We could all use a laugh

I think that after last week we could all use a laugh or two, so I give you Colbert, Stewart and Maher (watch them quick before someone takes them down at YouTube):

Is Voting FOR The Supplemental The Same as Voting FOR The War?

Something caught my eye in the usually eye-catching City Paper.

For those of you who still don't know the CP, it's Pittsburgh's "Alternative" press and you can find it in all the better coffee shops and bus shelters in town. It's an eclectic mix of incisive progressive reporting and a healthy dose of straight/gay/bi-curious/transexual phone sex ads. Oh yea, the Macyapper has a column there, too.

Cuique suum, as I always say. (Ok, I'll help you out a little with that one).

Anyway, I found this article by Charlie Dietch. It begins:

U.S. Congressman Mike Doyle says he respects the work done in the past four years by anti-war protesters. But the vigil by protesters outside of his Downtown office has him a little puzzled.

From roughly 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. each day, activists have been protesting Doyle's decision to vote in favor of a supplemental funding bill that provides money for the war in Iraq. But Doyle notes that the bill was crafted by staunch anti-war Congressman Jack Murtha, and while it does provide war funding, it also sets a September 2008 deadline to withdraw troops from Iraq.

From the protesters side:

But the protesters, who began their vigil March 14, say that despite Doyle's previous anti-war sentiments, a vote for the supplemental-funding bill is a vote for the war.

"If you oppose the war, than you have to oppose funding the war," says Ed Bortz, who stood in the cold, snow and sleet on Friday afternoon outside of Doyle's Ross Street office. On this bitterly cold day, just three protesters remained. But activist Elizabeth Donohoe says their numbers have been as high as a dozen.

On the one hand, I can see the protesters point - ANY money spent for dubya's war, is (and this is not even a tautaulogy) being spent for dubya's war. No question about that.

But this is where the political process comes in. And it's probably the thing that most disgusts a lot of people about politics - the need for compromise.

Had the House progressives, fresh from the November elections with a mandate to get us the hell out of Iraq, pushed too hard, the more conservative House Democrats, who were also just re-elected, but possibly with a different mandate, would have balked.

The result? The spending bill that would have made it through the House would have been far more dubya friendly, with no time table. And remember, as of 3/15/07 most Americans favor a witdrawal by fall, 2008.

So it's a compromise. For better or worse, that's the way it's done. You have to take the good with the bad. Some days you eat the bear, somedays the bear eats you. You can't always get what you want.

And so on.

March Coverage

The P-G:

Armed with another year's issues, Sgt. Millard and more than 1,000 people marched in slow procession through Oakland Saturday, marking the fourth anniversary of the Iraq War while demanding the end of combat operations and an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops.

But take a look at this:

As the marchers snaked their way down from the hospital, past an unmarked silver Ford Crown Victoria with two men inside, one with a camera, they were greeted by frustrated commuters and the jubilant shouts of passers-by and the sometimes low and sometimes high-pitched honks of car horns.

Nice to see they're keeping tabs on the people out exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

KDKA (includes video):

Following the fourth anniversary the war in Iraq, hundreds turned out for an anti-war rally and protest in Oakland this afternoon.

The events were sponsored by the Thomas Merton Center and a number of organizations participated.

Following a march, protesters gathered between the Cathedral of Learning and the Pitt Student Union where speakers aired their frustration about the war.

Police and organizers say today's event was peaceful. One person was arrested but organizers tell KDKA the person taken into custody was not one of the protestors.

WTAE:

A crowd, stretching as long as a city block, took to the streets to deliver one message Saturday: to bring the troops home from Iraq.

Hundreds participated in a march and rally in Oakland. They walked down Fifth and Forbes avenues before holding a rally on Bigelow Boulevard near Pittsburgh's Cathedral Learning.

The Thomas Merton Center organized the protest.

For those who are curious (and I admit to being one of them), what's the story with that arrest? The P-G has some info:

In the midst of the speakers, a young man with an Afro wearing a tank-top and shorts, disrupted the proceedings when he decided to would be fine time to call speakers "heathens" while waving a Bible.

The gentleman was promptly arrested by police officers, whom he also called heathens, for disorderly conduct and managed to yell "I love you Mom" into a camera as he was being put in the back of a police cruiser.

Who knew there were so many heathens?

Snaps From Today's Anti War March

I'm still too ill to participate in something like this, but Dayvoe's on the job and taking snaps.

Here's a few that he's emailed me from the MARCH AGAINST THE WAR:

March Against the War -- Tomorrow!

WHAT: March Against the War with DfP
WHEN: Saturday, March 24, 2007
WHERE: Meet at 1896 Herron Hill Pumping Station DPW (4501 Centre Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213)

If you saw coverage of last weekend's anniversary marches against the War On Iraq in DC and other cities, you may have wondered where was Pittsburgh's march. Wonder no more. It's being held tomorrow.

The Thomas Merton Center Anti War Committee is planning a mass demonstration to commemorate the 4th anniversary of the start of the war.

At 1:30 pm on Saturday, March 24, the AWC will be sponsoring a permitted March and Rally starting at Schenley High school with a concluding rally on Bigelow Blvd. between Forbes and Fifth Ave.

Many groups are helping to sponsor this event. One of them is Democracy for Pittsburgh (DfP) -- a group to which I belong. Unfortunately, I'm still not well enough to participate tomorrow. But if you'd like to go and want to march with a great group of folks, you are all welcome to march behind the DfP banner (tell them one of the Junkies sent you!...Uh...Maybe, you'd better say "Maria" sent you).

Democracy for Pittsburgh will meet at 1:00 pm to get "Pumped Up" in front of the "1896 Herron Hill Pumping Station DPW" on Centre Ave between Dollar St. and N. Dithridge St. They will march the short distance to the rally at Schenley H.S. and then join the main march to the second rally at the Pitt campus.

For complete details (parking, buses, map, etc.), go to DfP's blog here.

For more information on the march & rally, go to The Thomas Merton Center's website here.

RSVP to march with DfP here or just show up!

If you come late and still want to march with DfP, just look for the big white banner with this logo on it:

Congressman Mike Doyle on Pork

I had a very nice chat last night with Congressman Mike Doyle where we discussed, among other things, the Supplemental bill making its way through The House.

Yes, the same Supplemental that Congressman Murphy erroneously complains about here.

He also said he was surprised when he heard the news about Bill Peduto withdrawing from the mayoral race (He added, "I like Bill, he's a good guy. We've worked together on a number of projects.")

Anyway, he said that despite the news and the complaints from the rightwing (see the Murphy posting above), there's nothing new about attaching new spending initiatives onto Supplemental Appropriations bills. He explained that by definition supplemental appropriations are for things that you couldn't have planned for. Supplementals are for the unforseen stuff that couldn't make it (because it was "unforseen") into the routine budgetary process.

Here's what it says at the Wikipedia on the House Budget Committee:

The committee also reviews supplemental budget requests submitted by the President, which cover items which for one reason or another were not included in the original budget request, usually for emergency spending.

And on the Senate side:

The committee also reviews supplemental spending bills (covering unforseen or emergency expenses not previously budgeted).

So right or wrong, that's the way things have gone. He said that nothing novel was going on - a Supplemental was being forged to gain the most support, the most votes. But the buying of votes? Not happenning.

As of last night, while he said it was "still up in the air," he was optimistic the bill would pass. Indeed the AP is reporting this morning that the House Dems are confident it will pass. Doyle said it looks like there'd be a few Republicans voting for the bill - and if it's obvious the bill is going to pass without their votes, a few more Republicans will vote for it.

Yea, I know - that's confusing. The thing is those Republicans don't want to look like it was their votes that pushed it over the top. But if it's passed anyway, they're safe to vote for it.

In Today's P-G

Post-Gazette columnist (and Editorial Board member) Tony Norman explains some things.

I'll leave it to y'inz to read it for yourselves.

Congressman Tim Murphy - on Pork

Recently I heard our favorite evidence taker-baker, Congressman Tim Murphy on one of the many conservative radio talk shows here in the Burgh.

He was complaining with the host about the current "Supplemental" making its way through the US House of Representatives. Complaining about the pork that's been added to the bill that just supposed to be supporting our troops in Iraq.

He and the host agreed: The contemptable politcs of it all! How dare the Democrat party play politics with the troops!

How indeed.

Ladies and gentlemen, I turn your attention to a previous supplemental bill, HR 1268 - Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005.

On 3/16/05, the bill passed the House by a vote of 388-43.

You'll notice that our friend Congressman Murphy is listed with the "yeas."

During his recent radio appearance (can a person really make an appearance on the radio??) Congressman Murphy was complaining, for example, about the milk subsidies that were tacked onto the Supplemental.

Yet in 2005 he voted for a Supplemental that included this:

SEC. 5104. The funds made available in section 786 of title VII of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005 as contained in division A of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447) may be applied to accounts of Alaska dairy farmers owed to the Secretary of Agriculture.

There were also provisions for off-channel sanctuaries for the Silvery Minnow:

SEC. 6014. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to perform such analyses and studies as needed to determine the viability of establishing an off-channel sanctuary for the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow in the Middle Rio Grande Valley. In conducting these studies, the Secretary shall take into consideration:

(1) providing off-channel, naturalistic habitat conditions for propagation, recruitment, and maintenance of Rio Grande silvery minnows; and
(2) minimizing the need for acquiring water or water rights to operate the sanctuary.

If the Secretary determines the project to be viable, the Secretary is further authorized to design and construct the sanctuary and to thereafter operate and maintain the sanctuary. The Secretary may enter into grant agreements, cooperative agreements, financial assistance agreements, interagency agreements, and contracts with Federal and non-Federal entities to carry out the purposes of this Act.

And, doncha know it, provisions for the an Information Center in Yellowstone National Park:

SEC. 6032. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the National Park Service is authorized to expend appropriated funds for the construction, operations and maintenance of an expansion to the West Yellowstone Visitor Information Center to be constructed for visitors to, and administration of, Yellowstone National Park.

Don't get me wrong. The issue here is not whether any of these are important. That is a completely separate question (and worthwhile, too!). The point is that Congressman Murphy voted for the pork then, and he's protesting the pork now. The Republicans were in charge then. The Democrats are in charge now.

Who's playing politics, Congressman?

City Council President Doug Shields

On Wednesday of this week, I was lucky enough to get an interview with Pittsburgh City Council President Doug Shields. It was a rushed, last minute thing. Selena, Shield's Chief of Staff, told me he had a thing to do at 5:30 and as the earliest I could get over there was 5, I knew it was sure to be a quick interview. One that I was lucky to get, being as I am an humble unpaid lowly blogger scribe.

As I made my way through the City-County building's security (my belt-buckle always beeps the metal detector) up to the fifth floor, where both the Mayor's office and the council chambers reside, I worked and reworked how I would play it. I knew that Shields is a very approachable guy, a teensy bit eccentric, but that's not a bad thing at all. Furthermore, he loves to talk. That being the case, I figured I'd just drop a few questions on him and let the interview run it's own course.

I'm not Mike Wallace, you know.

I made it to the inner sactum, the room smelled faintly of Fabrize and there was an empty cigarette box on his almost messy desk. Not saying those things are connected, just that I noticed them at the same time.

We all shook hands and Shields hung up my jacket in the closet (inside out, by the way, not that he noticed) and we got down to business. Turned out, the conversation was much longer than I could have hoped for. We had a lengthy conversation about his campaign for City Controller (which I'll write up separately).

But first things first I asked, "What the heck happened today?"

And I got another lesson in the realities of city-level politics.

Shields pointed out repeatedly how difficult a mayoral candidacy is - especially for someone challenging an incumbent. A mayoral campaign is "one long day after another. There's never enough time and time moves slowly. It's a paradox"

He said that when he was Bob O'Connor's Chief of Staff, he was involved in a number of losing efforts at running for mayor. First time out in 1997 they came within 12 percentage points. Second time out in 2001, they lost by just 699 votes. A swing of little more than 350 votes would have won them the Mayor's office.

Shields remarked at how that election win for Murphy was a pyrrhic (yea, it's a word - go look it up) victory. Had they won that election, instead of Murphy, they would have had to preside over with the bankruptcy of city finances that bubbled over in 2003.

"You do these things, you learn." He said. "I tip my hat to anyone who gets into a mayoral race."

On Peduto's Withdrawal Wednesday

Shields started by saying that Bill Peduto was behind in the race. So far behind that the first advice from someone in "Campaign 101" class would have been to go negative. "And Bill just didn't want to do that." he said.

What was missing in this election, he added, was a "dragon to slay" as there was little to campaign against. The media was focussed on what Shields regarded as the "distractions" of Heinz field handcuffs and midnight plane trips to NYC and not the issues Peduto wanted to address.

Shields added that had things progressed further down the road, Peduto might have done more damage to his reputation and career. But Bill's a good councilman who works for his constituency, he said.

On an Independent Run by Peduto

"I take it at face value that he's withdrawn from the race." Shields said. Though it's certainly the case that no politician would ever close a door/shut himself off from an option. Anything's possible, but as far as he's concerned, Peduto's out of the race.

But if there's a lesson to be learned from Shields' own history of running campaigns for Bob O'Connor (and I am not saying he offered this up as a lesson - this is my assessment), that Peduto's withdrawal yesterday may have saved him for a better run in the future. O'Connor lost in 2001 and then (and these are Shields' words) the city "went down the toilet in 2003"
under Mayor Murphy's watch. Perhaps the Heinz field handcuffs and latenight trips to NYC are only the tip of the iceberg for our young Luke.

Tomorrow is another day, Scarlett.

Tonight I'll start writing up Shields' assessment of his own campaign for Controller (here's a hint: he says it's going very well).

More P-G BS

The Post-Gazette rips Peduto a new one because he drops out of the race calling him every kind of crap, yet they are only "disappointed" in Ravenstahl when, as Mayor, he lies outright and throws all ethical considerations out the door with his acceptance of pricey "gifts" from interested parties.

Does anyone still wonder why Peduto left the race?!?

Oh Puhleeze!

You know, this editorial about Bill Peduto in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette might have made some sense if the P-G wasn't as guilty as the rest of the MSM of printing up lovely puff pieces about Luke Ravesnstahl instead of asking the tough questions all along.

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 consumers readers? Will you now state for the record, P-G, that you would have endorsed Peduto if he had stayed in the race? No, of course you won't.

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 your readers the voters or any of your own complicity in where we stand right now.

Sucks, huh?

"We stayed at a friend of Kevin's house that evening"

He added that he didn't know the name of Kevin's friend.

Yeah, that's the kind of answer you'd expect from your kid when he's messed up and is trying to cover his tracks.

But it was actually the answer that the freakin' MAYOR OF PITTSBURGH, Luke Ravenstahl, gave to a major daily newspaper (the Post-Gazette).

Ravenstahl has previously stated that he doesn't know where he ate that night and that he didn't remember in what part of town he spent the night.

Early Alzheimer's? I think not.

The night in question is of course Luke's now infamous trip to NYC.

Lil Lukey also says that he's going to just refuse to give any more details about his little field trip.

And for those who will inevitably ask why any of this matters, it does:

Where the mayor slept, though, is relevant if the lodgings were owned or rented by a party with some interest in city business, and if the stay had monetary value. The city's code of conduct bars officials from taking gifts above nominal value from an "interested party," with some exceptions.

Read it and weep here.

A Black Day In Pittsburgh

Yes, Bill Peduto has dropped out of the race leaving Interim Mayor Luke Ravenstahl running completely unopposed in the May primary (no Republicans are running either).

I imagine I'll be writing in "NONE OF THE ABOVE" when I vote.

The "Boy Wonder" who slipped in as City Council President on a bad compromise and who landed as Interim Mayor because of the death of another, now will have a virtual coronation as Mayor.

I wanted to be mad at Bill Peduto. I wanted to say, "How can you abandon us to this?" but I really can't blame the guy.

Luke has been skating by on:

puff pieces in the local MSM (until just yesterday when he personally pissed off some reporters by once again lying to their faces);

national play as a novelty;

too many greedy, self-serving city workers and elected officials;

the approval of the same ACDC members who went to vote on endorsements in 2000 with Bush bumper stickers on their cars;

his willingness to act as a puppet for the Big Boys;

and the unwillingness of a large percentage of the electorate to actually pay attention to what things he's done wrong and what things he refuses to do right.

It's hard to run against a candidate about whom a KDKA TV report this afternoon said "had the blessings of Bob O'Connor." (Hell, I mean I know that television signals transmit through the air, but I guess I didn't realize they really did reach "the Heavens.")

I'm sure the Luke apologists will tell me that we all should just get along now, move forward, etc., but these same people often said that I was critical of Luke Ravenstahl only because I was for Bill Peduto.

Oh contraire!

I have been critical of Ravenstahl because he is an awful choice for Mayor as his actions have provided reason after reason for legitimate criticism.

So, if you think that I'm going to "play nice" now you are sadly mistaken.

I can't.

I live in this city.

Hell, I was born in this city.

I care about this city.

And, there's another reason to care.

Did you ever think, "Damn, wouldn't it have been great if someone could have stopped George W. Bush all the way back in Texas the first time he ran for something?" (Let's face it, kiddies, if this city had a viable Republican Party Luke and not a few other Dem pols would be Republicans.)

Predictions about Ravenstahl's political future like this one which appeared in the Post-Gazette a couple of weeks ago scare the crap out of me:

But he's a heavy favorite to be elected mayor in November, and, with his youth, likability quotient and the high name recognition he'll eventually have, it's not hard to see him in Congress some day or succeeding Onorato as governor

Because I care -- because I heard more of the above sentiments today -- I have a message for Interim Mayor Luke Ravenstahl:

"Every move you make
Every vow you break
Every smile you fake
Every claim you stake
I'll be watching you"

...And blogging on it here.

(Remember, Luke, you'll never really know who might be packing a camera phone the next time you're at Pure Nightclub, now will you?)

LIE LIKE LUKE

Someone's been busy:



Not only is there a LIE LIKE LUKE blog, there's LIE LIKE LUKE buttons and magnets for purchase!

I may just have to buy some myself.

If you too want to LIE LIKE LUKE, you might want to study Luke Ravenstahl's performance at this presser:

What Agent Ska Says!

Agent Ska speaks, you listen:

Here and Here

Rick Santorum - Expert on Geopolitics

Did you know there are terrorist training camps in Hugo Chavez' Venezuela?

So sayeth Rick Santorum.

Take a listen to his interview with Fred Honsberger from the other day. About 5 1/2 minutes in he says

There are Hezbollah training camps, yes terrorist training camps in Venezuela.

This might be news to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison who had an Op-Ed recently in the Washington Times. In it she discusses a collaboration between Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Left unchecked, Messrs. Ahmadinejad and Chavez could be the Khrushchev-Castro tandem of the early 21st century, funneling arms, money and propaganda to Latin America, and endangering that region's fragile democracies and volatile economies. If these two pariahs succeed, the next terrorist training camp could shift from the Middle East to America's doorstep.

You'd think that an Op-ed in the Washington Times would be the perfect place to announce the existence of terrorist training camps in Venezuela. Yet all she says is "Left unchecked (they) could be..." and "If these two pariahs succeed, the next terrorist training camp could shift...to America's doorstep."

Hardly the present tense that Rick Santorum was using.

Or maybe Newt Gingrich, the twice-divorced, thrice married model of Republican Family Values and possible Presidential Candidate, writing recently at a website called Family Security Matters. Here's his warning about Iran and Venezuela:

To take just two recent examples: Ahmadinejad of Iran has said “[t]o those who doubt, to those who ask is it possible, or those who do not believe, I say accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible.” He has also said that Israel should be “wiped off the map.” Chavez of Venezuela, just last week in a joint appearance with the Iranian leader in Latin America, announced a multi billion dollar fund to help countries willing to fight to end “American imperialism.”

Again, wouldn't that have been the perfect place to drop the news that there are terrorist training camps actually in Venezuela? He's warning America's families about the coming terror threat, for gosh sakes. Is he witholding the information that Rick Santorum's been trying to get to the public?

Indeed as recently as last December, here's what the then-Senator had to say on the Senate Floor about the camps:

They have even closer relationships with the Islamic fascists in Iran. A recent congressional report found that Hezbollah may right now have established bases in Venezuela which have issued thousands of visas to people from places such as Cuba and the Middle East, possibly giving them passports to a vague United States border security.

"...may right now..."?

Here's the report. You'll note, however, that the report was "Prepared by the Majority Staff of the House Committee on Homeland Security" and released a month before the 2006 elections. So, of course, it's completely bias free.

On page 32, it says:

General James Hill, commander of U.S. Southern Command, has warned the UnitedStates faces a growing risk from both Middle Eastern terrorists relocating to LatinAmerica and terror groups originating in the region. General Hill said groups such as Hezbollah had established bases in Latin America. These groups are taking advantage of smuggling hotspots, such as the tri-border area of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay, and Venezuela’s Margarita Island, to channel funds to terrorist groups around the world.118

The "118" is a footnote going back to an article in The Financial Times of March 2003. And the bases referred to in the article are smuggling bases, not training camps.

In an article published 4 years ago.

So based on a partisan report prepared in the Republican controlled House of Representatives that footnotes a 4 year old article on terror groups smuggling/funding efforts (one that should have drawn the attention of the Bush administration at the time, were it true), the former Senator from Pennsylvania is able to declare that there are terror training camps in Venezuela.

Strong strong argument, Rick. Real strong.

Luke Ravenstahl's Big Bad Media Day

You don't need to be a PR professional to know that it's not a good thing to have the following words and phrases associated with your name, administration, or campaign. Yet, in the past 24 hours, or so, this is what the mainstream media is saying about Pittsburgh Interim Mayor Luke Ravenstahl:

From this news article:
"...but he changed his story..."

"...he did not know where he ate."

"...he did not remember what part of town he spent the night."

"This wasn't the first Ravenstahl denial to turn into an admission..."

From this/this news article/s: [NOTE: article was updated later in the day.]
"...but later changed his story"

"...an ethical breach..."

"...following a similar denial-turned admission..."

"...credibility problem..."

"These things more reinforce the questions people have about his maturity."

"He ought to be taken out to the woodshed by his political supporters and reminded he's a public official."

"...should not have lied about it..."

"...could be considered a conflict of interest..."

From this news article:
"...an array of ethics questions touching Mr. Ravenstahl and his campaign for re-election."

From this MSM reporter's blog:
"The real story here is that the mayor lied."

"He later said he couldn't even remember when they went to dinner."

"Where the mayor messed up was not being up front..."

"Mayor, the truth is is a wonderful thing. Please use it. You will find it takes a lot less work to be honest than to lie."

From this other MSM reporter's blog:
"...did you lie to to the Tribune-Review reporter when he asked you if you went to New York City? "

"Is it using your public office to leverage political support?"

"...when we questioned you about that, you weren't truthful about that. You weren't truthful to ( Tribune-Review reporter ) Mr. Boren about your trip to New York. What about your integrity? What does this say about your integrity? What do you say to the people of Pittsburgh about your integrity in light of these two situations?

"You weren't honest with me..."

"You weren't honest with Jeremy Boren."

"Come on, you're splitting hairs."

"But are you spitting hairs?"

"Isn't that a bit too cozy..."

"...you did not lie to the Tribune-Review?"

"Are you worried about your credibility?"

"Sienna Miller wasn't there?" [NOTE: Bringing up an association with Sienna Miller may only be a problem in Pittsburgh.]

From this TV news report:
"...in the middle of another controversy tonight."

"...in a lot of hot water"

"...lied to the Trib..."

"...you did not lie to the Tribune Review?"

"...wishes he had been more forthright..."

"...handcuffing and detention at a Steelers game..." [NOTE: While a problem elsewhere, this phrase may be seen as a plus to some Pittsburghers.]

From this TV news report:
"...in hot water..."

"...finally acknowledged..."

"...later acknowledged the truth"

"...sticky issues under city ethics code..."

"...misrepresenting a trip to New York..."

"...latest Ravenstahl problem..."

From this opinion piece:
"Time to call shenanigans on Luke Ravenstahl."

"It's more polite than calling the Pittsburgh mayor deceitful, though that works equally well."

"Ravenstahl seems to be cultivating a reputation for playing fast and loose with the truth."

"Be on the lookout for the "Peduto or Pinocchio" billboards."

From this editorial:
"Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl has a problem -- obfuscation"

"...the Trib caught Ravenstahl in another tap dance."

"So, why the obfuscation?"

"And as he should be more worried -- now that he tried to hide his trip."

From this cartoon:
"PinLukeyo"

From this/this news article/s: [NOTE: article was updated later in the day.]
"...the mayor saw a networking opportunity rather than an ethical question."

"...but does not keep a tally to ensure that he's complying with them." [city's limits on such gratuities]

'The city's code of conduct says an elected official "shall not solicit or accept from an interested party ... anything of value..."'

'The city's charter says an elected official can't "solicit or receive any compensation, gratuity or other thing for any act done in the course of public work. This section shall be broadly construed and strictly enforced."'

"Ethics watchdogs said...wasn't a good move."

"...taken a minimalist approach to reporting financial information required annually under the charter."

This list is representative and is not exhaustive.

Also, expect more today.

That was Fast

A smart salute to the Admiral who posted this first:

There are, though a couple of blatant falsehoods in the text.

It says "He lied about going to New York City while ducking a meeting in the Hill District." This is complete falsehood. Luke Ravenstahl ducked that meeting way before lying about going to New York City.

It then says "He only came clean once The Trib confronted him." But what's the big deal here? Lying to a reporter from the Trib is like lying to your wife about going to Hooters. Everyone does it, right? And when your wife confronts you about going to Hooters, all you need do is parse the words very carefully and it'll look like you were never there in the first place. If you do it well, it'll look like she's the one at fault. Simple.

It then says "He lied about being arrested at Heinz Field." Another complete fabrication. He was not arrested at Heinz Field (if "arrested" means being handcuffed, hauled down to the Police Station, fingerprinted, photographed and being given one phone call to Jim Ecker). Instead, he was incapacitated by the Police officer he was drunkenly bad-mouthing, handcuffed and hauled off to a waiting room in Heinz Field, where he was let go. See? It's a completely different situation. And anyway, he was not asked about that second scenario - only the first. So he was completely honest when he denied it ever taking place.

Right after that, it says "He only came clean once the bloggers confronted him."

Bloggers? Aren't they the ones who can't be trusted because they just spew half-truths and lies to the public?

I'm just asking.

L. "Scooter" Ravenstahl: Third Documented Incident of Luke LYING

Both The Burgh Report (here and here) and MacYapper have already blogged on the hot Tribune-Review story (and its many ramifications) wherein Luke Ravenstahl has been caught once again lying to the media -- which means he's also lying to John Q. Public.

This time he lied about having missed a meeting with representatives of the Hill District because he was too busy partying all night in New York City. When caught in the lie, Luke claimed confusion because the reporter had referred to the trip as being Penguins-related and Luke says it had nothing to do with the Penguins. The trip was with the team's co-owner, Ron Burkle, and it occurred right after announcing a $290 million deal to build a new arena for the Penguins.

The Trib story reminds folks that this isn't Luke's first lie to us:

This wasn't the first Ravenstahl denial to turn into an admission during his 6 1/2 months in office.

On Jan. 18, after denying it for months, he acknowledged that police handcuffed and detained him before a 2005 Steelers game at Heinz Field. He never was charged.

KDKA radio personality Marty Griffin really hammered into Luke on his two documented instances of lying, BUT as I said when I called into Marty's show this morning, there is a THIRD DOCUMENTED INSTANCE.

I have been meaning to comment on this March 8, 2007 story in the Pittsburgh City Paper (yeah, it's the one on Luke and his birth control issues). But forget about the birth control for a minute and concentrate on the LIE.

Luke was asked about a private conversation he had on that subject and he denied having one. However, when the City Paper tracked down the woman who had a private conversation with him (Mary Litman), here's the official response:

"There was no private conversation," he said. In a telephone call with City Paper two days after Ravenstahl was interviewed, Ravenstahl campaign manager Damon Andrews asserted that in fact, "The mayor recalls having spoken to" Litman. The private conversation the mayor was denying, Andrews says, was another conversation falsely rumored to have taken place at a 7th Ward meeting.

Right! I wasn't lying because I was talking about this conversation, not that one.

I wasn't lying because you asked me about a police incident on this date and it happened on that date.

I wasn't lying because you asked me about a Penguins trip, not a campaign trip.

It depends on what the meaning of "is" is. (Ooops, wrong politician.)

Jesus, what a liar! (And, a bad one at that.)

More on Mary Beth Buchanan

On Saturday, I blogged on Andy Sheehan's story on KDKA about Mary Beth Buchanan. Sunday, the P-G had it's own story on her - written by Paula Reed Ward.

While the KDKA piece had a far more accusatory tone, the P-G's at least tried to offer some balance. I'm just not sure it did much to help Buchanan's reputation. The piece paints her as extremely ambitious while being a true Bush team player:

While the firing of eight U.S. attorneys across the country has focused attention on those who didn't get with the administration's program, Ms. Buchanan has proved herself to be a perfect fit.

She's loyal, hard-working and smart.

"She is very focused to the department first of all," said one current assistant U.S. attorney, who asked not to be named. "She's not independent, and I don't think she wants to be."

Considering that the fired US Attorneys were let go (or asked to leave or whatever) for not being loyal enough, non-independence might not be the best course for Buchanan. But, as they say, the die is cast. The deal is set. You gotta dance with the one that brought ya.

At the beginning of this month, I linked to a dailykos post that quoted something New York Times Columnist Paul Krugman wrote:

The Gonzales Eight were fired because they wouldn’t go along with the Bush administration’s politicization of justice. But statistical evidence suggests that many other prosecutors decided to protect their jobs or further their careers by doing what the administration wanted them to do: harass Democrats while turning a blind eye to Republican malfeasance.

The P-G piece notes that "statistical evidence" as well:

A recently released study by two retired communication professors found that under the Bush administration, the Department of Justice has investigated elected Democratic officeholders and office seekers locally seven times more than their Republican counterparts.

The authors looked at 375 federal criminal cases across the country that targeted public officials from 2001 to 2006.

They found that of those, 298 defendants were Democrats; 67 were Republicans and 10 were independents.

That number comes despite a statistic that shows that Democratic officeholders outnumber Republicans nationally by only 50 percent to 41 percent, said one of the authors, Donald C. Shields, a professor emeritus of communication at the University of Missouri at St. Louis.

And while it's true that there are far more Democrats in power in Allegheny County, Allegheny County is not the only county in Western PA - Mary Beth Buchanan's geographic area of responsibility.

At the end of the KDKA piece Former Assistant US Attorney Tom Farrell calls for Buchanan's resignation. In today's P-G, he expands on that call:

The Bush administration's efforts to use an obscure provision of the Patriot Act to replace U.S. attorneys it deemed too vigorous in investigating Republican officials, too slow in indicting Democratic public officials or too reluctant to investigate "voter fraud" -- a euphemism for attempting to suppress the minority vote -- caused me to re-think my opinion of the fairness of Western Pennsylvania's U.S. attorney, Mary Beth Buchanan. I began to wonder why all of the recent public-corruption investigations in our region have been of Democrats.

She's "inflated law enforcement successes" by misclassifying routine immigration cases as "anti-terrorism" cases. She's repeated administration falsehoods in her defense of the USAPatriot Act, for instance falsely claiming (according to Farrell) that:

...until enactment of the Patriot Act, federal prosecutors could not obtain emergency wiretaps to prevent imminent terrorist attacks; to the contrary, a 1995 Justice Department bulletin instructed prosecutors like me and Ms. Buchanan how the pre-Patriot law could be used to do just that.

But all this regards what Buchanan has done - what has she left undone?

Why apparently no investigation into Republican U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy's use of government office staff to support his campaign -- which is not unlike what happened in the Allegheny County sheriff's office? Ms. Buchanan also left to local authorities the prosecution of Republican state Rep. Jeff Habay after similar accusations arose.

And what of ex-U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, Ms. Buchanan's political sponsor? He misrepresented his family's residency in order to obtain state-funded cyber schooling for his children. Yet there appears to have been no investigation. I fear the worst.

Lil Ricky was her sponsor? I fear the worst, too.

Farrell has great faith in the staff over there, just not in the US Attorney herself. The US Attorney's office must be beyond reproach, he said. If it isn't, the trust among the faithful must be restored.

Mary Beth Buchanan must resign.

The War On Iraq

After four years:

No WMDs found

A fractured Iraqi infrastructure and economy

Tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead/wounded (we don't do body counts)

A civil war started

A weakened, overextended US Military

Tens of thousands of US Troops injured

3,000⁺ US Troops dead

A terrorist training ground created

Loss of US credibility and respect around the world

A damaged US Constitution

IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY

Poll Data

Newsweek has another poll out. Another season of tough sledding for dubya and company.

Some highlights.

When asked whether they were "satisfied or dissatisfied the way things are going in the United States at this time" those polled answered 28 % satisfied to 64% dissatiesfied.

These findings closely echo a similar question as to whether those polled approved or disapproved of the way George Bush is handling his job: 30% approval to 60% disapproval.

Poor George.

His handling of Iraq? 27 to 69 percent approval/disapproval.
Terrorism/Homeland Security? Slightly better at 41 to 53% approval/disapproval.
The GOP's "strong point" - the economy? 37 to 57% approval/disapproval.

Things aren't going well. And while it looks as though this week things are only going to get worse:

On Monday, the Justice Department plans to turn over to Congress more documents that could provide more details of the role agency officials -- including Gonzales -- and top White House officials played in planning the prosecutors' dismissals.

On Tuesday, the White House is expected to announce whether it will let former White House counsel Harriet Miers, political strategist Karl Rove and other presidential advisers testify before Congress -- and whether it will release more documents to lawmakers, including additional e-mails and other items. That decision was to be made on Friday, but the White House asked for more time.

I can't see how dubya's numbers can get much worse.

On the troop "surge" those polled oppose it 64 to 32 percent. Those polled favor Congressional legislation requiring troop withdrawal, 59 to 34%.

It can't be much fun to be a wingnut these days.

More on Valerie Plame's Status

I see that someone calling himself "Honzman" has wished the Other Political Junkie a Happy Birthday.

Let's hope that it IS Fred "The Honzman" Honsberger who's checking out the blog - if he sticks around long enough, maybe he'll learn something. Hahahaha!

Fred, if it is you, you need to take a look at the transcript from The House Commmittee on Oversight and Government Reform Hearing on CIA Identity Leak on Friday the 16th. Henry Waxman opened said this:

This hearing is being conducted in open session. This is appropriate, but it is also challenging. Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA. We cannot discuss all of the details of her CIA employment in open session.

I have met, personally, with General Hayden, the head of the CIA, to discuss what I can and cannot say about Ms. Wilson's service. And I want to thank him for his cooperation and help in guiding us along these lines.

My staff has also worked with the agency to ensure these remarks do not contain classified information.

I have been advised by the CIA and that even now, after all that has happened, I cannot disclose the full nature, scope and character of Ms. Wilson's service to our nation without causing serious damage to our national security interests.

But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's hearing.

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information.

Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA, in which she oversaw the work for other CIA employees and she attained the level of GS-14, Step 6, under the federal pay scale.

Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA.

Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA.[emphasis added]

Here we have the chairman of a powerful House committee declaring, in statements cleared by the CIA and the head of the CIA (and Pittsburgh native, by the way) Michael Hayden, that Valerie Plame was "undercover" her employment status was "covert" and that that information was "classified."

Finally, releasing that information was a violation of Executive Order 12958.

Fred, will you be stating anytime soon how wrong you've been for these last few years when you repeatedly said in no uncertain terms that Valerie Plame was not covert?

I mean, the frickin head of the CIA just said she was. What that means to you is, you're just plain wrong whenever you said she wasn't.

Aren't you?

On This Day in History, Part II

On March 18, A Long Time Ago, I was born.

They say that you're only as old as you feel and I feel OLD.

These days when I look to see who's on Conan or Letterman or Leno, I have to admit that nine times out of ten I've never even heard of the band guesting on the show.

And, that makes me feel old.

Time was when I knew all the bands' names and the music they played. What's worse is that most of the stuff I hear seems relentlessly vapid, predictable, boring, and oh yeah, B-O-R-I-N-G. What's up with all this ballady crap? Fine, I know I was always more inclined to stay away from the real popular stuff, but even the supposedly edgier stuff leaves me cold.

And, yes, I'm sure there's good stuff out there. And, yes, I know I sound like some "these kids with their darn music " old crab and I guess that's what I am. Like I said, I feel old.

So, get off my damn yard...and off my radio/PC/TV.

Here's to better musical times:


Me back when my most cherished possessions were mywhite go-go boots, my red & white polka dot suitcase-stylerecord player, and a stack of British Invasion 45's.


Me -- still with the polka dots --and when my most cherishedpossession was my pair of baby blue suede go-go boots(from the OLD Pittsburgh Press Sunday Magazine, circa 1980).

On This Day in History, Part I

On March 18, 2003 Frank Rich wrote:

Barbara Bush tells Diane Sawyer on ABC’s “Good Morning America” that she will not watch televised coverage of the war: “Why should we hear about body bags and deaths, and how many, what day it’s going to happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean, it’s, it’s not relevant. So, why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?”

On the eve of the fourth anniversary of the War on Iraq, it's good to remember where this president came from (like mother, like son). Yeah, they really, really support the troops.

(h/t to AMERICAblog)

At the pleasure of the President

The best comment that I've heard regarding the firing by the Bush Gang of the eight US Attorneys was this by Kate O'Beirne on Hardball:

Now, they have every right, as you know, Mike, to replace eight presidential appointees. They can do so for no reason or any good reason. They can‘t do it for a bad reason, which would be, you know, politically interfering with an investigation or prosecution. [emphasis added]

Now, of course, Kate, being a conservative went on to say, "I don‘t think there‘s not much evidence of that yet, although the situation in New Mexico raises those questions. But it was handled so ineptly on this one, they can‘t even count on their typical allies on Capitol Hill defending them," so she did try to find some wiggle room for this administration but even she had to admit that it wasn't smelling too good in Gonzalesland.

I will add that you also can't lie to Congress about how and why you fired them.

And Speaking of Photos...

Here are some pictures of yesterday's War On Iraq protest in DC.

Tomorrow marks the fourth anniversary of the start of this clusterf*ck.

Pictures of the Parade

Agent Ska has some nice pictures (and a post) from yesterday's St. Patrick's Day parade here in Pittsburgh.

Check them out.

US Attorney Scandal - A Western PA Echo

Last week, I blogged on something I'd found in Philly. At its heart was a question Paul Krugman had asked: If those US Attorneys were fired for not playing ball with the Bush Administration, what about the 85 or so who weren't fired? They were the acceptable US Attorneys - the ones identified as "loyal" to the Attorney General and the Administration.

Seems that Andy Sheehan over at KDKA has been looking into our own US Attorney, Mary Beth Buchanan:

Congress wants to know if seven U.S. Attorneys were fired because they were not aggressive enough in prosecuting Democrats.

Now, local leaders are raising questions about our own U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan and whether her prosecutions of Democrats were politically motivated.

And the charge:

In the past three years, there have been a parade of witnesses appearing before grand juries probing high ranking public officials for alleged corruption: former Sheriff Pete DeFazio, former Mayor Tom Murphy and former Allegheny County Medical Examiner Cyril Wecht.

They are all Democrats…. all investigated by Buchanan, who is a Republican.

Sheehan also wonders if Buchanan's non-investigation of then-Senator Rick Santorum's non-residency in Penn Hills was politically motivated.

There's a surpise of sorts at the end of the piece:

But former Assistant U.S. Attorney Tom Farrell says the D.C. revelations have now tainted the Pittsburgh U.S. Attorney's Office and says Buchanan must take a drastic step to restore public confidence.

"Because I want to see public trust in that office restored," said Farrell. "I think she would serve the people of this district well if she resigned."[Emphasis added]

There is good news, I guess. Sheehan reports that Buchanan is, in fact, investigating a local Republican Congressman - Tim Murphy.

You remember Tim Murphy, right? He's the local Congressman accused of mixing his Congressional staff with his campaign staff (a serious ethics violation - just ask Jeff Habay).

I wonder if with all this negative publicity, we'll learn that Mary Beth Buchanan's investigation of Congressman Murphy is "coincidentally" nearing completion.

UPDATE: Andy Sheehan's piece has made it onto Talkingpointsmemo.

Dayvoe Meets Missy - News at 11!

Hey, who's that balding guy standing next to former Member of the US House of Representatives, Melissa Hart?

That would be me, your humble political scribe.

That's right, Melissa Hart and I are in the same photograph and the spacetime continuum did not break, shatter or otherwise shred under the immense stress of it all.

Sorry if that's a disappointment.

Here's the story. The firm I work for had its annual St Patrick's Day party and I got to go. About halfway through the snowy evening, I happened to glance at the front door and who should I see walking in?

That's right, Missy Hart - she was obviously invited to the party. Look she's even dressed in green!

At that point I was in a quandry. How do I introduce myself? Or should I even try? We have written some rather challenging things here at 2PJ, you know.

Use The Google and find them yourselves.

If I didn't introduce myself, then no harm no foul - but I realized I'd be missing out on a potentially great blog moment. And of course, my cell phone HAS a camera on it.

To make a long story short, I introduced myself as one of the two writers for this blog and after a few verbal stumbles on my part, Melissa Hart and I had a nice chat about the history of this blog, the political identity of this blog, and whether I'd be posting the above picture on this blog.

She was very gracious and the whole episode made my entire day.

Update on Iraq/Congressman Doyle

A few days ago, I received an e-mail from the good folks at Moveon.org urging me to call Congressman Mike Doyle and:

tell him that you want to bring our troops home safely this year.

Good idea - though I think I already know his position on bringing the troops home. I dropped him an e-mail a few days ago and we had a nice chat last night.

I was curious about how many calls his office had gotten recently about the war. He told me that his office in DC had received about a dozen calls in the last few days on Iraq, while the local office has received between 5-10 calls per day. Overall he estimates that he's gotten about 50 calls in the last few days on the Supplemental Funding bill now making its way through the House. He said he's not getting any grief in the calls - most are supportive as most everyone knows his position on the war (He's against it.).

Yesterday, the House Appropriations Committee approved by a vote of 36-28 a deadline for troop withdrawal of 9/1/08.

In our phone conversation Doyle gave me a lesson on the realities of getting this bill through the House.

The main sticking point to the passage of the bill (at least for the Democrats) is the date for troops to leave Iraq. One the one hand, the Republicans tend to agree with the President and do not want to put any restrictions on him. On the next hand, the "Blue Dog" Democrats, while they might disagree with the President on Iraq, do not want to "micro manage" the war effort. Then on yet another hand, there's the House progressives who want a withdrawal ASAP - as in yesterday. Getting a funding bill that pleases 218 House members is what's going to be tough.

The dates for pullout range from 12/07 (from the more progressive members of the House) to either 4/08 or 9/08 (depending on the Iraqi government's progress on complying with the benchmarks set up in the bill). Push the Blue Dogs too much and they bail. Don't push the date hard enough and progressives bail. It's a very tough situation that Doyle said he's not happy about.

Though he said for the Democrats, it's a battle over tactics - not of goals. Most everyone wants the same thing, the troops out of Iraq.

The Senate, though, is going to be one high hurdle. According to the AP:

In the Senate, after weeks of skirmishing, Republicans easily turned back Democratic legislation requiring a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days. The measure set no fixed deadline for completion of the redeployment, but set a goal of March 31, 2008. The vote was 50-48 against the measure, 12 short of the 60 needed for passage.

So even if the Supplemental bill makes it through the House, it's going to be tough sledding in the Senate. And if it makes it through the Senate, there's the promised Presidential Veto.

He made his own position clear when he said he was against he war from day one and in terms of the date of troop withdrawal, "I'd vote for a date that says tomorrow."

Answers from Bob Mayo

After trying all day to put up this post, I see that one of Pittsburgh’s most on-the-ball reporters, Bob Mayo, has updated an earlier post on his blog from this morning. It addresses the “who owns the Luke Ravenstahl hands-on–the-hips photo” question.

Mayo’s blog post links to this PittsburghChannel article wherein we learn:

The biggest buzz is about this hands-on-the-hips photo that remains on the city's and the campaign's sites, as well as city Redd-Up fliers and billboards.

"Those were private photos that were generated and given to me personally from a photographer in the South Side," said Ravenstahl. "So that was a file that was given to me. The city never paid anything for those photos, so that's my personal photo."

[snip]

The professional photographer who took that hands-on-the-hips photo of the mayor confirmed that he gave the mayor the photo for free.

It's from a photo session that would normally cost $1,500.

Ravenstahl provided that photo to both the city and the campaign.

OK, let’s think about this for a second.

After Ravenstahl becomes Mayor, he coops the late Bob O’Connor’s signature (and very popular) Redd Up program, renaming it after himself. He then “donates” the image that brands the program (and seemingly all things garbage collections-related) and which appears on billboards all over the city and which he, alone, retains full control of to the City.

(Hmmm…I wonder if that’s also true for the photo which is used for all the 311 billboards and other advertising?)

I’m sorry, but I’ve never heard of such of a thing before.

I can’t come up with any similar instances of any official of any city owning the images that brand city programs, much less an official then using those same images to promote himself for his own personal gain. (Then again, most cities don’t have multiple official city programs named after one person and then plaster that one person’s image all over the town. You’d have to go to Castro’s Cuba or back in time to Mao’s China to see that kind of thing.)

I really find this astonishing.

I mean, it would be as if George W Bush donated a picture of himself with his dog Barney to the US Government for a federally funded program to adopt shelter animals and then used that same image later to sell “W” brand dog food.

Did Ravenstahl plan to use the hands-on-the-hips photo on an eventual campaign website when he “loaned’ it to the City?

Damn! That is some pretty slick self-promotion.

I have to say, I guess he really isn’t as dumb as he looks.

BREAKING NEWS: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s Local Connection!

2 Political Junkies has just learned from several unnamed sources that after some additional waterboarding questioning, terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has just confessed to being responsible for putting all those City of Pittsburgh-owned images on the Ravenstahl Campaign website.

We will post further details on this story as soon as they come in.

Brand Ravenstahl TM Revisited

FYI My PC is dying; I can’t access my email; can’t run IE; can’t run Photoshop; and can barely get sites to run in Netscape so I may just be writing this for myself.



Back when I wrote this post, it was obvious to me that the Luke Ravenstahl Campaign had seriously screwed up by branding their campaign website with the same image that is used to brand the City’s Redd Up Campaign (and all things garbage collections-related).

Other blogs such as The Burgh Report and The People’s Republic of Pittsburgh picked up on the story and found many City-owned images being used on the Ravenstahl Campaign site. The Post-Gazette’s Early Returns column and the Tribune-Review got in on the action questioning the Mayor’s office and the Ravenstahl Campaign on the issue. The answer they got was that the campaign had asked folks to send in their favorite photos of Luke and that any pictures which may have been from the city’s web site (taken by City employees on City time) were taken down. But what still remains on every page of the campaign site is the near iconic photo of Ravenstahl with his hands on his hips that has become ubiquitous on official City mailings and BILLBOARDS.

How can that be?

Neither the P-G or the Trib goes into details on why that photo remains (the Admiral has a nice post on that here).

The Ravenstahl Camp chose to answer any question by carefully and narrowly framing it thusly:

"The fundamental issue was, were any of our pictures sourced from the city Web site," said Ravenstahl campaign manager Damon Andrews.

That doesn’t really address the hands-on-hips picture. Cute, huh?

And, how did the Ravenstahl Administration tackle the issue? The only clue may be this comment by Ravenstahl spokesman Dick Skrinjar:

Skrinjar said some of the pictures were taken by professional photographers and donated to Ravenstahl.

Hmmm…”Donated” to Ravenstahl and not the City?

I’m a little confused here.

Is Skrinjar claiming that a photograph was commissioned by the City to be taken by a professional photographer and the City doesn’t own the photograph?

If the City doesn’t own it, what are the terms of usage for the photograph?

Did the City get it on a one usage basis, say, for the billboards and then has to pay more each time it’s used when Luke wants to remind folks he’s running the City uses it on a mailer or garbage pickup schedule? That would be costly and stupid.

Or did the City get unlimited usage but the photographer can also donate it to whomever he/she wants to? That would be stupid as the photographer, say, could put out T-shirts and coffee mugs with the image on it, but with a slogan like “Pittsburgh sucks.” Or someone could come along, say the City of Cleveland, and offer the photographer lots of money for the photograph and they could use that image for all sorts of dastardly uses. That would be embarrassing and stupid.

Or, was it never bought by the City/donated to the City, but it was donated personally to Ravenstahl and he merely allows the City to use it for official business. What kind of Mayor (interim or otherwise) would make a deal as stupid and bad for the City as that?

Hey, maybe the City owns it, but the photographer, being a nice guy/gal, gave a souvenir 8 x 10 glossy to Ravenstahl and that has translated in Luke’s mind to a “donation” to him of the picture that he could use for whatever he likes. That sure sounds stupid or I’m looking for another word here, but all I can come up with is “retarded.”

So again, I got to ask:

Who owns this image?

What are the terms of its usage?

Can it be donated to just anyone?

How can it be that it can appear both on official City documents and billboards AND on the Ravenstahl Campaign site?

I’m just one, still ill, largely house-bound woman with a dying PC and a blog that I can barely access who has no real clout. I’m not a reporter for a large daily newspaper of a large American city.

All I know is that someone needs to nail some real answers down and they haven’t yet.

Any takers?

Where Does KDKA's Fred Honsberger Get His Information?

I only ask because I heard him use a new argument in defending dubya's decision to fire 8 US Attorneys for political reasons. Oddly enough he did not use argument that because President Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys at the beginning of his first administration, CLINTON DID THE SAME THING.

Good for Fred for not going with that bogus argument.

The problem? Fred used an entirely NEW bogus argument. He said that Clinton did the same thing - he fired 23 US Attorneys all on the same day - midterm.

That was a new one. I did some research and what did I find?

It's so completely bogus it makes the first bogus argument look completely sane in comparison.

Take a look at this report from the Congressional Research Service. The CRS which describes itself as:

The Congressional Research Service is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.

The report itself is posted via OpenCRS.com.

Take a look at the data in the report:

This report provides data on U.S. attorneys who did not complete their full fouryear term after confirmation by the Senate and whose terms did not carry over a change in presidential administration.

Know what they found? Between 1981 and 2003, there were 54 US Attorneys who fit the above criteria.

Of those 54, 17 left to become Article III federal judges, one left to become a federal magistrate judge, six left to serve in other positions in the executive branch, four sought elective office, two left to serve in state government, one died, and 15 left to enter or return to private practice. Of the remaining eight U.S. attorneys who left before completing a four-year term without a change in presidential administration, two were apparently dismissed by the President, and three apparently resigned after news reports indicated they had engaged in questionable personal actions. No information was available on the three remaining U.S. attorneys who resigned.

So where are the 23 that Clinton fired "on the same day"?

At the end of the full report there's a detailed appendix with the data that supports the report's findings. During the Clinton years there were 8 USAttorneys who left their jobs.

• Vicki Lynn Miles-LaGrange left to be a Federal Judge on 11/94.
• Claude Harris Jr. died on 10/02/94.
• Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. left to be a Federal Judge in 08/96.
• Joseph Preston Strom, Jr. left for the private sector in 1996.
• Kendall Brindley Coffey resigned on 05/17/96.
• Larry Herbert Colleton resigned on 07/94.
• James Lamar Wiggins left to seek elective office in 1996.
• Kent Barron Alexander left for the private sector in 1997.

So where did Fred Honsberger get the data on the 23 US Attorneys that Clinton fired on the same day, midterm?

Or was he just making it up as he went along, hoping no one would check his "facts"?

Sticking in My Craw

This has been sticking in my craw for some time. From kos himself.

He contrasts two completely different answers to the question: Senator do you think that homosexuality is immoral? One answer is from a Democrat and one is from a Republican. This is in light of the position taken by General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who said that he believed that homosexuality is immoral.

The first answer:

"Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude," [the Senator] said. "I'm very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want make sure they can."

And the second:

I respectfully but strongly disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral.

Which was the Democrat and which the Republican?

Of course it turns out that the first answer is Senator Hillary Clinton's and second is Senator John Warner's (R-Va).

On a side note, it never ceases to amaze me that whenever the GOP is ranting about Hollywood's threat to the sanctity of marriage, no one seems to recall that John Warner was once married to Elizabeth Taylor. She was his 2nd marriage (out of 3) and he was her 7th marriage (out of 9). Or that Ronald Reagan was married twice. Sonny Bono 4 times. But I digress.

Anyway, this morning kos pointed out that Senator Obama did scarcely better than Senator Clinton:

On Wednesday, Newsday repeatedly asked Obama if same-sex relationships were immoral.

"I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters," said Obama, leaving Capitol Hill. "That's probably a good tradition to follow."

He turned the conversation to opposition to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy: "I think the question here is whether somebody is willing to sacrifice for their country."

Later, an Obama spokesman said the senator, in fact, disagrees with Pace.

The article kos linked to for the Obama "sequence" does point this out:

That sequence was remarkably similar to Clinton's responses Tuesday. When an ABC reporter asked her about the issue, she replied, "Well, I am going to leave that to others to conclude."

Later, a Clinton spokesman said the senator, in fact, also disagrees with Pace.

Let me go on record, this is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.

Same-sex relationships are not immoral.

Do you know what is immoral? Cheating on your spouse, that's immoral. Stealing food from starving people, that's immoral. Invading a sovereign country under false pretenses and starting a war that's killed thousands of Americans then humiliating the wounded from that war when they return home for medical attention, that's immoral. (Yea, I went there - what of it?)

But Jill Sobule kissing a girl? C'mon.

Clinton Update: Senator Clinton clarified things with this statement today.

I have heard from many of my friends in the gay community that my response yesterday to a question about homosexuality being immoral sounded evasive. My intention was to focus the conversation on the failed don’t ask, don’t tell policy. I should have echoed my colleague Senator John Warner’s statement forcefully stating that homosexuality is not immoral because that is what I believe.

Obama Update: Senator Obama clarified things today as well.

As the New York Times reported today, I do not agree with General Pace that homosexuality is immoral. Attempts to divide people like this have consumed too much of our politics over the past six years.

More Administration Lies

From the Washington Post:

In testimony on Jan. 18, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales assured the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Justice Department had no intention of avoiding Senate input on the hiring of U.S. attorneys.

Just a month earlier, D. Kyle Sampson, who was then Gonzales's chief of staff, laid out a plan to do just that. In an e-mail, he detailed a strategy for evading Arkansas Democrats in installing Tim Griffin, a former GOP operative and protege of presidential adviser Karl Rove, as the U.S. attorney in Little Rock.

"We should gum this to death," Sampson wrote to a White House aide on Dec. 19. "[A]sk the senators to give Tim a chance . . . then we can tell them we'll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, evaluate the recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All of this should be done in 'good faith,' of course."

Of course.

The part I'm having trouble grokking follows a few sentences later:

Democrats and Republicans are demanding to know whether Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty and other Justice officials misled them in sworn testimony over the past two months.

Whah?? Isn't it obvious? AG Gonzales says one thing that is directly contradicted by an e-mail from his chief of staff. And they're still asking whether they've been misled?

Ok here's another:

The inconsistencies between Justice's positions and the documents are numerous. On Feb. 23, for example, a Justice legislative affairs aide wrote to Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) that the department "was not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin." But internal Justice e-mails show that "getting him appointed is important" to Rove and was closely monitored by political aides in the White House.

Last week, senior Justice official William E. Moschella told a House Judiciary subcommittee that the White House was not consulted on the firings until the end of the process.

But the documents released this week show that the plan began more than two years ago at the White House counsel's office, which initially suggested firing all 93 U.S. attorneys. Gonzales rejected that idea, and Sampson wrote back in January 2006 that Justice and the White House should "work together to seek the replacement of a limited number of U.S. Attorneys."

How much more do we need to know before the default setting is changed to "Whenever the Bush Administration is defending itself on something, always assume it's lying."

How long?

Uh, No. Clinton Did NOT Do The Same Thing.

I've heard this on local news radio (-cough-KDKA-cough-). In reaction to the firing of 8 US Attorneys by the Bush Administration, the right wing media has begun to spread the story that President Clinton did the same thing and no one raised an eyebrow.

From Mediamatters:

When discussing the Bush administration's dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys in 2006 -- including allegations the White House initiated the firings for political reasons -- various media personalities and news outlets have downplayed the significance of the allegations by asserting that President Clinton dismissed almost all U.S. attorneys upon taking office in 1993. For example, on the March 14 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace linked the two cases: "[H]ere's a fact you probably don't know because it hasn't been reported very -- did you know that Bill Clinton, when he came into office in 1993, fired every U.S. attorney except one?" Wallace claimed that "there were no congressional hearings" and that "it wasn't this kind of storm of protest and that ... had not happened before."

They then point to this article in the Washington Post:

Although Bush and President Bill Clinton each dismissed nearly all U.S. attorneys upon taking office, legal experts and former prosecutors say the firing of a large number of prosecutors in the middle of a term appears to be unprecedented and threatens the independence of prosecutors.

And this article in the McClatchy papers:

The Bush administration and its defenders like to point out that President Bush isn't the first president to fire U.S. attorneys and replace them with loyalists.

While that's true, the current case is different. Mass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration. Prosecutors are usually appointed for four-year terms, but they are usually allowed to stay on the job if the president who appointed them is re-elected.

Even as they planned mass firings by the Bush White House, Justice Department officials acknowledged it would be unusual for the president to oust his own appointees. Although Bill Clinton ordered the wholesale removal of U.S. attorneys when he took office to remove Republican holdovers, his replacement appointees stayed for his second term.

Ronald Reagan also kept his appointees for his second term.

Just so everyone knows, so when "Clinton did it" he was replacing the US Attorneys from the previous Bush Administration (Bush 41 - the relatively sane one). When Dubya did it recently, HE was replacing Republican US Attorneys because they weren't loyal enough to him and his Attorney General

Completely different story.