Monday, January 4, 2010

An Infinaugural Day Roundup

1) The mayor's inaugural oration about bridge building and consensus and new relationships? I do not believe he meant any of it -- or that he expected anyone on council, in the legislature, at the universities, or sitting in the average class of second-graders would be gullible enough to buy a word of it -- so why not use the opportunity to discuss something more realistic, such as eradicating city debt or the Steelers winning that big playoff game next week?

2) The mayor's inaugural oration about his family, and in particular his wife? I root for reconciliation. I'd buy the champagne.

3) The mayor's inaugural oration about "Old Pittsburgh" and "New Pittsburgh?" No point in mentioning a New Pittsburgh until Old Pittsburgh settles its tab.

4) Did the Trib photographer consciously depict the "bridge" metaphor with Darlene Harris' arms reaching to span the figurative chasm between Old Pittsburgh Jim Motznik and New Pittsburgh Bill Peduto? (Did anyone catch whether Magisterial District Judge Motznik concluded the oath by declaring, 'I don't give a damn whether it's constitutional or not, I say you're president.')

5) Any chance Robert Daniel Lavelle will explain the reasoning underlying his first day trifecta -- shooting for Finance (and failing), refraining from casting a conciliatory vote for Harris after the conclusion was obvious, and revealing himself to be a scheming ingrate -- or will we be left to infer that he left his reasoning at home on his first day of schooling?

UPDATE: Luke's buying at the Priory, beginning at 7 p.m. See you there!

UPPERDATE: Interesting mood at Ravenstahl reception, blending unconvincing 'we won by stopping Peduto' with more convincing 'we won so we're still the mayor.' Kail-Smith and her posse showed (Dr. Dowd included); no sign of anyone who voted for Harris. Best story: Lukesters dodged a bullet -- apparently no one told the Priory this event would be open to public, but bad roads meant booze didn't run out.


Anonymous said...

How exactly is Motznik old pittsburgh and peduto new pittsburgh? Motznik and Peduto both came to city council the same year AND Peduto said during his speech yesterday in council chambers that he is now the most tenured city elected official (with Motznik's departure). Doesn't that mean Peduto is "old Pittsburgh"?

Infinonymous said...

Motznik was all about patronage, kicking the cans down the road, personal fiefdoms, petty politics, disdain for knowledge and law, and being alternatively heedless to and part of the problems that have crippled the city.

If you put Motznik in a room with people who could and would salvage Pittsburgh, Motznik would berate them, then ignore them, then, after they left, laugh about the pointy-heads.

Peduto, not so much. He would need much help to save the city, but I think he knows it and I think he would try do use that help if ever in a position to influence the city's fundamental direction. For example, if the current council would fashion itself into an effective force.

Regardless of which guy one prefers, the difference is obvious within 30 minutes of knowing them.

(Doesn't make Motznik a horrible person, by the way, but makes him spectacularly unsuited for the job of leading today's Pittsburgh. The record speaks for itself.)