Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
Hollow “victory”: Pittsburgh Controller Michael Lamb won the mayoral endorsement of the city's Democrat apparatus on Sunday. Had he not, it would have been a shocker, considering he was the only candidate. Councilman Bill Peduto did not seek the endorsement. And five other wannabes who entered the race after incumbent Democrat Luke Ravenstahl bowed out weren't eligible. Given that scenario, the committee's endorsement doesn't mean squat.
Where was Luke?: Mr. Ravenstahl had been on the incognito side of things since abandoning his re-election bid two weeks ago. He surfaced Monday but was largely invisible last week. Mum's the word amongst his staff. Heck, they won't even release his official calendar. And that's on top of news that there's not much of a paper trail of his travel expenses. What's next, the hiring of another lawyer as a tacit warning to not seek answers? It's no way to run an administration.
Port Authority changes?: Pennsylvania Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati says he'll introduce a bill to restructure Allegheny County's mass-transit agency. Joe Scarnati, a Jefferson County Republican, cites the Port Authority's perennial financial woes. Pardon us if we consider his proposal suspect. For there's a move afoot to “regionalize” the Port Authority across county lines. Trading a big mess for an even bigger mess should be a nonstarter.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.