Pitt News covers Tony Oliva and his race for mayor. Front page coverage

Pitt student in race for mayor - News: "Tony Oliva is a straight-shooter - a self-proclaimed non-politician. And he's running for mayor."

The news of the Libertarian was on the front page of The Pitt News today. The article gives some nice insights to Tony Oliva. He has plenty of good connections with Pitt.

The article includes a photo of Tony and a mention of myself.

Who among us have heard of ultimate frisbee?

The rest of the story:

Oliva, a 27-year-old Pitt student, is running on the Libertarian ballot on Nov. 6 against current Democratic mayor, Luke Ravenstahl, Republican candidate Mark DeSantis and Ryan Scott of the Socialist Worker's party. He replaced Libertarian Mark Rauterkus on the ticket.

In 1997, Oliva came to Pitt as a freshman football player. After a devastating car accident during his sophomore year, his injuries forced him to quit football and take time to heal. Now, he is back. He has replaced football with Ultimate Frisbee and is working on his second degree at Pitt.

"[The accident] really taught me the lesson that you can't just go through life thinking everything's going to be great," Oliva said. "You have to be ready to deal with and overcome adversity in any form."

In the wake of his injury, another tragedy struck. Sept. 11 inspired Oliva to join the army and become an airborne paratrooper.

But in 2003, Oliva made his way back to Pitt.

"I'm originally from New York, but something about Pittsburgh latched onto me, and I had no other desire to go anywhere else," he said.

This loyalty to Pittsburgh, coupled with Oliva's fatigue with the current status of the city, made him decide to run for mayor.

"We need some new ideas and new thinking because things are broken," Oliva said.

His Libertarian viewpoint gives tax cuts a significant position in his agenda - but Oliva is very specific about where he thinks Pittsburgh's money should be saved and where it should be spent.

"It's a party that wants to stay out of your pocketbook and out of your social life," said Oliva, who cites his inability to understand why the government keeps "needing money, but not changing anything."

"I like low taxes," he said. "I think that people can use their money in more productive ways than government can oftentimes."

Though an advocate for people controlling their own money, Oliva says he is opposed to cutting social programs - to an extent.

"A person may stumble or trip, and it's always good to have someone there," he said. "I just don't think we should carry someone for their whole life."

If elected mayor, Oliva pledges to make his priorities known. For example, he said that one of the ideas that had been run through Pittsburgh legislatures involved cutting funding for police and firefighting forces.

"Yes, the city could gain money," he said. "But it could also burn to the ground."

As a Pitt student, Oliva says he understands the post-graduation predicament that many face: stay or leave?

"Pittsburgh has become an old town," he said. "A large number of kids are forced to leave because it's not financially viable to stay in Pittsburgh."

His plan? To draw businesses back to Pittsburgh and jumpstart the flow of both jobs and money, thereby appealing to a younger generation. And again, this leads back to lowering taxes.

"We have driven small businesses out with high taxes," he said. "I want to draw them back so people can have opportunities to work in good, well-paying jobs."

And on the other end of the spectrum, Oliva also wants to appeal to the younger demographic by proposing an ordinance to keep bars open until 4 a.m. on weekend nights.

Oliva sees his age and his student status as a way of relating to the voters.

"I want people to see in me what they would always hope to see in their political leaders - not what they do see, what they hope to see," he said.

And if students see something they like in Oliva, he hopes they won't conform to the apathetic stereotype of a college student that "the old parties," as he calls the Democrats and Republicans brand them with.

"This isn't a national election," Oliva said. "Students have the power to change the face of the city, the face of politics. Hope comes with change."

Libertarian runs for mayor in Pittsburgh, a political novice to the ballot

by Harold Kyriazi with slight edits by the webmaster

On July 23rd, eight days before the ballot access petitioning deadline, Allegheny County LP officials were contacted by an unknown fellow wishing to run for mayor as a Libertarian, named Tony Oliva. (Older baseball fans may recognize that name as an all-star player from the 1960s and 1970s, but alas, there’s no connection.) His introductory letter to us indicated that he was naïve (27 years old, a political unknown, and imagining an upset victory), but someone with potential. He wrote that he was a military veteran, a University of Pittsburgh graduate with a degree in Political Science, a Pittsburgh resident with extensive community ties, currently employed in the city’s Office of Public Safety, and a member of the Libertarian Party.

After thus reassuring ourselves that he wasn’t crazy or mentally incompetent (for years I’ve felt badly that none of us activists here wished to embark upon that particular quixotic quest), we tried to find out more about him. Coincidentally, at the same time a co-worker of mine (who of course knows I’m a libertarian) mentioned to me that one of his former rock climbing students was running for mayor and had hit him up for a petition signature. They both happened to be paratroopers in the Army, and my coworker said he was a good guy and intelligent. It was thus nice to get some independent verification, and also to know that he was already out collecting signatures.

Within two hours of Tony emailing his letter expressing an intention to run for mayor, Tony was handed several clipboards and forms (third party nomination papers) from Allegheny County's highly energetic vice-chair, Mark Rauterkus. For months similar papers had been circulating with political body, Libertarian, and with Rauterkus occupying spots, including that of mayor, as a place-holder candidate.

That’s one of the new and exciting trends about libertarianism these days: we don’t have to go out and find people, and educate them about libertarianism – now young people find us via the internet. We don’t have to teach them much of the philosophy – they’re usually already thoroughly grounded by their readings on the web. A new day is dawning and there is hope. (Go Ron Paul!)

I corresponded by e-mail with Mr. Oliva during that final week, and despite my vow a few years ago to limit my libertarian activities, I spent a few hours collecting signatures, solicited another few from my brother. Tony and I badgered neighbors, and put some energy into the last days. “It’s harder than I thought it’d be!” expressed a few friends who turned up empty.

Mr. Oliva worked hard for sis days, collecting about 115 signatures each day and getting 700. More than 805 were needed. With his total and what everyone else collected, the Libertarians turned in plenty of signatures to clear the hurdle for the election department and challenges.

After the horrendous experience of minor parties statewide last year, I was very worried that the Republican would challenge. But for whatever reason, he didn’t. Subsequently Mark and Tony filed the necessary papers to conduct the switch of their names.

I’m happy to report that we now have three spots on the city ballot: Tony Oliva for mayor, and Mark Rauterkus for both city council and city controller.

My impression of Mr. Oliva, starting from e-mail exchanges, is clear. I can confidently state that he is a competent writer. We also spoke by phone, and then face-to-face. Based on those encounters and positive reports after a WDUQ radio interview, I can also state that he’s a competent speaker.

From people & vips

Some did question why the Libertarians should run someone for mayor. It is entirely possible that the Republican was already fairly libertarian and he could have a better chance of winning than we did. We could thus be hurting ourselves by splitting our vote.

Mark Rauterkus informed me on the Republican candidate, Mark DeSantis. We checked out his website. Nick spoke with someone in his office. It turns out that DeSantis is a serious candidate with typical Republican economic concerns, such as lowering taxes and increasing government efficiency, but one whose position on social issues is difficult to gauge.

We discussed the obvious -- how a libertarian mayor could instruct the city police to make consensual crimes their lowest priority, but we didn’t know Mr. Oliva’s thoughts on that score. Assuming the best, Mark Rauterkus suggested that if vote-splitting turned out to be a legitimate concern, we could always make a splash by withdrawing a few weeks before the election and asking our supporters to vote for DeSantis. That was enough to drive to do the last-minute petitioning for signatures.

Tony and I sat down to lunch last in order for me to get to know him better for this article, to discuss some of these issues, and also to give him any benefit of my political experience.

Mr. Oliva is a handsome, athletic-looking young man, with the attentive and easy, straight-forward manner that seems appropriate for someone with military experience. He still serves with the Pennsylvania National Guard.

Interesting to me as a former diehard Pitt football fan, Tony came to Pittsburgh from New York City (the Bronx) on a football scholarship from Pitt’s legendary coach Johnny Majors. Fortunately, he left any New York accent behind. In fact, Tony was Majors’ last recruit at Pitt, being recruited in 1996, shortly before Majors was fired. Oliva started at Pitt in 1997 under new head coach Walt Harris, as a 175-pound defensive back with 4.4 speed in the 40-yard dash. That’s considered a fast time. He was red-shirted his freshman year, and expected to bulk up.

In the off-season, unfortunately, while crossing the street he got hit by a car, and received career-ending damage to a knee. Being the thoughtful, independent-minded young man that he is, he refused surgery that he felt might predispose him to premature arthritis, and opted instead for rehab and more natural, alternative medical approaches.

He stayed on at Pitt, getting a degree in Political Science, and rehabilitated his knee enough to play Ultimate Frisbee for the Pitt men’s team, making nationals for three years.

After graduating, he joined the military. As a paratrooper, he suffered another severe injury, being accidentally “sharked” by a fellow jumper. That’s where another jumper cuts under you as you’re approaching the ground, taking away your air and collapsing your chute, whereupon you fall rapidly, as though a shark has just attacked and pulled you under the water. That fall resulted in a severe shoulder dislocation and accompanying nerve trauma, and left him unable to raise his left arm above shoulder level.

He’s still able to enjoy tennis and other sports, though, and comes from a very athletic family. His brother played football and baseball in college, and his sister was a standout basketball and softball player in high school. His brother is also into NY politics, having been a speech writer for George Pataki, district chief of staff for a U.S. congressmen, and director of communications for a state minority leader.

Mr. Oliva is personable and has many friends here who have offered to help him in various ways with his campaign. Unfortunately perhaps, he is naïve enough to think he has a chance to defeat Luke Ravenstahl, the incumbent democrat and another 27-year-old. Ravenstahl won an election to city council before taking over as mayor when the recently elected then-mayor Bob O’Connor died last year.

Mr. Oliva may be correct in thinking he has the advantage of his libertarian philosophy and exceptional interpersonal skills, but being a political unknown, all the money in the world can’t buy him the trust of Pittsburgh voters, 80% of whom are registered Democrat.

The best he can hope for, in my view, is to run a positive, issue-oriented campaign, impress the people he interacts with, inject some libertarian solutions into the debate (and into the minds of Ravenstahl and his aides and advisors), and pave the way for a run for another race down the road.

Some will suggest that he switch parties to Democrat and starting off as a ward committeeman, rather than thinking he can leapfrog all the way into the Mayor’s office.

Libertarians can certainly win office when they live in small communities where they can personally meet all the voters, effectively negating the negative connotations of a minor party label. But people with a strong desire to actually serve in office in a large district, where they simply cannot personally contact a significant fraction of voters, need to be real, and follow the example of people like Ron Paul. The rest of us can work within the Libertarian Party to educate the electorate, and possibly level the playing field a bit by getting more people to register as Libertarians, so that eventually we’ll have a reasonable chance at winning a major city election.

The baseball Tony Oliva was the 1964 rookie of the year in the American League. Let’s try to see to it that our Tony Oliva develops into a Libertarian Party All-Star.

Minor mayor candidates want to make point - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Minor mayor candidates want to make point - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Tony Oliva, Libertarian candidate for Pittsburgh mayor, didn't get to share the stage with the major-party candidates during a recent mayoral debate, but he snagged the crowd's attention at the end.

This was Tony's second joke from the podium. The first, about plenty of people having egg o their face after he won the election, was blogged about before. It is harder to put that joke into a news article and make it as 'funny.'

Good article Dave Brown (Tribune Review reporter)!

The rest of the news on the Libertarian follows.

"I see (Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, the Democrat, and Republican challenger Mark DeSantis) as a choice between painting a bare room," Oliva said when given three minutes to add his two cents. "You have the choice between painting it eggshell white or mother-of-pearl white. They even look like they have the same tailor."

When about 200 people, including DeSantis and Ravenstahl, stopped laughing, Oliva added, "Maybe a splash of color is just what this city needs."

Oliva and Socialist Workers Party candidate Ryan Scott -- who each had three minutes to speak after the debate on Thursday -- have no false hopes about winning the Nov. 6 election. Even so, they are scrambling to get their disparate messages out to anyone who will listen. Minor-party candidates appear frequently on ballots in Western Pennsylvania and across the nation, although their campaigns rarely succeed in a political system dominated by the two major parties.

So why bother running at all?

The candidates offer straightforward reasons often set in personal convictions: Generally, they hope to make a point.

Cut stuff about the Socialist Workers Party. Read that in the comments or at the Trib's site.

Oliva said he became a Libertarian because that party best fits his political philosophy.

"I tend to lean toward fiscal conservatism, with low taxes and financial freedom, but I'm also more socially liberal on personal freedoms and liberty," he said. "Neither the Republican nor the Democratic parties speaks to me as well as the Libertarian Party does."

A former Army paratrooper, Oliva, 28, of Oakland is a graduate student in economics at the University of Pittsburgh. He was born in New York and moved to Western Pennsylvania about 10 years ago. The first thing he pledges to do, if elected mayor, is cut his pay. It troubles him that city officials get full pay and benefits at a time when Pittsburgh is in financial distress.

Running for mayor is worthwhile, Oliva says, if only to show voters there are options. After hearing Ravenstahl and DeSantis debate, the Libertarian told the crowd it was just more "political rhetoric that Republicans and Democrats spew at each other."

"I think it's time we heard a new voice," he said.

Tony Oliva

Party: Libertarian

Age: 28 (blog note: Tony is one year older than the existing mayor)

Occupation: Crossing guard and graduate school work

Residence: Oakland

Education: Bachelor's degree, political science, University of Pittsburgh

Family: Single

Political experience: First race for public office

Do you think that the Trib could have made the photo in the online edition any smaller?

You're given 3 minutes to speak and you have to follow 90 minutes of chatter from the big-party politicians. Here is what Tony said.

Thanks to Chris Potter at PghCityPaper.com, we can see the transcripts of the PUMP debate. He went and posted the message from Libertarian, Tony Oliva, too. Thanks!

Tony got to speak for 3 minutes. Meanwhile, candidates Ravenstahl and DeSantis spoke for more than an hour. Was it 60-minutes or 90-minutes?

Any way you slice it -- it wasn't fair. And, Tony did a great job to establish a relationship with the audience in this 'quickie.'

Funny chatter comes from the bigots who say that a shrinking city should have a shrinking debate stage, despite people being on the ballot. They say that Tony Oliva, the Libertarian, brings little to the discussion. They are using the exact same words that Tony said! Tony says, "I've heard it all before."

Tony is right. DeSantis and Ravenstahl are talking about different special interest tax breaks. Ravenstahl's goes to certain neighborhoods and not others. DeSantis has a plan to give tax breaks to start ups. Meanwhile, we've been living with Onorato who gives tax breaks to US Airways (new call center), and Westinghouse (move to Cranberry) and the Penguins (new arena with public funds).

I'm not against tax breaks for everyone. I'm against tax breaks for special interest groups. They offer a trifecta -- and the city goes down the drain farther and farther.

Tony Oliva: Good evening. I'd first like to thank the outpouring of support I got to actually be here tonight. I wasn't initially invited to this debate, nor any of the upcoming debates. It's going to be pretty interesting when I actually win this election. Some people might have some egg on their face, but that's quite all right.

Now, the way I see Pittsburgh right now -- or the way I see the two candidates to the left of me -- I see it as a choice between painting a bare room. And you have a choice right now of people who debated here tonight, between painting it eggshell-white or mother-of-pearl white. They even look like they have the same tailor. Now, maybe a splash of color is just what this city might need. I listened, I sat up there and listened to what they had to say, and I've heard things like this before. I've heard it all before. It's the same political rhetoric that Republicans and Democrats spew at each other. And I think it's time that we hear a different voice.

With me, I can safely say that the buck stops here. As mayor, if the city continues to stay in trouble, I wouldn't accept my full pay because any sane person who doesn't do the job shouldn't get 100 percent of their own benefits or a pay raise. And that would extent to city council and any appointed official. That's just a personal little quirk of mine.

Basically my idea for the city, put things back on track. Lower taxes for the working people, lower taxes for small businesses to increase the ability for small businesses to work here, or to start and have better jobs. Right now, even if you have a job in Pittsburgh, likely after coming out of college you're under-employed. You're not getting paid what you're worth, and what you paid $40,000 for that little piece of paper called the diploma for. Now, people say, "Tony, you talk about the young college graduates too often." And I do. But it's not only them that my ideas will benefit. It's also older Pennsylvanians, because if the younger people keep leaving, then the tax burden will pass on to older Pennsylvanians, people near retirement, people who are retired. People on a fixed income. And when you're on a fixed income and you're being taxed more, you have to get another job or leave the city. Now me, I'm 28 years old, and getting a second job -- no problem. I can take care of that. But when you've worked 40 years of your life, and you're enjoying the golden years and have your grandchildren you should be playing with, you shouldn't have to go be a greeter at Wal-Mart in order to cover up city government's mistakes and squandering of your money.

As a city, we need to be more inclusive, be more welcoming to new ideas, to all peoples. A big complaint I've heard about Pittsburgh is we're an old, white town. We need to offer more opportunities for more diversity in our city, and be welcoming to all peoples. Because right now, that will make us a better and stronger, and more welcoming place for everyone. We can start by including a Libertarian in the next mayoral debate. Thank you.

After the debate, Tony and I mingled at a Libertarian table and had plenty of great conversations with those in the audience. A few dozen offered to check out our DVD. And more offered up their email info to us. Some were very happy to see the Ron Paul handouts as well.

Hot Poll Numbers. Get em while they're hot.. Extra insights from a weird third voice as a topping.

Luke is at 63%.
DeSantis is at 21%.
Libertarian, Tony Oliva is at 3%.
Ryan Scott, Socialist Workers Party, is at 1%.

Unsure is 11%.
Not telling, or mind your own business, = 7%.

The 11+7 = 18%. That was the topic for a recent email blast and blog post. It could have read 38% to 11% for even extra contrast. Seven percent know who they are going to vote for, they just are not telling.

In the two person race for Pgh Controller:
Michael Lamb, D, is at 52%.
Mark Rauterkus, Libertarian, is at 10%.
Unsure is at 38%.

If all the unsure break to Rauterkus, the race would be nearly tied.

I predict that Ravenstahl will be at 63 to 65% of the vote total.
Understand that DeSantis started at nearly ZERO.

More people signed the petition to get Rauterkus and Oliva onto the ballot than voted with the write in to get DeSantis onto the GOP ballot.
The media has done a poor job in coverage of the Controller's race.
Rauterkus has spent less than $250 in his race. Meanwhile, DeSantis has spent $300,000.

Rauterkus is getting twice as many votes from those who are going to vote for DeSantis than Ravenstahl.

DeSantis held a fund raiser for Lamb when Lamb was in a race for Mayor in 2005.

When Rauterkus ran for mayor, in 2001, the intent was to create opposition to Tom Murphy. Meanwhile, Lamb ran against Bob O'Connor and finished third in the D-Party primary. Lamb's vote total was less than Bill Peduto's.

Lamb ran for Controller in the D-Pary primary in May, 2007, and got 41% of the D-Party vote.

Throughout Allegheny County, there are less than 2,500 Libertarians. In the city, the number is much less.

The city council candidates who are challenging the endorsed Democrats each have a better opportunity to win their respective races than does DeSantis. The Republican label is too much of a liability for DeSantis at this time.

The DeSantis campaign has failed to build even the slightest teamwork among the other challengers to Pittsburgh's status as a one-party town.

The hope of all hopes for a DeSantis victory must reside in the new voters to the city. Those that have not voted before or only voted for the first time in 2007 and 2006 were not able to be within the poll. The younger people in the South Side, the college students, the recent arrivals could sway the election to the favor of DeSantis.

Of course a high voter turnout among Republicans and a low turnout for Dems would guarantee a DeSantis victory.

I have not looked at results from various sections of the city and from various party households. DeSantis could have a massive Shadyside, Regent Square and Sq. Hill vote total. That might have been overlooked within this poll. DeSantis might have a massive voter boom in Overbrook or Brookline. There are mysteries that will not be known until the voters speak and results are calculated.

Ravenstahl could still make two or three mistakes.

---

Ha, ha, ha section..... as it is nice to have creativity when facing data. Plus, I'm going to a tailgate with Pitt folks in the morning. Hail to Pitt. I won't unleash the poisonous snakes then. (Have you seen their blog?)

If Luke Ravenstahl kicks the winning field goal in the Monday Night Steelers game, DeSantis should instruct the fat lady to being to sing.

If DeSantis could get all weekend tailgaters a crash course in civics along with a hot sandwich on a fresh bun, Luke would go down in flames.

If the Libertarian, Tony Oliva, would parachute into Heinz Field with the game ball and proceed to return the opening kickoff past the Ravenstahl, err, Ravens 50, then Michael Lamb might have to get his next government job in the Law Department since Rauterkus would be a hero for recruiting Oliva to the ballot.

Finally, don't shoot the messenger. However, I have good faith that this poll is the most comprehensive done in Pittsburgh since Bill Peduto pulled out of the mayor's race in March 2007.

Tomorrow, watch this blog for video of the lone debate between the candidates for controller hosted by B-Pep and the League of Women Voters. Michael Lamb mentions dog licenses, for the 724th time at a public meeting. In his remarks at the debate, Lamb repeated the word "audit" 412 times in less than 30-minutes.

Link to the audio will go here soon.

Link to the spreadsheet of data.

---

Script of recorded phone call:

A mayor's race is here in Pittsburgh.

Residents vote for two city-wide positions on Nov 6. Your help for the next 60-seconds can assist in a scientifically valid poll.

In the mayor's race, if you expect to vote for

Luke Ravenstahl, Democrat, press “1”

if you expect to vote for Mark DeSantis, Republican, press 2,

if you expect to vote for Tony Oliva, Libertarian, press 3,

Ryan Scott, Socialist, press 4.

if you are unsure as to who you'll vote for – press 5.

if you would rather NOT say who may vote for – register a privacy tally by pressing six.

- -
Last question:

In the race for city controller,

if you are going to vote for Michael Lamb, Democrat, press 7

if you are going to vote for Mark Rauterkus, Libertarian, press 8.

if you are unsure about who you'll vote for for City Controller, -- press 9.

-
Finally, if you would want to get voter information and obtain the results of this poll, press “O” for operator and leave a message that includes your email address. We'll release the results to you as soon as this poll concludes.

---

Extra Q & A:

How many respondents?

715 gave something to tally.
Thousands of calls were made.

And what was the breakdown -- how many said they'd vote for you, versus Lamb?

Lamb is at 52%, me 10%, Undecided 38%

Who conducted the poll?

Me.

Over what dates?

Most recent six days. But, I better triple check this in the AM. I stopped the poll at noon on Friday, Nov 2.

Robo or humans asking questions?

Recorded voice.

And what's the margin of error?

?? That's beyond my pay grade.

technology politics: Lessig's Declaration for Independence

technology politics: Lessig's Declaration for Independence... member of the audience told Lessig that "I was with you for 80% of it..." and that Lessig's examples using only Republicans and Democrats a was a slap in the face to third party candidates like himself. The man, you guessed it, was Mark Rauterkus. I give Mark a lot of crap for his support of Sara Palin-esque mayoral candidates like that Libertarian guy, Tony what's his name, but he is really a nice guy, and I have to say after meeting both of his sons (ages 13 and 10) I have to give him credit for doing heck of a job raising too really smart kids. During my conversation with Mark about McCain and Obama his sons were joining the debate - and they had plenty to say. They were more knowledgeable on the issues than Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin - and I'm not exaggerating. Following our conversation Mark's youngest son came up to me and asked me which issues that Obama was supporting were most important to me. When I meet 10 year old who can come up to me and discus foreign policy, energy independence, and the Iraq War - that gives me hope. Great work, Mark.

Nice words. Great post. Wonderful talk too. Must read re-cap as there are many themes in this discussion that need to sustain in our discussions.

Couple of minor points. Erik is 13 for another couple of weeks. Grant is 10 and a half. Eighth and fifth graders.

I am happy you enjoyed the conversation with the boys. They are 'tuned in.' Our friend, Joe Jencks, who came to the house last week and gave a house concert spoke some kind words about the boys as well. He said that his conversations with the boys gave him a great deal of hope for the future. Reassuring.

Tony Oliva was the L candidate for mayor in the 'special election.' Tony is a Pitt grad in POLITICAL SCIENCE. He has had a passport for years. And, Oliva jumped out of many airplanes carrying a gun wearing a uniform ready to face whatever was on the ground. In a nutshell, he's more experienced than many. And, he hustled to meet with hundreds of voters/citizens to get their signature to get himself and me onto the ballot.

The defense of Tony, not a placekicker when he played DI football, is important for history's sake -- and for the conversation that unfolds at the lecutre with Professor Lessig.

Lessig rails, rightfully, against corruption. Pittsburgh, like other local situations, has corruption. On the federal level there is less "crude corruption" -- but Lessig feared that that flavor of corruption could still have roots within the local political scene in America.

Crude corruption is an important concept. For starters, there is no hint of any flavor of corruption resting on the back of Tony Oliva. And, for that alone, the pinnacle of Lessig's preaching, means discounting Tony isn't prudent.

Crude corruption is old-school corruption and has nothing to do with 'crude oil.' Crude corruption offers an interesting double meaning, perhaps confusing. But, given the 'War for Oil' and price of gas, yet alone "peak oil" plus global warming, Crude Corruption makes heads scratch.

Lessig's crude corruption was more for the type that Bonusgate delivered. Paying a women via the state payroll who delivers sexual services, for example. As well as the Luke Ravenstahl and Pat Ford type of corruption -- more money, more gifts, more jobs, more favors (parking the RV) for the person and family.

Pittsburgh is filled with crude corruption. One party rule helps to deliver this old-school, crude corruption, IMHO.

Lessig makes the point that the Feds are with a new breed of corruption. More sophisticated. They are able to skirt the ethics laws and still get re-elected plus use extortion for gains for favorite, pet endeavors (i.e., endowed chairs and namesake library donations). He is on the mark about the ills of the system as it is today with the Feds.

His quote got to me: "Under today's system, there is no way in hell we'll be able to throw the bumbs out."

Lessig is not inclined to mess with today's system. His solution is but a tinkering around the edges so as to hold off a real revolution that is brewing.

"Under today's system" is sacred ground that won't be challenged by Lessig and his cronies. Now, I have to be 'c a r e f u l' and close this posting and say I'll get back to this topic with any and all others -- so as to really make my point understood.

Lessig is about "Ds" and "Rs" and also about "right" and "left." One slide was with "Red" and "Blue" and a blending of the two.

Lessig is worried about 'competition' and he states an old-school adage. "It takes 50% + 1 vote to win an election." Sorta. But, in a 3-way race, Lessig's formula breaks. In a 4-way race, the winner could be with 3 out of 10 or less! Do the math.

Lessig stated a Newt quote saying that there isn't much difference between the two parties. In D.C., in the halls of congress, in the Fed circles, and in time of crisis on matters that are really important -- there is NO DIFFERENCE. Newt is right. Nearly everyone of them voted for the invasion and 'war' (except, of course, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich). This financial bailout of $700B is another one of those "bi-partisan" times when they are being slammed into the same lock-step booster-ism where they crave and pressure a unified voice.

Presently, G.W.Bush is saying Republicans and Democrats are going to rise together to make a deal. Jeepers. The Ds and Rs are going to craft a deal in D.C. and the rest of America is in fits and upset.

My wild-eye prediction for the future: This Wall Street Bailout and call for UNITY is boing to be the death of the R party. The Ds and Rs are merged into one Corporate Party. Obama and Biden will be the leader.

We need and Lessig wants, like me, the corrupt candidate to loose the election. In a 3, 4, or 5 way, competitive, open-minded race, with performing watchdog media, the corrupt candidate does NOT win. That's the key that rids our system of corruption.

Tony Oliva getting some air-time with PCTV 21 show

We don't yet know the dates and times of the show, but Tony Oliva, Libertarian, candidate for mayor, had a sit-down interview with Bruce Krane, show host, in the studios of PCTV21.

From people & vips

Bruce Krane, on the left (very far left), and Tony Oliva, Libertarian.

[412] This is NOT too much about me -- yet. Do you want to opt into the media list as well?

I sent out an email blast:

[412] This is NOT too much about me -- yet. Do you want to opt into the media list as well?

---

Hi All,

The political campaigns of 2007 and 2008 are starting.

I am on the ballot for the November 6, 2007, election, twice. Voters in the city of Pittsburgh will be able to vote for me for CONTROLLER. Furthermore, voters in Pittsburgh's city council district 3 can vote for me for CITY COUNCIL.

But today's email is more for others:
+ Ron Paul, R;
++ David Adams, Indie;
+++ David Schulenberg, Indie; and
++++ Tony Oliva, Libertarian.


+ Debates for the 2008 election are being held and Pittsburgh-born Doctor Ron Paul, http://www.RonPaul2008, is doing well. He is my favorite by far. This is the time to get to know Ron Paul because the primary election period is going to be here sooner than expected. Study Ron Paul and learn more about LIBERTARIAN solutions.

I worry about local elections slated for 2007 as debates are NOT being scheduled. NONE. Zippo. I'm blogging, of course, http://Rauterkus.blogspot.com. My campaign planks, web sites, CDs, phone calls, press releases, book and podcasts are going to replace the need for debates and media -- if you care to listen and engage. Expect more news from me soon.


++ On Friday (tomorrow), I'll stand with David Adams, candidate for city council, district 9.

Pgh City Paper article on David:
http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A34679

Independent Candidate David Adams will formally announce his candidacy for the 9th district City Council seat on Friday September 7, 2007, at the Frick Park Entrance on Homewood Avenue, and Reynolds in the North Point Breeze community. The time of the event will be 12:30 P.M.

Adams will highlight the points of difference between what Ricky Burgess has presented as his plan, and the strategies Adams has envisioned, and is currently developing for the district, which Adams says will "change the way the 9th district does business as a community!"

The event will also include special guests, who are running for various positions in the November 6th election.

This event is open to the district residents, television, press and radio.

Adams sends a special invitation to candidate Ricky Burgess, in order to clarify any stated errors concerning his plan.


+++ David Schuilenberg is another independent candidate running for Pgh city council (district 1). I support him as he is much better than who is in office now.
http://206.130.100.156/wiki/index.php/David_Schuilenburg

A third David, David T, is running for Allegheny County Council's at large seat.


++++ Tony Oliva, Libertarian, is on the ballot for Mayor, City of Pittsburgh. He and I worked together to secure that ballot spot with my 'placeholder efforts.'

http://rauterkus.blogspot.com/search?q=tony+oliva


= = = = Opt In for More News = = = =

News and content about Pittsburgh and our issues is expected to snowball for the next couple of months. I've got a new media helper, Travis. I'm not going to flood this email list, http://Rauterkus.com/mailman/listinfo/412-public-campaign, with too much noise. I'm going to make another list.

If you'd like to get more news and insights about campaigns for public office, please send me an email: Mark@Rauterkus.com.

Thanks for listening and your ongoing comments.


Mark Rauterkus Mark@Rauterkus.com
http://Rauterkus.blogspot.com
http://Elect.Rauterkus.com
412 298 3432 = cell

Libertarian Candidate for Pittsburgh Controller &
Libertarian Candidate for Pittsburgh City Council, district 3
Vote November 6, 2007

KDKA - Freds Homepge has an interview with Tony Oliva, L, Mayor Candidate

KDKA - Freds Homepge New Libertarian Mayoral Candidate Tony Oliva tells Fred Honsberger what he would do if he were elected Mayor of the City of Pittsburgh.

Talks about lack of experience. Talks about lack of special interest to be a slave to.

The belt has to be tightened a couple of notches.

Underground tunnel was raised as an idea. Honz loves the tunnel. So Honz said it was not city money.

Cut the staffers.

Pass savings to taxpayers.

City does NOT have much to do about school board. But Tony was talking about after school. That's a park project.

Honz says unions are not traditionally willing to have give-and-take. Tony would take a firm line. Enough is enough. Hey, you are hard workers. You do good things. But the city can't stay afloat.

Chances? Tony said, "I've got a punching shot!"

Bram at the Pgh Comment does NOT want you to read this post

All the candidates on the ballot should be in all the debates.

If you advocate the elimination of candidates from the debates, or if you are hosting a debate that isn't including the four candidates on the ballot, you are both:
-- a baby, and
-- helping to shrink the region deeper into its public-life despair.

Bram is wrong.

News flash: After the election on Nov 6, 2007, life will continue.

Adults have the ability to understand time. The debates are not only about November 6. Great community events and candidate debates are forums for pondering the long life we hope to lead. They are far greater than one vote. After November 6, life will continue and it might even include the arrival of a micro-credit in town, if you believe Mark DeSantis. The downside and downtime of inclusion is nothing next to wearing the shame of a lifetime of being a bigot for a moment.

The candidates on the ballot should be in the debate because the future of the region matters more than the November 6 election. The debates become bigger parts of a greater overall struggle when inclusion occurs. Without inclusion, the debates are just about the election on November 6.

News flash: Four people are on the ballot for mayor.

Not three. Not two. Not five. Just four. Not Jena Six. Four, like the four legs of a chair. A two-legged chair makes for a poor platform for building prosperity. A three-legged chair is a drastic improvement. But a robust economic engine is sure to shake, rattle and roll a great deal. Fortify the foundation by standing upon all the available legs. Every asset must be put into the mission. To choose to knock a leg or two from the chair is to choose to play only a delicate game with feather-like balance that isn't even fun to watch.

News flash: Life isn't fair.

However, the ONE place in life when fairness counts is here. Every person gets one vote. Every vote should count. Elections must be fair. Judges, courts, voting and the democratic process need to be the best place in life where fairness does count. Life isn't fair, except for this one sacred space. We go out of our way to make this ordeal fair. Fairness matters here most of all.

I'd also like to see some fairness in blood tests, SATs, the World Series strike zone and property taxing policies. But, for now, those issues can take a back seat.

As life's winds blow into and storm upon the sanctity of what should be "fair" -- it is called "crooked." Bent presentations by limited participation on the debate stage taints what follows, the election. Stop the spread of the slime here.

Corruption in our voting, democracy and public life kills. Wars occur because layers of corruption pile deep. Wars, killings, and other damages happen as other creative, constructive options dissolve.

I'd much rather have Ryan (of the Socialist Workers Party) on stage yammering as opposed to him (or others) hurling bricks and torching police cruisers.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant. And, the limelight from the sunshine has been known to melt those in 'bondage.' But, the bondage may melt too. The perception of "class" might go away, or else be bridged.

I expect Ryan would opt out and won't run for the full duration, as happened in the past with other socialist candidates. He is there to make a point. And, after it is made, life goes on. But, when he is not on the stage, the point (the system is rigged) gets made for him by others.

By excluding the socialist from the debate stage, the socialist point was trumpeted by the "boss class." Insert Forrest Gump saying here.

News flash: Elections are not like the TV show, Elim-a-date. Elections do not unfold like your college choice either.

For example, as you prepare for college, generally, the prospective university student eliminates other options and narrows the search and decision. However, the thinning of the field of options for you has no impact upon the decisions of your peers. Just because you don't want to go to IUP nor PSU does not mean that your buddies won't. If they go there, that's fine.

You are not to choose for others, even as you make up your mind.

Pennsylvania would be a more 'streamlined Commonwealth' if the state just picked ONE university to accredit and fund. Close all the others. They are expensive. NUKE the rest.

Case in point: In New Zealand, they had one engineering university, one medical school, one teachers college. If you went into that field, you went to that campus. Simple. Streamline. Efficient. What if we did the same in Pennsylvania? What if we said that there was only ONE University -- and you had to close down all the others because you didn't think that they were good enough for you and your interests.

I was glad when my best high school friends made choices to go to college in different places. They went to Virginia Tech and Wake Forest. Great, I had new places to visit. Those places were not for me -- but -- I could visit and celebrate the fit they had elsewhere.

Newsflash: This is America!

China is booming with its economy. Perhaps the USA could learn something from China's one party system. Look at the redundancy we could eliminate. Let's get away from the two-party system and just have one. Let's start by getting rid of the third party candidates and just have two.

News flash: This year's race for mayor is a special election and it isn't even for a four-year term.

We are electing a mayor for two years. Life will still go on after 2009. When you grow up and become an adult, you have a world of choices. That's part of being in a mature life.

Children are not as 'developmentally developed' and are often better when given limited choices.

Face it, Pittsburgh's political landscape needs to evolve, mature, grow-up, be open, be inclusive, be thoughtful. Perhaps the young people (PUMP) like dealing with baby choices. I don't. Grow up. Grab onto life. Grin and bear it for short periods. Adults behave with civility and patience.

Besides, Luke told us that one of his problems is that he goes too fast, as we have seen. Haste makes waste. Same too with the debate inclusion issue. Don't be so quick to rush ahead with only two on the stage because you've said so. That's acting childish. A childish mayor and a childish population could present troubles.

News flash: Pittsburgh is still shrinking.

I don't like the fact that dozens and dozens of neighborhood family friends of ours have packed up and left town. They didn't like leaving either. Uprooting is hard work and it hurts -- for all.

Our city is shrinking -- not growing -- and so goes the debate stage and the maturity of our political landscape.

I wrote about this to the Ethics Hearing Board. You don't fix ethics with unethical acts and unethical policies.

You don't fix a shrinking city by shrinking the debate stage to only those with deep pockets and labels you approve.

It is painful to listen to them all. Folks, the quality of our candidates is weak because of that whole 'crazy' thing. (footnote to Mark DeSantis saying something about being crazy for running.)

A person runs for political office and there are NO debates -- that's crazy.

A person runs for office and gets on the ballot and is excluded from a rare debate -- that is crazy.

We include everyone now, without question, because the next time we want better candidates. That is sanity and logical.

Newsflash: Schultz, I didn't run for MAYOR, because I KNOW that there are too many bigots in this town in high places.

If I would have run for mayor, or County Executive, I would have been getting very close to breaking my #1 rule of political engagement -- "Don't burn out."

Frankly, Tony Oliva did a better job at the PUMP / Duquesne Univ. forum than what I would have done had I entered that race. He went onto the stage and spoke for 3 minutes and gave the audience the best humor of the entire night. Tony Oliva was made into a minority, put in the back of the bus, but still made everyone smile. -- Mr. Bo Jangles.

I'm more like Rosa.

Shame goes to those who would choose to wear blinders. Shame squared for those who are baby enough to think they should be putting blinders on others.

This is a struggle for maturity.

Bram, you are a baby by crowing for the elimination of Tony Oliva from future debates. Grow up. Move beyond the bigoted behavior. Cope.

Tony is a intelligent, reasonable, impressive young man (as you posted) who also fought for freedom as a paratrooper. He has come to the ballot out of additional duty to community and public good so as to speak his peace.

You loose everything when you don't see the big picture. Pittsburgh is at the brink. Bigots will drive the final nail into its coffin.

What kind of fixtures should we leave for our kids?

Newsflash: I run because of my children and their peers in the city.

Frankly, I know that this city isn't good enough for my kids -- at this point. I want to give my kids "golden opportunities." Pittsburgh doesn't provide them. My kids are going to be competitive with anyone -- the world over. My kids should be free to be whatever they want. And, they should not need to settle for something inferior. Pittsburgh's landscape does not provide the liberties to be all you can be in any kind of pursuit. There are too many holes, too many sinks, too many gottchas. Most are institutional weaknesses. Many talents can't bloom here.

Too often we grow our kids and tell them, "it is time to leave." Pittsburgh's departures are painful and obvious.

Furthermore, my kids are not your typical children. No kids are 'average.' But, it is safe to say, we don't worry much about 'no child left behind' in my home. We don't leave our kids behind when we go to China (3 times), New Zealand, Canada, Chicago, California, or even to paddle on a canoe in the river. We are blessed. And, we stay in the city. And, we stay to fight the good fight.

So, when Bram calls for a departure from the debate stage -- he needs to realize that he is falling into the same rut. Pittsburgh does not need more departures. Brams wish makes it harder for our kids to stay here and shine no matter what label they choose for themselves.

Pittsburgh needs to be a place where we can explore different visions, new ideas and hear from different voices. Pittsburgh needs to garner its strength and passion by blending all its elements into a patchwork of diversity.

Everyone has roles. We need the coal miners. We need the veterans. We need the sewing machine operators. We need the pickets from time to time too. We need to listen.

In the debates, there is a lot of chatter from both Luke Ravenstahl and Mark DeSantis about how the city does not listen to residents. "Did too. No way. Yes sir. No answer, etc." Public process has come under scrutiny. United this, neighborhood that, whatever. Luke Ravenstahl snubbed the hearing with the women seeking resolution to the promotion of police officers with domestic abuse matters. Luke missed a packed house of North Side residents raising demands in advance of the slots parlor's arrival. Being heard is important. Learning to listen is this global goal for politicians. Meanwhile, DeSantis didn't even campaign in the spring primary. Go figure.

Unless, of course, it applies to them and their election and their debates.

Well, this election is "OURS" -- not "theirs."

I'd love to see each campaign (Ravenstahl's and DeSantis) issue a statement that all the candidates on the ballot should be included in all the debates. That would move Pittsburgh forward.

I'd love to see every citizen of the region issue their own statements to all the media outlets and all the neighborhood groups that debates should be held for all the races and all the candidates on the ballot should be included.

Otherwise, the shrinking continues. Otherwise, the quality withers. Otherwise, those seeking freedom depart.

Jon Delano of KDKA TV said that only 30,000 or 40,000 people will vote in the election. No wonder. KDKA needs to hold its debate and have all the people on the ballot in the studio -- else Pittsburgh's silent majority is going to continue to vote with its feet by leaving the city, leaving the county, and leaving the region.

Source:

The Pittsburgh Comet: Eliminate the Libertarian and the Socialist (pt 4) Tony Oliva (L) seemed like an intelligent, reasonable, impressive young man -- who has not a single interesting thing to say.

Libertarian candidates in Pennsylvania for 2007's general election

Candidates in 2007 from Pennsylvania:

D. Michael Blackie for Philadelphia City Council

James Babb for Council of Censors, Montgomery County

James Babb for Montgomery County Sheriff

Erik Viker for Selinsgrove Borough Council, Snyder County – ON BALLOT

Mik Robertson for Clarion County Commissioner – ON BALLOT

Berlie Etzel for Clarion County Register and Recorder – ON BALLOT

Myron Deitrick for Mayor of Avis Borough, Clinton County – ON BALLOT & incumbent

Vance Mays for Venango County Commissioner – ON BALLOT

Mary Lea Lucas for Strattenville Borough Council, Clarion County – ON BALLOT

Tony Oliva for Mayor of Pittsburgh – ON BALLOT

Mark Rauterkus for Controller, Pittsburgh, – ON BALLOT

Mark Rauterkus for Pittsburgh City Council, 3rd District – ON BALLOT

---

The Libertarians did have some candidates not get onto the ballot. These individuals either did not request assistance and/or did not respond to contacts. There were also a couple of late candidate inquiries. One late candidate effort was Chris Bectloff in Lancaster County. The PA Chair was not able to get an update, yet.

Tony Oliva in Pittsburgh worked with the Allegheny County organization. They responded incredibly well to support Tony when they became aware of his desire to be a candidate. The Libertarians throughout Pennsylvania need to find a way to consistently help candidates along and make sure they can submit the paperwork needed to get on the ballot. Local organizations are key to making this work.

Tony Oliva, L, candidate for mayor, on with Honz Man, Wed at 5:50 pm

Tony Oliva is booked for the Honz Man show, KDKA Radio, for Wednesday (tomorrow) at 5:50. Sounds like he'll get a 10-minute interview.

I think DeSantis and Ravenstahl are due to be on the early KDKA Radio show on Wed. too.

Tony for Mayor Blog

Tony Oliva, L, candidate for mayor, has opened a web site and blog.

Tony for Mayor The Time is Now"

The site is a free one hosted at GoDaddy.com.

http://tonyforpittsburgh.com/

Tony Norman's head and shoulders obstruct Tony Oliva, except his ear

From people & vips

Results of the elections, at first glance

MAYOR CITYWIDE
(VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN ) 1
LUKE RAVENSTAHL (DEM) . . . . . . 42,290 = 63.23%
MARK F DESANTIS (REP) . . . . . . 23,313 = 34.85%
TONY OLIVA (LIB) . . . . . . . . 500 = .75%
RYAN SCOTT (SOC) . . . . . . . . 534 = .80%
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 249 = .37%

This is really bad news. Tony got beat by Ryan. Ouch. Every vote counts!

CONTROLLER CITYWIDE
(VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN ) 1
MICHAEL E LAMB (DEM). . . . . . . 54,258 = 89.40%
MARK RAUTERKUS (LIB). . . . . . . 6,352 = 10.47%
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 83 = .14%

This is good news. I got well over 6,000 votes. Ten and a half-percent isn't what I was looking for -- but it is what I got in the polling that I did last week.
I spent $250. Let's do the math. I got votes for about $.04 each.

Even in 2001, when I ran city wide, I got votes for $.30 each.

There are 1,500 Libertarians in the county. It might be right to say that there are 600 or so Libertarians in the city. Each Libertarian generated 10 votes. I think that there are 100,000 registered Ds in the city. Does that mean each D generated half a vote for Lamb.

MEMBER OF COUNCIL DISTRICT 1
(VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN ) 1
DARLENE M HARRIS (DEM) . . . . . . 4,880 =74.37%
DAVID SCHUILENBURG (IND) . . . . . 1,672 =25.48%
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 10 =.15%

Way to go David. If he would have been able to have a few debates, that race would have been very, very close.

MEMBER OF COUNCIL DISTRICT 3
(VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN ) 1
BRUCE A KRAUS (DEM) . . . . . . . 4,463 = 86.13%
MARK RAUTERKUS (LIB). . . . . . . 675 = 13.03%
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 44 = .85%

Who are those 44 people doing write ins? What did they say? I did better in the city council race as far as percentage against the opponent by two+ percent.

The 675 in the council vote is about 1/10th of the 6,352 I got in the city. There are 9 council districts. Time will tell if I did better in some districts and worse in others.

MEMBER OF COUNCIL DISTRICT 5
(VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN ) 1
DOUGLAS SHIELDS (DEM) . . . . . . 8,067 = 99.20%
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 65 .80%

Today, Doug Shields, City Council President got 8,000 votes. I got about 7,000 votes. That is a good showing for Doug.

MEMBER OF COUNCIL DISTRICT 7
(VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN ) 1
PATRICK DOWD (DEM) . . . . . . . 7,410 = 98.89%
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 83 = 1.11%

MEMBER OF COUNCIL DISTRICT 9
(VOTE FOR NOT MORE THAN ) 1
RICKY V BURGESS (DEM) . . . . . . 5,335 = 89.62%
DAVID C ADAMS (IND) . . . . . . . 604 = 10.15%
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 14 = .24%

Oh well.

A third party with no money (<$250) is about one quarter of what a 2nd party with $300,000 gets in terms of total votes.

More arm-chair quarterbacking tomorrow.

Ballot machines up for court review - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Ballot machines up for court review - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review 'I don't see how they can say the machines are reliable when they have no way of showing whether the machines are reliable,' said Chester County attorney Marian K. Schneider, who took state officials to court last year to ban use of iVotronics and other machines.

Here is another reason why we have Tony Oliva, Libertarian, running for mayor.

It has nothing to do with Tony. But, I don't trust the blasted voting machines and the entire election process. I'm a technocrat. I still don't trust them. Dan Onorato really screwed up when he went against the advice of others.

The voting machines are what they are, so might say. Well for me, that just is NOT good enough.

Nader sues PA Dems

I shared an elevator ride with Mayor Ravenstahl. We talked a bit about my race for City Controller and then we talked about Tony Oliva, Libertarian, candidate for mayor. Luke said, "Tony is a nice guy."

Furthermore, Luke told me, "I really wish he would have been included in the debates." Luke said he wrote letters to the media saying that the third party candidates should be included. Luke asked, what makes him any better than these other guys. He knows that they are of the same age group. The exclusion didn't make sense to him, as it troubles me too.

I told Luke that I believe him. I had talked to Mr. Zober at a prior debate (PUMP / D.U.) and had gathered that understanding. But, I really wanted a letter or quote or email to have this understanding as "proof" so I could hang a hat on it.

Luke said that the letter would have to come from the campaign office. So, I went there next, on my walk home. I asked them in the office to shoot me a copy of the letter.

Nothing arrived, yet.

Today we learn that the Dems are being sued by Ralph Nader. This brings up another mention of Mr. Zober. He worked hard to block Nader from the ballot in his life before Grant Street.

Go figure. Has Mr. Zober seen the light? Or, is the storm coming from another direction?

Luke is another matter. I can see where Luke might speak up for inclusion -- yet do what he is told. Meanwhile, Mr. Zober will do what is best for his side and not what is ideal for democracy.

I'd still love to see the note that Luke wrote to media folks about debate inclusion of third party candidates.

NADER SUES DEMOCRATS, SAYING THEY SABOTAGED HIS 04 CAMPAIGN

by Maria Recio

WASHINGTON - Even as the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates prepared
to debate Tuesday night, Ralph Nader, a controversial figure from the last
two presidential campaigns, sued the Democratic Party, the Kerry-Edwards
2004 campaign and affiliated groups for allegedly sabotaging his 2004
campaign.

The Democratic Party is going after anyone who presents a credible
challenge to their monopoly over their perceived voters, said Nader, the
consumer advocate who ran for president in 2004 as an independent and in
2000 as a candidate of the Green Party. Democrats blame him for draining
votes from nominee Al Gore in 2000, costing the vice president the election,
and were bent on blunting his influence in 2004.

Nader, who s weighing running again in 2008, told McClatchy Newspapers
that he d decide by the end of the year.

This lawsuit was filed to help advance a free and open electoral process
for all candidates and voters, he said. Candidate rights and voter rights
nourish each other for more voices, choices and a more open and competitive
democracy.

The suit, filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, seeks
compensatory damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief to protect the
constitutional rights of both candidates and voters.

Nader accuses Democratic National Committee officials, the campaign of 04
Democratic nominee John Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, and a
group called The Ballot Project of jointly planning a nationwide effort to
block Nader and running mate Peter Camejo from state ballots as a means to
drive into deep debt or bankrupt the Nader-Camejo campaign.

DNC spokesman Luis Miranda said the party headquarters was unaware of the
suit, but in any case, We do not comment on pending litigation.

Asked why Nader had waited until now to sue, Bruce Afran, an attorney for
Nader, said, It s precisely because everyone is thinking of 08 that Ralph
Nader wants to make sure this won t happen again to a third party
candidate.

Nader said it took a long time to discover the connections of people and
organizations he felt were trying to destroy him. It s a lot of work, he
said. I m not GM. Nader s most famous confrontation was with General
Motors, which tried to undermine him during his 1960s drive for auto safety.

Democratic Party officials and allied organizations sued the Nader-Camejo
campaign in 18 state courts during the run-up to the 2004 election and
blocked him from the ballot in such key states as Pennsylvania and Oregon.

A Pittsburgh law firm, Reed Smith, successfully sued Nader for court costs
and has a judgment pending against him for more than $61,000. Nader s
lawsuit lays out what it says were undisclosed connections between the firm
and members of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which decided the case.

Today s vastly more burdensome, intricate and discriminatory
ballot-access barriers in many state laws, enacted by the two-party duopoly,
has enabled this vast Democratic Party conspiracy, Nader said.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/31/4925/

League of Women Voters Guide is out via the Pgh Courier

The 12 page, color, tabloid voters guide from the League of Women Voters is out. I picked one up at the office of the NPC on 315 East Carson Street yesterday. It is full of interesting information.

I'm in it twice as I'm on the ballot for both controller and city council district 3.

Here are some interesting notes:

Dan Onorato, a guy who says on the radio he has been here for 3 and a half years, notes that he was on City Council for 8 years, was controller for Allegheny County for four years and is now finishing his first 4 year term as ACE. It will be a happy day when he moves back to the private sector, in my opinion.

Asked, "Do you support the merger of city and county?" Onorato wrote:

"I support merging the City and County into one governmental body. He think that the merger of fingerprinting is demonsrated proof that they can increase operational efficiency.

Dan wants board members of PAT (Port Authority Transit) to serve at the pleasure of the County Executive, rather than fixed terms. Dan is always hungry for power. He thinks that would greatly increase the County Executive's oversight and lead to greater accountability.

No Dan.

A great increase in accountability with PAT Board Members would be retention votes for all authority Board Members. Have them be responsible and accountable to the voters, not to the County Executive.

For Allegheny County Council At Large, Dave Tessitor, reform party, didn't put in a photo. But he is the only one of the three to have a web site.

David's statement about mergers:

Absolutely NOT! A merger would conplettely eliminate city governmetn's urban focus and remove hard won gains of minority communities. African-American, especially, would have their voting share diluted. The Allegheny Confernece, a group created by the ultr-rich, is the chief proponent and admits metropolitanism won't save money, it's about consolidating power (in their hands). Bigger isn't better, it's ruined transit. my main issues: more and better transit (start by dividing PAT into smaller, more efficient managment structures proven effective elsewhere); revitalizing our older communities (first stopping subsidies for suburban real estate speculation); and rapid rail to the airport to bring more jobs into traditional urban communities. merger would complicate or prevent this while forcing suburban residents to assume city debts that they didn't create.

The the mayor's section, Tony Oliva didn't have a photo. Tony's final statement: As other cities move forward, with new ideas, Pittsburgh stays stubbornly entrenched floundering in bankruptcy.

In the Controller's section, Michael Lamb lists as a qualification as being the assistant regional director of PHEA! That was a while ago. I guess if he had a golden parachute it has been long gone.

Micheal wrote:

One of the serious problems facing the City of Pittsburgh is its status as financially distressed. The City Controller sits on the city's pension board and one of the ways we can move toward correcting this problem is addressing the problems of the city's under funded pensions. Another problem facing Pittsburgh are its schools. The City Controller has audit power over the Pittsburgh Public Schools. As Controller, I will make sure that the tax dollars of Pittsburghers are funding quality programs for our students and thatwe promite a climate of excellence in Pittsburgh Public Schools.

Hey, the city is financially distressed. No joke, Sherlock.

My answer to the problems of Pittsburgh.

Schools. Citizen engagement. Loss of liberty. Schools must have discipline and parent/community involvement. Build upon successful programs. Fix high schools.

Question two asks: What specific procedures should the controller's office use to address the fiscal crisis of the city?

Lamb wrote:

In the past, the City Controller's office has neglected to conduct annual audits of city departments. As Controller I will implement an audit schedule for all city departments.

Lamb said the same thing at the debate. He thought that Tom Flaherty, former controller, didn't do his job. Tom Flaherty wasn't "in the pocket" of Tom Murphy. However, they all covered for each other, as I'm certain Lamb will do too. They are all of the same party. Only now do we hear that Lamb is outraged at the poor behaviors of the controller's office -- as he is running for that office.

But the contrast between Lamb and myself are much greater. Lamb thinks that the power of the controller is with the audits. When there is a lack of creativity and willingness to rock the boat, that's the best a Dem can deliver.

My answer:

I'll create and organize a Citizens' Congress with hundreds of volunteer activists working as deputy auditors. Engaged resident must establish a tight grip on city government and schools. The city is at the brink and out of controll. Our values, priorities, benchmarks, and open dialog need an overhaul. We need to think again and create community with new leaders and real citizen empowerment. I'll launch a Youth Technology Summit. I'll leverage open source software methods everywhere.

In city council, district 3, my opponent, Bruce A. Kraus, did not submit a photo nor a website.

Question 1 was: What steps would you take to solve the current financial crisis in the city?

Kraus wrote:

Inviting non-profits through incentives to contribute payment in lieu of taxes, encouraging responsible stewardship of monies we already collect and reducing expenditures through responsible usage of our natural resources.

Humm... I guess he'll turn out the lights more often. That will be good. Plus, he'll give incentives to non-profits to invite more payments. I could take some stabs as to what this could mean. I guess the city could buy some additional Pitt library books i the Pitt undergrads would payoff more of their parking tickets. Perhaps we could show up to faculty meetings with ice cream and sheet cakes if Pitt doubled its giving to the Pgh Service Fund.

I'm open to other suggestions on your read of your decoder ring on this Q and Kraus A.

My answer:

Lay The Shovel Down. Stop expensive bone-headed projects with little lasting benefit. Many boondoggles curb freedom and cripple Pgh's future with debt. I'll create teamwork among citizens and institutions. Let's distill better solutions, sustain discussions, inject debate and diverse perspectives, reestablish value. My priority is to compete like never before.

Question 2: Do you support merging some services with the county, and if so, what are they?

Kraus wrote:

Yes. I support merging of some services where fiscally responsible and shown to improve delivery.

My response:

Corporate welfare, police brutality, firefighters contracts, downtown interests, and Luke's golf drown every thing else. kids and families are ignored. youths need coaching, not more shootings. Let's teach how to play. Volunteerism would soar by removing Citiparks, Countyparks & Rec, and PPS aftershcool from city hall. Build a Democratic entity: Pgh Park District. (2004 positions at Play.CLOH.Org) Illinois uses this model so regional assets are cared for by parks and rec interests. Cut URA. Merge parking Authority by liquidation to marketplace.

There is plenty to ponder among the other replies in the voters guide. Sadly,
this guide isn't a part of either the P-G nor Trib. It should have a wider readership.

Trib Brief: Fourth Candidate Enters Race for Mayor

Briefs: Motorcycle hits tree in Mt. Oliver, victim found nearby - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Oakland Fourth candidate enters race for mayor An Oakland man filed paperwork to run for Pittsburgh mayor as a Libertarian, which makes four candidates for the city's top office. Tony Oliva, 27, filed Thursday to be a replacement candidate for Libertarian Mark Rauterkus, who withdrew from the mayor's race Wednesday. Rauterkus is running as a Libertarian for City Council in District 3 and for city controller. Democratic Mayor Luke Ravenstahl also faces Republican Mark DeSantis and Socialist Workers Party candidate Ryan Scott in the Nov. 6 election.

We get to stay!

The 2008 general election for US President brings good news for us. We get to stay. Let me explain. Had the other US Senator, John McCain, won, then we would have been getting into moving mode. My wife, not in the photo above, said, "If McCain becomes US President, I moving to New Zealand."

Something in the way he moves, just makes her want to flee. Out of sight, out of mind, I guess.

Well, we're staying. I told her all along that we'd not need to depart as there was no way that McCain was going to win the election. So, we were not worried too much.

Sure, Obama and his team ran a wonderful race. They had a good story. He kept his cool. They did get a bit nasty, oh well. And, they burned through a lot of money. It helps if you have money and spend it before election day arrives, unlike John Kerry who didn't deploy all his cash as he should have.

But for as good as Obama was, McCain was worse. Tom L, a "R," and a Running Mate here with this blog, was right when he said he'd have to hold his nose and vote for McCain. McCain wasn't McCain throughout the months of the campaign. He was not a puppet. But, looking hard, some might have seen the strings had it not been for his winkles of old age.

A McCain folly to remind Rs of was the snub of Ron Paul in the time of the GOP Convention. But generally, Obama's success was due in large part to the urgent desire to send the Neo-Cons and the Bush legacy packing.

Far worse than the McCain fumble of Ron Paul's message was the fumble from Bob Barr, Libertarian, former GOPer and Congressman from Georgia.

Ouch.

Bob Barr tried, some. He did. But he didn't do well at all. He was iced by the mainstream media. He could have made some fine remarks within the discussion. The general voter is poorer to have been filtered of his insights. Yet, talk of bad campaigns needs to begin and end with Bob Barr's efforts and results.

Within the city, I'm not sure who had more votes, Bob Barr or Tony Oliva. I'll have to look it up.

Good to see some other statewide candidates from the Libertarian Party get 3% of the vote. Barr was a point oh three percent. That's .03 percent. That's one-third of one percent. Ouch squared.

Barr lost my vote when he wouldn't do a phone interview with KQV. Go figure.

In the end, I voted for self-interest. I voted to stay. You know what they say about a house divided. Plus, I voted for all the other Libertarians.