It might have made some sense if they didn't print a columnist who laughed along while writing about Luke's habit of stealing all his ideas -- most of them from Peduto himself.
It might have made more sense if they didn't bury almost all real criticism of Luke Ravenstahl in their (online-only?) "Early Returns" blog-style column.
It might have made some sense if they hadn't tried to equate Ravenstahl's mailings of tens of thousands of pieces of what was essentially campaign literature at the public's expense with an anonymous pro Peduto YouTube homemade ad that had something like 200 hits in yet one more example of the MSM's attempts at something called "evenhandedness."
It might have made sense if they had been calling daily for debates before Luke managed to beat the clock.
It might have made some sense if they had referred to Lukey as a "neophyte mayor who got into office as a result of two accidents of fate" all along.
It might have made some damn sense if they had, or were going to, endorse Bill Peduto. Do you think that knowing how freakishly popular Lukey is with voters that they may not have wanted to chance upsetting their
It might have made sense if it had been the P-G who broke Ravenstahl's FIRST BIG DOCUMENTED LIE -- the handcuffing by police incident -- instead of the blogs.
It might have made sense if the P-G, and not the Pittsburgh City Paper, had noted Ravenstahl's SECOND BIG DOCUMENTED LIE when he weaseled about which conversation he was denying when he conversed about birth control with ACDC members. That one established that Ravenstahl had a pattern of lying.
Heck, they didn't even break Ravenstahl's THIRD BIG DOCUMENTED LIE -- it was the Tribune-Review that broke the story about Luke's lies about his now infamous trip to NYC.
Even now, they pull their punches by writing, "and this at a moment when fresh evidence of Mr. Ravenstahl's youthful inexperience is also in the news" instead of writing, "and this at a moment when fresh evidence of Mr. Ravenstahl's pattern of lying is also in the news."
I'm sorry, Post-Gazette, but it isn't Mr. Bill Peduto's job to help Luke because you feel that Luke "needed this race -- to temper his political steel in the cauldron of experience."
Our City needs a tough, independent paper that asks the hard questions from day one and not one that only decides to pile on when everyone else decides it's OK to do so. Just maybe that "cowardice and failed responsibility" that you speak of is your own staring you back in the mirror.
What would be funny if the fate of this City wasn't important is that unlike those wild and crazy partisan blogs, you can with your artificial traditional editorial/news divide on the same day say in this "news analysis" piece that "That could set the stage for a renewed Peduto challenge, either in November or in 2009," while stating in your editorial piece that, "If Mr. Peduto comes back as an independent, he now risks being seen as calculating and too clever by half. Voters know the old adage: When the going gets tough, the tough get going."
You can in that same "news analysis" article admit that given our City's unfathomable "Give the kid a chance" attitude, Peduto was pretty much guaranteed to mar any chance for his future in this city and yet in your editorial, you blow that off because you deem that he owed it to stay in the race as a "community service." Wasn't it your duty in the interests of community service to "help define where it [Pittsburgh] wants to go and which issues it counts as important" as much if not more than Peduto's?
But you know, Post-Gazette, I think that I really know where you're coming from. It's finally sinking in that we are going to be stuck with this "neophyte mayor who got into office as a result of two accidents of fate" with all his "youthful inexperience" and that scares the bejesus out of you. So you lash out at Bill Peduto because you can't lash out at
Sucks, huh?
5 comments:
Yeah, taking another look at that quote from the PG's editorial: "If Mr. Peduto comes back as an independent, he now risks being seen as calculating and too clever by half. Voters know the old adage: When the going gets tough, the tough get going."
I guess the PG means when the going gets tough, the tough stay in and go down in flames, instead of getting out to preserve a chance for victory. What ever happened to "discretion is the better part of valor"?
Bill is full of it. It is up to the candidate to raise issues not the media and in this race both candidates have been very light on the issues. Bill whines that no-one was talking issues when his own web site did not have an issues page. Where are the policy papers and press events around transit and finances and gun violence, etc. Bill was a better campaigner in 2005 and it was not because the media was paying more attention. Of course in 2005 he had Lamb taking the tough shots at O'Connor. Maybe he should have been the candidate this year.
Maria - Many of us had flames shooting out of our eyes and ears upon reading this editorial. As the primary MSM news vehicle in Pgh., the PG is absolutely responsible for the spread of "give the kid a chance" propaganda. There's not a respectable newspaper in the country that would've taken the cowardly approach of the PG throughout these past months. They did this City a huge disservice by failing to even print the most superficial news of Luke's missteps. All the PG had to do was walk the halls of the City-County Building to see that since the day the Regan-Zober-Ravenstahl administration took over, City business came to a screeching halt and our taxdollars were funnelled into one giant campaign machine. Luke can now go back to operating as he always has - how is that? you ask -look to the NY City fiasco to find out all you need to know about Luke's priorities, work ethic and dishonesty. I'm not going to judge Bill, yet, because I don't know the whole story, but the view from the cheap seats is that Bill should've come out swinging ala Babe Ruth when that story broke. He should've rose to the occasion, pointed at Luke and said "Life is a series of choices. In the moment that man stepped on that plane, he made a choice." It was a golden opportunity to tee off on Luke's lack of integrity and contrary to Bill's comment that it had nothing to do with the issues - it had EVERYTHING to do with the issues in this campaign. It wasn't a silver bullet, but it was a malignancy that every MSM outlet in town recognized as striking at the heart of this campaign - My question: Why didn't Bill's advisors see it? Sure, die-hard Luke fans are going to cry "politics" over the situation, but where were Bill's spin doctors? Why didn't they tell him to grab a spine, roll his sleeves up, get angry and say "Enough is enough. I steered clear when Luke was in the midst of his Heinz Field controversy. I let the facts speak for themselves over Luke's fumbling of the Denny Regan incident. I didn't attack Luke over his mishandling of the Cathy McNeilly e-mail. But I am doing my supporters and the citizens of the City a disservice if I just sit back and allow this nonsense to continue. There is nothing cute or funny about this NY situation. My opponent betrayed the citizens of this City and the residents of the Hill District when he made the choice to get on that plane. He had absolutely no intention of ever going to that meeting. And he may have also violated multiple rules of ethics by courting an individual with whom the City is engaged in ongoing business. Bob O'Connor would never have gotten on that plane, Tom Murphy would never have gotten on that plane, Sophie Masloff and Dick Caliguiri would never have gotten on that plane - even Dan Onorato didn't get on that plane and I absolutely would not have gotten on that plane." Bill: your advisors failed you.
Whether its Bill or some other "savior", we can only hope that someone steps up in the fall. It's just not going to get any better.
And don't even get me started on the failure of City council to do its job - not a peep out of them, as usual.
A savior?
We don't need a savior. We have a great guy in office.
Matt H;
That's laughable.
He got drunk and had to be restrained by a police officer and then lied about it for how many months?
He's been caught lying how many times?
If you think that's a "great guy" then that tells us more about you than about Luke.
Post a Comment