Tuesday, October 9, 2007

Rauterkus-Adams Alliance Deepens

Independent candidate for District 9 City Council David Adams interviews Libertarian candidate for Controller and District 3 City Council candidate Mark Rauterkus.

The topic is "What is a Libertarian?" and to an extent, "What's a libertarian got to offer our black communities?" Spoiler alert: the answer has to do with tax policy and smaller-scale development.

Part I. Part II.

In addition, Rauterkus's blog reproduced a press release by Adams blasting his opponent, Democratic nominee Ricky Burgess, for his "obvious apprehension with meeting him to discuss an opportunity to debate informally."

Burgess has no plan, other than opening the door to the corrupt developers, who sit in wait licking their lips to take over our district land.


If Ricky Burgess does not come forward, by calling the office of the Adams for the 9th campaign team, by Monday October 1, I will personally challenge him in his church during a service, or resort to Marine tactics which will definitely force him out in the public.

Burgess and Adams will now meet publicly at least once, at a BPEP forum on the 29th. Adams has yet to crash Burgess's church, and no definitive word on whether the threat of Marine tactics motivated this appearance.

The candidates are each meeting the Post-Gazette editorial board tomorrow.


  1. Exactly 50% of the voting public chose Burgess to represent district 9 the primary. The other 50% divided their votes between 7 other candidates. Now everyone can vote between the two candidates.

    Many are talking about if they made a wise choice and can they change it now. In the community’s eyes, Burgess made a big mistake by not taking the general election seriously.

    Adams been out in the community talking to people. Rumor in the community has it that Burgess is plagued with scandal already. Then there is the minister/politician issue that some people just can't get past and will vote for anyone other than the minister.

    On the other hand, Adams is a relatively new name; some are impressed with his ideas however his military tactics are strong. Cmmunity activist and Veterans
    appreciate Adams’s powerful presence because the community is in need of strong tactical intervention that just won’t comply with the status quo to make change.

    Can Burgess lead this district and really make a difference? Or will he play along to get along?

    Before the election, Burgess needs to come out with one of the plans that he talked about during the primary. The voters need to see something illustrative of his commitment. If they don't then Adams can win.

  2. "Rumor in the community has it that Burgess is plagued with scandal already."

    These rumors were red-hot in the community during and before the primary. The voters paid it no mind, since nobody ever rose to stand behind the anonymous whispers to back it up.

    "Before the election, Burgess needs to come out with one of the plans that he talked about during the primary."

    True that. Sources tell me they have been hard at work on the big public safety plan, which he promised in his first 100 days of office. But for that he will probably take the full time, and use the resources of that office.

    But there have got to be other plans and ideas. Anyone?

  3. Who is who in that photo. ????


    Frankly, I don't think we are all that "odd" together. We are not identical -- of course.

    We both represent change. We both are full of hustle, outreach, and are stand-up community guys -- who would make a positive change for city council.

    Anyone that doesn't want to campaign in the general election does not want to work for the good of the public. And, a going to church or going to a community meeting is NOT what I'd call campaigning.

    Burgess and Kraus are both in a hole and happy about being there.

  4. By the way -- I hope Bram and everyone takes the time to look at both part 1 and part 2 of the TV interview.

    What did you think of the show? Did the statements make sense?

    Those solutions on issues could be a platform for sustained discussions.

  5. Sorry, Mark, I didn't see all of it. I saw some regular explication of Libertarianism, and I saw your standard appeal for taxing land not buildings (which I don't agree with), and I saw the beginning of your failing to make the connection between your issues and issues of race and poverty.

    You might have done better later on, though. Anyone?