See anything familiar looking?
You're supposed to.
That picture of Interim Mayor Luke Ravenstahl with his hands on his hips on his campaign website is the exact same picture that's on city billboards,
and on the "newsletter" containing the City's "2007 Schedule Refuse/Bulk and Recycling Pickup" calendar that's likely hanging in your kitchen, and is on God knows what other offical City literature.
The blogs talked about the inappropriateness of Luke plastering his face on everything during an election and even the MSM picked up on it. There were some, of course, who tried to excuse it with "everybody does it." But do they? Does everyone mix public official City business and private campaign business this much?
Can you really use the exact same image on official City billboards and also on your campaign website and then say that the billboards and official City-produced literature are not part of the campaign?
I know that the space on the billboards was donated, but who paid to have that photograph taken? It's not a Polaroid that his wife snapped.
Doesn't that photograph belong to the City -- and by the City -- I mean, me and you, the taxpayers? Maybe you or I don't choose to make such a donation to the Ravenstahl Campaign.
Did the Ravenstahl Campaign pay the City, or even get permission, to use that picture?
So very many questions . . .
Well, let me provide you with one answer. If this gets any traction and a certain Interim Mayor is called to account for it by the MSM, blaming it on the webmaster/web designer is not a legitimate answer. Someone in the Ravenstahl Campaign approved the website before it went online and you can be damn sure they knew exactly what they were doing when they did it.
Take the picture down off your site, Luke, or take down the damn billboards!
Tell me, is there any nit too small to pick?
ReplyDeleteZzZzZzZ
ReplyDeleteImagine how these kids are going to act if they win in May?! There is a clear pattern: MSM or blogs make noise, the kids either "ignore it and hope it will go away" or they tell Luke to claim he's "looking into it" and then the issue disappears. The blogs certainly want greater accountability - MSM appears to be asleep at the switch. The list of things on the back-burner is growing:
ReplyDelete1. Ethics Commission - Has a quorum met? Has the resigned member been replaced?
2. Cathy McNeilly Case - Has it been settled yet?
3. Cost Recovery - What exactly is the plan and when will it be implemented?
4. Pension - Why is Luke pushing to hire Ed Gratton's firm to babysit Hirtle Callahan/Pension advisors? Kind of like hiring a security guard to watch the security guard - for a fund that is in jeopardy not due to poor investment decisions but due to poor management decisions/early retirements
5. If Brackney will be investigated for interfering with police operations, when will the Regan investigation be initiated; if not, when does Brackney plan to file her lawsuit?
6. ...I have to go back to work...
You're right -- Luke doing something wrong again -- zzzzzz, that certainly isn't news anymore.
ReplyDeleteDennis Regan doesn't work for the city of Pittsburgh anymore. How can they investigate him?
ReplyDeleteBrackney clearly broke the rules and should be penalized.
This "story" is far too boring for words. You should market this blog as a cure for insomnia.
ReplyDeleteTell that to the Post-Gazette's Early Returns which mentions this post.
ReplyDeleteLooks like I got some ink on there as well. Does that mean I have arrived as a blogger?
ReplyDeleteDespite other naysayers, this is a real story. It's plainly illegal use of taxpayer funds, small though it may be.
ReplyDeleteBut it isn't even about the money, kids, it's about the arrogance. EVERYONE in politics knows that you have to maintain a wall between your campaigning and your official elected position. The lowliest intern knows this!
So either; a) Luke doesn't care and arrogantly thought he could get a way with it (which he will)
or
b) He and his "people" are really stupid.
Either way, it's a lose-lose situation for Pittsburgh.
Piltdown man
Piltdown man has it exactly right.
ReplyDeletematt h,
ReplyDeleteYou have indeed arrived on the basis of your very uniqueness as the only pro Luke blog in the universe!
You don't have to still be in office to be investigated for misconduct while you were in office.
ReplyDeletedoesn't Otis link his campaign website to the official City Council website that the City pays for? As a matter of fact didn't Otis run for Mayor and City Council at the same time while pulling down a fill time city council salary? Hmm...wonder how much time he spent working and how much time he spent promoting himself.
ReplyDeletedoesn't Otis link his campaign website to the official City Council website that the City pays for?
ReplyDeleteUh, dude, there is nothing illegal about that. He isn't using the site to campaign or employees to campaign. You have it opposite, if Peduto had a link on his city site to his campaign site then there'd be a problem.
As a matter of fact didn't Otis run for Mayor and City Council at the same time while pulling down a fill time city council salary?
Uh, dude, the interim Mayor is currently running for office while receiving a salary. You're logic requires a term limit.
Hmm...wonder how much time he spent working and how much time he spent promoting himself.
Oh yes. Bill Peduto is a shameless self-promoter compared to that modest Luke Ravenstahl.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeletethere's no law against running for re-election & for a new office at the same time.
Doug Shields is doing it right now.
You lose all credibility when you point the finger at ANYONE, other than Ravenstahl, as the region's biggest self-promoter.
Not only is Ravenstahl shamelessly promoting himself 24/7 - he's doing it on my dime, on your dime too, if you're a city taxpayer. And he's got no substance behind this self-promotion, it's basically "Look at me! I'm young! I'm moving Pittsburgh forward!"
There is no substance - he has no track record of successes to back anything up, so he just puts his face on anything that's standing still.
What's going on with the invesitgation of T.C. -- It was promised that we would hear before the election... promises, promises.
ReplyDeleteJust because she is not favorered to win doesn't mean she has the right to run -- duh