The race for Pittsburgh mayor: Bill Peduto's problem
Democrat Pitttsburgh mayoral candidate Bill Peduto last week debuted an attack ad against fellow Democrat and race leader Jack Wagner. It was filled with misrepresentations. And what was Mr. Peduto's response when Mr. Wagner struck back?
WAAAAAAA! A “secret group” is “running a smear campaign” against Peduto, his campaign manager cried.
Over the last week, Peduto has developed a serious credibility problem. And it's centered around his attack ad against Wagner.
As we've previously noted, the ad thoroughly misrepresents a number of Trib stories it cites as the source of its information. Just as dishonest is the ad's implication that Peduto is endorsed by the police union. It goes as far as to dress up actors in uniforms similar to that of Pittsburgh's finest. But the Fraternal Order of Police Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1 endorsed Jack Wagner. It calls the ad “deceitful,” which is being kind.
Worse, however, is how Peduto spokeswoman Sonya Toler has defended her candidate's gross misrepresentations. Truth is relative. Facts are whatever the Peduto campaign deems them to be. And for anyone who calls Peduto out for such misrepresentations, well, “That's their perception,” Ms. Toler likes to say.
How a candidate campaigns is a reflection on how that candidate, if elected, would govern. And the reflection we're seeing of Bill Peduto right now is about as flattering as one of those distorting street carnival mirrors.
Show commenting policy
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 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.
- Another broken promise: ObamaCare in the ER
- Benghazi: The gun smokes
- Union’s ‘rebate’
- The solar problem: Subsidized inefficiency
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Saturday essay: Waltz of the robins
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- Pipeline pap: The real agenda
- NSA snooping: Better intelligence needed