The Pork Report

Yesterday the Inquirer had an article saying that Michael Nutter basically put a turd in John Street’s punch bowl of legacy projects, but Nutter would probably be thrilled if that was all it took to get rid of John Street’s legacy in Philadelphia. It’s easy to talk about the new projects he started like NTI and the proposed WiFi network for the City, but when assessing Street’s legacy it’s just as important to talk about the things he didn’t do as the things he did do. Consider three quick things that happened on his watch as captain of this ship:

A. When the Ron White / Corey Kemp corruption scandal erupted in 2004 John Street wanted no part of it. He could have said “I am the leader of this city, corruption like this is unacceptable, we will do everything possible to make sure this never happens again,” but instead he threw up his hands and said “It wasn’t me, leave me alone.” And then when Nutter and others tried to address city corruption by instituting the ethics board and other measures, Street was the strongest opponent. The whole episode made us trust our government even less, feel that they were even more unaccountable than we thought, and that it was happening at all levels of city government from the top on down. Some voters might have seen the 2007 mayoral primary as a city referendum on political corruption with the good guys winning, but for many the mistrust still lingers.

B. Violence got WAY out of hand, public schools are getting worse, and little was done to stop it or even address the problem head on. There was no accountability from the mayor. His famous beginning of each press conference: “I’m having a great day today” is fine for most days, but in the wake of brutal teenage killings it doesn’t exactly inspire confidence that our leader even knows what’s going on much less that our problems are being addressed.

C. Street was the only American mayor who did not appear in person to pitch his city as a potential host to the United States Olympic Committee. While it’s a long shot for any city to host the Olympics, Philadelphia could’ve put in more effort. It’s probably not possible to underestimate how hosting the Olympics could’ve boosted Philadelphia’s place as a destination city for commerce and tourism. Does our leadership care?

Of course no administration is perfect, but it says a lot that it was probably very simple and easy to put an end to NTI and Street’s other positive legacies, and yet it will take years and years to undo some of the negative legacies of the Street administration. Unfortunately, these are the legacies that will remain.

Why no posts lately on The Pork Report? Last week we hit the 1,000 view threshold in a pretty short time span since our launch, and so we all convened in a dark room at 1421 Walnut Street, and, even though none of us smoke, we pumped in some cheap cigar smoke to make sure we had the right effect. We’ve been hunkered down in there ever since, taking polls, raising cash, and making deals for the last week, and now this is what we have:

What is The Pork Report? - The Pork Report is an anonymous online forum for issues relating to Philadelphia-area politics. If you have something to say about Philadelphia politics that is not a hate crime, this is the place to do it. You can be anonymous when you post or you can make your identity known. It’s up to you. There is no agenda here beyond fostering discussion and as long as posts or comments are not racist, sexist, or otherwise hateful they will not be censored.

Is there a role for an anonymous discussion forum like this? - Yes, for several reasons. First, the Philadelphia political community is small, and some people want to put an idea into the public realm of discourse without their name, party affliation, or political history attached to it. People have a right to do this. Second, other websites concerned with Philadelphia politics have agendas or well-known biases, whereas this website is open to all viewpoints. This is somewhat refreshing in a particularly personal and tense political atmosphere. No one has to take sides in this forum. Finally, United States politics has a robust legacy showing the benefits of anonymous free speech and hopefully this website is a continuation of that legacy.

What will The Pork Report look like from now on? - Posts will no longer be daily as they once were. New discussion forums will be posted about 3 to 4 times per week. Additionally, if you have an idea for a discussion that you would like to post on The Pork Report please email this to us at theporkreport “at” gmail “dot” com. We will not reveal the name or email address of the sender. The decision to publish your post is ours alone.

Thank you for reading and commenting. So far we’ve had some good discussions here and we look forward to what’s in store.

There are several of us who write The Pork Report, and while the other writers wish to remain anonymous, as is their right, I wanted to share my story.

I’ve lived in Philadelphia my whole life. I grew up in Pennsport with my parents and two brothers. My father was a Democratic committeeman and as soon as I was able to walk he took me with him when he went door to door in the neighborhood, getting petition signatures and handing out campaign literature. He was somehow involved with Buddy Cianfrani back in the day, either Buddy got him a job early on or something like that I don’t know, but I grew up with a great respect for the man, fostered by my Pop.

When I got out of high school my father used his political connections to get me a job at Traffic Court. It was okay, I didn’t mind it. I mean it was a job and I needed one and I was still living with my parents. They were getting old and I wanted to help take care of them while my brothers were still in school. This is probably boring so I’ll skip right to it – a few years into my job I became really excited about a potential candidate for City Council in the 1st, an older brother of a friend of mine from growing up who I really trusted and really believed in. I told him I really wanted to help him in his campaign and that I thought he could really do a much better job than the guy who was in office at the time. I was pretty floored when a few days after that initial conversation I lost my job at Traffic Court and my friend never spoke to me again. He ended up never running. I don’t know the full story of what happened, but I have my suspicions.

The rest of my political life has unfolded in a very similar way. I begin to get involved with a candidate or an organization that looks good to me, something I really believe in, and then POOF it all gets taken away by powers beyond my control. Have I tried to fight it? Yes, of course I have. It only makes things worse for me and my family. We have to eat, don’t we? Meanwhile, the neighborhood of my childhood only gets dirtier and more dangerous at night.

What I’ve learned over the years is that hot-shot candidates and political operatives and organizations come and go and come and go. Sometimes you choose the right horse and you can get rich and sometimes you choose the wrong one and you’re wishing you had your job at Traffic Court back. What doesn’t come and go though are the ideas that makes being involved in politics worthwhile. The pure ideas that drive the movements and the candidates beyond a desire for money or power in this small neighborhood, which seems to be getting smaller every year. I want to be involved in a debate where I can say what I feel and I don’t have to look over my shoulder, and I don’t have to fear for my job, and I don’t have to wonder how this will affect my family. That’s why now, finally, I’m ready to tell you that my name is Silence Dogood.

It was 202 some-odd years ago that the rabble-rousing Federal Society of Journeymen Cordwainers (shoemakers) took to the streets of Philadelphia in what is widely considered the nation’s first strike. The picket line was a powerful tool in the movement’s arsenal and as Labor continued to fight for worker’s rights in Washington, here in the “Workshop of the World” membership soared to record highs. Unfortunately for the unions, and for the city, less expensive labor- first in the South, then globally- pulled many of those high-skilled craft trades out of the region.

By the 1950’s with the days of the Cordwainers behind it, and the then the City’s all powerful Republican machine in its last gasp of air- labor began to form support around the Democratic Party in a structure which still exists today. But as the “dredging war” on the Delaware demonstrated, the labor movement and the progressive movement are not one of the same. And while both locally have strong ties to the Democratic Party, many of their ideals are in complete contradiction. The labor support behind the Clinton candidacy was a clear demonstration of support for the “institutional” or “establishment” candidate. It is not much different in the Philadelphia suburbs where a majority of unions backed Republican Candidates in the Commissioners’ races where the GOP was expected to (and did) coast to victory.

In Pennsylvania, Union membership rose from 13.6 to 15.1% between 2006 and 2007, showing some hope after what for years looked to be a dire situation. And while their organizing strength appears to be rebounding, many question if the political structure is waning. The recent defeat of both Bob Brady and Jonny Doc to candidates who ran as reformers may have revealed a backlash for the establishment. But while inter-union and city committee squabbles have been the norm over the past few years, the “DCC/Labor establishment” has not been unified behind a candidate in a race that could accurately gauge its strength. Furthermore, with rampant claims of the Philadelphia skilled trades being predominantly white suburbanites (from Jersey of all places!) would labor be effective in mobilizing a voter registration and GOTV effort in predominantly black wards?

The upcoming Presidential election will be an interesting assessment of the Philadelphia union’s political might and willingness to adapt with the progressive movement. Assuming that the race is Obama vs. McCain, will labor rally around a progressive candidate with little “institutional” clout, or a moderate Republican who has been serving in the Senate for over 20 years?

All of these answers remain to be seen, but rumors have it that the Cordwainers have already begun to mobilize. This is going to be a fun year.

_

***NEW FEATURE*** Five Question Friday! Submit answers in the comment section. Thanks!

1. Of Philadelphia’s roughly 1 million registered voters, what percentage of them have personal computers in their home?

2. What’s been the response in your neighborhood to Mayor Nutter’s Stop and Frisk policy?

3. What would it take for Obama to lose the Democratic nomination at this point?

4. Do you feel more safe or less safe in Philadelphia than you did 5 years ago?

5. Who are your top 3 candidates for PA governor in 2010?

_

At 11:48AM Mayor Nutter officially signed the FY09 operating budget into law. Also signed was the Mayor’s five-year plan for tax reduction at a slightly less ambitious rate then initially proposed.

This was a bold and necessary move by the Mayor.  Personally, I agree with scaling back the wage tax cuts, thus keeping the budget from drawing more of its resources from it’s already struggling property owners. The 2.4% increase was for extremely worthy causes including adding more police to the beat and increasing funding to Fairmount Park.

Your thoughts?

POINT

There’s been a lot of hoopla lately about the Supreme Court ruling in favor of allowing states to enact legislation requiring voters to show government-issued identification at the polls when they vote. The thought behind the measure is to prevent voter fraud, but critics argue that since the vast majority of voters without a valid government-issued ID are usually young, old, or in the lower economic brackets the new ID requirement is essentially a poll tax, potentially disenfranchising millions of voters who will not be able to take the time or find the paperwork required to get a valid government-issued ID.

These critics have a point in that it does seem that specific voting blocs will be most affected by these new laws, but it is absolutely crazy to compare the new laws to a poll tax or to suggest that specific voting blocs are being strategically disenfranchised by the new laws. Possessing government-issued identification is not a ridiculous thing to ask of people who wish to participate in government. Government-issued ID is free, takes an hour or two to obtain, and has many uses besides as a requirement to vote. As Supreme Court Justice Stevens notes in the court’s decision, the burden of obtaining a government-issued ID is not appreciably greater than the burden of registering to vote. Anyone who is able to vote will be able to obtain a government-issued ID. It’s free. It basically requires waiting an hour or two on line at PENNDOT. Not a huge deal.

Don’t we want greater transparency and accountability in government? Isn’t that what this is? Do critics realize that they are criticizing a measure that will prevent voter fraud? Critics should not attack the idea behind the bill or the Supreme Court’s decision, which is solid. They should attack the TIMING - which has nothing to do with the Supreme Court or the legislation itself.

The suspicious thing about the ruling is that it comes just a few months before a Presidential election and so if state legislatures enact such legislation in the coming months it will take strong provisions in the bill to make sure that people affected are educated about the issue and that they receive their identification, otherwise many votes would be lost in the shuffle. That’s up to the State Legislatures to do the right thing, and if they didn’t then THAT would be something to criticize, but preventing voter fraud is not.

COUNTERPOINT

If you grew up in the city like I did, you probably didn’t have a pressing need to drive, at least until (if you were fortunate enough to be among the 18% to have degrees) you went to college. And if you, like 1 in 4 Philadelphian’s are living in poverty, the $4 a gallon for gas (to say nothing of auto insurance) is a little too exorbitant to warrant needing a driver’s license. The point is this. For those non-drivers living in the state (typically the young and/or poor) there is new legislation coming down the pipeline that will require presenting ID in addition to your signature upon voting.

Now, I don’t know about you- but I certainly am not the most organized person in the world. I’ve found myself stranded in a Southern town while riding Greyhound because I lost my credit card. And waiting for a cab in the cold, because I forgot to bring driver’s license. I’ve locked my keys in my car so many times that I keep a coat hanger taped to the bottom of my car (sshhhhhh, don’t tell any burglars!) So sure I’ve lost many things in my life…but I’ve never lost my voice.

Well State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe wants to change all that. With HB 2519, Rep. Metcalfe has decided that what with those cumbersome and annoying 13th, 16th, 14th, and 26th amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, they has to be SOMEBODY whose voting rights he can infringe upon…GOT IT…The disorganized! Hurrah!!!

-

The following is the unedited transcript of The Pork Report’s interview with the ideal Chairman of the Philadelphia Democratic City Committee, which took place at the Famous Fourth Street Deli over a couple of corned beef sandwiches. All quotes used with permission of the Chairman.

The Pork Report: Chairman, what an honor this is to sit down with you here for an honest discussion. How do you manage to make yourself so accessible?

Chairman: American politics is moving in the direction of more transparency and accountability. People are demanding more from our elected officials and as the leader of this party, I see it as one of my main responsibilities to answer questions about the Democratic Party’s practices and policies in this city. I want to give voters reasons to trust the Democratic Party and have faith in the Democratic Party. It has only hurt us in the past when shady dealings are revealed by the media and there’s no explanation or accountability. That only weakens us among our own voters. I set aside a few hours every day to speak with media or bloggers or concerned voters who have questions. We have an official DCC website that we have set up that includes a message board where elected officials are encouraged to post, and I think we’ve generated a lot of positive feedback and good will from the dialogue we’ve created there. That said, the vast majority of voters in this city still do not have personal computers let alone internet, so much of our work remains in knocking on doors and making phone calls. We never forget our voter base.

TPR: What do you see for the future of the Democratic Party in Philadelphia?

Chairman: I see more people being involved than ever before. The internet has really opened up new avenues for people to participate in our democracy, and it’s been my proudest achievement as Chairman that we’ve been able to capitalize on this trend and really bring these people into the fold. For example, when you’re talking about registering new voters, only a few years ago we were registering voters either by depending on campaigns to register exclusively their targeted voters, or by depending on committeemen to register new voters in their division usually for monetary incentive. That wasn’t good for the city and it’s not the way we should have been doing things. The internet really gave us no excuses, because now it’s so easy to email guidance counselors in high schools who run voter registration drives for high school seniors, or administration officials at senior citizen homes, or employers who give the forms to their employees. We’re able to use the internet to recruit our own volunteers for voter registration drives for areas of the city where most people do not have internet access. I see more and more voters, and especially informed voters, and that’s why we have to be so careful about making a new politics in Philadelphia.

TPR: What do you mean a new politics in Philadelphia?

Chairman: Politics in Philadelphia was often compared to the medieval feudal system, where you had several power brokers in control of their own sphere of influence, and they would have their personal tiffs and allegiances and battle among each other for more power or more influence, but mostly it was an unorganized multiplayer stalemate where power brokers focused more on blocking each other’s ambitions than actually improving our city. The thing that made this backward system still possible in the 21^st century was, as you know, the culture of pork barrel politics in Philadelphia where being elected to office basically meant that you and all your friends were getting rich. Fortunately, we’re beginning to do away with that system through a combination of holding our officials more accountable for their actions (or inactions) while in office, and making sure we elect the right candidates. The internet has been a big help in holding our officials more accountable, but we’re still trying to figure out how to elect the right candidates. One thing that might hold some promise in the future is limiting direct monetary payments to ward leaders. It used to be the case that if you were a candidate and you wanted to get elected you had to pay the ward leaders for the services of their committeemen, and the ward leaders basically sold to the highest bidder. We’re exploring the idea of putting caps on the amount of money ward leaders are able to accept from candidates and PACs. We’ve also begun sanctioning ward leaders that endorse candidates without a vote from their committeemen. There’s a lot of work to be done but I think we’re moving in the right direction. I mean, the fact that we are actually exploring options to fix these problems is a major step in the right direction, compared to the past.

TPR: Thank you so much for your time Chairman. I understand that you will be answering questions left in the comments section of this post?

Chairman: Yes I will. Hit me with your best shot.

In case you missed it (which I’m guessing you did), Mark “The Snake” Cohen was on PCN this week discussing the redistricting issue with Rep. Samuelson. (Take a look at the map below to see why he is appropriately referred to as “The Snake”) To give you some background, Mark Cohen is the son of late the lat Councilman David Cohen and has been serving in the House of Representatives for over 34 years, in a primarily Democratic district “snaking” from Olney up into Rhawnhurst in Northeast Philly. Most folks in his district couldn’t even tell you who their State Rep is, let alone anything he’s accomplished. And then there’s this…

A bi-partisan effort has finally been launched to take the redistricting process away from the Party leadership like Mark Cohen. Rep. Cohen states on the PCN show, that YES in fact Party the part leadership has previously reshaped districts if someone is a “thorn in their side.” Even if this has only happened but a handful of times, this is criminal behavior. Given that most people (even in his own district) don’t know who Mark Cohen is, who makes him the Judge and Jury of who will represent Pennsylvanians? Mark Cohen has been the source of numerous embarrassments to good government including the $28,200 bill to taxpayers for books for his personal collection. This is the same Representative who used to FLY from Philly to Harrisburg over a 150 times on the taxpayers dime in 20 months. And yet the argument Rep. Cohen makes is that a non-partisan redistricting commission would be out-of-touch? GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

Cohen, who hasn’t had a Democratic Primary challenger in over 25 years is the epitome of why people beg for a change in the culture of Harrisburg. He’s been so comfortable in Harrisburg, he’s forgotten what’s going on in his own backyard. Maybe he needs to spend a little more time in his district and little less time with his head in the clouds.

Chris Satullo’s May 10 article regarding the pitfalls of the harmful status-quo.

<http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/18826164.html>

To watch the entire clip of Mark Cohen go to

http://www.pcntv.com/

Click on the “Streaming” link on the top menu.

Click on PCN Call-in on the left hand side

Scroll Down to Wednesday, May 14- Legislative Redistricting

You can also read the abbreviated transcription by Above Average Jane at

http://aboveavgjane.blogspot.com/2008/05/redistricting-on-pcn-call-in-show.html

_

A week and a half ago Philly for Change announced that from now until the 2008 general election they will effectively be Philly Against McCain. The idea behind PAM seems to be the conviction that McCain would be a continuation of President Bush’s anti-progressive policies and so McCain must be stopped at all costs. To do this, PAM will seek to link McCain to Bush in the minds of swing voters and energize potential volunteers who would otherwise remain uninvolved. Several questions arise, and so again we go with bullet points:

1. The official statement from Philly for Change links the strategy and goals of Philly Against McCain with Ray Murphy’s much publicized Philly Against Santorum movement in 2006. But the circumstances surrounding the 2006 PA Senate race are very different from the circumstances surrounding the 2008 Presidential election. For one thing, under the questionable guidance of Bob Roggio, Bob Casey’s campaign did not have an organized field program in Philadelphia and PAS filled that void. You can bet that the Democratic nominee for President in 2008 will have an organized field program in Philadelphia and so PAM, as they seek to do their own thing, only creates problems for coordinating an organized Democratic field program. Basically, it shows no trust in the Democratic Party and fractures the movement in Philadelphia to elect a Democratic president.

2. In the same vein, you had in Bob Casey a candidate who did not exactly make people excited and energized to volunteer/vote for him, and so launching a negative campaign against his opponent, the clearly evil and dangerous Rick Santorum, was a good strategy to fill that void in the energy of the volunteer base/electorate. The Democratic candidate for President, almost certainly Obama, is probably the opposite of Casey in that he has no problem attracting volunteers and excitement for his candidacy. For Casey a negative campaign against Santorum was probably necessary, but for Obama a positive campaign can do the job.

3. Perhaps most importantly, a cornerstone of Obama’s campaign is that he is taking the high road by not slandering his opponents or engaging in old style divisive and destructive political campaigning. Isn’t a negative campaign like Philly Against McCain just that? Even in rhetoric, doesn’t Philly Against McCain sound a lot like www.againstobama.com and www.againsthillary.com? It seems like a small step from one to the other. Given that our candidate is pushing it, don’t we want to be part of a movement of new politics that seeks to promote a great candidate rather than bash the opponent?

4. The Philly for Change membership did not vote on this – the decision to become Philly Against McCain was decided by the PFC leadership on their own. Do PFC members approve? Does PFC leadership care what the members think? Didn’t PFC endorse Obama a long time ago? Why not just stick to their endorsement and work to support Obama’s campaign? Why make their own splinter group with its own strategy and agenda?

All this seems to point to a suspicion that The Pork Report has had for some time: that what the “Progressive Movement” in Philadelphia really consists of is a small and isolated network of young and ambitious political operatives who are really not much different in their goals and methods than the Pork Grinders they seek to overthrow. The difference is the generation they come from, where rising to the top under the banner of “progressivism” is an acceptable pursuit even if the end result is the same. This is the land of Pork – there are no revolutions, there are only regime changes.

Philly for Change was at its best in the 2006 primaries, when it was recruiting, training, and endorsing party machine-independent Democratic City Committeemen, when it showed unprecedented grassroots muscle with the State Rep campaign of Anne Dicker (whose legacy has already been tainted by recent events), and when it raised money for dark horse candidates like Tony Payton Jr. This was the only time when it looked like anyone outside PFC supported what PFC was doing, and it was doing good things. Supporting the elections of independent Democratic City Committeemen in particular is a relatively small thing that can have a tremendous impact on the political character of Philadelphia, and potentially make a huge change for the better here.

But when “progressive” groups splinter from coordinated positive movements happening in our city to do their own thing for no clear reason, PFC looks a lot like Neighborhood Networks – another group that pounded its chest and waved the banner of “progressivism” and in the end turned out to be just a tool for the political advancement of a few top individuals and showed no real strength, significant base of volunteers, or political clout. This city does not need another rogue political group that actually does not represent anyone, it needs a unified front on the basic issue that we all agree with – electing a Democratic President of the United States. That’s why The Pork Report is for Obama and against Philly Against McCain.

If one of Hillary Clinton’s goals in this Presidential Primary was to prove that a woman could compete with a man for the highest elected office in America, then she has accomplished that goal at this stage in the Presidential Primary cycle. She did it. All of the honor should be given to her, she is a model and an example to women old and young everywhere, and history will remember her as the individual who personally blazed the trail for legions of women who will now follow her and build on her successes. A woman president is definitely a possibility, which could not definitely be said before. All this is excellent for America.

If one of Hillary Clinton’s goals in this Presidential Primary was to get herself elected President of the United States, then she has failed to achieve that goal.

AND I WISH PEOPLE WOULD STOP CONFUSING THE TWO!!!!

An article last week by Ellen Malcolm, founder of EMILY’s List, demonstrates exactly what I’m talking about. Here is a selected passage:

“This brilliant woman believes that she can compete for the most powerful office in the world. She believes that she can do a better job than any of the men running to lead our country through these challenging times. And millions of Americans, women and men, believe that she is correct.

Yet over and over again the media and her opponents have claimed that she is defeated — it’s over, she can’t win, she’s a loser. And over and over again — in New Hampshire, on Super Tuesday, in Texas and Ohio, in Pennsylvania last month, and in Indiana this week — female voters poured out of their homes to cast their ballots for her. They know that women can compete, and they want to make sure that women, especially this woman, can win….

…So here we are in the fourth quarter of the nominating process and the game is too close to call. Once again, the opponents and the media are calling for Hillary to quit. The first woman ever to win a presidential primary is supposed to stop competing, to curtsy and exit stage right.”

There are so many things wrong with this that I need to make a list:

1. People who argue that Hillary is being treated unfairly by the media seem to forget that last year she was the DARLING of the media, who was calling for other candidates to not even bother running a campaign because Hillary was so far and away ahead in every poll. Everyone forgets that the pervading story of the campaign last year was that Hillary had it in the bag, that this race was hers to lose, and that the media only reported she might be vulnerable when SHE ACTUALLY SHOWED SHE WAS VULNERABLE by losing Iowa, splitting Super Tuesday, and then getting destroyed in the 10 following primaries. That is not unfair treatment from the media, that is called journalism
2. A few sexist pigs argue that Hillary can’t win and it’s over and their reason for saying so is because she’s a woman. These people are despicable and fortunately they are in the vast minority of voices now in the year 2008. But for the vast majority of people who say that Hillary can’t win the reason is because SHE ACTUALLY CAN’T WIN. The math is indisputably against her. At this point it would take a MAJOR screw up from Obama for her to take the nomination. That has nothing to do with gender or sexism, it has to do simply and only with delegate math.
3. Once again, a few sexist pigs are calling for Hillary to quit because she’s a woman. But for the vast majority of people calling for her to quit there are LEGITIMATE and REAL reasons why she should quit in the greater interest of the Democratic Party, which ostensibly she is campaigning to represent.
4. The last phrase of this passage makes me want to throw up - where Malcolm characterizes Hillary’s opponents as calling for her to “curtsy and exit stage right.” Malcolm is basically setting up a straw man here that in no way accurately characterizes the language and tone of the vast majority of media sources and Hillary opponents. The absurd word “curtsy” makes Malcolm look ridiculous and it makes Hillary supporters look ridiculous.

Hillary supporters who wanted her to win: It isn’t over until it’s over, and Hillary has every right to campaign until the final delegate is pledged. But accept the fact that there are real reasons for her to stop campaigning that have nothing to do with her being a woman.

Hillary supporters who wanted to see a woman become the next President of the United States: Unfortunately it looks like she will not win, but she did irrefutably show that it can be done. She blazed a trail of her own and inspired generations of young women to reach for the highest goal. It may be a little bittersweet, but Hillary’s campaign has had significant and tangible gains for women everywhere in their quest for equality.

Hillary supporters who confuse or blur these two goals: you are only putting both movements back with your obfuscation of the facts. Stop it.

On the heals of Larry Farnese’s impressive victory over Johnny Doc, a lot of Philly folks are wondering if they may finally get a voice back in the State Senate.  Anyone who saw Tina Tartaglione stumble through her floor speech on gun legislation today could tell you that Philly is in desperate need of a fighter on the Senate floor for the next term.  While the murder of 3 Philadelphia Police officers in the past two years should sound a rallying cry throughout the State Assembly in Southeastern PA, little has been done to push the ball forward.

With the FBI shadow looming over Vince the Prince for the past few, Philly has been left with little power in State Senate. Conversely, the patron saint of Delaware County, Senator Dominic Pileggi, has wielded enough power and influence in his short time in the Senate to be considered one of the most powerful legislators in the Commonwealth. And with the ’08 senate races looking rather bland, the Republicans should easily maintain control of the Upper-chamber.

Good help is hard to find at Broad and Market an Inky article by Patrick Kerkstra reports.  Mayor Michael Nutter has had a difficult time filling some key department head positions as he quickly approaches 125 days in office.  Anyone who has had minimal dealing with City Hall will tell you, there is a major reorganization underway, and Nutter seems intent on filling the new administration with highest caliber workers available.

The ’07 mayor’s race blog The Next Mayor has probably done the best job of chronicling the appointments of Nutter administration, though it still remains unclear if there will be another major top-down overhaul of the organizational chart.  Just last Friday, Police Commissioner Ramsey announced a major reorganization of the City’s Police Department, which in recent years has unfortunately remained as the City’s most visible department.

Regardless of how much City Hall needs to be torn down and built back up, The Pork Report has begun to hear the grumblings around the lack of continuity amid the transition.  The biggest complaint from city bureaucrats, however, has been the sloppy recordkeeping of the Street Administration, particularly in the second term. As the City FY09 budget quickly approaches, many are questioning if there as much money being thrown away as we saw in Post-Goode era. The real test of the current administration will be the reevaluation of every city contract and state or federal grant administered by the city, and closing the loop on the no-bid contract system. And while Mayor Nutter may be approaching his 125^th day in office, he still has roughly 1,335 days left, to get Philadelphia back on track.  

The Pork Report has announced its 6 “Races to Watch” in Southeast PA

1. Dwayne Royster (D) vs. Jay Moyer (R)- [70] Toss Up

Moyer’s narrow 103 vote victory in ‘06 may be overturned in this increasingly African American district. If Obama is the Dem candidate and can drag out the likely strait ticket Dem voters, this could be an easy W for Royster.

2. Brendan Boyle (D) vs. Matt Taubenberger (R)-[170] Toss Up

Though this house seat was abandoned by GOP Rep. George Kenney, the district has been trending Democratic in recent years. Branded the “loser’s ball” by many Northeast Philly politicos, the race features a two-time loser in Brendan Boyle vs. the son of 2007 Mayoral contest loser, Al Taubenberger. If the election was held today, Taubenberger should win, and Boyle needs to show he’s more than a perennial loser.

3. Frank Farry (R) vs. Chris King (D) [142] Favors King

Although Former Congressman Mke Fitzpatrick flirted with running for this lower office and then backed away, the 142^nd could still be a battle ground in an area of Bucks Co that could see a strong performance from the local GOP. Nonetheless, what was a 5-point race for King last time should definitely tighten up.

4. John DeFransisco (D) vs. Nick Miccarelli (R) [162] – Favors Miccarelli

In an ironic twist of typical suburban Philly races, this contest features “Old-School” Union Dem Johnny-D vs. “New School” Iraq Veteran, Nick Miccarelli. Though this seat, formerly held by Ron Raymond, may look cozy for his COS, Miccaerlli, DeFransesco could pull off a major upset if he is able to channel the Congressman Sestak-built machine in Delco. Still, Miccarelli appears to be the “Dream Candidate” for the rapidly declining Delco GOP

4. Thomas Murt (R) vs. Lisa Romaniello (D)- [152] Favors Murt

This race has upset written all over it. If Upper Moreland’s Romaniello can put together the ground campaign needed, Murt could easily be pushed out of this Democratic trending district.

5. Carol Palmaccio (D) vs. Duane Milne (R) [167] Strongly Favors Milne

Another race that was a squeaker in ’06, though its debatable if Anne Crowley ran the race needed to win. Now Milne is a few years smarter, but has been quiet around the district. A strong campaign from Palmaccio could be the answer,

6. Shannon Royer (R) vs. Barb McIlvaine Smith (D) [156]- Strongly Favors Smith

It was the most watched lower house race in the country for a few weeks in ’06 as control of the entire House rested on a handful of votes in the 156^th. Most folks feel Barb has provided the constituent services needed to hang on to this volatile seat.

In Pennsylvania as Primary Day 2008 approached and pols began to allocate Election Day resources, a common story of the election was whether or not there would be street money given to election day workers. Everyone knows that street money is the oil that keeps the ward machine grinding the pork in Philadelphia politics, so there was some concern/optimism (depending who you were) that the lack of street money would fundamentally change the nature of the political process in Philadelphia. Ward leaders argued that thousands of competent workers, most of whom took the day off of their dayjobs to work the polls or depended on such usual money as a quick source of living income, would not be compensated for their 13+ hours of hard work in the hot sun. Opponents argued that half the street money goes in the pockets of the ward leaders anyway, and that eliminating street money would eliminate the status quo in Philadelphia elections that to compete seriously a candidate either needs to purchase the entrenched machine or to fight against the entrenched machine.

So what happened? Nothing, for several reasons:

1. Street money DID exist on Election Day in Philadelphia in several forms: while the campaigns themselves did not distribute it, money was distributed to some election day workers through unions, PACs, and other intermediaries that are able to fund workers without the campaign’s consent. Furthermore, there was the usual money on the street from the local races, which depend on street money on Election Day since their races usually have less volunteer pulling power than the national races. Basically, there WAS money available to those that sought it out on April 22.

2. The reason why the Obama campaign, and to a lesser extent the Clinton campaign, were able to avoid explicitly giving out street money was because of a successful out of state volunteer recruitment operation. Hundreds of volunteers poured into Philadelphia from New York City, Washington D.C., and all over the region for GOTV and Election Day, compensating for the lack of willing nonpaid volunteers from Philadelphia. Simply put, the Eday operation run by Obama’s campaign would not be possible on a volunteer basis if Philadelphia was the only pool of volunteers that the campaign was drawing from. The only situation in which volunteers from out of state are coming into Philadelphia to knock on doors is in a fiercely contested Presidential primary election that makes it all the way to April 22^nd in Pennsylvania. This volunteer situation is not the new norm – rather, it is an extremely rare exception that we may not see again for many many years.

3. The controversy was overblown in the first place because the underprivileged people who the ward leaders claimed would most suffer just happened to also be Obama’s political base of support in Philadelphia. Among Afrian American voters, those that would have been most upset about no street money were most likely still voting for Obama anyway and would not have worked for Clinton instead if she had street money. Among white voters, those that would have been most upset about no street money were most likely not voting for Obama anyway, and probably would not work for him anyway even if he had it.

4. Pork runs this city, and until we see real evidence of a tilt, it seems it always will.

What’s going on in the 172^nd District? Republican Committee handing out Clinton-Kearney lit? Labor Union throwing support behind a candidate who couldn’t even properly file his finance reports? Looks like a certain former speaker was hoping for another softball candidacy of Tim “The Jelly-Man” Kearney. Unlike the lackluster candidates running to replace George Kenney in the neighboring Northeast 170^th District, Rep. John Perzel has proven nearly invincible in prior elections, and all signs point to another easy victory in ‘08.

Former FOP Local 5 Prez, Rich Costello, mounting his first ever major political attempt will have to seriously revamp his campaign if he plans to challenge “The Oracle” John Perzel. While, wily political veterans like “Hollywood” Mike McGeehan supported Kearney, the Northeast Democrats have lacked the organization to take out entrenched incumbents such as The Oracle, House Speaker Denny O’Brien and the consummate constituent services provider, John Taylor. Many folks say that the “old school” tactics of the Ward Leaders have fallen flat in past years, part of the reason Tom Knox coasted to victory in Northeast wards over Bob Brady.

Furthermore, it’s unclear who Costello’s base will be in his race against Perzel. Embarrassingly enough, Costello’s own FOP Lodge 5 PAC contributed to Perzel’s re-election fund this July, leading us at “The Pork Report” to believe they must be happy with Perzel’s services. For most folks in the Northeast, the belief is uniform, that Prezel transcends party labels and embodies everything the Pork Report stands for.

Keep that pork a-flowin!!!