From Michael Nutter's letter to the editor Op-Ed in the Inquirer discussed below:

The call for new blood in politics is one that I support. As the cartoon indicated, however, the city's other elected officials are also important. I want to outline why I think Brady is an important asset to my new administration. Both as a member of Congress and as head of the city's Democratic Party, he will be an important partner in the "New Day, New Way" agenda I have established for Philadelphia. Let me give you four reasons:

So, Mike Nutter unequivocally states that Brady has his support, not just in Congress, but in the party. You know, the party that does those 'special elections' and is oh-so-responsive to outsiders. Sort of hints that structurally, not a whole lot will be changing within the party, right? The same guy is in charge. Game. Over.

He says Brady supports his proposals for reform in the Democratic party... What are they? Seriously? Does anyone know?


Here is the thing, I like Bob Brady. As Louie says every time he hears Brady on CSpan (yes we are all dorky, especially Louie), it is like one our cousins is in Congress. He sounds like us, he is likable, and he is the type of guy who would be more comfortable having a beer in Philly than being wined and dined by lobbyists in DC.

Brady also is a pretty good vote in Congress. However, while ratings are not all that matter, a pretty basic google search shows that Nutter is not even right about Brady's record. Even in the specific areas he mentions, Brady's record is far from perfect. For example, in civil rights, how about the Human Rights Campaign? Doesn't seem to be perfect. Additionally, he leaves out other progressive interests, like the environment. Why?

In fact, what has become the most generally accepted 'progressive scorecard' in Congress, Progressive Punch, has Brady over the course of his career as the 115th most progressive Democrat. In other words, in a Congress with 233 Democrats, Brady is almost exactly the median member. Not bad, not great. A typical Congressional Democrat.

Brady does, however, love Philly, and I do think that it is clear that he will have the opportunity to really deliver 'the goods' to the City over the next few years. Keith Leaphart, if he has any chance to beat him in Congress, is going to have to deal with that reality head on.

But, an outright endorsement of Brady as party chair? Not a peep of protest? Seriously?

Hey, remember that time....

...Tony Payton was the only Democrat running for office, and Bob Brady refused to endorse him? That was nice.

What, Dan? Are you

What, Dan?

Are you anti-labor?

Well I'll be damned

I hate it when a 14 year-old has a better vocabulary that I do. I thought that unequivacably was a word until I read this post. That said, you stole my damn post, Dan (although you added specifics to the argument).

Nutter's peice was an op-ed

Nutter's article in the paper was an op-ed, not a letter to the editor. It's a really important distinction and elevates the prominence of the piece significantly. The op-ed was even placed in the area usually reserved op-eds about national and international issues. Typically, op-eds in the Philadelphia Inquirer about local issues are relegated to the local section.

For me, there are two questions. First, why did the Philadelphia Inquirer allow Michael Nutter to respond to their editorial about Brady in such a prominent way? Second, of all the topics covered in the Philadelphia Inquirer, why did Nutter decide to choose this issue to write an op-ed about?

Check out my website!

Good point. I will fix

Good point. I will fix that.

Not really. I'm just bitter

Not really. I'm just bitter because I've never had an op-ed there.

Check out my website!

Nutter thinks practically . . .

That is a good thing.

He will go into office with a Democratic Majority in Congress.

The potential for a Democratic President in 2009.

A slim Democratic Majority in the State House.

Brady is more valuable to Nutter as a sitting congressman than not. He has experience and senority. Chairs a good committee. He is known to work bringing out the vote in important elections.

Honestly, I want my mayor to think strategically and not through gut-reaction. Endorsing Brady is a "no-brainer."

I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese

uh huh

But, again, it is one thing to say that Brady will bring home the bacon...

It is another to say it is important that he stay as the head of the Philadelphia Democratic party. And, it is even more curious that Brady has apparently agreed to a set of reforms within the party that are so super duper top secret that they don't appear anywhere amongst all of Nutter's position papers online.

support for Brady in his capacity as Party Chair

I understand why you're not happy that Michael Nutter expressed support for Brady in his capacity as Party Chair. However, I don’t think Nutter could endorse him as Congressman, but not endorse him as Party Chair and then expect Brady’s cooperation.

Voters expect Nutter to deliver on: stopping (or more realistically reducing) the violence; negotiating fair contracts with city workers; somehow getting increased funding for the schools. These are the front-burner issues and Nutter needs all the help he can get.

I remain convinced that reforming the party is one of Michael Nutter’s goals. Nutter is now Mayor and reforming the party can’t be his first priority. I recall at those early house parties, he talked with great passion and conviction about bringing more young people into government and into the party. I don’t think he was talking about the children of the politically connected.


First, thank you for

First, thank you for understanding that there are two real issues.

But doesn't it seem weird that, as Tim said, there is apparently a back room deal to end back room deals? And, since this has apparently been made, why can't we know what just went down?

Like Steve Jobs himself

My thought is actually that the back room deal to end back room deals hasn't happened yet. :)

But when it does, assuming they can agree, Nutter and Brady will wind up arm and arm proclaiming the grand results (even if they aren't so grand). The deal right now is money for transit and housing and prisoner education and help with the labor negotiations in exchange for Nutter's support, plus (effectively) party reforms to be named later.

But don't mind me. I'm apparently just caught in the glow of Nutter's Reality Distortion Field.

Isnt that already his job?

So, you think Nutter needs to cut a deal for Brady to do things like get Philly money from Congress? Is that against what Brady should and will be doing anyway?


If the priorities Brady's going to pursue are the same as Nutter's -- here, transit, housing, and prisoner education -- than yes, that's a change, and a significant one.

The real get is the support (assuming Brady delivers it) for the labor renegotiations.

But don't discount the party reforms to be named later! I think that's how the Braves stole John Smoltz from the Tigers in '87. Doyle Alexander -- where are you now?

The Soft Bigotry of Lowered Expectations

The Soft Bigotry of Lowered Expectations...

Well, which is it?

Well, which is it? Do I think Nutter is amazing and will solve all of the city's problems, or do I expect too little from him? Am I supposed to be disappointed that he seems to be discussing party reform with the party chair/congressman? Should he have refused to meet with him, like Bush and Ahmadinejad?

Sometimes I think the people who were skeptical about supporting Nutter create more myths about him and his supposed purity, and more pernicious/absurd ones, than the people who advocated for him outright.

I was 1)trying to be nice,

I was 1)trying to be nice, because I think the amount of twisting you are doing with regards to the op-ed is bizarre, and 2)I was jokingly referring to Brady and what you expect of him with that phrase. Ie, in your twisting, you are saying they cut a deal for Brady for doing things like delivering pork- which Brady already stated is the reason he should be reelected in the first place. No deal would need to be cut for something he repeated all along as one of his virtues.

Anyway, given that within a few paragraphs the op-ed has factual errors, parsing every single word to get the exact meaning you want is pretty weird.

I don't get it Tim

I don't really care what you think of Nutter. Or what anyone does--at least in this situation.

Michael Nutter made a statement about a plan to reform the party. I want to know more.

It's that simple.

If you want to know more too, send him an email or maybe Otis or another Nutter staff will tell us more. Or maybe the Inky or Dn political reporters will call and get a comment.

All right. Let's try this.

Instead of saying what I think the op-ed means, I'll say what I don't think it means.

1) Nutter's abandoned political reform by supporting Brady.
2) Nutter has a secret plan for political reform.
3) Nutter's aligning himself with Brady to make a power grab.
4) Nutter's supporting Brady as "payback" for Brady doing ---- (freeing up ward leaders in the primary, publically supporting Nutter after the primary, etc.)

All of these interpretations seem much more fanciful than the idea that Nutter is working with Brady on an agenda, not all of which is finished yet, and that neither Nutter nor Brady are going to take shots at each other through YPP or the Inquirer or any other medium, before Nutter even takes office.

Also, since I don't think any of the four things above are true, I don't really see what I should find upsetting about it, let alone what would make me take to the streets/blogosphere in protest. I am a big fan of more openness and accountability in city politics, and will continue to advocate for it. But I can wait a little bit longer.

Besides friends with deep pockets . . .

has Leapheart conveyed any substantial policy differences between himself and Brady yet? He seems a little like a blank canvas so far, except he's not Brady.

This is sort of like a non

This is sort of like a non story. Brady and Nutter are friends and have been strong alleys for years, so even that alone should be cause to call this a non story. Also, as Geatano pointed out, Nutter is practical. If his real goal is reform, which I believe it is, he will have t work with Brady, who will be the chair whether Nutter likes it or not. So does openly bitch slapping his good friend do anyone any good?

Making a limited number of people feel all touchy feely is not sufficient enough a reason to risk political capitol, which will hurt said people’s cause in the first place.


Charles, the Inky wrote an op-ed about fresh blood iin the 1st. God knows why they did that so early, but they did.

I think you are twisting what happened when you say this:

does openly bitch slapping his good friend do anyone any good?

No one is asking Nutter to have "bitch slapped" his friend? Mostly people are wondering why he felt the need to reply to an op-ed in the paper about Brady at all.

I do agree that Nutter and Brady as allies is a non-story. It's pretty well known that Brady helped Nutter out at the end of the race and that they have been friends for years.

What is NEWS and what our friends in the MEDIA need TO-Do is report on what Nutter means when he says he has an agenda for reform for the party and that he has talked to Brady about it.

That is very interesting and I think we would all love to hear how our new Mayor, who has a good relationship with the party chair, is gonna make changes. Are the changes he is looking for the same as the ones we have?

Don't blow that off--that is a big question.

At one point in the campain, when discussing reform

of how politics is done in Philly, when pressed on his stance about how Brady would or would not be a part of that reform, Nutter was, very pointedly, non-committal. Basically, if I remember correctly, he implied that his support for Brady was conditional.

The point is, conditional based on what? If we don't now what the specifics of the reform are, we are left to speculate.

It is a story. And it is

It is a story. And it is certainly an issue here when, for example, a mutual friend of ours and writer on this blog wrote that Nutter's then impending victory was the party machine burning down (specifically referring to Brady), and that we should get back and watch it burn.

If there was a fire, Nutter just stomped it out. So, again, why no peeps of protest? Why not even the slightest sense that the op-ed makes people at least a little uncomfortable?

I guess you are right. I am

I guess you are right. I am thinking about it in the context of my thinking, which has always been that Nutter is a good guy, and Nutter is also very much a party guy, and that I'm sure, on occasion, Nutter does make a stinky poo that doesn't smell like roses. The reason why there is no protest is because most of the Nutter butters think that he does no wrong.

Nutter Butters

I'm sure folks out there would call me a Nutter Butter and I'd just like to say that, IMO, not only is the decision to support Brady a no brainer, the idea of having Brady and Fattah in DC and Evans in Harrisburg with Michael as Mayor was one of the original reasons I supported Michael. You can even go back and check my posts on this site. Something about 1,000,000,000 reasons...

The idea of having the Mayor, two senior Congressmen and the Chair of the State Appropriations committee working together for the benefit of Philadelphia was and remains very appealing. Especially if you compare that model to the dysfunctional model that we have lived under for the last 8 years.

If anything, I believe the reason the so-called Nutter Butters supported Nutter was that he represented a departure from petty nonsense of usual Philadelphia politics that would normally keep our Mayor and Washington delegation from working together for the benefit of our City. If anything, this Op-Ed just confirms why I liked him in the first place.

If that means I lose my "I'm a reformer, yay!" status, so be it.


As I said in the post, you can make legitimate arguments for his position of power being important, and there is some merit to that.

He is a moderate Democratic Congressman, who is in a position to bring home money. He still however, is the embodiment of the status quo, especially as the chairman of the Democratic Party. So, don't you think it is a little odd that, with a super duper secret plan for reform, he just endorsed Brady as party chair?

I don't think "Chairman Bob

I don't think "Chairman Bob Brady" and "Reform" are necessarily incompatible. The guy is obviously pragmatic (you don't become the head of the party being an intractable firebrand). As long as he sees that it is in his interest to adopt a reform platform, I trust he will.

Yeah, I checked. You also

Yeah, I checked.

You also said this:

Anyone who plans to attend Michael Nutter’s Thursday showing of “the Shame of the City” at the Prince Theater will leave the viewing with an intense knot in their stomach. You’ll feel sold out by Bob Brady’s cruelly flippant approach to politics. But Tigre Hill's movie is a mere shot of espresso compared to Griffin's 12-coffee brunch.

And this:

Ruby Legs has been shouting about Fattah's dubious ethics for quite some time now - at least since he made like Alex and nearly lost his lunch watching The Shame of the City. While Chaka Fattah has never admitted to "just spinning the shit," Chaka Fattah stood next to Bob Brady and with righteous indignation denounced the Bush administration's "dirty tricks."

Upon viewing the Shame of the City, Ruby Legs knew either: (1) Chaka Fattah knew what Brady knew and like Brady callously lied to Philadelphians; or (2) he's clueless clown.

And, this:

How many of Philadelphia's children will go without music classes or after school programs because the history documented by Robert Wright has been subverted to benefit the corrupt few chronicled by Tigre Hill?

When Bob Brady and Chaka Fattah got up and spun the shit, they either knew of should have known who Shamsud- din Ali was. If Street and Ron White knew that in addition to being a Muslin cleric, Ali was a convicted murderer with present connections to the Black Mafia and the Richard Allen Mob, why did not Brady or Fattah?

I disagree with quite a bit of what you write, generally, and here. But, jeez, seems real interesting that the knot you had in your stomach from Brady has been magically cured with a single op-ed.

Magical Cures

Let's see, what exactly about Philadelphia has changed since I wrote that post that would make me comfortable with having Bob Brady around?

Oh yeah, Philly elected Michael Nutter Mayor.

(I'll admit it - just typing that makes me feel good.)

I suppose the idea of having Mayor Nutter in Room 215 settles my stomach and gives me just a tad bit of comfort that we're not going to have a sequel to Tigre Hill's TSOAC.

Not to mention, most of what you quote from is me talking about Saidel (the guy who I was talking about when I said I was making like Alex) or Fattah. You have conveniently left out any reference to the many places where I said I respected Brady for coming clean about his role in the whole "Spinning the Shit" scandal.

Oh and since you brought up TSOAC (I'm sure Tigre is loving you right now for doing exactly that), why don't you head over to my blog and read the post I wrote the night BEFORE Nutter published his op-ed and BEFORE you decided to take up your beef with all the Nutter Butters?

And as for your "general" disagreement with me, I'd love to know what else you disagree with me about. You always cite the exact same material!!!

Were those comments from before or after Ruby Legs called Brady

a racist?

And did he really refer to himself in the third person, or did you just add that in?

Can you please explain why

Can you please explain why you and Dan have such a hard on for me?

And while you're casually throwing around your "'ist" accusations, you really ought to give the libel laws some thought.

Sorry, Dewitt

Did you, or did you not, call Brady a racist? Something about how his campaign was being run? That is my recollection.

If you did, then how can you write what you said about him in this thread?

If you didn't, then apology extended.

As for the "hard on," that's the price you pay for being so cute.

And as for the "libel," don't worry, I'm sure that I can find a good lawyer to hire somewhere in these here parts.

I think you might mean

I think you might mean This:

Brady: He forced Saidel out of the race in a crass move that was widely recognized as a play to consolidate the white vote.

Irony? From the same comment


From the same comment that Dan links to above, I had this to say to DEII:

"But because you seem so intent on continuing your personal attacks against me rather than address the substance of my critiques, I'll do what seems to be impossible for you to do and address the substance of your critique."

I guess somethings never change.

First off, I am 99% certain

First off, I am 99% certain I never called Brady a racist. I'd say 100% but I'm way too much of a skeptic to believe anything is a certainty.

That said, I think this is the basis of your incorrect accusation:

From a comment you made:

"When DeWitt implied that Brady was only in the race for white voters, I called him on it; pretty ironic given you accused me of insinuating that Brady is racist when what I was doing was questioning the rationale of a Brady campagin tactic - because it has the appearance of appealing to race (which is not the same thing as calling him a racist) and/or indicating that his policies would fit better with Republican outlooks than the other candidates."

Seems as if DEII was the person who was being called out for calling Brady a racist. Funny how the mind sometimes remembers things differently than they actually were.

Keep digging DeWitt, you'll find it yet

What statement of yours was I referring to when I said this: "When DeWitt implied that Brady was only in the race for white voters,..."

Did you find the statement where you implying that Brady was only in the race for white voters? Or, is it your assertion that saying that Brady was only in it for white voters is not tantamount to calling him a racist? Cause that would be weak.

Amazing. You interpret your


You interpret your own statement to put words in my mouth???

Those are your words. Don't use them to put words in my mouth.

Did you find the statement of your I was referring to yet?

Did you find the statement of your I was referring to yet?

Here, DeWitt, I'll end the suspense

You said:

"I also think this is a pretty strange way to run a campaign for being the Mayor of all of us."

I think your assumption is incorrect. I suspect Fattah has absolutely no interest in being a Mayor for "all of us."

I said

Ok, I'll take the bait. Who, exactly, does Fattah want to be the mayor of, in your opinion?

You said:

The way I see it, Chaka. The way I see it, Chaka Fattah is the black Bob Brady.

Hope that answers your question.

I said:

Nope, it doesn't. I get the insuation - that Fattah is only there for blacks and Brady is only there for whites. But that sounds like a conspiracy theory, and the problem with conspiracies is that they're theories constructed without any functional reality.

What is it, exactly, that leads you to conclude that Fattah has no interest in being the mayor of white people? Or for that matter, that Brady has no interest in being the mayor of black people.

A question, to which, you had no response.

Ok, so you said that Fattah wasn't interested in being the mayor of "all of us." And then in explanation, you said he is the black Bob Brady.

Circumstantial, I admit. But either way, it isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of the man that you now think Nutter should be making deals with.

Let's put it another way. So, you think that Nutter should be making deals with a "white Chaka Fattah."

You're a lawyer. Do you think you have a case?

And did you find a link where I "isted" you yet?

Oh yeah, and then there's this

Says DeWitt:

Fattah: His conduct last night proved my previous assertion that his campaign appears to be more interested in propagating racial divisiveness to secure the black vote. Sometimes it's fun to say "I told you so.

Ok. So, Fattah's campaign appears to be more interested in propogating racial divisivness to secure the black vote.

And Fattah is the "Black Bob Brady."

Hmmm. Interesting.

Is your case now better, or worse?

Ok. For the deposition

Let's recap.

I don't think I've ever called you an "ist." You never specified what "ist" you were referring to, but you've said I did numerous times and haven't, as of yet, shown me proof. So, as far as I see it, you accused me of doing something that I never did. (I did, however, call you a shill - which you just indicated is no problem for you.)

On the other hand.

I did, first, interpret a statement of yours, one where you called Fattah the "black Bob Brady" because he didn't want to be mayor or "all of us," as implying that both Fattah and Brady were racist. I told you of my interpretation. You declined to clarify.

Afterwards, you said that Fattah was interested in promoting racial divisivness to gain votes. Remember, this is the man that you described as the "Black Bob Brady," (in case you forgot).

Then, I incorrectly said that you called Brady a racist. I apologize. I was wrong. I should have said that I interpreted you as implying Brady is a racist, since you called Fattah, a man you said was interested in promoting racial diversity, as being the "black Bob Brady" (in case you forgot).

Let the record show that I was wrong. You did not call Bob Brady a "racist."

But you did refer to yourself in the third person. I'll let the jury interpret that as they will.

thank you

As for the -ist I was referring to, it was "elitist." That said, as evidenced by this thread, I do feel that you tend to throw around "-ists" way too much.

That said I appreciate your retraction and I hope we can put our petty differences aside (Why do I suspect that you're gonna tell me our differences are not petty???).

As for my previous statements that you have sought clarification:

Race is clearly an issue in politics. Unfortunately, too many voters consider it as adeterminate issue. And in a forum that talks as bluntly about politics as YPP, I think it's fair to talk bluntly about race as a political issue - especially when politicians take actions that seem to be designed to play to the worst in people.

Some types, take the writings of Saul Alinsky for example, feel that it is perfectly appropriate to use any means to mobilize their base. Alinsky goes as far to say that the only immoral act is the failure to employ all available means. So, I think it's fair to say that if Bob Brady or Chaka Fattah was an adherent of the Saul Alinsky school of organizing (or even just Machiavelli), their decision to play to white or black voters would not be evidence that they are themselves racist. Rather, they are just making a pragmatic decision to use one of the limited means available to them to mobilize their base.

So, to be clear and to address your inquiry, I don't think that by pointing out Brady and Fattah were using the issue of race to mobilize their base in any way implied that they themselves are racist.

All that said and to address Dan's initial point, whatever problem I have with Fattah or Brady, they are in a position to do a lot of good for this City. And I think that it is entirely reasonable that they emerged from the primary chastened. And I think it is also reasonable to assume that they see that it is now in their self interest to embrace reform. And I think it would be pretty short-sighted to not try to work with them to achieve it.

And if it doesn't work out, we can always vote them out later.

If you want to get further clarification on any of this, I'd be happy to sit down with you over a beer or burger or what not.

Hopefully we can consider this an airing of grievances and just put all this nonsense behind us.

And as for the "third person," most of what I write on my personal blog is purposefully tongue in cheek. Referring to myself as "Rubylegs" is simply a way to poke fun at myself when I'm taking myself way too seriously.

Look, DeWitt

I think it's pretty obvious that, right from the outset, all this bitterness has been extremely petty.

As for the differences of opinion? I don't know if they're petty, but they are reduced in any significance they might have by the pettiness.

I don't suppose that it would make any sense, on this forum, to try to fully deconstruct the downward spiral. That would be more appropriate for the beer and burger (you buyin?), but I will say a couple of things which I do think are important to clarify so that the bitterness won't continue forward - trying to keep any bile at bay.

I still don't recall ever "isting" you. I don't recall ever calling you an elitist. I'd like to point out that even in this thread, I never "isted" you. I wrongly said that you called Brady a racist, when you didn't (in so many words, at least. I think there was a pretty sound basis for that charge, because as I interpreted your statements you implied that he wasn't intersted in being mayor for blacks. I asked you to clarify.) But I didn't call you a racist.

So, as I can tell, I have never "isted" you, you not only have you accused me of doing so, you have repeatedly characterized me a throwing "ists" around indiscrimately (even jumping in on a completely unrelated thread - without having exchanged comments with me in what, a year, to level the charge).

You even just did it again in your latest comment. If I have "isted" you, I apologize. But we sure ain't going to move forward amicably if you don't stop leveling the charge - particularly if you can't provide and evidence of my ever having done so (I'll ask you again to show me some evidence.)

OK - that's it on that subject for me.

As for the more substantive issue:

It's water under the bridge - but I would just like to make it clear that your comments about Fattah - that his campaign was interested in propagating racial divisiveness and that he wasn't interest in being mayor for "all of us" - disturbed me because I feel that there are a lot of bigots in the larger Philly community who will move at the drop of a hat to interpret virtually any statement or action by a black politician as being racist. I'm not saying that you are a bigot. I'm saying that I react impulsively when I see anyone saying, or suggesting, that a black man advocating for his own race is being racist for doing so.

I agree that we should more or less expect any politician in this city to make some campaign decisions on the basis of capitalizing on racial divisions among the electorate. But as you point out, that doesn't, therefore, mean that the politician is a racist. And I would add, it also doesn't mean that the politician isn't interested in being mayor of "all of us." You still haven't clarified whether the cleavage you were alluding to was racial in nature. I suppose you could have meant that Fattah wasn't interested in being the mayor of "progressives," or perhaps baseball fans. But given the context in which you made the steatements, and given many of the accusations you made about Fattah, I think there was at least some merit in my assumption.

So, where does that leave us? I won't "ist" you in the future. I would ask, in return, that you be careful to clarify statements that you make that might be interpreted as being racially oriented. That doesn't mean that I think you shouldn't make statements that are frank about racial issues in this city. But you didn't just say that Brady and/or Fattah were "using the issue of race to mobilize their base." You went considerably beyond that when you said that, Fattah at least, wasn't interested in being mayor for all of us, and that his campaign was "propagating racial divisiveness."

I've gone on long enough here. Having said what I said in this post, I'm ready to move forward - and won't maintain my "hard-on," for you. I'll even let go of the "third person" issue (although it really is an excellent dig).

What's Next? Peace in the Middle East?

Hey, if DEII and I can bury the hatchet, anything is possible!!!

As for your requested clarifications, I believe it would be a whole lot easier for people to provide the information you want in private emails. However, not only have you not posted an email address, you choose to maintain an anonymous identity which makes the type of conversation you seek impossible - which as I've said before, is one of the reasons I've been less than willing to engage you on these issues.

Dan seems to have a policy of requiring people to post under their real name. A while ago, he's asked me to start posting under "DeWitt" rather than "Ruby Legs" even though on my blog it was always clear who "Ruby Legs" is. He seems to have done the same with Alligatorhater (or whatever Jennifer's nom de plume was) and Short Schrift.

Maybe it's time DEII took off his mask?

I'll consider it

But the down side is that then Lou wouldn't have any way to question my manliness.

Dan suggested I post under

Dan suggested I post under my real name a long time back, but he's never required it. I changed under my own accord, partly because several other people convinced me it was a good idea, and partly because I got tired of being referred to as "Short."

--Tim (aka Short Schrift)

Not to blame everything on

Not to blame everything on DeWitt.

I don't know if anyone accused Bob Brady of being a racist but I certainly implied that some of those who backed him were manipulating race-based voting trends. Certainly there is an extend to which various campaigns were using such tactics but I will focus on Bob Brady in this case.

One of my uncles attended a fund raising campaign event last December in which a number of very prominent developers who 'had connections' indicated that it had been decided that Bob Brady would be the next Mayor. At least one of those developers is going to make tens of millions constructing a casino but I will refrain from using his name. At the time it wasn't clear that Knox was going to have any traction at all and that there would be multiple qualified African American candidates. At any rate, I don't think it's a stretch to claim that Bob Brady's campaign engaged in efforts to consolidate the white vote. First, Saidel was convinced not to run. Second, I think if you look at voting patterns across the city--sorry for being blunt--some of the most racist white areas voted for Brady. Does it necessarily follow that Brady is a racist? No.

Was he complicit is some ways with the strategy behind his run?

We can all have varying opinions on the matter.

Weeds in the Sidewalk

Fair enough

In fact, I said that I thought that one of the Brady campaign tactics seemed to be designed to manipulate race-based voting. I think that clearly the dust-up between Fattah and Nutter was intended, to some degree, to manipulate race-based voting.

But I interpret that as different from being a racist. On the other hand, I think that saying a candidate "only wanted to be mayor of some of us," assuming that is referring to a racial cleavage and not some other split, is tantamount to calling someone a racist, if not in those exact words.

Given the reactions to the whole "the brothers are running the City" as being a racist statement by Street, these issues in this City are still pretty close to the surface.


You guys are a trip. I hope Bob Brady is reading this stuff and laughing his ass off.

I have not had anything bad to say about Brady. I did not support him for Mayor, but I never trashed him. And as I have said before, the few times I have met and interacted with him I liked him. Hell, he made a contribution to Philly Against Santorum--something neither Michael Nutter or Chaka Fattah did.

But a lot of people here did have some nasty things to say about Brady--online and off.

But because Nutter got Brady's back in a very public way, you guys are acting like you never said the stuff you said.

Come on. Let's stop spinning the shit.

brady and race

There is so much going on here, it's hard to keep up.

Did Brady manipulate race during the election? I don't know.

Is Brady racist? No.

What was the impact of Brady drawing out a lot of white voters to him? He helped make sure Tom Knox did not win. For which Michael Nutter and all of us should be very happy.

And by the way, Dewitt

What I don't recall, despite you having made the claim several times now, is ever calling you any words ending in "ist." Maybe you can provide a link?

I do remember calling you a shill. You know, like someone who would call Brady a racist one time, and then later say that Nutter should be making deals with Brady.

If you did that, and calling you a shill for doing so makes me guilty of libel, well....sue me.

I'm fine with being called a

I'm fine with being called a shill.


But what you just did you are accusing me of saying things I never said.

You published false material about me (as Dan establishes above).

While I may have difficulty proving damages, I'd surely have no difficulty proving liability.

what about me DeWitt?

How come it's only DE and Dan you think have a "hard-on" for you?

I always thought you looked good in this Phillies cap:


I have the nicest memories of that night.

Bright spot in a depressing thread.


The original title of this post was titled Mike Nutter poops gold.

I think Michael Nutter made

I think Michael Nutter made a smart political deal. I just think he got a better one than you or D.E. II think he did -- and that at least part of his agenda just became Brady's too.



You raise a lot of good points. I suspect we've all learned a lot since last spring's primary. Certainly, Michael Nutter is smarter than me (speaking as a too often misguided blog defender). Moreover, however, I suspect that unlike me, who can burn bridges with little consequences beyond confirming that I can be a jerk/or was a jerk, Mike Nutter can't afford to do that without consequences far beyond this blog.

Mike Nutter ask for us to have high standards. In fact, you and Ray are doing a fantastic job of making sure that the issue of party reform stays on the radar screen. I like all of Ray's suggestions (although I'm not sure that the 3 attempted contacts of each voters is doable until the party grows because volunteer time is most definitely at a premium as things now stand).

Certainly, I have issues with Bob Brady. Nonetheless, I can't think of one person who could possibly fill his shoes as far as party head for the next year or two. Is Philadelphia served at this moment in time by a fractious and divided Democratic party? Probably not. Writing an op-ed to possibly quell the insurgent campaign of someone who no one has ever heard of and is unlikely to win is definitely a calculation that Nutter decided was a small price to pay for assistance on the many large challenges ahead.

Ultimately, however, the op ed was about showing respect. I may be a critic of Bob but when Bob posted here and we promoted it to the front page I made sure to fix some of his spelling (a little) because Bob deserves as much. Hopefully, he posts in the future as well. Maybe we can get him to comment on Ray's ideas.

Weeds in the Sidewalk

Come on, Mike, what did you

Come on, Mike, what did you learn? That all of systemic problems with the Philadelphia Democratic party will be magically changed by the election of one guy?

Nah, come on, you can say it. So can Karen Bojar, Sam Durso and everyone else. Come on:

I disagree with Mike Nutter

or even!

Mike Nutter did something that pisses me off.

Do you really think the City is helped by twisting as hard as possible to reach for justifications when Nutter does a dumb thing?

Hell, everyone talks about Nutter's intellectual fire, and yet he wrote plainly incorrect things in that op-ed that could have been checked with 5 minutes, and the ability to enter search terms in google. That doesn't bother you either, of course.

Why is this so hard?

Nutter is not even in office yet

I learned I should take bloggers with a grain of salt and keep my temper. I've done a lot of self-analysis and introspection on that topic.

In terms of the Democratic party, I have a hard time getting worked up about this issue. Nutter's not even in office yet and I suspect he is really busy. I mean, what is he to do? Write a freaken dissertation on reforming the Democratic Party? I guess he should be jumping if YPP says Yo!

I will tell you what worries me about Nutter: he's ramping up the police force which is exactly what Street did with Operation Sunrise or Safe Streets (Save Street). We have a extremely dysfunctional dynamic with policing in this town country. But there are no easy answers and few good political solutions. The only good thing is that Nutter seems committed to communicating, building relationships and understands the triangle.

There will be times I'm sure when Nutter pisses me off but generally I share his world view and personality type (Reformer; Ray's a Challenger; Bob Brady is a Peacemaker; and the rest of you can figure our yourselves too! It's really fun.)so I'm a poor person to ask for criticism of Nutter.

There is that old saying to keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Bob Brady is not an enemy but Nutter and his interests will not always meet. The Brady support, in my opinion, goes back to the new alliances on Council. I don't think that this city's fractures run progressive/non-progressive. Rather, there are half a dozen fractions and in order to accomplish anything, you need to pitch to the self-interest of a majority of the fraction. Various fractions are progressive in various ways. Currently, the Brady/Nutter/whoever else have a majority coalition if you will. Marian Tasco wouldn't have gotten a promotion without that dynamic.

Weeds in the Sidewalk

Come on, Mike. The reason

Come on, Mike. The reason this is now under scrutiny is because Nutter decided to tell us all that Brady and he have some super duper secret plans for reform. Nutter has staffers read this blog every day. In fact, I would bet he reads it pretty often.

How hard would it be to tell us, (you know, members of the Democratic Party) what that (always loved) backroom deal for reform was? Doesn't it worry you, in of itself, that there is a backroom deal for reform? Isn't that sort of the problem in the first place?

Please Mike

I agree with you:

Nutter's not even in office yet and I suspect he is really busy. I mean, what is he to do? Write a freaken dissertation on reforming the Democratic Party?

In fact as I said as much in another thread. But you can't have it both ways. If we is too busy getting ready to be Mayor than he should not have written an op-ed about reforming the party.

Look this is so simple: instead of blogging, everyone should be writing to Nutter and sincerely thanking him for taking on the job of reforming the party and ask him to say what he plans. Then we can see if we agree--i hope we do--and move forward.

I think we need to chill and

I think we need to chill and see what happens when Nutter takes office. At best, we are speculating.

Dan and Ray have conceded the practical reasons why Nutter would want Brady in office. Their concern is the issues related to the party itself. Unfortunately, we do not have a crystal ball. And, short of Nutter or his staff coming and telling us what exactly Bob and he agree to as priorities for change in the party, all we can do is scratch our heads.

Any one of the items on the list Ray provided would be a benefit. But, personally, I'd like to see our local Democrats do a little less in the way of in-fighting. Perhaps what they mean is a bit more party unity for the benefit of Philadelphians. Either way, I don't know. People shouldn't be expected to answer questions related to dealings they aren't privy to. And we shouldn't keep clobbering Dan and Ray with items we know they understand.

In short, none of these questions can be answered. But, we accept both need each other. That makes them strategic allies. I'm not uncomfortable because I WANT to elected officials working together for the benefit of Philadelphians.

I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese

Questions Can Be Answered

According to that op-ed, he has a plan. I am a registered member of the Democratic Party of Philadelphia. Why would his super duper plan be so secret that unlike the scads of plans he has online, it is not public?

I don't think there is a

I don't think there is a "secret plan," super or duper or otherwise. I think if Brady and Nutter completely agreed and the deal was done, we'd have heard about it. I think that it will have to be fought out, and it will be hard. I think Ray's list above is a good place to start in looking for things to fight for.

Again, this isn't just Nutter, and it will take more than Nutter and whatever goodwill he has to make it happen. There has been a shift in the power base of the Democratic party. Carol Campbell and Juan Ramos lost their council races; Vince Fumo may be on the way out; there's an additional resentment of Jannie Blackwell and Johnnie Doc for backing Knox in the mayoral election, seemingly in a quid pro quo for power on council and within the party; Fattah's camp, which had been looking for a bigger role citywide, lost the mayor's race and 8th district council, but now has two council seats, one in West Philadelphia; and even though Derek Green lost, the more progressive Marian Tasco wing of the NW Dems is taking a more prominent role. Quinones-Sanchez beat Dan Savage, and several progressive at-large candidates did well citywide. So Brady might be inclined to take progressive issues more seriously and look for new alliances.

If there's a new alignment of Mayor Nutter, Council Majority Leader Tasco, and Party Chair and U.S. Rep Brady -- along with what might be more ambivalent support from people like Fumo, Evans, Anna Verna or Fattah -- then this really is a big change, and an opportune moment.

Can I mention again how much better this is than Mayor Knox, Council President Blackwell, and Party Chair John Dougherty? No? Ok.

Nutter will be my Mayor, not my grassroots movement

I think you are missing the point Tim.

The biggest problem I have with City Committee is the fact that a lot of the most important decisions get made in private.

If Nutter has an agenda for reform, and he decides to mention it in the paper, then he should expect people to ask what it is.

No one is saying that it is Nutter's job to reform the party--in fact before the op-ed, I would not have even thought to have asked him--he has his hands full being mayor.

But now that he has made a statement about it, I want to know what he means.

That's fair

The biggest problem I have with City Committee is the fact that a lot of the most important decisions get made in private.

The idea of a backroom deal to end backroom deals is pretty silly. But I hope this is a chance for everyone -- Michael Nutter, Bob Brady, Marian Tasco, the Philadelphia Inquirer -- to start talking about what they want for the party, rather than opining about whose heads should roll.

I agree Tim

As Dan says, why is this so hard? Other elected officials have written posts and made comments on this blog. That's why I cracked up when Gaetano wrote this:

Unfortunately, we do not have a crystal ball. And, short of Nutter or his staff coming and telling us what exactly Bob and he agree to as priorities for change in the party, all we can do is scratch our heads.

I is crazy to expect that Michael Nutter would just answer our question.

I have said before and I will say it again...come on!

Bob Brady's warts

For all Bob Brady's warts (and they are considerable), he is not suing to overturn our local campaign finance limits.

Who is?

Oh yeah its our other U.S. Congressman, Chaka Fattah, who I saw personally claim at one of those screenings of Tigre Hill's film that he was suing so he could "beat Tom Knox". Well the election is over, Knox lost but Chaka's still in court, right along with that key Knox supporter John Dougherty. What happened there Chaka?

I honestly was really, really happy when all the bickering of this mayoral primary was finally over. Unfortunately its starting to seem like some of us are drifting from what we want Bob Brady (who is after all the head of the party, not Michael Nutter) to change about the party and instead attempting to replay that primary for the umpteenth time.

the irony

Sean, I agree and I have made many attempts to steer the conversation back to the issue that matters: what reforms has Nutter discussed with Brady?

But come can you post that comment, with your chiding tone, when you are so clearly stirring the pot yourself?

I will admit I was following

I will admit I was following a parrallel thread on this topic on another forum where a poster logged in as "ibewlocal98" was following a surprisingly similar tack to some of whats been posted here and my reaction was probably as much to that as to that thread as to this.

By all means lets talk about what we wish Nutter had gotten as a dream set of party reforms from Brady, lets speculate on what he realistically might have gotten and lets encourage the press to go after both Brady and Nutter to pin them down on what may have been mentioned in that conversation. Lets not rehash the primary.

Bob Brady is hardly the only local Democratic "mover and shaker" who is captured in an extremely unflattering light in Tigre Hill's "The Shame of the City".

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Syndicate content