Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Told ya!

Today's "told ya" goes to Mr. Jeff Koch.

I told ya Jeff. I knew you'd have a very short honeymoon.

As soon as Jeff won the special election on March 14, 2006, I knew that he'd need to make instant progress. He'd need to show results. He'd need to do something big. He'd need to be credited with doing a number of big somethings so as to hold onto that position.

I felt that Mr. Koch won last time, in the special election, because Bob O'Connor made it so. Bob, in 2006, had weight. It was Bob's time. To make Bob's time smoother, it was time to put in Bob's people on council. That was logical. It played well to most voters' sensibilities.

Times change. Bob's gone. Luke in 2007 isn't the heavyweight that Bob was in 2006. Jeff Koch's top supporter with political sway was gone.

The other thing that slowed Jeff Koch was that he was alone on the campaign trails. Jeff Koch in a nine person race, as a newbie, isn't the same as him in a two-person race as the incumbent.

Jeff Koch said some things in last year's special election that were silly. They were nearly -- well -- now sense in hitting a man when he is down. But, I'll give examples that come to mind.

Flashback to early 2006: At a candidate's forum, Jeff was asked about the number one thing he'd do once he was on council. The question was directed to his HIGHEST priority. Jeff said he'd want to be certain that Arlington Avenue was re-paved. There were a lot of pot holes on Arlington Ave. The T goes up Arlington Ave, as do cars. The street isn't a typical asphalt road. It is cement, mostly. PAT owns it and PAT needed to maintain the road too.

Another flashback illustration from the first time that most of the candidates got together, at UPMC South Side Hospital. The question of gambling came. Jeff thought it was good to have the new casino in town as people on the South Side couldn't gamble now. Lots of people from Pittsburgh drive to West Virginia to play the slots there. So, a casino would keep the locals here, not needing to travel. That was his general statement.

I pointed out to Jeff and the rest of the audience, when it was my turn to speak, that there were a dozen places (or so) on East Carson Street where one could go that very moment, before the casino opens, to gamble. We already had gambling on the South Side and throughout Pittsburgh.

People expect more from a guy who is in office. People can sigh and take a statement or two with a grain of salt from a newbie politician. Jeff was given a chance. Jeff was Bob's guy. Jeff would, we all hoped, turn out okay. And, most of all, with the nine way race, there was a circus of excitement with plenty of other statements that pinged the senses.

Jeff's folly wasn't much to note or dwell upon then.

Plus, with nine in the race, others could come down on the double-speak. Jeff could say nothing in combat mode and still score points as others were talking.

In a two person race that only covers one party -- the dynamics of the discussion and the demographics changed.

Face it, the Dems want things given to them. The Dems say 'we, ours, mine.' The Dems are old-school types who take. Envy drives much of their discussions when it comes to city hall. Most of these voters want sheet cake with ice cream served to them at their weekly bingos.

In the one-on-one race, Jeff Koch got out-flanked by both the double-talk and the willingness to make sure that everyone who wanted seconds on desert had it.

Jeff had a year to deliver big time results and he didn't.

Jeff sits on council and says little in meetings. Jeff pulled together a request for proposals for the still closed indoor ice rink. That's a yawn. If I had been on council -- it would be opened by now. The RFP was progress -- but nothing to hang a career upon. The Bar Bill had some buzz and energy about it associated to Koch -- but the bar bill morphed into a do-over. And, the bar bill wasn't sold well by the bill's prime sponsor. Red tape got the best of situation so far.

Jeff needed to fix the South Side parking problems -- and he didn't. If he only fixed South Side parking issues, and nothing else, Jeff would have won the nomination with the votes. But, he didn't.

But, most of all, "I told ya" back in March 2006. I told Jeff that things could easily shift and break another way in May of 2007. Jeff needed to produce on council. Jeff needed to produce in the neighborhoods. Jeff needed to produce like a rock star in presentations. Jeff needed to bring his "A game" every day, every evening, every event -- because he was a 'rookie' in a time of crisis.

Finally, I told Jeff that he needed to have a back-up as well. He heard me because I told him -- told ya -- and he didn't have a chance to ignore me. But, now what?

I ask as I'm not too sure what's going to happen with him and the district in the months to come. I'll talk to Jeff in June. Until then, I'll ponder upon what words should be said after 'told ya.'


Rob Carr said...

How much do you think the shenanigans around the Koch campaign (broken windows, T-shirts on City workers, Todd firing the whistleblower) hurt Koch?

I'm no longer living in the City, but I was glad to see Koch lose -- he and Tawanda actually made me care about the City council election.

Tom said...

I'm hoping that the arrogance of both Koch (someone had to be behind the T-shirt scandal) and Carlisle had something to do with these results.

With a guy like Ricky Burgess and another like Bruce Kraus on council, perhaps the professionalism will increase some.

Tom said...

Oh btw, Mark,

Enough with the "Told Ya So's." I don't like it and I consider us friends.


Maria said...

Mark, for once I don't disagree with anything you wrote.

There were, however, two other things that helped:

1) Being away, you may not have gotten the full impact of Koch's complete implosion in the last two week (T-shirts, illegal donations, documented illegal campaign call and then the really crazy vandalism against Kraus' supporters).

2) Kraus ran a much better, more aggressive campaign this time.

But, again, I agree with you that Koch fell far short of what he needed to do. That was the #1 reason he lost.

Mark Rauterkus said...

I agree. The 'told ya' theme is over the top. I've played it repeatedly. Frankly, it is a relic of being in politics -- as politics is about the future.

To much of Pgh's political landscape has been all about, what have you done for me recently. That's not the way it should be. To move our political thinking from the past to the future -- we've got to have folks who can think and project into the future.

I'm a good forcaster. I'd love to have "futurist" as a job title on my business card.

So, I've been 'on the record' many times in the past. And, when I go on the record -- I'm often on the mark. From time to time, I need to remind people of this.

It also counters the lame thinking or overly idealistic hogwash that others use to damage conversations -- as the toss insults my way.

A grip of reality is necessary. Its been proven to exist, repeatedly, in elements within the community and political conversations that flow among us.

Politics is about the future. Perhaps I should get a short-hand for 'told ya' -- like I have for 'think again' (i.e., 'Ta.') Then I won't sound so 'over the top.'

Yes, arrogance and predictability are different.

Those three (Len, Jeff and Twanda) felt secure in rocky times. How silly. How arrogant. And, the voters have come to understand that a revolution is necessary and this voter revolution is unfolding.


Mark Rauterkus said...

Rob, I'm not in town -- and on the streets these days. So, I'm not sure what to say about your question. I'll pass on it, mostly. But, it is a great question.

In the end, Jeff Koch had some loyalty -- but it proved to be shallow. It wasn't deeply rooted among the masses. Likewise his presence hasn't been deeply rooted for the past decades.

Among his friends -- he has a wild support. Hence, public workers wearing t-shirts when they shouldn't. But, among Joe Q. Public -- not so much.

That's where the well publicized shenanigans gets its sway in the minds of the community and voters.

Anonymous said...

Kraus is not a professional on any level. Bruce is full of shenanigans and drama. Everyone was and will be fooled by this hack. (I told you so) That his entry into Grant Street will not be of any benefit to any citizen of Council District 3 or the City. I'm ashamed that a man who is clearly not family oriented is now forming public policy that affects my family..I'm getting ready to move.

Thomas Leturgey said...

After reading the stylings of our "anonymous" friend, I guessed aloud what he/she would have against Bruce Kraus.

I kept coming back to the "shot" against him not being "family oriented." For those who don't know, this is a direct accusation of Mr. Kraus being a "confirmed bachelor."

I met Bruce Kraus recently and for some reason he kept calling me by another name, even though I very audibly said my name to a mutual friend in front of him (I think I'm right, but he was so sincere I have to wonder).

Nothing seemed out of the oridinary. He seemed like a clean-cut guy...he may have even wore a suit. Now, I've seen Mr. Koch in suits, but City Council candidates in this town don't always wear Brooks Brothers or better until they get those $60,000 gigs.

A quick Yahoo bio search cemented the answer to my initial curiosity. According to the Gay and Lesbian "Victory Fund," Kraus is listed as the first "Openly Gay" member of Pittsburgh City Council.

Our anonymous friend should know that while Kraus may be the first "Openly Gay" member of city council, or western PA for that matter, I can quickly tick off the name of one (rather recently) former city council member who definitely is a homosexual, and two other lawmakers who PROBABLY ARE.

Another is still "whispered about." However, I'm pretty certain he isn't.

And you know what...I HAVE TALKED TO THEM ALL AND LIKE THEM ALL...sexuality really doesn't mean anything here. And I am a Republican writing these words.

I'm not sure about the "shot" against Mr. Kraus' professionalism. What we don't need in Pittsburgh is a council full of Public Works employees, hand-picked successors with unimpressive education or folks only known for their surnames.

The "big three" to leave city council...Mr. Bodak, Mr. Koch and Ms. Carlisle...have not set their districts on fire with leadership. Mr. Bodack has largely flown under the radar, Mr. Koch had to know that former colleagues wore his campaign T-shirts on the clock (if he didn't, that's enough grounds to vote him out), and Ms. Carlisle is under criminal investigation for giving away untold thousands of taxpayer dollars to friends.

I'm glad that we're going to see what some new people have up their sleeves. We rarely get that kind of confidence in our leaders from city voters.


J-Bird said...

I have alwasy wondered what the hell "family-oriented" public policy is supposed to mean, on the national or local levels. Usually, when a candidate or sitting office-holder uses such semantics it seems to coincide with a vacuum of any real ideas, and manifests itself in silly photo-ops and assinine pieces of legislative initiatives like the now-shamed 'abstinence only' model for sex education and bans on embryonic stem cell research.

When it comes to 'family-oriented' policy on the local level, issues such as public safety, recreational and green spaces, and sustainable, diverse commercial and residential growth in the community transcend the make-up of your personal life. Bruce has a family, maybe not a spouse and child, but I promise he has a family who cares about him, and the use of cliche's such as not being 'family-oriented' is dressing a parochial, red herring in a cheap suit. Quality of life issues supersede the individual, and Bruce will work with the community once elected in November to execute a plan to achieve progress for District 3.

And if you are willing to take your 'family-oriented' attitude for a brief stroll through the streets of Allentown and Beltzhoover and witness the blight, crime and poverty, then you'll see why the voters chose Bruce over a person who offered little at council meetings, and whose campaign tactics of intimidation and borderline violence contradicted the spirit of community progress needed to address all needs of the neighborhoods in District 3.

So, go ahead and move (though I know you won't), and take your 'family-oriented' self to Provost, Utah where your pants will always be pleated, and life starched to the point that all of its character has gone.

Anonymous said...

Well, you think you both know everything, don't you? I have known Bruce personally for over 10 years. My post has NOTHING to do with his sexuality. When I have more time to respond to both of your comments I will. Like many others, Butler County is looking good.

J-Bird said...

Ok, Anon, if you're not referring to his sexuality, then I guess your definition of "family-oriented" governance is phoning in your city council participation, being charged with disorderly conduct, either condoning or obliviously allowing your campaign treasurer to encourage DPW employees to wear campaign shirts on city time (to their own detriment), vandalizing and stealing your opponents signs, accepting illegal campaign contributions, accusing community leaders in one of the largest neighborhoods in the district of being uninvolved, and warning voters that if a ballot initiative were to pass expanding district 3 you expect to get paid more for it, despite having almost double the median income for the area--and all of this rationalized and met with excuses rather than an apology or more nuanced explanation. This makes me wonder how you can accuse Bruce of "shenanigans and drama".

Koch has amdittedly stated that being a councilman is not that important to his own campaign fundraising lit. No one will work harder than Bruce; he knocked on thousands of doors and discussed community issues with hundreds of people. I am not sure what family unfriendly changes you expect to happen when Bruce takes office, but your reaction seems unreasonable.

Tom said...

J-Bird, I always disdain anonymous posters and couldn't care less about their blatherings.

That being said, while you use a nickname, you'd probably be pretty easy to identify.

You certainly made this ole' news junkie proud with your line-by-line dissertation.

I can't seem to find any details on Mr. Kraus' level of educational accomplishments, but I did write a feature story for a weekly newspaper some time ago about the educational background of each of our city council members. Since that time, Mr. Ravenstahl has become Mayor and Mr. Peduto has received a four-year-degree.

Nor do I remember in what capacity Mr. Kraus worked (or still works) until his swearing-in next year.

Family-oriented? What else could our anonymous friend have meant? Single father? Nope. Interacial marriage? Nope. That sound you hear is back-peddling.

Anonymous said...

I have nothing against Bruce. It’s simply a fact: He's a far left single man with not any knowledge of family life, or the struggles that a family (especially minority families) our city is facing perhaps other than his childhood. Has he raised a family in this city, no. Does he understand education, no. Does he respect the sanctity the family unit as the majority of the United States does, no. No, he is not family oriented.

Educationally: zero, zilch, none. High school degree, at best.

Professionalism, well, funny thing, appearing at church, after years of not going...well, perhaps it worked to get votes, wonder if he will continue to go? I guess it served him to go to church after being missing in action for 10 years? Or was that act for visibility to be elected. I believe it was the later. Oh, let me guess this is integrity and leadership? Perhaps finding God or religion for convenience…I believe so.

Now, before you guy jump on this as a religious and morality issue, and tying this back into his sexuality, it has nothing, nothing at all do with it.

Professionalism is consistently reflecting your habits of character. Not going to Church, and then all of a sudden reappearing, again, speaks for itself.

I guess if you want something bad enough, you sell out, and go back to the Church?

I could go on with many examples.

But, at least one of you will defend him.

Good luck with what you got, and appear to want.

J-Bird said...

Tom, hopefully your not inferring I am Jason Phillips? Thanks for the positive feedback BTW.



Trust me, I am more than satisified with the outcome of this election. And if you ever tortured yourself by watching more than one session of city council on Channel 13, then you would understand the need for reform.

Two weeks ago the council met to discuss the current street paving process, and through 95% of the meeting, the chair of the Public Works Appropriations Committee, Jeff Koch, was absent, despite his critical role in the discussion. He showed up at the last moment, slid into his chair, said something brief and of no real significance. Is that the type of representative you want for your community?

Based on the profile of yourself you have presented, you're religious values strongly influence your ideology, and that can certainly shape an individual's worldview and the policies that one may embrace. Nothing I say will likely change your mind.

Bruce may not have satisified your church attendance quotas...and you never addressed Koch's own religious fervence beyond the hate literature about Bruce distributed onto parishner's cars during masses last Sunday ...but Bruce has been president of the Southside Chamber of Commerce, and facilitated numerous neighborhood clean-up efforts. There has been no question about his passion and civic participation. He will be at that table for every session of council actively advocating for the needs of the communities in District 3.

Anonymous said...

Church attendance cannot even formulate a cognizant response to my obvious example of lack of character…you obviously have missed the whole entire meaning/thrust of my example, and the general meaning of character. You’re blinded by tire pick ups and trash bashes.

I’m respectful and tolerant of all religions as well as those with no religious ties. You have totally missed the point.

Bruce alienated some local business community members during his tenure, and alienated more during this election. Most have kept their mouth shut (or just don’t say anything) and are glad that he has moved on.

We’ve elected another uneducated, whimsical, far left, and unqualified legislator.

He will be at the table, but at what expense to the District?

I really don’t see where his attendance will make that significant of an impact of substance. What original ideas did Bruce’s candidacy runs generate? My count was/is zero.

Well, expect the same for sometime to come.

J-Bird said...

Its almost like your defending a fictional incumbent other than Jeff Koch. And if you believe Koch to be an advocate for minority families and the disenfranchised then I am not sure how to respond. He funded baseball teams and defunded programs geared towarded at-risk youth in low-income neighborhoods. The man is known to have said he doesn't even like being a councilman.

Your assertions about Bruce are are just plain weird. He grew up in the South Side, and his extended family was out supporting the campaign on election day.

When you start using cliches like "far left" its time to end the debate.

The bottom line is Koch failed to work with the South Side community by voting to lift the height restrictions in the zoning district that maintain the neighborhood's unique historical character, against recommendations from every community group; he introduced legislation to mitigate the chaos created the bars in the South Side, but wrote it in a way that it could never pass; and offered to develop more public housing in the poorest communities as his policy solution, which anyone who works in the field knows exacerbates the problem. Then to top it off, Kevin Quigley and his goons attempted to disenfranchise voters in the poorest precints through bullying and intimidation. This is not famil-friendly, this is thuggery and seeking relection simply for the power, not the good of the people.

Not being at the table, not participating, THAT is at the expense of the tax payers when you are paid to legislate.

I am not saying that Koch is a bad person, and did't do his part as interim councilman, he is just not the best person for the job.

Damn..arguing is exhausting. I am done. You aren't going to suddenly change your mind because of anything I have to say. Good luck in Butler.

Thomas Leturgey said...

I'm now interested in the area of religious debate.

A man, perhaps looking for redemption in life, perhaps looking to "better himself" by re-connecting with the teachings of Jesus after years and years away from an organized religion, re-joins a church. The "move" may look suspicious to some.
The timing, perhaps "unique."

I resemble that remark.

Oddly, Jesus would have welcomed a wayward son with open arms. I was.

I don't believe that Jesus would condemn a man for loving another man. Remember, Jesus traveled the countryside with some pretty "shady" characters in his day.

I would write more; however, I'm not a perfect man. I couldn't even vote for either Koch or Kraus. My councilman is too busy wandering Grant Street with his old hip boots or sprinting away from TV reporters.

There aren't many "conservatives" on council, especially when it comes to pandering to the unions. Interestingly, Bill Peduto is the only one who promoted a "conservative" financial outlook when it came to city finances. And look what happened to his Mayoral bid.

So, most are lefties.

It's very important for city council members to be at their televised meetings. There aren't REALLY that many of them.

Oh yeah, I forgot all about Koch wanting more money for his work. Remember when former Councilman Dan Cohen needed more cash? He got a part-time gig using his license as an ATTORNEY.

I wish Mr. Koch nothing but the best...he seemed like a nice guy, but the city of Pittsburgh needs leaders. And since we can't find any qualified Republicans, we'll just keep electing new people whenever necessary.

Anonymous said...

I don't need your good luck. My preservation is earned.

I choose to say anonymous since it’s my right to do so. I live in the District and choose not to identify myself since I need to protect myself and family. I don’t need to be verbally attacked based upon my views, views of which that are shared by many others. The lefties do this crap too!

Arguing, no. Just that statement alone reflects your youth.

I was compelling you to tell me the benefits of Bruce since he beat the incumbent that to you so strongly belief was obviously lacking. I think you should change your name to mini me …your just like Bruce, there’s lots of stuff in what you say, but no real substance, or formulation of any original thought or ideas.

I’ve not said one negative or positive about Koch either. The bar legislation was a difficult animal and I am for sure that Bruce would not have faired any better, if he would have addressed it at all…I look at it that it was at least an attempt. Where was Bruce then? He had a great alternative or other idea, right. If so, it was certainly not heard. Please share the vision with me….

Gosh, what is Bruce’s proposed legislation or idea on housing…not sure. You could apply that to any subject relevant to this District and get same answer from Bruce: not sure.

We are still facing serious issues in this city, and we need educated innovators throughout government to actively attack these issues…not worry about cat licenses…I just about fell off my chair on that one…anyways, first and foremost a tax base that is dwindling and not able to attract population to support the debts created by the rule from decades ago,

Tom, this does not necessarily have to be a right minded person, but I believe that orientation would certainly help our great city at this point of where we are at..and I am very glad you brougt up that very good observation.

Jesus, well, certainly an interesting person of history and religion, and believe me, I'm not certain that religion specifically condemns certain sexual orientations. That debate is interesting to me. It can go both ways (no pun intented!)

J Bird: You cannot accept the far left observation, as I should be oppressed citizen because of liberal views, I don’t have to be

I won’t and don’t worry, not quite moving to Butler yet. I have to stay here to keep people like J Bird in check. My 2 cents WILL count for something.

Thomas Leturgey said...

Did our anonymous friend just identify himself as Mr. Koch himself?

Sorry but this college-educated writer has a difficult time understanding some of the points. Plus, I'm not terribly young anymore.

Mark Rauterkus said...

Tom, I don't think Jeff Koch came and posted to this blog. Just my guess.

Mark Rauterkus said...

Maria -- you for once didn't disagree with anything I wrote.

For once?

I'm so happy I was able to please you and get a petty pat on the head.

I'm jumping for joy. (And, I don't mean Rich Swartz' campaign manager.)


Tom said...

"I don't need your good luck. My preservation is earned."

I wished Mr. Koch luck and our anonymous friend answered on his behalf.

So it's either Mr. Koch or a Nigerian Scam Artist looking to steal his identity.

Mark Rauterkus said...

It was posted above: "No one will work harder than Bruce."

But, Tom Murphy worked very hard too.

Tom Murphy knocked on doors too.

Tom Murphy and Bruce Kraus are cut from the same cloth in many ways. But, Murphy had the vision thing that Bruce doesn't.

We don't need hard work. We need smart work. Bruce is the little engine that could. But, the engine has had others come before and lay the tracks. Bruce is chug, chug, chug -- I think I can. But, in this life, one also needs to lay the tracks as well. Plus, the freight isn't loaded. The cars are empty on that train.

And, if there are some goods that need to be delivered -- from the train story -- say Christmas presents for senior citizens -- Quality of Life Wingdings I guess -- then they come from the same factory that Tom Murphy burnt to the ground. The goods are not there to deliver like Pittsburgh had in 1970s and 80s.

Mark Rauterkus said...

Tom, I don't think the posting was Jeff for the same reasons that is real hard to write with crayon on the internet.

And, I think I know who posted as anon. in some of the prior posts on this thread.

My hunch / read: The good wished you (TL) delivered in the postings above could also have been shared by someone who needs lucky breaks to survive in Pgh vs. Butler. But, it isn't really 'luck' -- thank you. Just sustainability, being able to adapt. That's all.

Tom said...

"I wish Mr. Koch nothing but the best" was my cut-and-paste quote. I simply don't understand how anyone can not read that properly.

Anyone who moves to Butler cannot dare to call themselves a Pittsburgher any more. Period, end of discussion. You have to stay and fight for the "straw that stirs the drink" (city of Pittsburgh) if you want to call yourself a Pittsburgher.

That would be like someone in my home Cambria County calling themself a Pittsburgher.

J-Bird said...

Dammit...I just want consensus, and independence. Don't short-change Bruce, he is a smart, dynamic guy. I moved to Pittsburgh in 2000 and he is one of three politicians to ever willing to listen and engage in a real conversation with me--or to actually be cordial. Mark I admire your grit amd passion, but I e-mailed you in 2001 when you were gearing up for the mayoral race to participate in a discussion group with my friends, and you weren't willing to commit unless I could get 20 or more people or something like that. That was when I was a registered 'I'. Bruce has been accessible without any parameters or stipulations. And, he has smart, progressive people supporting him. No single candidate beyond yourself may satisfy you, but he was clearly the best choice in this primary. We certainly have a common goal, despite our ideological differences, to reform this archaic political beast slouching towards bethleham. Please...please...don't compare Bruce to Tom Murphy...if nothing else Bruce is connected to this district and understands the needs of its communities. I generally disdain Pittsburgh politics but he and Dowd are a great step in the right direction. Am I rambling?

Mark Rauterkus said...

You want consensus -- but why?

You are NOT going to get consensus on the notion that Bruce Kraus is smart.

I blew off a chance at joining a discussion group with you -- or -- with you and a bunch of friends?

I'm not interested in a 1-on-1 discussion group. I am always interested in public discussions. But, these discussions have archives, public domain content, few anon posters. I've got some ground rules of engagement on the net.

I've been working a lot, behind the scenes, on Pgh digital landscape. I even had a meeting with folks here in Christchurch about how they're doing things. There is a tech firm here that likes to 'wrangle' and we'll get it going in Pgh after Nov 6, 2007 -- I hope.

I'm accessible -- here -- without parameters. I've been open and responsivle for years.

You can't find a Bruce Kraus blog with open threads. You'll never see his wiki.

I can understand how some would think that Bruce Kraus was better than Jeff Koch. Neither are scored in the + range of my scale (-10 to +10).

It is not too hard for candidates to satisfy me -- and be even better than me as well.

The Tom Murphy work ethic matches that of Bruce Kraus. And, so does the connection to the community. Tom Murphy was a South Side guy too. Murphy's dad worked in the mills. A connection to the community is what it is.

I don't think Bruce understands the needs of the community.

Wants and needs are not the same thing.

Mo litter isn't going to fix Pittsburgh.

And, even if we agree that Bruce understands the needs of the community -- or if you and he are on the exact same page -- I dare say that HOW to deliver the services to insure that those needs are satisfied is beyond Bruce.

Bruce beat Jeff -- and that was a major feat. Bruce has the dem endorsement and heads to the general election. He's a 'favorite' now, no doubt.

But, I know Bruce from the past campaign in 2006. He isn't one who is ever going to understand yet alone represent my idealistic cravings for what needs to occur on Grant Street.

I have NO HOPE in the capacity for Bruce to govern and meet my priorities from elected office.

Furthermore, I have a big fear that Bruce will not be a consensus builder if he should ever gets into office.

Thomas Leturgey said...

Mark, when are you meeting your new councilman for coffee?

Perhaps you can help him lead the way with Wiki (whatever the hell that remains) and blogs.

Anonymous said...

No, I am not Koch. But that was funny.

Your love fest of Kraus will be short lived. While I hope it is different, don't hold your breath....

Mark, if the the train cars do get on the tracks, its a train wreck in the making.

Anyways, enjoy your new innovative council person in the Fall. Get ready for some laughs and tears.

Thomas Leturgey said...

Oh, there's no love fest for anyone on council.

There isn't anyone out there setting the world on fire when it comes to leadership. I can't even think of anyone in the city who is making a name for him or her self that I would get excited about.

NO ONE!! (and that includes myself LOL)