A Presidential Rundown

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

When you were growing up, your parents probably told you that in polite conversation, stay away from three topics: race, religion, and politics. In a campaign for the White House, you expect politics to be front and center, so let's substitute the word gender. I have never seen an election for any office that has been so dominated by race, religion, and gender - and despite all the good words about "rising above" this stuff, the subterranean noise about this threatens to undermine the much more important debate about which candidate is the most qualified to move the United States ahead in the next four years.

In this first PSF ("Politically Savvy Friends") email in many months, I will touch on that subject and more from my "Beyond the Washington DC Beltway" perspective and then comment on this year's upcoming political battles in Pennsylvania. As many of you know, I spent fourteen years on Capitol Hill as chief of staff to a PA congressman - and then I returned home where I have the pleasure of wearing lots of hats in academia, the private sector, and the media. I do a lot of public speaking to organizations throughout the year, and this PSF e-letter helps synthesize my thoughts and hopefully gives you some cocktail talk.

Most of you on this mailing list have received PSFs in the past and (judging by your emails back to me) seem to welcome them, but if you prefer not to get them, use the unsubscribe key below. I don't want to be anyone's SPAM. More importantly, I welcome your comments back - and I especially appreciate a "hot tip" now and then about something "political." Email me at delano.jon@gmail.com. Thanks for being my eyes and ears out there.

BEYOND THE BELTWAY

The Race for the White House:

This has been an extraordinary political season in so many ways, and maybe that's not surprising. This is the first time since 1952 that we don't have a previously nationally elected figure running for president. Despite what some Democrats say, this race is wide open. That's because I don't believe that George W. Bush is really the issue in 2008. Most Americans, regardless of party, are ready to move on - and, if the Republicans play this right, they can retain the White House on November 4. And Democrats are fully capable of self-destructing over the stupidest things - to wit, this picayune tantrum (as seen on CNN's recent debate) by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

In the end, remember this election depends on electoral votes, not the popular vote. We learned that well in 2000 when George Bush became the first president since Benjamin Harrison in 1888 to win without the popular vote -- and it could have been repeated in 2004 when John Kerry would have been president, with a minority of the popular vote, had he just carried the state of Ohio - a switch of 60,000 votes would have made the difference.

As I look at the electoral vote in 2008, it's pretty hard for the Republican candidate, whoever he is, not to be ahead right now of whatever Democrat gets the nod. That's because Republican voting states (the "red" states) outnumber Democratic voting states (the "blue" states). One calculation I saw has the GOP already at 213 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House. Such a scenario brings the battle back to the states that typically decide these elections: Florida (27 electoral votes), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Wisconsin (10), Colorado (9), Oregon (7), Iowa (7), Nevada (5), and New Mexico (5). Of course, depending on the nominee, other states could be up for grabs like New Jersey (15) and Missouri (11).

My point is not to predict the winner but to suggest that it's not a done deal for the Democrats by any stretch. This election is just getting started.


The Republican Battle Goes On and On and On:

It's hard to remember the last time when Republican voters had such a wide choice of candidates with no clear front-runner at this stage of the campaign. John McCain has won New Hampshire and South Carolina, giving him 38 delegates, while Mitt Romney has won Wyoming, Michigan, and Nevada giving him 66 delegates. Mike Huckabee, the Iowa winner, has 25 delegates. Considering there are 2,380 Republican delegates and only 156 have been chosen, this race is hardly over.

Toss in Rudy Giuliani, who has 1 delegate so far, and you have a foursome that is competing vigorously for delegates in Florida on January 29. By the way, in the delegate battle, some states in the GOP race are winner-take-all, such as Florida. That means the Republican who wins Florida gets all 57 delegates (the state lost half its delegates because it jumped ahead of Super Duper Tuesday, February 5). Other upcoming winner-take-all states include New York, Missouri, Arizona, New Jersey, Utah, Connecticut, etc. (The Democrats forbid winner-take-all, apportioning almost all their delegates).

While the media seems to have blessed McCain as the front-runner, it's pretty hard to draw that conclusion so far. After 21 states vote on February 5, the picture should be a lot clearer, although I still don't think any candidate will have a majority of delegates to win nomination at the end of that evening. By the way, 975 delegates will be chosen that day, about 41 percent of the total.


The Democratic Battle Gets Closer:

The Democratic nomination fight is down to three candidates, although many dismiss John Edwards, preferring a knockdown between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Obama won Iowa and South Carolina, while Clinton won New Hampshire and Nevada. Michigan, won by Clinton, was stripped of all its delegates for starting early. But the proportionality rules of the Democratic Party (awarding pledged delegates generally through congressional districts) give Obama 57 delegates, Clinton 45 delegates, and Edwards 20 delegates. This does not count "super delegates," Democratic elected officials (like governors and members of Congress) some of whom have already picked their candidates and give Clinton the delegate lead right now. Of course, it takes 2,025 delegates to win nomination, so this is all so early.

South Carolina, with its sizeable African American vote, gave an easy win this Saturday to Obama. That sets up a major battle on Super Duper Tuesday (February 5) when 22 states from New York to California go to the polls. Forget Florida, which lost all its delegates because it jumped the queue. On Feb. 5, some 1,681 delegates are at stake, about 51 percent of all elected delegates. Wow.

Ironically, John Edwards can play a key role in this battle, if he wins enough votes to earn delegates. There's talk of him being a "king maker" at the convention, but that will require him to continue to get around 20 percent of the vote in the battles ahead. Will he? Still, after Super Duper Tuesday, it's very unlikely that either Clinton or Obama will have a majority of the delegate votes. Other big states like Virginia, Ohio, and Texas will vote later in February and early March. Pennsylvania with its 188 delegates does not vote until April 22.


Religion, Race & Gender:

(1) Religion Takes Front Stage

Americans always take religion seriously, or at least we say so. But the common mantra has been that religion should not a barrier to any individual's entry into politics. On the presidential level, however, the White House has almost always been a Protestant enclave, with only one Catholic ever elected president.

When John F. Kennedy campaigned, he had to assure folks that he would not take orders from a foreign pope. This year, Mitt Romney has had to make a similar pledge that the Mormon Church would not dictate his government decisions. Arguably, Romney has had a more difficult challenge than Kennedy. By 1960, Catholics were well accepted as mainstream Christians. For some, that is not yet true of Mormons, a religion difficult for many to understand, in part because of its own secrecy rules, its earlier (and now rejected) views on polygamy, race, and gender, and its peculiar origins (frankly, something one could say about most religions) through founder Joseph Smith's assertion in the 1820s that the angel Moroni led him to tablets of the Book of Mormon, which Mormons believe is Holy Scripture, along with the Bible. Although Mormons call themselves Christians, many Christians do not agree, some even calling it a sect.

Politically, Romney has had to assert that his church leaders will not dictate to him and, at the same time, reaffirm that he is a Christian, even a fundamentalist with whom Christian evangelicals in the Republican Party should feel comfortable. It's a difficult balancing act, but there's some evidence, so far at least, that Romney's religion has not been a barrier to winning primary votes.

The other religious aspect to Campaign 2008 has been Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, who has no problem making references to his strong religious views. Now being a clergyman and a politician is hardly a new thing. When I worked in the Congress, I recall Cong. Robert Drinan (D/MA) was a Catholic priest, Cong. Bob Edgar (D/PA) was a Methodist minister, and Sen. John Danforth (R/MO) was an Episcopal priest. There may have been others, although the Vatican ordered Drinan to quit the House (which he did) so, as far as I know, no Catholic priests now serve in elected public positions.

Politically, Huckabee is the most culturally conservative candidate in the GOP race - and would seem a natural for Christian conservatives. But his populist economic policies, including support for some tax increases when he was governor of Arkansas, are sometimes at odds with "true" conservatives. While a clergyman running for public office troubles some, it's hardly unusual - and I suspect Huckabee will rise and fall on his views and personality, not his religion.

On the Democratic front, Barack Obama has had to fight an email attack that he is really a Muslim based on claims that he attended a Muslim school as a child in Indonesia. I first saw these emails months ago and dismissed them as nonsense. [The charges first surfaced when Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in Illinois in 2002]. Obama's father was a Luo from Kenya, apparently a non-practicing Muslim who had no real impact on his son's religious upbringing since he separated from Obama's mother when Obama was two, and later returned home to Kenya. Obama's mother then married an Indonesian foreign student, a Muslim, and the family moved to Jakarta when Obama was six. Obama did attend both a Catholic school and a public school there until he was ten, but his campaign insists it was not a Muslim religious school, a so-called madrassa where Muslims are taught to hate non-Muslims as infidels.

More importantly, at age ten, Obama returned home to Hawaii to live with his white maternal grandparents and attend a private, non-sectarian college prep school in Honolulu founded by Christian missionaries. In recent years, Obama has acknowledged that he didn't grow up in any particular religious faith but came to Jesus Christ in his 20s where he was baptized and has remained a congregant at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

Politically, Obama and his campaign have shot back at the subterranean internet emails that link him to Islam. That his middle name is Hussein thickens the alleged cover-up of his Muslim roots, but the fact that Obama shares Saddam's name is of no more relevance than that my middle name ("William") is shared by plenty of scurrilous people. [By the way, most of us don't get to name ourselves, so no one should ever be blamed for that]. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that Obama is anything but what he says he is - a committed believing Christian. Moreover, even if Obama were a Muslim (which he is not), why would that be a "political issue" any more than Kennedy's Catholicism or Romney's Mormonism? Let's move on.


(2) Race Rears Its Color:

Nothing offends me more than the notion that race motivates voters, but none of us is naove. Almost all Americans take pride that this year an African American - well, actually he's half white and half black - is a major contender for the presidency of the United States. Win or lose, Barack Obama's political success this year is a monumental testament to America's political maturity.

Few things are more divisive than race, and when candidates (black or white) appeal for support on racial lines, it can cause earthquakes in the political groundscape. At the beginning of this campaign, the Democratic candidates did all they could to avoid any references to race. It didn't hurt that Hillary Clinton and her husband has always had strong ties to the black community.

So what changed? Well, some think the increasingly competitive race between Obama and Clinton encouraged both sides to find some advantage in racial politics. For Obama, he wanted to consolidate black voters behind his campaign where, early on, Clinton was beating him overwhelmingly. In a number of states, African Americans are a key to the Democratic nomination, and Obama needs those voters.

The trick for Obama is how to appeal to black voters without losing white voters. South Carolina was the first real test of that where half the Democratic voters were black. Exit polls showed that Obama has accomplished what he wanted - nearly 80 percent of African American voters in that state voted for Obama, but in the process he lost 76 percent of the white votes, something he cannot afford to do in upcoming primaries.

For Clinton, the challenge has been equally difficult. She needs African Americans in the primary for sure, but she needs those voters even more in November. After Obama accused Hillary and Bill Clinton of injecting race into this campaign, the anti-Clinton media has had a field day attacking the Clintons. It's hard to pin-point anything overtly racial in Bill Clinton's comments, but it probably doesn't matter since enough folks were convinced that he was playing a "race card" to win white votes for Hillary that it hurt her among black voters and probably some whites, too.

In my view, both candidates need to step back from this racial precipice. It's perfectly legitimate to criticize Obama for abstaining on votes in the Illinois legislature, or for being anti-war and then pro-war, or for carrying water for a slum landlord, just as it's legitimate to criticize Clinton for being pro-war before she was anti-war, or for being on Wal-Mart's board of directors, or for being cozy with Washington lobbyists. Better still, how about a debate on who's best on the economy, health care, education, and jobs? Yeah, I know. I'm asking too much.


(3) Gender Politics at Work:

For millions of women, including members of my own family, the fact that a woman could be the next president of the United States is decidedly liberating. Just as we should take pride in an African American's progress on this front, so do most Americans welcome the possible breaking of America's most formidable glass ceiling. Of course, just as some ask if Obama is the "right" black candidate, many ask the same of Clinton.

Although women make up a slight majority of the population and an even larger percentage of the voting public, only 13 of 100 senators is female and 61 of 435 members of the House are female. That's about 14 percent when women represent 51 percent of the nation. This, of course, is a huge improvement over twenty years ago, but hardly proportionate to the number of women in the population. In contrast, African Americans are doing much better politically (although not there yet), now numbering 43 in the Congress, about 8 percent of the body when their percentage of the total population is about 13 percent.

For Hillary Clinton, women appear to make up a large percentage of her supporters, although Obama beat her among women voters in both Iowa and South Carolina. Her challenge has been to attract women to her camp, without alienating men. When at an early debate before New Hampshire, Obama and Edwards appeared to team up against her - and then some in the media went ballistic went she appeared "emotional" in response to a town meeting question - many women and some men, too, saw a "double standard" at work.

Some people tell me that it is easier to break a racial barrier than a gender one. I don't know because I cannot speak from experience in either case. But for Clinton to become the first woman president, she is going to have to win women voters just as Obama appears to be winning black voters. The verdict is out on that.



PENNSYLVANIA - to be continued.

This PSF is long enough, so allow me to hold my Pennsylvania political update until the next one, after today's Florida primary and hopefully before Super Tuesday next week.

As always, I welcome your comments, so please do email me (delano.jon@gmail.com) with your take on things. And, again, if you hear something interesting on the political front, drop me a note.

Cavorting with the PA Society

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

Don't try to find a prominent Pennsylvania politician in their hometowns this weekend. That's because most of them are in New York City to schmooze with each other and the "wheelers and dealers" from Pittsburgh industry. It's call the annual Pennsylvania Society dinner at the Waldorf Astoria, but it's an excuse for politicians to enjoy each other and the money people while in the delightful environs of Manhattan during the Christmas season.

Now I admit I have attended some of those dinners (and other related events) over the years -- and, yes, it's great fun -- but there is something a little peculiar about Pennsylvania politicians and business leaders leaving the commonwealth in order to "make contacts" and "enjoy" each other's company.

The history of this weekend is fascinating to political insiders. Back in the late 1800s when Pennsylvania was solidly Republican, the PA Society gathering in New York was when the railroad, steel, and coal barons gathered, privately, to name their Republican candidates for state office.

This weekend's gathering is much more ecumenical, as it has been for decades, with Democrats just as visible as Republicans. Gone are the days when industry moguls named candidates for public office. Of course, they still play an important role -- money! So politicians flock to the Waldorf in hopes of connecting with the big money donors who will help fund their campaigns in the months ahead.

Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato is hosting an event (not a fundraiser) in NYC, as he done in past years, to "meet and greet" the state's business leaders, especially from Philadelphia, who can help boost his candidacy for governor in 2010. I am told that Onorato expects 300 to 500 people to drop by for his liquor and hors d'oevres. But just in case someone is NOT going to NYC this weekend, Onorato mailed invitations to around 8,000 people, including government leaders in all 67 counties of the state. Hmmmm, does anyone think he's not running for governor?

Of course, Dan is not the only one taking advantage of the gathering to spread around some holiday good will. But one thing is certain -- those that are hope to have a future in Pennsylvania politics. As for the rest of us, enjoy the snow this weekend!

Is the Election Over or Just Beginning?

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

Election Day 2007 may prove to be anti-climatic, particularly since almost everyone thinks Luke Ravenstahl will win election to serve out the term of the late Mayor Bob O'Connor as mayor of Pittsburgh.

Republican Mark DeSantis, however, has surprised almost everyone with a stronger-than-expected campaign, rooted both in some Democratic discontent with Ravenstahl's performance and DeSantis' own articulate position on issues. On economic issues, DeSantis is clearly the more conservative of the two candidates, but he is much more liberal on hot-button social issues than Ravenstahl.

That makes DeSantis a serious challenger in certain parts of the city like Squirrel Hill, Shadyside, and Point Breeze where Democrats like their Democrats to be pro-choice and pro-gay rights. But carrying the 14th Ward and even the 7th or 11th Wards would hardly be enough for DeSantis to win the mayor's office.

DeSantis needs two things to happen: traditional Democrats (many socially conservative) need to reject Luke by either voting for Mark or skipping this race and Republicans (nearly 25,000 of them) need to show up to vote, something they do not often do in this overwhelmingly Democratic city.

The most likely outcome is that Luke wins, but here the issue becomes: Is the Election Over or Just Beginning?

By all accounts, Ravenstahl should do at least as well as Bob O'Connor did two years ago. After all, O'Connor coming off a divisive Democratic primary against two strong Democrats, Bill Peduto and Michael Lamb, cruised to a 67% win in November 2005. Ravenstahl, who had no Democratic opposition last spring, should get at least that.

If Luke gets more than 67% -- indeed, if he breaks into the 70% range where many of us thought he would be last spring -- then he sends a strong signal to fellow Democrats that the NEXT real election (the Democratic mayoral primary) 18 months from now is going to be pretty solid for Ravenstahl.

In contrast, the closer DeSantis holds Ravenstahl's margin to 60%, the greater the likelihood that the next 18 months will be all about which Dems are positioned to take Luke on in May 2009. If Luke falls below 60%, watch for the spin to be that he really lost by winning, setting himself up for opposition for the next two years, perhaps even a rematch against DeSantis in 2009.

I cannot predict this election. Bad weather might keep only the most hearty and devoted voter from voting -- but does that favor Ravenstahl with support from traditional Democrats who always vote or DeSantis whose voters, arguably, are more committed than Luke's? Stay tuned, but surely as the sun comes up on Wednesday, we will have a story to tell.

DeSantis Campaign Ads Previewed

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

If you missed my story last night on KDKA-TV, feel free to click http://kdka.com/video/?id=32817@kdka.dayport.com to see a sneak preview of Mark DeSantis' campaign ads. DeSantis allowed me to watch and listen to several of his campaign ads, as long as I didn't air the entire ads in advance of their publication. That was fair, since in a 90-second TV story I couldn't post the entire ad anyway.

Judge for yourself, but my take is that his approach for an initial kick-off ad makes some sense, although I think all of this may be too little, too late. DeSantis has decided to take head on the fundamental question of whether a Republican has a chance of getting elected in the city of Pittsburgh where something like 147,000 Democrats outnumber 29,000 Republicans and 25,000 Independents. The theme of these first radio and TV ads, simply put, is that DeSantis does have a chance and that if the "no chance crowd" had won we would not have had Renaissance I and II and great city fathers like David L. Lawrence and Richard S. Caliguiri.

Getting people to believe that a vote for DeSantis is not a total waste of a vote is a critical first step. The voting public likes to vote for winners, and right now Luke Ravenstahl, despite all the miscues, looks like the November 6 winner. One series of ads won't turn that around, but it's a start.

The next step for DeSantis is to convince Democrats that he is worthy of their vote. His campaign mailing to Democrats this week suggests that sometimes the candidate who best reflects Democratic values "isn't always a Democrat." It's a clever approach, but it requires Democrats to buy into the notion that Ravenstahl is really an ultra-conservative, anti-gay, anti-choice, pro-war clone of George W. Bush. I don't think it will sell, except to the most liberal of Democrats who already object to Luke on other grounds.

None of the DeSantis ads that I previewed over at Kolbrener, the ad agency that is making its first real foray into political campaigns, directly attack Luke Ravenstahl. That defies conventional wisdom, which would suggest some hard-hitting attack ads are needed to shake Democrats from their comfort level with Luke. Maybe they have something in the works, but for the moment it's all positive about Mark.

If DeSantis had money for a 10-week ad campaign, introducing the candidate in a positive way before going after the incumbent is always the best approach. But this campaign is down to just 3+ weeks. The few TV and radio ads I saw, while creative and well done, may not be enough to turn things around for DeSantis in such a short period of time. Still, I give the Republican a lot of credit for trying. It's good to see a race for mayor in November 2007 when most people in town think the real race is 18 months away in the Democratic primary of May 2009.

And that's exactly what the Ravenstahl team thinks, too, which helps explain why they do not (yet) plan to run radio and TV ads this fall, although look for plenty of lawn signs and some direct mail. The Ravenstahl theory is sound. If you're going to win anyways and don't really care whether the margin is 60% or 70%, why not save your million bucks for the battle that really counts. Any Democrat looking to take on Ravenstahl will have to think real hard if the incumbent has that kind of money in his warchest before the campaign even begins.

Bottom line. DeSantis' campaign ads have the potential to make this race more visible among rank-and-file Pittsburgh voters -- all 50,000 or 60,000 that will bother to vote -- but it may all be prelude to political battles ahead.

Apology Issued to Luke from ICMA

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

Ho-hum. Believe it or not, we have an election four weeks from today. Yes, a few lawn signs have started to sprout around the region, but the radio and television airwaves have been surprisingly quiet. That won't last for long. I understand the DeSantis for Mayor campaign will launch its radio commercials later this week with television ads soon to follow, probably early next week.

Last night, I watched the Post Gazette editorial board's mayoral debate between Luke Ravenstahl and Mark DeSantis (along with a Libertarian and Socialist Worker). The format did not lend itself to a back-and-forth between the two major candidates, but both did manage to get a lick in on each other. Truthfully, I was not overwhelmed by either -- and that, ultimately, turns out to be a plus for Ravenstahl. DeSantis needs a stronger performance if he's to have any chance in upsetting the incumbent. (Of course, who watches these debates but us junkies).

On an unrelated note, Luke deserved -- and got -- an apology from the International City/County Management Association for, inaccurately, confirming that the mayor had snubbed 4,000 city and county managers gathered in Pittsburgh this week for their national convention. Early this year, the ICMA invited Luke to give brief remarks at their opening session on Sunday (same time as the Steelers game). When Luke didn't show, Marty Griffin of KDKA Radio heard from a city source that the mayor was a no-show, pissing off a lot of folks at the convention.

On Monday, Michele Frisby from the ICMA confirmed Marty's source (through me) and he reported it on his morning show on Tuesday. Later that morning, Ravenstahl called in to dispute the charge and pointed to an email his office sent on September 7 declining the invitation. Turns out the mayor is right. Here's the text of the apology sent directly to the mayor's office: "I am writing to acknowledge that at no time did Pittsburgh Mayor Ravenstahl formally agree to provide greetings during the conference opening general session of ICMA, the International City/County Management Association. The information I provided Jon Delano earlier this week was incorrect, and I apologize for any inconvenience it may have caused the mayor’s office." Michele called me personally and apologized to me. In reality, the apology is owed the mayor, and I am pleased the ICMA apologized to him.

In the scheme of things, this is hardly an important issue. The mayor should be free to choose what events he wants to attend or not. He told Marty that he was not at the Steelers game but spending some quiet time with his wife. I'm all for that, too!

The larger issues of Pittsburgh -- its financial health, its lack of jobs, its crime and vandalism, its management, and its future -- these are the legitimate items to debate, not whether the mayor attends a particular conference. So let the real debate begin. Pittsburgh deserves it.

Six Weeks to Go

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

Well, give Mark DeSantis some credit for trying to stir the political waters this last week. The guy's been mighty aggressive attacking Luke Ravenstahl over the last 10 days, going after him on ethics, crime, finances, and now most recently attacking Ravenstahl for having a bloated personal office staff [see TV story on right]. The problem for DeSantis, of course, is that there's no indication that anyone is listening to him. The mayor just keeps doing his mayoral thing, ignoring his opponent, and acting like DeSantis is some pesky insect that he must endure for a season until cold weather knocks him out.

It's tempting to say this election is all over with the only question being how big Luke wins -- 60%, 70%, 80%. But don't tell DeSantis that. Where some people think the voting public has already decided to "give the kid a chance" for at least another two years -- yes, we go through this again in 2009 -- DeSantis thinks at least 50% of the voters are still uncertain about Ravenstahl's qualifications to guide the city through tough times ahead. Even if that were true, I don't think the public is sold on DeSantis to do the guiding instead. After all, nobody really knows who he is.

DeSantis is expected to begin his campaign ads shortly. Maybe the ads will be so extraordinary that the public will give him a look-see, but don't bet on it. Part of the problem is that Luke preaches the always popular "good times are here" sermon, while Mark is into that "gloom and doom" message. My 25+ years in the political world -- take it for what it's worth -- have taught me repeatedly that, unless life is personally unbearable for people or something angers them deeply, the positive always sells better than the negative. For now at least, the "feel good" message of Luke resonates far stronger than Mark's "warnings" about the future. It may be as simple as that.

Six weeks can be an eternity in politics, and I've seen no reliable independent polls in the race for mayor of Pittsburgh. But nothing persuades me that an upset is in the making. Taking on an incumbent is always challenging, especially when as mayor Ravenstahl dominates the print and broadcast news media. The local media has given DeSantis more time and space than any other Republican candidate for mayor, but add up the column inches and the airtime and Luke the incumbent still dominates the media four-to-one. Challengers always complain to me about that, but, hey, the "news" business is supposed to report the "news" and incumbent office-holders "make" news far more than challengers. Still, most responsible journalists are now seeking DeSantis out for his "reaction" when the mayor makes a policy pronouncement of some sort because that is the right thing to do in the midst of a campaign. But after election day passes, it's back to the incumbent all the time!

If readers see anything unusual or interesting on the campaign trail, please do email me. Back and forth press conferences get pretty boring! And stay alert. If the campaign for mayor, so far, has put you to sleep, I suspect the rhetoric will only get hotter in the weeks remaining. Let's hope so!

Seven Weeks to Go

Dear Politically Savvy Friends,

Seven weeks from today, voters in Pennsylvania will stay home. I would be surprised if more than 20 to 25% of registered voters bothered to cast a ballot. Of course, that gives more power to those of us who do vote -- but it also puts a premium on those campaigns that can best organize their get-out-the-vote efforts.

The Pittsburgh mayor's race is relatively boring, despite Mark DeSantis' best effort to engage Luke Ravenstahl. As you can see if you click on the stories to the right, last week Ravenstahl announced that he was keeping most of the city directors that he asked to resign 90 days ago. DeSantis derided that exercise, but the mayor ignored him. This week, DeSantis attempted to stake a stronger ethics position -- again see the story posted to the right -- and, this time, Ravenstahl just welcomed DeSantis to the cause.

This race for mayor probably won't get close until we see some television ads that really trashes Luke -- and, even then, it's still hard to imagine an upset of Ravenstahl. Still, give DeSantis credit for attempting to create fire when most people don't even see smoke.

What may wake some people up in Campaign 2007 will be the judge races. Well, maybe not exactly wake you up, but at least get your attention. It will be hard to miss all the TV ads we expect in October. Add to that the fact that PA Clean Sweep is urging a NO vote against all seven statewide judges running for reelection. That includes State Supreme Court Justice Tom Saylor. The anti-pay raise group also wants a NO vote against the local judges up for retention, too. Their sin? Accepting the double-digit pay raise that the state Supreme Court ruled the legislature could NOT repeal for judges.

It's not clear to me that the pay raise issue still has legs, but in any case I believe the anti-pay raise groups have overplayed their hand by urging a NO vote on every single judge in Pennsylvania. It's one thing to go against a state supreme court justice -- like they did successfully against former Justice Russell Nigro in 2005 -- but it's quite another to urge voters to reject every judge even if they had no connection whatsover with the pay raise controversy. In my view, it makes PA Clean Sweep look just a wee bit unreasonable, particularly since (as I know from personal experience) many of these judges are extraordinarily good.

Unlike 2005, there will be organized efforts to urge voters to vote YES for many of these judges, both by the judges themselves and their supporters in the legal community. In an exclusive interview posted to the right, Superior Court President Judge Kate Ford Elliott sat down with me, on camera, to speak out on this issue. Sitting judges rarely go on camera, let alone talk politics. Obviously, this issue is being felt very deeply in the judicial system.

Campaign 2008 is just around the corner chronologically, even if it began months ago. Last week, Rudy Giuliani was in town to raise big bucks in Washington County, but (as we've learned from earlier visits) Rudy likes to sample the local fare. This time it was Sarris candy in Canonsburg. But after the schmooze, the former New York mayor launched into a major attack on Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for not "denouncing" Move-On.Org, the liberal group that asked whether General Petraeus would become General Betray-Us. Giuliani's attack on Clinton is one way that he can win over Republican voters who disdain the Clintons, and he couples it with the somewhat legitimate argument that he's the one Republican who can take it to Clinton in moderate states lilke Pennsylvania.

Given the irrelevance of Pennsylvania in the primary season -- the PA primary is not until April 22 when the nominees should have pretty much been decided -- it's still nice to see a few of the presidential candidates traipse through our area, even if it's only for our money and food! Pierogis, anyone?