State representative Eugene DePasquale will be in Pittsburgh for a Meet & Greet (looks like a fundraiser with a suggested donation of $25/person) on Wednesday, July 27, 2011. Details and host committee are below – it is a pretty interesting host committee too – state reps, former state reps and campaign staffers. You can check out the Facebook event here – thus far 54 people are attending so there should be a great turnout.

Please join us for a meet and greet with State Rep. Eugene DePasquale

Wednesday, July 27, 2011, 5:00 – 7:00 PM

AVA Restaurant, 126 S. Highland Avenue & Baum Blvd. Pittsburgh, PA 15206

Suggested Contribution: $25

RSVP: To this posting or via email to liz@eugene4pa.com

Checks may be made out to “DePasquale for PA” and brought to the event or mailed to: DePasquale for PA, PO Box 1822 | York, PA 17405

Donations may also be made online via ActBlue: https://secure.actblue.com?/entity/fundraisers/24166

This event is generously hosted by:

• Kevin Acklin
• Damon Andrews
• Matthew Arena
• Fmr. Rep. Lisa Bennington
• Andrea Boykowycz
• Rep. Dom Costa
• David Dix
• Jennifer England
• George Fitch
• Rep. Marc Gergely
• Dan Gilman
• Sue Kerr
• Rep. Bill Kortz
• Rep. Nick Kotik
• Lynette Lederman
• Stan Lederman
• Rep. Bob Matzie
• Matt Merriman-Preston
• Khari Mosley
• Chuck Pascal
• City Councilman Bill Peduto
• Linda Piso
• Karen Rollins-Fitch
• Amy Jude Smotzer
• Martin Michael Smotzer
• Connie Sukernek
• Pat Sweeney
• Rep. Chelsa Wagner

Here’s the ad:

It has taken a while for this race to really start getting wide attention.  With plenty of undecided voters still out there, the compressed timeline may serve to level the playing field.  If the other candidates are able to afford TV in these final weeks up until the election, then Onorato has essentially lost his fundraising advantage.  With all 4 candidates expected to be on TV this week, the volatile race may be settled by the campaign that is better able to put together a strong field campaign and who can run the best Election Day program.

Just before the close of business on the final day that petitions could be challenged, the Onorato campaign filed objections trying to block Joe Hoeffel from being on the ballot.

The Hoeffel campaign fired back in a statement from co-manager Lauren Townsend:

“We filed petitions with 7,632 signatures from 33 counties…”

[State law requires gubernatorial candidates to have at least 2,000 signatures in total and have at least 100 signatures from 10 counties.]

“Dan Onorato has good reason to be scared, and now he has turned desperate.  This is a cowardly act.”

Press was rough for team Onorato all across the state.  For example, NEPArtisan  said, “Dan Onorato has gone the low road.”

Throughout the campaign, Onorato has been attempting to paint the race as a fait accompli. If this is the case, why challenge someone who clearly had exceeded the signature requirements?

Maybe it has something to do with these polling results, touted by team Hoeffel a few days ago. They show that, in a general election matchup, in vote-rich Southeast PA (a region that a Democratic nominee MUST win big to have any hope of winning statewide), Hoeffel leads Corbett, while Onorato trails.

Things got even stranger later in the day when Onorato withdrew his challenge. Their explanation raises more questions than it answers. In a statement to Politics PA, team Onorato said–and try to stay with me here–that they filed the suit, because they thought that Hoeffel might challenge Williams’ petitions. In what universe is this how a serious candidate for governor makes decisions!?  For his part, Hoeffel called it a “lame-ass” excuse; a “cynical effort to play around with the Democratic process”, and it’s hard to disagree.

So what is really going on? Your guess is as good as mine, but I think these poll results (and what we can infer about Onorato’s internal polling) must have a lot to do with it. It’s not unusal that when campaigns of so-called front-runners start to spudder or slide, they begin to show signs of disorganization, bad political decision-making, and irrational behavior.

It is with that background on Roe v. Wade’s anniversary that the Hoeffel Campaign sent out a release announcing that Kate Michelman is endorsing Joe for governor and will head his Women for Hoeffel committee.  Michelman is the former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

The full text of Michelman’s endorsement letter is below the fold.

Dear Friends,

As a proud Pennsylvania woman, I want to use the occasion of this anniversary of Roe v. Wade to announce my support for Joe Hoeffel for Governor in 2010.

Roe v. Wade is the landmark Supreme Court decision recognizing a woman’s right to decide matters of pregnancy, childbearing and abortion – in privacy, safety and with dignity.  It is a time to reflect on and remember those who have sacrificed to fight for and protect that fundamental American right.  It is also a time to rededicate ourselves to continuing the fight for women’s lives, health and economic security.

At a time when many in the Democratic Party are retreating from the issues that matter to many of us, I am proud to endorse someone who can be counted on to stand up for what is right — no matter how the temporary political winds might be blowing.  That is especially true on reproductive rights.

Joe Hoeffel is a determined pro-choice leader who understands that the rights of women to make their own reproductive health decisions cannot be traded away. Joe Hoeffel has served Pennsylvania in the State House, in the US Congress, and as a County Commissioner. During my tenure as President of NARAL Pro-Choice America, I saw Joe fight hard for women. He spoke out against passage of Pennsylvania’s restrictive abortion law, he worked for equal pay for equal work, and he is the only candidate for Governor to speak out against the prohibition on abortion coverage in the Health Care Reform bill.

The willingness of National Democratic leaders to secure passage of health reform by prohibiting abortion coverage under private insurance plans represents a significant setback for women, potentially for generations to come.

Joe Hoeffel is the kind of leader who understands that health care legislation at the price of women’s health is regression, not reform.  He’s the kind of leader who can speak to the people of Pennsylvania about these choices in clear and compelling terms.  He is the kind of leader who knows that policies that invest in women — their health, education, skill training and job security — are an investment in the well-being of our nation.  At this moment, in our long journey for women’s liberty, equality and freedom of choice, for which we have fought for so long, Joe Hoeffel is the leader we need.

I hope you will join me today by signing up for Women for Joe Hoeffel.  (Supportive Men are welcome to join as well.)

You can also support the campaign by:

– Joining me at his Campaign Kickoff this Tuesday, January 26, in Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, or Philadelphia.

– Making a contribution to the campaign.

It is vitally important that women be actively involved in choosing the Democratic candidate for Governor. Whether you can contribute your time or your money or both, your support will make an important difference.

Sincerely,

Kate Michelman

There’s a lot of campaigning ahead of us, but in the early stages of the race for the the Democratic nomination for governor, it would seem that at least two of the campaigns are acknowledging that winning progressives is the key to winning the race.

Following Luke Ravenstahl’s infamous New Year’s Eve veto of the prevailing wage bill, Joe Hoeffel, Democrat from Montgomery County, issued a statement slamming the move and supporting the bill:

The bill had been passed unanimously by Pittsburgh’s city council and has received support from labor groups, environmental groups, and other progressives from across the City.

He went on to challenge Onorato and others to “stand up for economic justice and denounce the move.”

Onorato–who has the support of Luke Ravenstahl–failed to criticize the move or support the specific legislation on the table, but offered general support for prevailing wage legislation in principle.  In acknowledgement of the base that Onorato has no choice but to try to win, he went on to say,

“I think Mr. Hoeffel may be surprised by the support I have with progressives, including progressives in [southeastern Pennsylvania],”

This is an odd statement for those of us in Allegheny County who have some history with Dan.  For example, look back on this article written by Tim McNulty when he was a candidate for County Executive:

He says he’s against the living wage, a proposal pushed by organized labor, saying it is anti-business. He doesn’t have to mention it, but people there also know he is anti-abortion and pro-gun.

and maybe more interestingly,

[L]aw students were debating President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court and proposals to prohibit burning the American flag, both of which were ultimately rejected.

Onorato, though, was in favor of both.

Meanwhile, from Hoeffel HQ:

“I’m thrilled to be endorsed by Philly for Change,” said Democrat Joe Hoeffel…

Philly For Change endorsed Hoeffel at its first monthly meet-up of the year on Wednesday night. With more than 4,000 members, Philly For Change is one of the largest progressive organizations in the greater Philadelphia area.

With a Democratic electorate that is desperate to be motivated by someone who has a record of standing up for environmental justice, economic justice, and the rights of women, working people, and the LGBT community, there should be a lot more coming on the race to secure the progressive base.

Dear Supporters of the Film Industry in SWPA:

Thank you for all of your hard work and support of the Pennsylvania Film Tax Credit program.

We are thrilled to announce that because of the great support for this valuable program, the Film Tax Credit Act of 2007 will continue! The Governor and the Pennsylvania Legislature can see the economic benefits and jobs the film production industry produces for the Commonwealth. That said, in this very difficult budget year, the cap has been set at $42 million. Next year the cap will increase to $60 million, continuing the tremendous expansion of the film industry in Pennsylvania!

All current commitments to film currentl y in production in the Commonwealth will be honored.

Since the inception of the program in 2007, nearly $85 million has been spent on film production by 16 major film and television productions in southwestern Pennsylvania alone. In addition, three more feature film productions are filming in the region which will result in even more economic impact.

The 10th annual “Lights! Glamour! Action!” fundraiser for the Pittsburgh Film Office will take place on Sunday, March 7, 2010. It is important for the fundraiser to be extremely successful this year to keep the office in operation. We ask that you save the date to attend and support the ongoing efforts of the Pittsburgh Film Office. If you have any questions about the event, or work for a company interested in sponsorship opportunities, please let us know.

Thank you all for your continued support of the film industry in SWPA and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. We will keep you updated as we learn more. If you have any questions in the meantime please do not hesitate to call us at 412-261-2744.

Thank you,

The Pittsburgh Film Office

And yet, I continued to wonder, as my husband was winding his way through this design-flaw filled space, how have we managed to do it again?  The Steelers have invited the very same developers, the same poor designers, to do their “magic” on a piece of public land central to our city’s north side.  Talking bad about the Steelers is kind of like insulting your mama in this town, but let me just point out that the Steelers are a privately owned commercial enterprise.  Why would a sports team have so much power and leverage in decision-making about public land?  After all, they are not elected, are they?  And why would this publicly owned land be sold for a song to a commercial enterprise with little to no public oversight or accountability?  Especially without any clearly defined benefits to people living in the surrounding communities the development will affect.  Aha!  you say what about about the over site boards, the Planning Commission and the Sports Authority– aren’t they publicly accountable?

Well, let’s just see:  The mayor appoints individuals to the Planning Commission, the Sports Authority, the Water and Sewage board, Port Authority oversight, and the Urban Redevelopment Authority, not to mention the the Zoning Board of Adjustment, the Historic Review Commission and the Shade Tree Commission. Millions, if not Billions, of dollars are in the hands of these individuals — not to mention the long term political and economic implications of their decision making.  Their appointments are supposed to be given rigorous scrutiny by City Council, and yet in the last July 2009 go-round, the Council gave the mayor 5-4 support without any hearings or review of his appointments.

At a May 2009 Planning Commissionmeeting, 170 people showed up, in the middle of a work day, to give testimony regarding the negative impact proposed development will have to their neighborhoods in Pittsburgh’s north side.  We are talking about the afore mentioned, Steelers proposed development designed by Continental Development of Columbus Ohio, the authors of the Waterfront.  Do you think the voices of 170 people made a bit of difference to the unelected, appointed members of the Planning Commission?  And do you think they made a difference to the mayor?  (who was essentially appointed and never has had to work his way through the rigors of an election campaign cycle, that is, be responsive to voters)  In the words of John Belushi, “noooooooooooooo”

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by what we are capable of tolerating, myself included. But there is some part of me that has to beg the question to my fellow participants in democracy, “Why are we putting up with this condition as a city and as a region?” We won’t tolerate pushing aside the democratic process of public accountability in our national government.  We proved that as a nation in our last election cycle.  But somehow, when this top-down, Executive dominant way of doing things that we associate readily with Bush-Cheney is at our own back door, we easily hold our collective nose and look the other way.   Just why, oh why, are we putting up with this condition?

PROPOSAL/ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This legislation would amend the act of O ctober 27, 1955(P.L.744, No.222), known as the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, further providing for findings and declaration of policy, for right to freedom from discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodation; define “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression”; and further provide for unlawful discriminatory practices, for powers and duties of commission, for education program and for construction and exclusiveness of remedy.