Big dead line and anniversary

Today is the day that people from outside of the D and R political parties must complete the delivery of nomination papers to get onto the November ballot. So, the final signatures and sheets from Kevin Acklin and Dok Harris are due -- signed, sealed and delivered.

There are always a few folks we come to meet on this day. Is there going to be a candidate from the Socialist Party? Remember Frank?

Tomorrow starts the period where political operatives begin to search in earnest for the dead people who have been known to sign those papers. Challenges may or may not appear for the mayor's opponents. In general, Luke's camp is going to be happy to have two opponents so knocking one or the other out of the race would be a dangerous move. To focus the ABY (anyone but Luke) vote in one category is a tiny fear.

The real fear of politicians is not something that ever appears on the ballots in Pennsylvania and one that should be part of every election: NOTA (None of the above). All elections should have a choice called, 'none of the above.' That way the ones who are unhappy with the state of affairs in that specific race could raise their outrage without lifting a brick, fist or worse.

And, frankly, it is too much work to run for office yourself to make a point. Rather, the point of 'none of the above' should be handy for us all to make on election days.

Two years ago, an ex Division I football player, a former service man who had jumped out of airplanes, Pitt student, and Libertarian, Tony Oliva, filed papers to appear on the ballot for mayor. He had worked throughout the summer to get a bulk of the signatures.

That year, 2007, I ran for public office too -- for both city council and city controller.

Mark DeSantis got onto the ballot in 2007 with a write in campaign among Rs in the primary. In 2009, Luke Ravenstahl won the R primary, blocking any possible charge from another via that avenue.

In 2008, we were packing to head to Beijing, China, to enjoy the Olympics. It was a quiet election cycle for me as Obama was pounding on McCain and my guy was Ron Paul, R from Texas. He was out by then, just holding a counter convention in Minnesota, larger than what the GOP was able to stage.

In 2006, I filed papers to run for State Senate, district 42 against Wayne Fontana. Before the judge in Harrisburg, on the day before I went to Canada to coach a swim camp, I put into the public record the fact that my challenge of campaign nomination papers came from the office of my state senator. Political work had been done in the public office to eliminate any and all opponents from the ballot. The judge found it interesting that the fax header of papers delivered to me had both law office stationary and the faxing fingerprints of PA Senate District 42's Harrisburg name and number clearly at the top of the pages of one of the summons that called for me to appear in court.

Later, we'd see lots of folks in Harrisburg get arrested for miss-use of staffers. Bonus-gate.

At the same time, PA's Green Party candidate for Governor was racking up legal bills and court charges so he could appear on the ballot. He was hit with charges from the judges / courts for hundreds of thousands of dollars. And, the case went to the top court of Pennsylvania as well.

I knew when to fold em, as the country and western song lyrics go.

In 2009, something might happen soon. But not with me in terms of election day participation. For me, I looking to make some swimmers and water polo player and open a new front in the battle against couch potatoes and obesity.

Where is the Mark DeSantis Micro Credit?

In 2007, Mark DeSantis ran for mayor after getting on the ballot as a write in candidate in a R party primary that was void of a candidate.

In his run, he promised he'd start a "Micro Credit" in the next year -- win or not. Well, it is now time to wonder what became of the candidate promise as 2008 is about to close.

In other news, the Trib is begging Mark DeSantis to run for mayor again.

And, Bram is going to be on the PRR radio show on Monday. Perhaps Bram can take the question to DeSantis -- or else he might be able to fill me in on this blog comments.

He might have started a Micro Credit -- and I just didn't notice. Or, he might have talked about it on one of the past radio shows. Let me know where to investigate those archives, as in the date. I'll listen to the MP3 via TalkShoe.com.

The last thing Pittsburgh needs is more political hot air and promise makers on its campaign trails. Pittsburgh needs less in terms of 'idea factory' and more in terms of 'idea distillery.'



Photo shows Mark DeSantis, far left, Tony Oliva, Luke Ravenstahl and Ryan of the S party, at a Mayor Candidates Forum hosted by the Post Gazette. With all the cuts at the P-G, I wonder if such events will be hosted in 2009? This was a most welcomed, yet very rare event anyway.

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.

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.

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.

Early Returns covered my polling release from Friday. Only noticed today

Post-Gazette NOW - Local News - Early Returns: "In the absence of other polls ... Both Mr. Ravenstahl's and Mr. DeSantis' camps have kept their polling under wraps. No credible independent poll has been conducted. That has spawned no end of chatter about who has what data and why they're hiding it.

So into the breach steps Mr. Rauterkus, who is running for not just council, but also city controller.

Mr. Rauterkus, a swim coach and repeat candidate who is a beacon of openness in a stormy sea of campaign secrecy, said his automated phone poll gleaned 715 respondents.

He e-mailed us to let us know that 63 percent of respondents favored Mr. Ravenstahl, versus 21 percent for Mr. DeSantis, 3 percent for Libertarian Tony Oliva, and 1 percent for Socialist Ryan Scott. Combined, 'unsure' and 'not telling' polled 18 percent.

In his own controller's race, Mr. Rauterkus reported that he was trailing Democrat Michael Lamb 52 percent to 10 percent, but noted that the 38 percent who were undecided put him within striking distance, if he can win them all and then some.

Early Returns cautions that Mr. Rauterkus isn't a professional pollster, and didn't calculate a margin of error. That said, for his take on the numbers, go here and scroll down to his Friday posting.

Hey Rich Lord.... There is NO MARGIN OF ERROR. I got it on the nose. Right on the money.

I said Luke would get between 63 and 65%. That is just what he got.

I said that I was at 10%. That is just what I got.

I could NOT have been more exact.

On election day there are NO undecided. And, EVERYONE is in the "I'm NOT TELLING" mode with the secret ballot. In the polling, they had to tell me.

I may not be a professional pollster -- but -- as a hobby, I'm better than everything and anything you've got. And I'm better than everything and anything out there, period.

Doing the unthinkable -- Some South Siders go to out and vote twice

They get to vote twice, for me, legally.

I'll vote twice for me too.

This way I'm not quite the lone wolf that I used to be.

Plus, there are other buddies too. One, an ex-paratrooper, Tony Oliva, Libertarian, a former D1 (NCAA Division I) footballer. And the other candidate buddies both named Dave . Think David and Goliath. One Dave is an ex-marine and the other Dave is a 911 operator. So, I'm in good company. The third Dave, David Tessitor, is at-large and all over the map, generally. Standing next to him makes me look focused.

Let's vote. Let's keep democracy alive. Let's elect people who understand the constitution while possessing a long view so that the kids here have hope for our shared political landscape for the years to come. And there is very little hope when little ones play around in the dirt that reeks of lead poison while others in power just hunker down -- too busy to notify anyone and communicate.

Kraus, Lamb, Harris did little in this campaign. They were hunkered down. I have great faith that they'll do the same in office. Meanwhile, the kids are weaker. The future is more bleak.

Hats off to Luke Ravenstahl for coming out to debate, some. Too bad Luke is responsible for doing nothing else and lack of notifications on the dangerous playground conditions for months. Luke came out to debate, and he survived. Lucky for him.

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.

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.

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/

QED to hold late debate

My rely to QED follows this email.

Mayoral Debate officially titled: WQED Presents: The 2007 Pittsburgh Mayoral Debate will air on:

WQED TV-13 and WQED HD (13.1) will first air on Thursday, 11/1/07, 8:00 PM to 9:00 PM. Program will repeat on WQED TV-13 Saturday, 11/3/07 from 1:00 AM to 2:00 AM.

Program description:

Who will be the next mayor of Pittsburgh and how is that person going to address the many issues that face the city & affect the entire metropolitan region? Meet the candidates and hear what they have to say about tough issues. Moderated by Stacy Smith. Produced by WQED in partnership with the League of Women Voters.

Live Studio Audience--please report to WQED Studios, 4802 Fifth Avenue in Oakland by 7:30pm on November 1.
Live Simul-Stream at wqed.org from 8-9pm on November 1
Public invited to post questions for the candidates before November 1 at wqed.org
Debate panelists: Michael Bartley, Chris Moore and Tonia Caruso

George Hazimanolis
Senior Director of Corporate Communications
WQED Pittsburgh
4802 Fifth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
ghaziman@wqed.org
412-622-1366
412-622-6413 FAX
www.wqed.org

WQED Pittsburgh: Winner, 2007 and 2006 Mid-Atlantic Emmy Award for Station Excellence

"WQED changes lives."

Thanks for the mayor's debate efforts.

I wish the Libertarian and Socialist were included. I understand that these guys (Tony Oliva and Ryan Scott) are NOT going to win. However, we all are less and the region goes deeper into the despair when the elites exclude. When they are not free to join on the debate stage, the young depart the region.

Their inclusion isn't for this election on Nov 6. But, they need to be included for the future elections and the recruitment of new candidates in the years to come.

You need to think bigger and into the future.

We can't count on QED. That's very sad. That's not in line with the charter of public broadcasting.

My polls (with thousands of calls to city residents) say that more than 75% of the voters today are UNDECIDED about the controller's race. Meanwhile, six to seven percent of the voters are still undecided about the mayor's race.

You mayor's debate is nearly meaningless even for Ravenstahl and DeSantis. Furthermore it is like poison to the common ground of democracy for the third party candidates and independents.

If you really wanted to help -- you'd scratch the debate as you have planned and hold a different debate among the controller's candidates. Ask the mayor candidates to attend and ask the questions (being on the panel) to Michael Lamb and myself.

Can you forward this to J. I have little faith that she'll return my call.

Mayoral Debate, live at the JCC

ONLY Mayor Luke Ravenstahl and Mark DeSantis -- with the Libertarian, Tony Oliva left out in the cold.

When: Sunday, October 28

Time: 10:30- 11:30 am. Televised live on WPXI

Where: JCC, Katz Theater, 5738 Darlington Road

RSVP: Call 412-992-5251 or visit http://pittsburgh.planitjewish.com
Admission: No charge

Seating: Seating will take place between 9-10 am
There will be no admittance to the auditorium after 10:00 am

Questions go to: 412 992 5243

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.

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!"

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.

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?

P-G coverage: Running is all uphill for Pittsburgh's 3rd-party candidates

Running is all uphill for Pittsburgh's 3rd-party candidates: "Running is all uphill for Pittsburgh's 3rd-party candidates CAMPAIGN 2007 Monday, October 15, 2007 By Rich Lord, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette David Adams has put up wanted posters accusing his electoral opponent of ducking debates.

Mark Rauterkus has filed ethics complaints against rivals.

We made the news today, oh boy.

There are a few points to make about the article, reposted here with comments throughout.

For voters, the Dave S, Dave A, Mark R, Mark R, Mark D makes for an interesting 'ticket.' There are only two names one needs to remember. I've been working with Dave A and Dave S on a regular basis. We're on the same page. I'm a team builder.

Meanwhile, the Republicans have never been cooperative -- even when I ran for Mayor as a Republican because I hated what Tom Murphy was doing to our city. By the way, my experience with the issues and throughout the years as a vigilant watchdog was overlooked.

David Schuilenburg has a Web site that includes a "Darlene Watch" listing what he views as his incumbent foe's missteps.

They're Pittsburgh's political insurgents, carrying third-party banners in uphill battles, hoping that unusual tactics and an unsettled climate yield Nov. 6 upsets. With no Republicans running for any city office other than mayor, they are the alternatives to the long-reigning Democrats.

I'm able to carry a third party banner, the LIBERTARIAN BANNER. Tony Oliva joins me in that effort. We have three slots for Libertarians. Dave S and Dave A are hardly holding a 3rd party banner. Dave A is 'no party.' Dave S is something like 'reform Democrat' or 'new Democrat' or 'Independent Democrat.'

To lump us all together under the "party banner" tag is a little weak. "Don't Put Me -- or US -- in a BOX." I tried to get them to join me in running as a "Libertarian" -- but each declined. They knew that goofy reporting would be forthcoming.

And they're eternal optimists.

Guilty. Furthermore, I think we are 'idealists' and mostly optimists who have faith in our fellow citizens and voters.

Only those who think that they can change the world are the ones who do change the world. Those that think make the first step. But we who think and have the energy of action are the real change agents. One needs to be an optimist to run for public office. One needs to be an optimist to stand and fight. One needs to be an optimist to live in the city, especially with a family.

By the way, I've helped to change the city in a number of ways. We have won some battles. We have turned the tide in some domains. I am optimistic that my involvement has made Pittsburgh a better city and region.

"If I can get 1,500 kids to come out to vote, I'll win this election," said Mr. Adams, the independent candidate for the seat being vacated by Councilwoman Twanda Carlisle.

Mr. Adams, 49, of East Hills, faces the Rev. Ricky Burgess, who won the Democratic primary in May.

Mr. Adams has tried to paint Mr. Burgess, 50, of North Point Breeze, as a pawn of outside interests and white gentrifiers. Both men are African-American.

"Mr. Burgess has the idea that other people can solve our problems," Mr. Adams said. "There's a plan to take over the 9th District, to push us out."

The Democrat has countered that his opponent is too polarizing.

"This district is not an African-American district," said Mr. Burgess. "This is a peoples' district. ... You want to bring more people into the district, not just black people."

Something further from the truth has never been said about David C. Adams -- and it figures it would come from a challenger like Burgess. Mr. Burgess is using double-speak. But, he won't show up for a debate. Mr. Burgess tells the Post-Gazette editorial board one thing. Yet, he tells neighborhood groups another.

Both say crime is the key issue in the district, which covers the city's northeast corner.

Mr. Burgess would use crime data to identify areas to be targeted with police activity and social services, the effort advised by churches serving as the "liaison between the police and the community. ... We don't want tanks and militia indiscriminately coming down the streets."

He wants to fight crime while encouraging job development and housing construction.

Not really. Burgess is talking about using POLICE RAIDS. The talk we given witness too from Burgess about crime is alarming.

Mr. Adams said before any new development or housing push starts, crime has to be cut by 40 percent. He wants teams of "surveyors" to canvass every city neighborhood identifying their needs, followed by police cooperation with five-person community advisory committees to craft action plans.

His proposal calls for effective social service programs to be advertised in a resource guide, offenders to be given second chances and efforts to promote healthy living.

Exactly. David Adams is pushing for and PULLING for real community driven interactions with the police. This is what it is going to take. The people have to get involved, and they need to trust those in charge. They will be able to know that Dave C. Adams is with them, for them and going to stand tall to the troubles, both within the force and within the streets.

David's approach is thought out. It is calculated. It is full of hard work. It is necessary. And, above all, it is a plan of change that cuts the the root issue. The cancer there now is the disengaged citizens. "Snitching" is negative. That has to change.

Mr. Rauterkus, a 48-year-old volunteer swim coach from the South Side, is running for both City Council and controller as a Libertarian.

I'm a volunteer who has been a paid coach. Rich Lord took a cheap shot there. "Rauterkus is a professional swim coach that also volunteers to lead his son's school swim team." We had practice last night (Sundays from 6:30 to 7:30 pm) with 19 kids at the Oliver Bath House. I've stepped away from coaching this fall to run full-time campaigns. In September I was offered another job with another team to return to the day-to-day coaching.

The repeat candidate faces two Democrats, Allegheny County Prothonotary Michael Lamb in the controller's race and interior designer Bruce Kraus in the council race to represent the South Side, nearby hilltop neighborhoods and parts of Oakland.

Now the P-G calls me a repeat candidate. Both my opponents are 'repeat candidates.' I ran for mayor, so did Lamb. I ran for city council, so did Kraus. Wonder if Kraus is a 'volunteer painter' when he covers graffiti.

One does what one is called to do in life. Kraus does wallpaper and paints. That makes him good at painting, rose colored glasses optional. I work with kids. I'm called to recreational leadership and to volunteer as a coach. Voters get to choose.

Meanwhile, Lamb is a gentle bureaucrat from the dominant party. He'll be happy to have others on the Ethics Hearing Board tell him what is right and wrong. He'll be happy to report to the party bosses or foundation wire pullers as to what to do, who to hire, and when to make waves -- or not. I think we need someone in city hall where citizens can get a grip on this town's policies. We need a controller who cares about PERFORMANCE.

Though neither Mr. Lamb nor Mr. Kraus is a city employee yet, Mr. Rauterkus has filed complaints against both with the Ethics Hearing Board, which is empowered to review actions of city officials and workers. Both say the complaints are groundless.

Mr. Rauterkus accuses Mr. Lamb of a conflict of interest by being involved in the A+ Schools reform group while running for a post that oversees city and school district finances.

"If I'm fortunate enough to win this election, I plan to seek the advice and opinion of the Ethics Hearing Board on what a conflict is and isn't," Mr. Lamb said. He'll resign from any board that conflicts with his office, he said.

Mr. Rauterkus complains that Mr. Kraus has tried to keep current Councilman Jeff Koch, who lost the Democratic primary, from getting another city job.

Mr. Kraus called that "rumor and innuendo," and said he hopes Mr. Koch gets "any job he is qualified for, for as long as he chooses to work."

Rich Lord must be upset at the editor's editing of this section. I know he'd never do such a hatchet job with gross omissions. I put THREE complaints to the Pittsburgh Ethics Hearing Board.

The main target was the Ethics Hearing Board itself. They are the most unethical with the confidentiality aspects and damages that can be delivered against citizens that have the courage to raise a complaint.

My complaints have now come into view with the board. They gave fleeting mention of how the code needs to be overhauled and the confidentiality elements need examination.

Without the other examples where Kraus and Lamb were targets, my compaints could have been knocked out without the necessary 'standing.' More needs to be done with ethics in the city. I have the mindset and capacity to stand and fight. Others told me that the Ethics Hearing Board was a joke. I have to agree. But, to let the joke linger without pushing it into a serious discussion would be equally troubling.

The complaints I filed are clearly visible at http://Elect.Rauterkus.com/ethics. However, the coverage from the Post-Gazette only went into the P-G blog, Early Returns, not into the newspaper. The City Paper covered the story. (add links)

As to the Pittsburgh Ethics Hearing Board scope, I feel that it needs to be willing to examine cases that deal with candidates, not only employees. Candidates and campaigns are perhaps the one area where the most mud and trouble unfolds. And, it is the one place where voters have the upper hand to oust bad politicians and parties. If the Ethics Hearing Board only has a mandate to focus on employees, then it is only a puppet of the regime in power, not the people.

The Ethics Hearing Board needs to be 'proactive' and not only 'reactive.' Heck, the golf saga with Luke Ravenstahl won't be settled until the first of the year. If two days of golf tie up the Ethics Hearing Board for more than six months, how responsive can they be with more pressing issues. We can't lead by only looking into the rear view mirror. We need to move the city 'forward' -- so to speak. Let's not make 'ethics' and 'end of the day' experience. We need to consider ethics in real time: morning, noon and night. We need ethical discussions to dive into the future as well as the past.

I want a city that can be 'proactive.' Watchdogs are proactive tools. A controller can be 'proactive.' We need to get a grip on this city in proactive ways -- before the assets are torn down, before the money is spent, before the kids are shot, before the jails are overcrowded, before our vets return home from Iraq to rehab.

Mr. Rauterkus' primary platform plank is improving parks and youth programs. He wants to create a new city-county parks district, with elected trustees who would take parks leadership "off of Grant Street."

"What works for me is freedom and liberties," he said. That means no subsidies for skyscrapers or home rehabilitations, a return to the city's pre-2001 system of taxing land at a higher rate than buildings and no security camera systems in neighborhoods.

The "home rehab" quote isn't 100% complete. I say that we should not do tax breaks for home fix-ups in certain neighborhoods and not others. No unfair, special interest tax breaks. However, the policy that I advocate, the land tax, is all about a city-wide home rehab tax break. Everyone gets a tax break for fixing up their properties when the taxes are only calculated upon the land. I don't want to tax the buildings. I only want to tax the land. That is the direction we should go and return to.

If one has a house and adds an addition, a sun-room, a new deck, a new porch -- whatever -- great. They'd get a tax break under my plan. The home owners who fix up properties under today's plan get punished with higher taxes. That's wrong.

The land tax is all about home rehabilitations for everyone, including tax breaks. The taxes stay the same because the land hasn't changed.

Furthermore, I'm not saying 'no security cameras in neighborhoods.' I'm saying that we need security cameras. However, I want to point all the security cameras at the politicians, public meetings, treasury, police, public works employees and all authorities. We'll need a lot of cameras to cover that. We've got to get away from the back-room deals. We need to cut through the 'smoky city' legacy. Then, after all the government elements are fully monitored, then let's talk about pointing cameras at citizens.

"If all of the cameras that arrive in town are pointed at the public officials, as well as the public treasury, then I would welcome them," he said.

Like other third-party candidates, he's running on the cheap.

Cheap. Yeah, right. Cheap shot. I'm prudent. I'm not going to run a campaign that costs lots of money and racks up a lot of debt. Likewise, I'm not going to govern in a way that generates debt and costly spending.

I'm running a campaign that is visible. I'm hyper in my presence and willingness to debate. I'm able to leverage the internet for outreach and to sustain discussions. I'm not hunkered down doing as little as possible such as my opponents -- and Ricky Burgess.

He's a regular speaker during council's televised public comment periods, an Internet blogger and a dogged distributor of campaign DVDs that, he said, cost him around 23 cents each.

I also speak to county council, state hearings, Pgh Ethics Hearing Board (not on TV), unions that will have me, and other community meetings -- not on tv.

Mr. Schuilenburg, 34, of Summer Hill, is a city 911 dispatcher trying to unseat Councilwoman Darlene Harris, who won the seat in a special election a year ago. He finished sixth in that race, and is again running as an independent.

His Web site promises detailed plans on attracting homeowners, combatting crime, reforming government and encouraging development, but details were not posted by Friday.

His campaign seems focused on painting Ms. Harris, a former school board member and longtime Democratic Committee ward chairwoman, as old school. His Web site proclaims that "the status quo will no longer be tolerated by citizens, and change to what has become the norm in [traditional] leadership in the City-County Building is now desired."

Go, Dave, Go!

From people & vips

The insurgents see hope in May's primary election, which saw three incumbents losing Democratic primaries. If that tumult continues, it will be the unexpected result of unusual tactics.

Unusual tactics -- give me a break. Well, I guess it is 'unusual' to stand tall, to be so confident because the others are so weak at heart and mind, and to champion citizen candidates working for everyday opportunities.

Rich Lord can be reached at rlord@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1542.

At least the article didn't have a mention of the other 'third party candidate' seeking to win a seat on Allegheny County Council, David Tessitor. He is another Dave. He is NOT a member of either the D or R party. It will be interesting to see if he gets any coverage for that at-large seat on Allegheny County Council.

	Click image for a larger view.
From Mark Rauterkus

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.

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.

Tonight's debate: Tony Oliva, Libertarian, serves up a great opening food joke. Best line of the night.

Lots of people in Pittsburgh are going to have egg on their faces.

You had to be there.

Meanwhile in all the statements at the debate, mainly by the old-party Dem and old-party Republican, I didn't hear the word "kids" nor "freedom" nor "liberty" once.

In another blog I post:

The overlords suck. The overlords don't present anything of merit to hang one's hat upon for long term vision.

What is "progressive" and what counts as "real reform" needs to be understood, talked about and more. Sadly, when some are excluded -- not INCLUDED -- we many never hear the full story.

Harrisburg isn't going to bail out Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh must save itself. We must pull our own weight.

The R politicians who serve in Harrisburg, such as Jane Orie and Mike Turzai are not the ones who put the city in its ugly position. And, I have no faith that they will help do anything positive either. Like the overlords, the state reps and state senators are nearly worthless. There is no hope with them.

We are own our own. That is the progressive way. That is what we must do. That is real reform.

Be prudent. Be free. Pull YOUR OWN WEIGHT, Pittsburgh. Grow our way out of this mess by parenting our kids and making them the strongest generation ever -- able to compete with anyone.