talking about how perception is king at this point. But maybe I’ll work on a separate post about that.