These are the words of the Mayor (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07198/802289-100.stm):
"I am happy to participate in the Ethics Board's request, I think it's appropriate, and more than willing to participate myself, in person, which I plan on doing. I have no problem discussing what happened, and I'm confident that once the process is completed, the Ethics Board will find what I believe is the case -- that I was at a charity event, and there's nothing in the ethics code, or the city code, that prohibits that. I was warranted to be at the event, and supporting a worthy cause. ... The truth is there, and that is what, at the end of the day, we're going to reveal."
I believe these are also the words of our Mayor, though this is represented as coming from his campaign (http://kdka.com/local/local_story_197203546.html):
“It is our hope and desire that this campaign can be about the issues, rather than just election year campaign tactics. The Mayor is very disheartened by what we’ve seen from our opponent thus far.
"If our opponent does not know, the City of Pittsburgh is required under Act 47 and Act 11, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority, to have a five year budget and recovery plan. We have that already. The major difference between our opponent and Mayor Ravenstahl is that the Mayor has already been a part of making that plan and bringing it into existence. Mayor Ravenstahl is the first Mayor in years to implement a structurally balanced budget. Mayor Ravenstahl has cooperated with the ICA, Act 47 and Pittsburgh City Council to put forth a plan to balance the City’s budget. Our opponent has not.
"With regard to our opponent attempting to offer a policy that differs from the existing law relative to the City Ethics Code, Mayor Ravenstahl complies fully with the existing law and will continue to do so. No amount of election year antics will change that.
"Mayor Ravenstahl has served for over ten months now. He has demonstrated that he always treats the voters and residents of the City with the highest degree of respect. In fact, he has stood election twice before and has always done so. Our opponent has not.
"Our opponent exclaimed in his announcement that no candidates should misrepresent his own or his opponent’s past business or political experience. On this we can agree.
"Finally, our opponent asks now, in the form of his pledges, to call on the candidates to agree to debate. Our opponent should be reminded that on June 20th, Mayor Ravenstahl was the first candidate to call for and offer specific debates. To date, our opponent has not responded to our offers. Now our opponent is using campaign tactics to rewrite history. Mayor Ravenstahl looks forward to debating his opponent vigorously. ”
Res ipsa loquitur. The Burghospree is taking notice(http://pistgazette.blogspot.com/2007/07/dissecting-ridiculous.html). This man is representing our city incoherently. “Warranted to be there”? “stood for election twice before and has always done so”? The Mayor is acting the part of a young man in over his head. It will be interesting to see him wilt on the debate stage.
During the primary I was happy to let anonymous commenters run on with fairly lengthy, fairly incoherent comments on my blog. While Mr. Bodack had some eloquent defenders, many were closer to closer to mean and crude. I believed the value of allowing those of Mr. Bodack’s self appointed defenders to show the world all their poorly worded fury outweighed the value of removing some occasionally caustic remarks. I would hate to think that people in other cities will hear or read the remarks of our Mayor and think him a typical Pittsburgher.