Michael Nutter and Al Taubenberger continued their back slapping, bosom buddies routine today at a forum at the Union League, hosted by radio personality Michael Smerconish.
Ever congenial, the Democratic and Republican mayoral candidates clashed only a handful of times.
Yawn.
Taubenberger said he didn’t support Nutter’s “stop and frisk” policing proposal, which Nutter seems to have started referring to as “stop, think, don’t carry.”
“I believe in some ways the policy already exists,” Taubenberger said. “If there’s probable cause, the police have every right to stop someone and frisk them.”
Nutter said the plan would improve public safety by getting illegal weapons off the street.
The two also struck different tones on the city’s ability to fund pension and health care costs for city workers.
“We’ve got to come to the reality of where we are today,” Nutter said. “Unlike the federal government, we don’t print money in the basement. Our pension fund currently is about 52 percent funded.”
But Taubenberger seemed to have a different take on the financial situation, saying “you just have to take a look and find where those dollars are.”
The two joked around frequently throughout the hour-long session. At one point Taubenberger spoke about his plans to bring jobs to Philadelphia.
“If I became mayor, I would hire Michael Nutter,” he said.
Nutter shot back: “You can’t afford me.”
Comments (7)
So would you rather have a dirty campaign? They do have differences as you just said. Make up your mind.
Posted by Anonymous | October 3, 2007 6:11 PM
Proving once again that the media is only interested in a circus that might profit them personally via increased circulation, not good, clean politics.
Posted by Anonymous | October 3, 2007 7:02 PM
There are issues in this campaign besides candidates' personalities. Maybe the Inquirer could report on them.
Posted by Big Man | October 3, 2007 7:08 PM
I'd be heartened to see the press go into the budget and look at the spreadsheet. Don't mean to sound snide, please, but why wait for the candidates to define the terms and then merely consider the issues/problems from within one person's definition of the solution?
This has been a huge problem I've had with the coverage of John Street's administration. You guys just take his word on every issue, without looking at the numbers. NTI borrowing never had financial consequences in numbers in your coverage, for example. You never questioned Street's assumption that federal housing money would magically come in and allow the city to build affordable housing on the thousands of vacant lots and shells it owns.
What's plan B with all this city property that could be paying property taxes instead of owing property taxes, for example?
The costs and revenue are finite. Where does the press feel the most sense comes from cuts, concessions, and collections? How would YOU run this government better? I thought that was the whole point of the blogs on politics.
This is gonna be a big step for the press here, because they will have to question why are we not collecting taxes, or why does Septa hold lots of property it doesn't use and could sell, how MUCH did SEPTA sacrifice in being forced by Street to back off of removing transfers, why the city won't prioritize coping with property tax reassessment instead of getting sued to pass legislation it should have done years ago so that we could use some sort of uniform property tax assessment such as but not limited to, full market value. FMV is not the only way to do things.
This local press let's city council hide on the tough decisions, and this makes Nutter's job much harder. If you want to help Nutter, help Nutter crack open the understanding required to make headway.
All the numbers in all the policies that are ever written about in local coverage are noticeably deficient in documented numbers from city agencies that are in charge of producing them. You guys don't check what those press releases say and don't say.
It's time for the papers to mature and be part of the decision making process in a way that informs. Nutter is informed because he makes his business to read the material of city government such as budgets, debts, assessments of city property etc.
I have to be straight with you press folk: when is it gonna be a good day to be more like the NYT on this? They are as good as municipal forensic accountants!
Your curiosity is needed now more than ever. Don't be so dug in with your assumptions about how the city has to do things.
Posted by Anonymous | October 4, 2007 4:23 PM
All I see every year every election is the press does as lite a job as possible. Street was endorsed by the Ink, for God's sake.
Could a little more digging and observation have set a higher expectation of the quality of city government?
That's all I'm asking.
Posted by Anonymous | October 4, 2007 4:35 PM
Oh, yeah, and the fabulous bug that was a direct result of the justice dept engendered wounded editorials in defense of the principal of the local Democratic machine.
You just fall for anything. Brady admitted to you that he tricked you into going along with it.
Don't be so credible just because you're a party member. Don't be so happy to drink the KoolAid.
Posted by Anonymous | October 4, 2007 4:38 PM
That's much better coverage than pols duking it out and ducking out. There's never dragging for any journalist who is insatiably curious.
Posted by Anonymous | October 4, 2007 4:40 PM