Nutter comes out swinging for Bob Brady!
The Inky ran an editorial a few days ago about how people should run against the incumbents to shake-up the local political scene. Looks like Michael Nutter takes exception to that in the case of Bob Brady, however. I copied his op/ed below from today's Inquirer.
------
New political blood? Why, sure, but we need veterans like Brady
By: Michael A. Nutter is mayor-elect of Philadelphia
Of the many images I carry with me from the days after the mayoral primary, one is of an editorial cartoon. In it, I am depicted as the quarterback standing behind an offensive line of Bob Brady, Chaka Fattah and Dwight Evans.
I was reminded of this image when I read your Nov. 29 editorial, "Wanted: New Political Blood."
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:
First, Brady's voting record supports the needs of Philadelphians. He has a 100 percent voting record with every civil-rights, women's-rights, and labor organization that rates Congress. He has supported the national Democratic agenda to provide funds for middle-class taxpayers, send more revenues to urban metropolitan areas, and enact health care and pension reform. He has a zero percent rating from the National Rifle Association. He will support my effort to get federal support for mass transit, low- and moderate-income housing, and funding for jobs for ex-offenders.
More here, so I don't violate copyright laws!
Find this article at:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20071205_New_political_blood__Why...
Nutter and Brady
Interesting. Nutter has a ton of political capital for ethics reform, dealing with crime, etc and one of his first actions is to....defend Bob Brady.
---
Check out my website!
Brady owes him one
In terms of paying attention to alliances, the guy who announced he's running against Brady is funded by Lenfest, a supporter of Fattah. I'm not sure that we should read too much into that but it's worth noting.
Personally, I suspect, Nutter is expressing some support since Brady will be needed in the not too distant future.
--Mike
Weeds in the Sidewalk
Leaphart is also supported
Leaphart is also supported by Peter Buttenwieser, a big money supporter of many Dems, including Mike Nutter. Considering Lenfest can't write 200k checks, and Buttenwieser is a skilled fundraiser, he is probably more important.
Just The Facts
Ben...you and I agree on most things. However in this situation we have slightly different takes. Mindful that I am still Inspector General, and prohibited from involvement in partisan politics, I would like to make my obesrvations like Joe Friday...Just The Facts.
It appears to me that Mayor-Elect Nutter, in his op/ed piece is trying to do more than just "defend Brady", I think he was trying to speak directly to his base, Inquirer editorial readers. My take is that he thought the Inky editorial attacking Congressman Brady was unfair and that in his fledgling administration he needs Bob Brady if he is going to achieve what he promised in the campaign. I think he meant what he said and he wants Congressman Brady to get credit where credit is due for his past accomplishments.
I also liked the way they have adapted my campaign theme and worked it into the op/ed piece...maybe I should get a lawyer (Gaetano are you out there) so I can get royalty checks since I won't have a job soon.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
— Margaret Mead
Seth
Initial reactions
1. Michael Nutter has come out swinging for a lot of things.
2. In his defense, I would point out to everyone that Bob Brady, according to the Citypaper, turned every single TV in the U.S. Capitol to the Phillies during the playoffs.
Like I always say - baseball is a Democratic sport, and we do need to play smarter, and those people could learn a lot from Philadelphia. You don't get MVP two years in a row for nothing.
Plus - he fed those heathens sfogliatelle!
I love sfogliatelle
It combines my two great loves: Italian pastry and words that begin with two unrelated consonants.
Nutter seems to be talking to two audiences here. To the Inky op-ed readers (isn't it interesting that bases can be defined by media, not demographics or material interests alone?) he's explaining why he supports Brady and why that support is critical. To Brady and others within the party, he's explaining under what conditions he will support Brady or anyone else. He's giving everyone a chance to get on what he (and what I and what most of us) see as the right side of these issues.
If Brady turns around and says publically or privately, "Mike's entitled to his opinion, but the party doesn't need reform, and I have other legislative priorities," then he would have a big problem on his hands. But that doesn't strike me as Brady's style -- or substance. Even Jannie Blackwell is trying to make nice now -- in her own irascible, razor-in-the-bubblegum way.
--Tim (aka Short Schrift)
I ate a lot of pastry this week.
...That PA Supreme Court decision on the casinos got me pretty depressed.
It was actually eerily reminiscent of the 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision stopping the recount of the ballots in Florida.
How do you fight something like that? Think about it. No legal recourse!
That's just about the most generous reading possible
I hope it'a accurate.
But it is more than a little bit strange that after campaigning on a platform of reform (I can still see animated people flying out of City Hall), he would come out unequivacably supportive of one of the most visible representatives of business as usual in the Philly Dem Party.
I don't actually GET politics
so I am not gonna offer some hermeneutics of that editorial, but I'd just like to weigh in that I am pretty sure "Inquirer reader" is a demographic.
Where?
Where does he say this, exactly?
This is where we get into hermeneutics
1) "He will support my effort to get federal support for mass transit, low- and moderate-income housing, and funding for jobs for ex-offenders."
2) "The city will need to use every avenue to fund initiatives to put more police on the streets, purchase surveillance cameras, and upgrade equipment. The federal government must be our partner in this effort."
3) "Since the primary, Brady and I have had many discussions about the need to change the way we do business in Philadelphia. I believe he supports my agenda for reform in city government and the Democratic Party."
First we have "He will support..." Future tense, declarative. Either he and Brady have already worked this out, or Nutter is being awfully commanding here.
"The federal government must be our partner..." Necessity, and note the subject. This is what he thinks Brady absolutely has to do.
"I believe he supports my agenda for reform..." This is complex, because Nutter's putting himself and Brady into this one -- no indirect, subjectless "city government must be reformed" -- but joining them by a weaker verb, "believe." So it's a personal commitment, of Nutter to Brady, implicit upon a reciprocal commitment from Brady to Nutter. If that belief is false, and Brady doesn't support Nutter's play when it comes to reform of the government and the party, then that personal commitment, the profession of faith "I believe," falls with it.
And yes, I've been in grad school entirely too long.
The question about what, specifically, that reform means is a much better one. But whew! All that exegesis tires a boy out.
--Tim (aka Short Schrift)
As I read your previous comment, Tim
you were suggesting that his support for Brady was conditional upon certain elements being certain. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions there - especially with respect to "reforming the way we do business in Philadelphia," given Brady's role in how things have been done in the past. And you said "or anyone else." Has he talked with everyone else to check those assumptions with them also?
Again, that is a very positive take on what Nutter said. I hope you're right.
All I know
is that there is an awful lot of faith operating here.
'Crickets' indeed. I have hope that all the faith is well-placed, like DE says, but I think Dan is right to raise the question: when will people stop trying to turn interpretative cartwheels to avoid inconsistency in what you want to see in Nutter and his administration and whatever we end up getting?
I am sure we will get a lot of good, but I don't see the need for reflexive support, particularly on the issues that supporters really were looking to Nutter for leadership on, like party reform.
What I have faith in
First of all, it's not especially a belief in Nutter's innate moral goodness. What it reall is is realpolitik. I'm suggesting that Nutter is clever enough not only to be giving Brady support, but also sending Brady and the party faithful (some of whom started out supporting Brady and ended up supporting Nutter) a thinly (or thickly) veiled message, circumscribing exactly how and why and on what issues he supports them. It is possible that his imagination isn't as diabolical as mine.
Also -- and Nutter's letter makes this point explicitly -- he really does need Brady if he's going to get anywhere with the upcoming labor negotiations without lots of political blood ending up on the floor. So I don't think he would go to the mattresses with the party chair right now even if he wanted to.
Ousting Brady as party chair is a pretty thin version of reform. Nutter is, as many people on this blog have pointed out, first and foremost a manager. He is interested in results, not settling scores.
He also seems completely uninterested in building a political machine to rival Brady's or Fumo's or Street's or Fattah's or Doc's or Blackwell's or anybody's (although he does come out of the Bill Gray tradition in the NW) -- which is the big prize to gain from rolling heads.
Since he brought up the subject -- and was pretty concrete everywhere else -- I would definitely welcome a more specific list of what Nutter wants to accomplish in reform of the party, building on what he did as a councilman and called for as a candidate (including, remember, sharply criticizing the special election for council, which earned him a cold, cold place deep in the inescapable chambers of Carol Campbell's heart).
--Tim (aka Short Schrift)
More interpetive cartwheels? Edited
That's a simplification of Nutter's actions with respect Campbell and the special election - as I believe we've discussed before. And "uninterested in building a political machine?" Do you really believe that?
These are the kinds of comments that scare me.
EDITED: Sorry, didn't mean to leave out the qualifiation ".....to rival Brady's, or Fumo's......"
Still, the man is a politican whose success has been predicated on, at least to some extent, making political deals. I have hope that in the balance we'll come out ahead, but it is discomfoting to see such a lack of scrutiny at times.
Always electing politicians
There we go, electing a politician for mayor again. When will we ever learn? We should be voting for people who don't even run for office. (I'm looking at you, Pebbles.)
You know, there was a guy who wanted to get rid of everybody and put other people in charge, and promised to do it. He was Tom Knox. Nutter never pledged anything of the kind.
And you know what? I agree with him. I want him to argue with Bob Brady and try to get Brady to come around. It's why I argue here with people like Lou Agre and Mark Cohen, who are belligerently defensive of the party -- or Ray and Dan, for other reasons -- because like Brady, they are all smart, caring people with whom I agree more than I disagree and whom I'd never write off, especially if I thought I might win the argument. And when I don't win, I learn things.
Also because if I argue with them AND work with them, they might argue with me AND work with me, instead of writing ME off, and we'll get more done than if we always work against one another. Stop me when I sound too much like a politician.
--Tim (aka Short Schrift)
All this
is fair, but I would like to see that list.
But here's my point, Tim
I don't expect anybody other than a politician to get elected. And I'm not clear if you implied this or not, but I'm not writing you off.
But what I have difficulty with is when someone reads so much into a situation like this to rule out the possibility that a politician such as Nutter hasn't made a deal with with the motivation of consolidiating power.
Being unwilling to look at both sides of Nutter isn't unprecidented: Some Nutter supporters categorically dismiss questions about how he handled the Campbell situation. They dismiss questions about how he handled the "spinning the shit" situation also. They reacted with total disdain when his appointment of Ramsey was questioned.
Nutter made noises about not supporting Brady before the election (in the Inky interview, if I remember correctly), then he waffled right near the election. That seemed like he was making some kind of a deal. Now he comes out with "unequivacable" support for Brady.
Hey, I don't know why he has been inconsistent there. But neither do you. And in reading your comments, my reaction is that you're injecting waaaaaaaay too much into what Nutter said about his reasoning, so you can keep seeing clearly through your Nutter-colored glasses.
hermeneutics ?
hermeneutics ? Too much time in law school? I think that anyone using such an expensive word should be required to include a definition.
From Dictionary.com - which is NOT expensive
her·me·neu·tics
Pronunciation [hur-muh-noo-tiks, -nyoo-]
–noun (used with a singular verb)
1. the science of interpretation, esp. of the Scriptures.
2. the branch of theology that deals with the principles of Biblical exegesis.
How's
"textual exegesis"? Kidding!
Jinx
on exegesis!
...And here's the definition of exegesis!
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
ex·e·ge·sis
n. pl. ex·e·ge·ses (-s?z)
Critical explanation or analysis, especially of a text.
from Greek exegeisthai "explain, interpret,"
from hegeisthai "to lead, guide."