Here's the response from the Ravenstahl campaign and the mayor to the Dowd accusation of "pay-to-play" politics, covered in the previous post.
"Ravenstahl for Mayor Press Release: Desperate Dowd"
Statement from Mayor Ravenstahl:"Pittsburgh needs leadership, not a desperate politician willing to do or say anything to get elected. That's why and how he's run for four political offices in the last 8 years with no accomplishments to show for it. While he's talking and done nothing, I have submitted campaign finance reform pending before Council and I am reforming Pittsburgh's decades old procurement practices. Politics as usual from Dowd. Try again, Pat."
--
Sent from my mobile device
Posts
7 comments:
Mr. Mayor, in regards to "reforming" city procurement practices, how about: cease what you have been doing, and have accelerated since taking office.
Stop handing out permits, contracts, land and special concessions via noncompetitive processes. It shouldn't take a blue-ribbon committee. It shouldn't take until a less than two months before an election. How dumb does he think we are?
And in regards to Dowd's "no accomplishments" to date -- Mr. Ravenstahl must not open a newspaper very frequently. Come on, team, some of these questions we can answer ourselves.
Was that sent from his city e-mail account Bob?
That would raise an interesting question about "politics as usual", eh?
No, Anonymous. That was sent by his campaign manager from a lukeformayor.com account.
"Done nothing" ??? This response reads like it was written by The Pittsburgh Hoagie.
Bram, the Mayor thinks the average voter has a short attention span, and he's probably right. The Obama election, the stock market crash, the Super Bowl and everyone's actual real life are all competing for attention. It's up to people like Bob Mayo, Rich Lord, Jeremy Boren and Jon Delano to communicate/remind in small, digestible pieces that the Mayor has had several ethical/gray area lapses.
Chris, I think Hoagie's grammar is a little better than the Mayor's.
Bram,
It's been a long time since this has come up, but I've always said that I don't want to host critiques of my MSM competitors. That's why I deleted your last comment. For anyone who read it before the deletion, please note that I have longstanding respect for the person you mentioned. When I made the transition from radio to TV years ago, he is one of the two reporters from competing stations whom I cited as an example whose work I admire.
Sorry for the disturbance. I didn't recall that prohibition, and I understand the wish for it.
Let me just say that my comment, while it was online, was meant to convey more of my very particular fandom for certain of that station's reporters, rather than any specific distaste for any others. No such dissatisfaction exists, particularly when it comes to that newsroom.
Post a Comment