Kevin Miller is Gonna Get You

We just had a fascinating conversation with the Battlecat of the Airwaves, Kevin Miller (who said Pat Ford changed his mind about going on Marty Griffin this morning).

Miller's final question was, "Are there any adults left on Grant Street who are going to clean up this mess?"

Good question, and that's not a shot at Luke. The issue is, we told him, PF knows where all the bodies are buried.

If the theme of any investigation becomes a preponderance of special favors given in an official capacity to certain interests within the context of mutually advantageous personal or political relationships (aka corruption), this is usually pretty simple. One political party rolls the other one up like a carpet.

We have one political party. We've had it for a while. That's why this is so deep.

Failing that strategy, the "adults on Grant Street" would have to be persons who Mayor Ravenstahl and his predecessors have until now purposefully frozen out of the Reindeer Games of Pittsburgh. Or those too new to it all to have gotten involved.

Bill Peduto. Doug Shields. And the three new members of council.

NOTE TO MBB: CW ain't getting any guiltier.

Shakedown!

The Comet is taking most of the day off to work on its taxes. Everything we have to say about the news of the day can be accessed in this comment here.

Meanwhile, here are some recent Post-Gazette endorsements you have no reason not to support:

Brenda Frazier: Experienced, conscientious, caring, and a forward-thinker.

Jake Wheatley: Strong on education, strong on health-care, strong in the community.

Steve O'Donnell: Detail-oriented, articulate, knowledgeable.

Common Thread: The P-G Edit Board seems to appreciate persons who, more than anything else, are their own persons. So do we.

Hillary Clinton Goes Negative

h/t Michael Scherer, Swampland

The Roar That Moves Beer Cans

From the filmmaker who brought us East of Liberty....

Member of Council Declines to Walk Around with Walking Around Money

The Rev. Ricky Burgess today announce he is donating all of his City Council district's discretionary funds to a philanthropic agency founded by African Americans.

Councilman Burgess, who represents his Homewood neighborhood and other eastern communities, announced at a press conference today that $146,000 is being given toward a "Hope Fund" to be administered by the POISE Foundation. (P-G, Jim McKinnon)

Wait -- how will he be able to buy votes?

"For more than 27 years, the POISE Foundation has been supporting programs that add value to the quality of life of black Pittsburgh and the region as a whole," the Rev. Burgess said at the press conference.

"To our knowledge, this is the first time this has ever occurred. I'm excited about the possibilities and what it can mean for this community."

We suppose one could take shots at the POISE Foundation. Is it as reputable as the Rev. is making it out to be?

He said he will introduce legislation in council tomorrow to establish the Hope Fund with the leftover discretionary money from District 9's Neighborhood Needs Account. The $146,000 is what remains of a $1 million allocation 12 years ago by former Mayor Tom Murphy to each council district.

Each council district also gets $75,000 a year in Community Development Block Grants. The Rev. Burgess said his district's annual $75,000 allocation will be given to the Hope Fund.

If only all the city's CDBG money was apportioned so non-politically. The URA derives a great deal of its funding from CDBG grants, and the correlation between "neighborhood needs" and "URA board member needs" do not always perfectly overlap.

Monday: Is Disinfectant the Best Disinfectant?

Mr. Ravenstahl said the revelations of gift-giving are "very difficult" for him personally, because he considers both Mr. Ford and Mr. Vlasach good friends.

"But when issues arise like they did [Wednesday], and the acceptance of gifts is now something he's acknowledged, I have real concerns with that," he said. (P-G, Lord and Fitzpatrick)

We can imagine how uncomfortable it can be when things like this arise and must be acknowledged.

On Dec. 21, Lamar inked a lease with the parking authority that would have it pay $3,000 a month in rent for the sign. Mr. Vlasach negotiated the lease, and Mr. Ford was the authority's board chairman. There was no public bidding or board vote on the lease.

$3,000 a month? Could that be considered low for a Jumbotron (tm) in the heart of Downtown? We wonder what are the industry standards.

The key, Mr. Cox said, is disclosing anything you receive and decide to keep.

Ahem, no. The key is to refrain from going out of your way to subvert the city code on the gift-giver's behalf.

##

The billboard must come down.

It really is that simple. The electronic billboard that Lamar Advertising almost finished erecting last week at the north end of Grant Street, despite a legal appeal filed in early March, is nothing more than a symbolic middle finger extended toward Pittsburghers and the principle of representative government.

The billboard is in every possible way an obscene digital salute.

If it stays to bathe the elegant Pennsylvanian building in its garish light, it will be a monument to corporate arrogance, craven local leadership and, quite possibly, government corruption. (P-G, Ruth Ann Daily)

It will be interesting to see if the Planning Commission is amenable to this argument. It should be. The billboard would overlook the heart of Grant Street, where many of our civic leaders young and old pass everyday. They will either be reminded of one lesson, or another.

Yet there is nothing in the city code that specifically forbids developers from flipping us the bird, and the Planning Commission has taken an extremely narrow view of its powers under the watchful eye of Pat Ford -- so narrow that it would seem to have reserved for itself virtually none.

##

[There've been unsubstantiated rumors that the Sirk departure was already well underway prior to the news breaking and that this was merely a convenient and politically opportune time to dump her. I can't confirm that rumor.] (Angry Drunk Bureaucrat)

The same could be said of the other departure.

Leaving billboard companies and/or the State Ethics commission aside -- you may be wondering which if any other bodies and offices may be investigating which of the dynamic duo for which if any other dealings on behalf of the city.

The answer is yes.

The issue then becomes a matter of scope. Where will any of this lead, and what sorts of transactions will come under scrutiny?

Obviously, to a large extent this will be determined by the facts as they emerge. Yet to a not insignificant degree, this must also become a question of geist and its impact on the prevailing political climate; what is Pittsburgh fundamentally in the mood to see happen?

Will there be an outcry for further inquiries, as a trickle of gory details emerge? Or will all of us reach a point where we have seen corrections made and actions taken, and be eager to continue the work of the city with a mostly clean slate, given the fierce urgency of now and the need to move forward?

That depends on many things, we suppose. In the short-term, it would appear that there are only so many civic jackpots our government is in a position to deliver.

People's memories being what they are, our climate will have to be very well reestablished by the middle of next week, at the very latest, for better or for worse. Absolutely.

SENATOR OBAMA: On Pennsylvania

These are the comments that supposedly landed Barack Hussein Obama in hot water. He made them at a fund raiser in San Francisco, in response to some questions about the campaign:

But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points.

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. (Huffington Post)

Both John McCain and Hillary Clinton have been assailing these comments by Obama as elitist and disparaging.

The cable news networks seem only to be reporting that Obama called Pennsylvanians "bitter", and that they "cling to guns or religion." No context, no further discussion.

You may find these remarks offensive in themselves, or take them as evidence that Barack Obama lacks empathy with the common man. That is fine. We do not.

We feel Sen. Obama was honestly relating his experience in Pennsylvania, and he was talking about it both sensitively and intelligently. Once again he was confronting difficult truths about America and what it will take to unite around common goals, and a common economic program. We are again heartened that he will not let political orthodoxy get in the way of needed dialogue.

"It's being reported that my opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who face hard times are bitter," Clinton said during a campaign event in Philadelphia. "Well that's not my experience. As I travel around Pennsylvania. I meet people who are resilient, optimist positive who are rolling up their sleeves."

"Pennsylvanians don't need a president who looks down on them," she said. "They need a president who stands up for them, who fights hard for your future, your jobs, your families." (CNN)

Is this a fair criticism of Obama's remarks?

It does not seem like she cares to engage in the issues he raises, such as persistent economic stagnation and the political effects that can have on a people (more Democrats should be asking these questions, by the way). It could be said that she is the one who is being patronizing towards Pennsylvanians, by rushing to our unasked-for defense.

The Obama campaign's own response to this criticism:

"Senator Obama has said many times in this campaign that Americans are understandably upset with their leaders in Washington for saying anything to win elections while failing to stand up to the special interests and fight for an economic agenda that will bring jobs and opportunity back to struggling communities," said Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor.

"And if John McCain wants a debate about who's out of touch with the American people, we can start by talking about the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans that he once said offended his conscience but now wants to make permanent.”

One thing we must allow. Considering this latest episode -- together with his remarks on reproductive freedom, in which he said that when push came to shove, he would not want his young daughters to be "punished with a baby" -- Barack Hussein Obama could be a little too frank and casual for his own good. He should probably work on that.

BOTTOM LINE: The conditions on the ground in Pennsylvania are suddenly the hot topic in national politics. Hooray.