Giuliani of New York broke a long string of DEMs as mayor of New York. Pittsburgh faces the same-old, same-old Democrat Bob O'Connor. The future with O'Connor in Pittsburgh is unlike what New York had with Rudy Giuliani.
Editorial: It's O'Connor / Democrats need a consensus builder for mayor "Mr. O'Connor sees himself as Pittsburgh's Rudolph Giuliani, the mayor who cleaned up New York. 'When we start believing in ourselves, this thing will turn around,' he told the editorial board. We certainly hope so -- because what the city lacks in money it must make up in determination.
Bob O'Connor, who deserves the nomination, is the party's best hope for rekindling a spirit of renewal.
Bob's determination isn't able to be discounted. But, this city isn't about Bob's determination. This election isn't about the next in que and highest in determination. Rather, this process is about the determination and will of the people of Pittsburgh. Citizen centered perspective need to take the helm, not next in line thinking for annointed ones. The PG perspective is NOT match my perspective.
A vote for O'Connor shows little "determination" from the voters.
Those with a loud and strong desire for a different type of determination won't choose O'Connor.
... Pittsburgh was a different place four years ago. Today it is financially distressed and under the watchful eye of two state agencies. Police have been laid off; fire stations and swimming pools have been closed. While neighborhoods are trying to hold it together, parts of Downtown (despite new development) look shabbier than ever.
Told ya. We knew what was happening, back in 1999, 2000 and 2001. We knew Tom Murphy was trouble. The PG endoresment went to Tom Murphy in 2001.
In 2000 and 2001, I went to the public. I ran for mayor and helped the guy that beat me in the contested primary. I (and others) knew that Pittsburgh was in serious trouble. Pittsburgh was in trouble in 2001. Pittsburgh is in trouble in 2005. Pittsburgh is NOT a different place now. The PG can't ignore the facts of our poor conditions.
That giant whizzing sound you're about to hear will be an exodus of Pittsburghers -- unless they have a chance for a mayor who will do more than restore financial stability, but will also build hope for the future. In the Democratic field, that candidate is Bob O'Connor.
ABOUT to HEAR? Come on.
More people had left Pittsburgh in 2001 while Tom Murphy had been mayor than voted for him then to continue being our mayor. People have been leaving for some time.
People who leave don't get to vote for the opposition that remains.
Pittsburgh has an empty feeling. We can't even gather enough for a good disaster drill because of the years of disasters that have come in the past dozen years.
Bob O'Connor was on council when the city's debt mounted. Don't forget it and don't reward it with an endorsement or a vote.
Sure, O'Connor is backed by city worker unions and orthodox party leaders. So, I say the next mayor should not be part of the same cloth.
Because the next mayor has Act 47 bean counters -- we have an opportunity to pick an inspired leader who is less experienced. Act 47 and the Oversight Board serve as TRAINING WHEELS for getting on the right track.
The fiscal straight-and-narrow is not a guarantee, but it is more assured. We might not fall hard -- but we still might not go anywhere near prosperity. The old guard won't have the same influence if the voters choose to elect NEW PEOPLE. The old guard will have the same influence if we keep electing those who have made the troubles continue.
The PG editors wrote, "Among the seven Democratic candidates, only three have notable credentials for the job."
NOT-ABLE, as in not able?
Or, Note -- as in a note of debt. We have some who are okay with debt and notes.
That debt advancing history is not a prerequisite for the job of mayor.
I agree that the other Democrats care about their city. But prime time values are not lost on me because one is 'retired.'
The PG welcomes a robust debate in the fall between the party nominees on the best solutions for the city's problems. --- NOTE: The PG does NOT welcome another into that debate, say from neither the Ds or Rs.
If O'Connor had fervor for improving Pittsburgh, he would NOT have left city council. He would not have left the fight to claim the vote in protest in 2001. O'Connor knew the vote totals were rigged -- a dozen different ways. But, he didn't out the ways of the cheaters -- as he didn't want to rock the boat that much. He didn't have the fervor I would have hoped to have seen.
O'Connor has been playing defense in his campaigns, in 2001 and 2005.
Oh well. The PG and I don't see eye to eye again.