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