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: Juxtaposition as a humor device

The third and final debate was held earlier this week. Channel 11 WPXI/PCNC originally broadcast the debate Monday night and re-aired last night. More or less the debate looked a lot like the previous two, and near the end one of the candidates observed that they have been answering the same questions and arguing about the same topics. Not too much has changed throughout this trio of debates, but I guess that’s to be expected when you have an incumbent who is full of targets and a couple of challengers who are all too willing to take their shots.

Oh yeah, and a city that’s rife with corruption, financial peril, a shrinking population, and all kinds of other good times.

Naturally, the debate saw each candidate issue his or her respective go-to statement, whether it’s the need for transparency and accountability in city government (Patrick Dowd), the importance of understanding that Pittsburgh is a city full of distressed neighborhoods and distressed people who need individual and specific attention (Carmen Robinson), or simply the notion that things are a-okay (Luke Ravenstahl).

And, of course, Ravenstahl’s “things are good and we’ll keep getting them better” claim included the expected reference to Pittsburgh as America’s Most Livable City (Incidentally, if you Google “Most livable city” you come across the website Mostlivable.org, which bears no mention of Pittsburgh on its front page).

But when I heard Ravenstahl hit on the Most Livable claim during the re-broadcast last night, I got all excited and giddy inside because I remembered that I had just read an article about how this area has the highest rates of vacant properties in the state. “Most livable?” I scoffed. “That’s hard to claim when no one lives here!”

But alas, when I went back and re-read the article today, the high rates of vacancy are limited to Duquesne, Braddock, and Monessen, where more than 25% of the city’s houses are empty.

Unfortunately for my witty, biting, cynical observation, all the high vacancy areas are outside the city of Pittsburgh.

So there goes that one.

But the mention of the Most Livable claim does provide another jumping-off point from which to talk about Carmen Robinson and why she seems to “get it,” certainly more than the Mayor and perhaps even more than Patrick Dowd (or maybe at least more than Dowd has let on). Robinson has made her campaign about dedicating city resources to the tired, huddled masses. Robinson’s campaign is about going to the lowest depths of the city - the areas that could never be described as “Most Livable” by anyone - and starting the revitalization of Pittsburgh there.

On her campaign website, if you click on Politics 101, you get an in-depth discussion on gentrification. And at a time when Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, and Target are being/have been identified as keys to a rebirth of East Liberty, that seems like a pretty relevant topic.

From the opening statement of the first televised debate, Robinson has hit on the “tale of two cities” theme. Ravenstahl jumped right into the “Most Livable” claim and Robinson fired right back, citing the “two faces” of Pittsburgh, one being the Most Livable/City of Champions, and the other being a distressed city.

“I don’t think our Mayor is being honest with the people,” Robinson said. “We have to look at both sides of the coin.”

More than either of her competitors, Robinson seems to be looking at both sides of the coin.

I think I’ve said before that I hope Robinson ends up serving in city government in some capacity after this election cycle and that it’s a good thing that she has emerged as a relevant public figure. Part of me now wonders if perhaps she overshot the mark by running for mayor. Last I heard, there was an election in District 6, too; Robinson lives in the Hill District, and the incumbent city councilperson certainly has her share of detractors.

Gutter: Mayor Big Mac

The mayoral candidates squared off again last night, and while that debate won't be available for public consumption until the hot primetime hour of 7 P.M. on Saturday night, the Post-Gazette got to witness the events in real-time live-action (I'm pretty sure the Trib was probably there, too, but for some reason the Trib's website is very unpredictable on my computer; today is one of those days when it's not working).

Anyway, the debate that happened last night but will only exist in theory until tomorrow night was also the debate that almost never happened, and Carmen Robinson used last night's debate as another opportunity to point out the fact that the Mayor tried to duck public forums as much as possible.

Carmen Robinson, 40, took the mayor to task for saying two weeks ago that he could not change his schedule to appear at last night's event. Although he eventually agreed to last night's taping.

"Once public opinion said 'that's really bad,' he called here and said I only had one day [that he could appear]," said Ms. Robinson.

"We're here. Let's not waste our time talking about the past," Mr. Ravenstahl responded to the Hill District attorney.

Yes, let's not waste our time talking about the past. If you're an incumbent who would rather run on trumped-up paper-thin claims of success that crumble at the first hint of scrutiny, if you're an incumbent whose track record is so spotty that infomercial salesmen hawking dishwasher detergent use it to represent the results of Brand X, if you're an incubment who would much rather campaign on phony promises about what you're going to do rather than stand accountable for what you've already done, then yes, I can see how you'd rather not talk about the past.

Mr. Ravenstahl leapt into the fray when he got there. His foes, he said, "continuously talk about me and make this campaign about Luke Ravenstahl and my administration.

"I have chosen to make it about you," he told the few dozen people in the Sunnyside Elementary School auditorium.

To which The Pittsburgh Comet succinctly replies:

YOU ARE THE INCUMBENT.

Exactly. Challengers for elected seats are, first and foremost, charged with pointing out why the incumbent should not be re-elected. So yes, Mayor Ravenstahl, they are talking about you. Because that's what they are supposed to do. And you are supposed to run on the merits of your administration.

To put it another way: you're supposed to talk about the past.

But for some people, that's not exactly the most ideal subject.

Peak: The best thing to come out of this election

Let’s face it: Pat Dowd and Carmen Robinson probably aren’t going to win the upcoming Democratic primary in the race for mayor of Pittsburgh. It’s just not likely. There’s a unique brand of apathy that leads a voter to the polls without really paying attention in the months - and years - leading up to the election, and that seems to be the prevailing approach for the greater Pittsburgh public.

The result of that kind of philosophy is that the incumbent wins, despite the best efforts of the challengers and a pretty strong group of reform-minded individuals who would really like to see something change.

Nevertheless, even if Pittsburgh re-elects Luke Ravenstahl, some good will have come from this campaign cycle. With any luck, the average city dweller has gotten exposure to some new ways to approach Pittsburgh’s problems. Ideally, this exposure would lead the general public to put more pressure on the city’s elected officials down the road, demanding accountability and responsibility for Pittsburgh’s future (and the best case scenario would have the demand for accountability and responsibility turn the next mayoral election into a referendum on the administration, which is what this election should have been, but that’s another topic altogether).

But one of the biggest benefits for the city that can come from this election is the emergence of Carmen Robinson as a relevant voice in Pittsburgh. Robinson entered the election as a private practice defense attorney with a checkered history on the Pittsburgh police force (“checkered” by some sexual harassment lawsuits) but at this point, with about three weeks left before the primary, she has established herself as an important public figure in the city.

Check out Tony Norman’s take on Robinson in the Post-Gazette and then read the P-G’s mayoral profile on Robinson. Several recurring themes:

Public servant. Public safety. Blue collar. Outsider. Not a politician. Community. Neighborhoods.

And I’m good with all of those things. The quality Robinson brings that neither Dowd nor Ravenstahl has been able to embody - in Dowd’s case - or seems to want to embody - in the case of Ravenstahl - is a real “from the bottom-up” approach. Robinson believes, and I agree, that you fix the problems of a city by starting at the lowest levels of the city and working your way up. Real, hands-on work that addresses problems one-by-one with real solutions.

Maybe I’ve taken too much influence from The Wire, but it seems like that’s the best way to address the real problems of urban life. Not with institutional overtures and governmental grandstanding, but with a real understanding of the nature of the urban problems.

Robinson seems to have that understanding, and some good ideas on how to begin the process of correcting some of these issues that have been festering for decades. In looking over some notes from the WTAE debate, time and again Robinson came back to the same notions:

- In her opening statement she talked about how there are two faces of Pittsburgh. One is the “most livable city” and the “city of champions,” but the other is, in her words, “a distressed city.”

- On the question of violence in the city, Robinson said that “violence is a preventable illness” and that the city must “approach it from a public health point of view.”

- Robinson also seems to understand that one of the most basic and crucial steps in curbing many of the shortcomings of urban life lies in correcting the school system, advocating that the mayor use his or her “bully pulpit to encourage the school system to change their ways.”

- Further on the school system, Robinson said that the Pittsburgh Promise was flawed because it needed to be extended to middle school students, hoping to get younger children into the program earlier so as to increase the likelihood of those children completing high school. Getting kids into college is good, she said, but they need to finish high school first.

And Robinson’s right about that: high school drop-out rates are a bigger problem than kids who graduate high school but don’t go to college. You need to do everything you can to ensure that kids at least get through high school. Another big campaign issue of Robinson’s - at least on the topic of education - is that there needs to be a focus on post-high school education for students who aren’t going to college. Trade schools and career-centered post-grad education is just as vital to creating a sustainable citizenry as sending kids to college is.

Robinson gets all of this, and I like that about her. I really do. But like I said, I just don’t see Robinson nor Dowd beating Ravenstahl.

Hopefully, though, Robinson’s support has swelled enough and her public presence has grown enough that she doesn’t just slide back into the private sector as a defense attorney. The best thing that could happen would be for whichever candidate wins the election - probably Ravenstahl - to find a position in city government for Robinson. Something relevant, something influential, something where she can be right behind every decision that gets made, ready to call out the Mayor or Council or whoever needs to get called out. Someone to kick a little ass when a little ass needs to be kicked.

Even if she doesn’t get to be mayor this time around, Carmen Robinson can serve this city well. I just hope that the powers recognize her value.

Gutter: Somebody's getting clingy

Remember when Barack Obama said this?

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

He was so off-base about that, wasn’t he? How dare he make such statements? Those comments were an affront to the gun-loving, God-fearing, Constitution-misunderstanding people of our fair Commonwealth, and every proud American with a magnetic yellow ribbon on the back of his truck took offense at the suggestion that he was clinging to guns as some sort of reactionary instinct.

Clinging to guns…what a load of crap. That elitist doesn’t know the first thing about the heart of Pennsylvania.

Oh wait.

From today’s Post-Gazette:

The publisher of The Outdoor Wire, an online publication for the outdoors industry, even credited Mr. Obama with sparing the gun industry the same kind of slump that has decimated the automakers.

Sales of guns and ammunition are surging nationwide, largely because gun enthusiasts and first-time buyers are afraid the president is going to push for gun control.

The increase has reached record levels in recent months.

And furthermore…

As for Mr. Rendell, he recently joined Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl in urging Congress to renew an assault weapons ban and asked the state Legislature to pass a lost-and-stolen-gun reporting law and allow local firearms regulation.

Moves like those fuel a simple mentality: Stockpile while you can.

And furthermore…

"I'm not worried about it, but I know everyone else is," said Mr. Casato, 66. "Any time you have the Democrats take over, [gun advocates] feel they're going to infringe on gun rights.”

And furthermore…

…it's safe to say that many gun owners don't trust the president. The surge in sales actually began during the election, when then-candidate Obama emerged as the front-runner. It intensified after he won.

And furthermore…

Many of Anthony Arms' customers are worried about home invasions, he said. But others are clearly concerned about the political climate.

"I always ask them why they're buying guns," said Mr. McCall. "They say they're afraid they're going to be banned and then they won't be able to get them."

And finally…

Those who oppose gun control of any kind say there already are enough gun laws and look at such measures [such as bans on assault rifles] as the beginning of a ban on all guns -- or even confiscation of their weapons.

A fear of “confiscation of their weapons?” Sounds to me like someone’s clinging to their AK. And the rush to buy guns - "I've been in this business for 33 years," said Mr. Romanoff, "and there's never been this demand." - is further evidence that Obama’s “cling to guns” claim wasn’t that far off-base.

Of course, by associating Obama’s comments with this story about rising gun sales - a surge in gun sales? - I’m playing into the same misunderstanding that made the whole thing a controversy last year:

The point of Obama’s statement wasn’t the “cling to guns or religion” part; the point was the “why” behind that clinging.

The jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

That was the real crux of what Obama was saying, and can anyone deny it? Drive down to Clairton or Homestead - the real Homestead, not the Waterfront - or Braddock, and tell me what you see. And those places are just in the Pittsburgh area.

It was probably poor syntax judgment to juxtapose “bitter” with “cling to guns or religion” and thus associate the two. But the underlying truth of Obama’s statement was impossible to deny then and looks even more accurate now.

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.

Peak: Appealing to the masses

The Steelers might be the kings of the town, but the Penguins are becoming political players (in a different way this time).

Apparently someone at Ravenstahl campaign HQ heard that the Pens-Flyers series is drawing good ratings. The first commercial of the first intermission during Tuesday's Game 4 was a pro-Luke ad. Now, I don't watch much local network television, but I think I watch enough to have an idea about what they show, and I have yet to see a Luke-for-Mayor ad this year.

Tuesday night was the first one I've seen.

According to SportsBusinessDaily (reg. required)...Sunday’s telecast of the Penguins-Flyers Game 3, drew a huge (for hockey) 1.7/4, NBC’s highest hockey ratings since the Winter Classic on New Year’s Day, and likely tied for the highest non-Finals/Winter Classic rating on NBC in the network’s history...According to Sports Media Watch, the game did a whopping 18.6/33 in Pittsburgh (Meaning 1 in every 3 households with a TV watched it) and a 7.0/15 in Philadelphia. (Courtesy of Puck The Media)

I guess hitting one out of every three households is a pretty good net to cast. Sports really does have a place in politics, even if it's just as a medium for spreading the word.

Gutter: Who's got a "Word of the Day" calendar?

Pittsburgh democratic debate with Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, Councilman Patrick Dowd, and attorney Carmen Robinson just wrapped up. Each candidate appeared to have his or her own Word of the Day calendar.

My approximation of what each of those calendars said this morning:

Dowd: "Leadership"

Robinson: "Disingenuous"

Ravenstahl: Not sure, but it must have been something funny, since he was smirking the whole time.

Gutter: Blue is nonplussed

This is my dog. His name is Blue.

Since I work at home, he pretty much does what I do. If I sit around all day, he sits around all day. If I go to the park, he goes to the park. If I spend all day playing synthesizers…well, Blue can’t do that because his paws are too big for anything more precise than block chords, and while I have a certain appreciation for experimental approaches to music, I tend to prefer something a little more melodic. So when I play a synthesizer at home, Blue usually just lays around and listens.

A similar occurrence takes place when I watch TV. Blue rarely shows interest in the programs and movies I choose to watch, so he just lays there and soaks it in. Such was the case earlier today when I watched the inauguration of the 44th President of the United States, Barack H. Obama.

I watched the inauguration, and Blue laid around and listened to it. Occasionally I noticed him glancing up, but for the most part, he was nonplussed.

Overall, I wasn’t really surprised that Blue was nonplussed with the whole thing. He reacted the same way to the speech Obama gave on Election Night in that park in Chicago. Blue’s a young lad - the end of January will be his first birthday - but he’s wise beyond his years.

For Blue, words like “hope” and “progress” and “unity” sure have a nice ring to them, but that ring is hollow. Words like that are empty starters, sparks to ignite some sense of national pride or collective passion that are best served in the campaign process. Or at ceremonial procedures like an inauguration.

Blue heard the call to action:

“Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and begin the work of remaking America.”

That sure does sound nice, but the words barely registered with Blue this afternoon as they echoed from my TV. I was fairly caught up in the historical significance and intensity of the moment, but as I said before, Blue was nonplussed.

Now, I’ve done my best to educate Blue how significant it is that Obama won the election. But even on that fateful night back in November, after I returned from a friend’s house where celebratory spirits were in full bloom, Blue’s demeanor could best be defined as “nonplussed.”

As is our normal routine, I immediately let Blue out the back door for an evening release after coming back from my friend’s house on Election Night. As I stood in the doorway while Blue relieved the pressure that had built over the previous three or four hours, I reflected on my drive from the friend’s house in Mt. Washington back to my place in Lawrenceville. I thought about how a chorus of car horns punctuated the drive. I thought about how there seemed to be an electricity, a natural energy that enveloped the city.

I thought about these things while Blue performed his evening ritual that night in November. And then, just before he came back in the house, he looked up at me with an expression that seemed to completely encompass the lingering thought in my mind.

With one look, Blue asked the most important question of all:

Now what?

After all the promises and talk of hope and progress and unity and Yes We Can and everything that so captivated Americans over the past two years…

Now what?

After a history-making election that will forever change the face of the American political process…

Now what?

After finally undoing the God-awful administration that held the White House for the past eight years…

Now what?

And so it was on Tuesday afternoon, as I watched the inauguration of our 44th President…

Now what?

Hope, progress, unity, and all of those happy words will mean very little if real solutions, real ideas, and real, tangible effectiveness does not come out of this presidency.

And so Blue asks…

Now what?

Gutter: Hillary supports the drink tax

Vote Obama.

Photo courtesy Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Gutter: Why you wanna go and do that?

Bill Peduto has pulled out of the race for the Democratic mayoral nomination. As a result, my great plan of political action has gone down the toilet.

Let me explain:

Several years ago I thought I would make our nation’s two-party mandate work for me. So, despite my generally liberal/libertarian views (although those two don’t always overlap), I registered as a Republican. My line of thinking was that I would vote with that designation, but since my votes would usually tend toward Democrats, the voting statistics would show that a Republican had broken party lines and voted Democrat.

I then concluded that if I could convince many others to do the same thing, we could create a cause for concern within the GOP when they saw large numbers of their “supporters” cross party lines. That concern would then translate into panic and self-doubt; long term, the party would eventually unravel. I liked to think of this as tearing down the Republican party from the inside.

I was very proud of this plan, and I would boast of it to anyone who would listen.

But then Bill Peduto came into my life.

Well, not really. What happened was Luke Ravenstahl became the mayor of Pittsburgh and I began to develop an interest in city politics. Now, I’m not to be confused with the far-more advanced and well-read pundits at such luminary blogs as The Burgh Report or The People’s Republic of Pittsburgh, two of my favorite Pittsburgh-centric blogs, but through reading their work and the work of others, I came to form some opinions on the young mayor and his primary opposition in the Democratic primary, Bill Peduto.

I won’t go through what I like and dislike about each candidate because, quite frankly, it’s pretty meaningless now. But I found that I tended to prefer what I learned about Peduto over what I learned about Ravenstahl.

But as I was trying to learn me some Pittsburgh politics, I realized a crucial issue: with Pennsylvania's closed primary laws, I, as a registered Republican, wouldn’t be permitted to vote in the Democratic primary. I could vote in the general election, but by then the real decision would have already been made. The true vote for mayor is the Democratic primary, and my voice could not be heard because of my crusade against the Republican Party.

Then, as fate would have it, the state Department of Transportation showed up in a most pleasant way when they informed me that I needed to renew my driver’s license in February. The process of renewing one’s license in the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania includes the opportunity to register to vote, or, if one is already registered, the opportunity to update one’s voter information.

Fortune smiled upon me, and I seized the opportunity to have a say in choosing this fair city’s next mayor. With the future of Pittsburgh as my focus, I put aside my personal mission to tear down the GOP from the inside and changed my party affiliation. I walked out of the AAA Motor Garden in East Liberty that day as a man who would be a part of the local political machine. I would be a spoke in the wheels as this great city rolls forward.

On Wednesday, March 21, 2007, the wheels fell off when Peduto announced that he was withdrawing from the race. He gave some nonsense reasons about wanting to have an issues-based race and not wanting to divide the city and that "The only way to win would be to go negative.”

Whatever.

Speculation seems to circulate around Peduto bailing because 1) he’s not a good campaigner, or 2) he didn’t raise enough money, and those two could be connected.

Whatever.

The Admiral at The People’s Republic thinks Peduto could be lining up for a run as an independent candidate in November, and there’s some discussion on that blog about whether or not he missed his chance on that one. Either way, I don’t buy it, and if that is Peduto’s plan, it seems like a poor decision: there was enough negativity about Ravenstahl that Peduto probably could have won the nomination. As an independent, he would never be able to produce the resources necessary to win the general election, nor would he have the backing of the powerful Pittsburgh Democratic Machine (which I assume exists).

All I know is that Bill Peduto has torpedoed my carefully-laid plan. I guess I could change my party affiliation back to the GOP and put the plan back in action, but it took a personal invitation from the Department of Transportation to get me to switch my party in the first place, so it seems unlikely that I will do it again.

Anyway, that’s not what it’s about. At some point, I became genuinely interested in the future of this city and I developed a genuine interest in having a say in who made the decisions that would have an impact on the future of this city. Now I feel like that opportunity has been taken away because Bill Peduto, for whatever reason, has decided not to run. As mentioned in the Post-Gazette (the article I linked in the first sentence of this post), Ravenstahl and Peduto were the only candidates who filed petitions to appear on the ballot in the Democratic primary.

So that’s it. Unless some dark horse comes along and somehow beats Ravenstahl in May, it’s done. I hope my political interest in Pittsburgh doesn't go with it.