The Pennsylvania Report, a subscription only political news report, has cast its glare in the direction of the gubernatorial ambitions of Lehigh County Executive Don Cunningham. After reviewing his strengths and weaknesses, the Don is classified "a very serious challenger for the Democratic nomination."Strengths:
1) POLITICAL EXPERIENCE: Bethlehem City Council, Bethlehem Mayor, Secretary of Department of General Services, Lehigh County Executive. "[H]e will be the candidate that can rightfully claim to hold the most executive experience (as Mayor and County Executive)."
2) NEW FACE: "[T]he 'fresh' face argument could be Cunningham's #1 campaign line."
3) POLICY KNOWLEDGE: "[I]mplementing a budget and saving taxpayer dollars could provide him a platform that other possible candidates, both Republicans and Democratic, do not have."
Weaknesses
1) LACK OF STATEWIDE NAME RECOGNITION: According to this analysis, potential candidate Jack Wagner is much better known. Jack who?
2) FUNDRAISING ABILITY: "Cunningham most likely will have a difficult time raising the kind of money needed to keep up day-to-day with a state-wide office holder running for Governor."
3) HISTORY: "Pennsylvania has a history of switching parties in the Governor’s mansion following one party’s 4 or 8 year hold....Thornburgh (R) - Casey (D) - Ridge (R) - Rendell (D), etc."
I have my own problem with this supposed insider's report. It only compares Cunningham with potential candidate Jack Wagner. It never even mentions Allegheny County Exec Dan Onorato, who has a $4 million warchest and is expected to make a formal announcement later this year. That makes Cunningham's chances even better. Wagner and Onorato are both from the western part of the state and will draw votes from each other.
This analysis also misses another Cunningham characteristic - the luck of the Irish. So far as I know, there are still no serious candidates from the eastern part of the state. Everything has to fall just right for Don, but that's exactly what's happening.
Update #2: It appears that, contrary to what the Cunningham camp told me, I did not get a complete copy of the Pennsylvania Report analysis. I'll have the details for you in a separate post tomorrow.
Got Rendell?
ReplyDeleteIf you vote for Cunningham you do.
Even the crooked smirk is the same.
bernie, you're correct he's lucky and an easy talker. somebody, informed about the linden street bridge project, told me the historic stone arch bridge could have been saved for a fraction of the cost being spent to build a new one, and this under the direction of a former secretary of general services? don't confuse experience with expertise.
ReplyDeleteHey, thought you were getting us his campaign literature to compare to McHale/Stoffa. Speaking of McHale, did ya ever hear from her as to Signgate?
ReplyDeleteFor Play Cunningham would be the worst thing that ever happened to this Commonwealth if he were ever elected.
ReplyDeleteMichael is correct, he has zero expertise. But I would add that he has zero experience as well.
He spent his entire time in Harrisburg [which was not long at all] boinking every secretary of every hue he could get his hands on.
That is, when he was not having his two lap dogs Frank and the other one [forgot the name - used to work for Reibman] handing out State property to his friends.
This guy is a crook. And Michael, I would bet that whomever is building that bridge is a BIG donor of his.
IRS should investigate this guy.
He is bad news.
Bernie, you should know better. This is a big loser. Keep betting on Stoffa.
Firget this philandering fool.
"Pay for play Cunningham" - is what I meant to say up there.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 8:29N give me the name of ONE Harrisburg
ReplyDeletesecretary of ANY hue that he boinked.I just want one secretary to come out and claim what you are saying is true.It's not true, you don't know what you're talking about but because he DOES have experience, he DOES have a record of success, you need to throw innuendo and lies at him.You are only discrediting your self with this crap.
Let's stick to Cunningham's record. The personal attack stuff isn't necessary and obscures debate about his harmful, connected, Rendellian outlook.
ReplyDeleteHey, maybe someone should put a billboard for those that will publicly say that they were boinking Cunningham behind his wife's back and wait to see how many will appear.
ReplyDeleteDon't be so testy about your boss. Everyone knows that he quit the job of Secretary because his wife found out about his affairs. That is not news.
What is news is that this fool wants to be Governor and thinks that it will not haunt him. Or that his back room dealings will not be aired out.
Get ready for it fellas. I am the least of his worries, or his donors worries for that matter.
These personal attacks, which are of course made anonymously, are irrelevant. They just diminish the person making them and if there is any substance in what else has been posted, I've missed it.
ReplyDeleteThe point made by the analysis is that Cunningham can portray himself as an outsider, a fresh face, and not as someone with a "Rendellian" outlook.
MM, the Linden Street bridge could have been saved for a fraction of the cost being spent on the new one? Where does this information come from, the pizza dude? If you want to say it could be done more cheaply, it would be more effective if you actually identified the engineer who told you that and supplied his figures.
Cunningham, unlike another local figure just a stone's throw from hius office, does not ignore our crumbling infrastructure. He does what he can with county infrastructure. He's got a good team of Democrats and Republicans working with him. They don't always agree but work together. It's a remarkable thing to watch.
As a Lehigh County citizen, I'm sure he'd be willing to listen to whatever cost savings measures you can come up with, too. So would the commissioners.
"Hey, thought you were getting us his campaign literature to compare to McHale/Stoffa. Speaking of McHale, did ya ever hear from her as to Signgate?"I never heard from McHale and doubt I will.
ReplyDeleteDonny C's biggest problem has been and will continue to be the perception by the sitting governor that the only way D's win in 2010 is if the candidate is from western pa. The gov hasn't thrown his endorsement anywhere in particular, but if you follow his early money people, they have jumped to Onorato.
ReplyDeleteI like Donny C as much as anybody, but his path to the governor's mansion is through Congress... ala Tom Ridge.
if people want to talk about marital infidelity amongst local officials, I would include Pat Browne (and ask questions about how he came to marry his current wife) and Doug Reichley.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteif people want to talk about marital infidelity amongst local officials, I would include Pat Browne (and ask questions about how he came to marry his current wife) and Doug Reichley.
10:19 AM:
Q: Do you mean Pat Browne is married to Doug Reichley?
Lay off the personal life attacks, and focus on what is important.
ReplyDeleteTo think Don can outraise Tom Knox and Dan Onorato is foolhardy.
Don should run against Dent (and win) for Congress in 2012, and then try for the governorship in 2018. The Republicans will get it in 2010, you can count on it. PA is a Conservative leaning state, the only reason the DEMS have a reg advantage is because people were so pissed at Bush.
The pendulum will swing back, bet on it.
I would suggest that people drop the subject. First, infidelity is a serious charge that can hurt a lot of innocent people, even when the charges are true. Second, it is extremely difficult to prove and is almost always blown out of proportion.
ReplyDeleteIf it is directly related to someone's ability to do his job, I can see it. If the pol in question is all holier than thou and preaches about family values, I can see it.
Absent that, the personal lives of elected and other public officials are none of our business.
Not one of the anonymous commenters has produced a shred of evidence to back these salacious charges, which swirl around every elected leader. In almost every case, it is none of our business.
I will say this about myself. I've slept with practically every woman in the Lehigh Valley. I keep hoping someone does an expose, but that has not happened yet.
I though I saw Pat give Doug some cutie looks.
ReplyDeleteBut serious. Why is this guys backroom dealing [Cunningham] not an issue? Plots of land and leases all around the state... All verifiable.
Just run a check on the state leases and land grab while he was in office with his campaign finances.
How does the infidelity not have bearing? This is the whole man. And you want him as your Governor?
You are not as smart as I may had made you out to be.
I agree. He should run against Dent, Mr. Clean. Dent will clean his clock.
ReplyDeleteAnon 11:06,
ReplyDeleteThat's some brilliant advice. Cunningham is one of the few Dems who could knock off Charlie Dent and that would help him take aim at the governor's slot. But what if he loses? Charlie has been reelectred twice. I won't say he's invulnerable, especially given the Dem registration edge, but somebody must think long and hard about running against Charlie.
And would Congress really be a springboard to the Governor's seat? Isn't it just as likely that Don will be caught up in federal issues?
I don't really know, but I'm sure Cunningham's people will think about what you are saying.
"Why is this guys backroom dealing [Cunningham] not an issue? Plots of land and leases all around the state... All verifiable."
ReplyDeleteAnd all of them done by order of the general assembly... he acted on his own in absolutely none of them. As secretary of general services this was part of his job.
Let's frame a local instance as slanderously as possible: a vacant building on hamilton street was acquired by the state. it is now occupied by a bunch of political appointees and is virtually inaccessible to the general public.
Damn penndot office building.
"But serious. Why is this guys backroom dealing [Cunningham] not an issue? Plots of land and leases all around the state... All verifiable."I can assure you that, no matter how "smart" you may have thought I am, I am an idiot.
ReplyDeletePlease give me an idea what you are talking about when you suggest Don is playing games w/ leases. I can certainly look into it.
My impression is there is no way he could get away w/ that sort of thing, even if he wanted because too many eyes watch his every move. But I'll be happy to look at any allegation to either verify or, more likely, debunk the claim.
"Let's frame a local instance as slanderously as possible: a vacant building on hamilton street was acquired by the state. it is now occupied by a bunch of political appointees and is virtually inaccessible to the general public.
ReplyDeleteDamn penndot office building."I knew it!
Those bastards!
Isn't anybody interested in my private sex life?
ReplyDeletecross reference leases with donations. or don't and make believe it didn't happen. who cares. you probably deserve him as governor. good for him if he gets it. another in the long line of pay-for-play pa politics. one day someone will do the homework. for now it is too easy to just sit here and comment, so why bother, right. tomorrow it will be varkony, or stoffa or someone else. you guys are not serious. your just ranting with no real journalistic integrity. enjoy yourselves. it seems like an interesting pass time for you in retirement guys. beats sitting around drinking beer.
ReplyDeletewell, maybe not sitting around drinking beer,
ReplyDeleteAnon 11:30,
ReplyDeletePlease tell me what leases Cunningham has arranged in consideration for campaign contributions. Believe me, I can verify or debunk, but you're giving me nothing to go on.
Anon 11:30,
ReplyDeleteAren't you interested in my private sex life? I'm prepared to admit all my affiars.
bernie, that information comes from someone close to the project who wishes to remain anonymous, why the snark about the pizza dude? you certainly have sources who you have protected. i would guess you were not familiar with the old bridge, or you would not be questioning the statement.
ReplyDeleteMM,
ReplyDeleteThe reason for the snark is you flatly claim something w/o bothering to tell us where it comes from. Now you claim it comes from a confidential source. Is this source an engineer or the pizza dude? Yes, I am questioning your statement. Did this confidential source do any sort of study? Is this persona na engineer? Is his report reduced to writing? Or is this just someone who dislikes Cunningham telling another person who doesn't like Cunningham something negative about Cunningham?
I'm all for saving money. So is the LC Board of Comm'rs. Why would you not provide this cost savings idea to them instead of waiting until Cunningham starts something to claim you know someone who claims, anonymously, he could do it cheaper?
Come on, Mike.
I'm sure there are many legitimate criticisms of Cunningham as there are for all of us, but this one seems a tad spurious.
By the way, are you interested in my private sex life?
Cunningham = Rendell.
ReplyDeleteNext subject.
That will be the R strategy, but Don can just as easily claim he's a fresh face who is not part of the land of midnight payraises.
ReplyDeleteAre you interested in my private sex life?
bernie, get a grip on yourself. you think a 100 year old stone arch bridge couldn't be saved for far less than tearing it down and building a new one? they could barely get the old one down. you avoided my question if you were familiar with the bridge, i'm now certain you were not. my source is highly qualified. i was told this after the project was well under way. i will not reveal my source because i'm not a newspaper, i'm a commentator on a blog, and i put his regard above your doubt. i assure you the person has no opinion about cunningham or local politics.
ReplyDeleteMM,
ReplyDeleteBecause I disagree w/ you, I need to get a grip? I see.
I was unaware you were asking me a specific question about the old bridge. I thought you were being rhetorical. But to answer, no, I was not familiar w/ the old stone arch. So what?
You claim it would be cheaper to rehab the bridge than to build a new one. I don't know that either. It is often far more expensive to rehab something than build new.
As far as your source is concerned, I did not ask you to name him. I asked whether the person is an expert. You say he is highly qualified and I'll accept that. You did not say that the first time. Or the second time.
You claim you did not know about the cheaper proposal until the cows had already left the barn. Well, if that is true, isn't that possible for Cunningham, too? And if there is a far cheaper proposal, was it presnted? Was it rejected? Were there problems w/ the proposal? For all I know, the person you talked to was a disgruntled bidder, even if highly qualified.
Basically, you're slamming Cunningham for not choosing a cheaper (and perhaps less safe) answer when, by your own admission, you yourself were unaware there was an alternative. He was elected county exec, not God.
I just don't find your criticism terribly persuasive.
bernie, you write;
ReplyDelete"I'm sure there are many legitimate criticisms of Cunningham"
maybe so, but apparently they will not appear on your blog.
please go back to my original comment. in it i say the old bridge could have been saved, along with money. i make no implication of impropriety, nor believe any occurred. your such an cunninghamite, you're demanding proof for a 'spurious" statement. on the other hand, you do make implications about other politicians, and then say if you had "proof" they would be in jail.
so again, i was told, after the fact, by a highly qualified person, with no political agenda,who is
familiar with the project, that the old bridge could have been saved at a substantial savings over the new bridge. as one who is interested in our history, and has blogged about the 8th st. bridge and the stone wpa structures, i found this information disturbing.
knox is only serious in that he has a ton of money. But he lost the philly primary to a horribly under-financed opponent. knox isn't credible outside of his wealth. and wealthy people don't get elected in pa unless they are credible. how did lynn swann do?
ReplyDeletebernie, one more tie-in i should have elaborated upon. in your post you state don has experience as the general services director. i said don't equate experience with expertise, i.e, the linden st. bridge project. yes i know don is not g-d, do you?
ReplyDeleteCunningham = Rendell.
ReplyDeleteI'll stick firmly to issues. I'm repulsed by the personal crap (although if Dahn were a R, he'd likely get the JC Kelleher treatment on such issues).
Dahn has enough Rendell lapdogging to explain.
Got Rendell? With Cunningham you do.
Cunningham = Rendell.
ReplyDelete"I'll stick firmly to issues. I'm repulsed by the personal crap (although if Dahn were a R, he'd likely get the JC Kelleher treatment on such issues).
Dahn has enough Rendell lapdogging to explain.
Got Rendell? With Cunningham you do."
great... stick to issues. can you get specific about the lapdogging or are you going inuendo only? If you are going inuendo only, then his only obstacal will be getting traction in the primary.
worth noting: the gop tried all this inuendo stuff in 2005... whisper campaigns, inaccurate mailers, etc... the guy killed his opponent. you can come up with all the statements of shady activity, but it doesn't stick b/c nobody ever gets specific. there is no real evidence that anybody ever puts out there.
MM,
ReplyDeleteThe topic here is Cunningham's viability as Guv. Your persistent references to the bridge are uninteresting to anyone outside of A-town. I also think they are flawed bc you rely on a source you won't ID and who makes his claim after the cow has left the barn.
I support Cunningham, but disagree with the assertion that no criticism of Cunningham will be heard here. In reality, many of the comments here do just that. You're doing it. And I have taken Don to task over his "transition" committee. Naturally, I will not be as critical of him as I would be of pols I dislike. But I make no bones about my preference for the guy.
You charge I make spurious allegations about pols and then claim they would be in jail if I could prove it. That's ridiculous. It's an insulting simplification of my P2P criticism. I have noted the P2P connection between campaign contributors and politicians who give them jobs and contracts. That connection is very real, not spurious. I have said that if I could prove a quid pro quo, they'd be in jail.
Now do you have anything to add to the discussion concerning Cunningham's viability as a gubernatorial candidate? If not, I suggest you drop these repeated referencess to something that means very little to that larger issue.
bernie, you claimed i was making a spurious accusation against cunningham,it's your word, not mine. i said i didn't even make an accusation, i just questioned his experience as a general service director when i believe a local bridge project could have been done better. i did note that when you criticized a pol, the threshold of proof was less than you demanded of me, but i never used the word spurious except to quote you. so for your statewide audience, let me say this; someone involved with a local bridge project under cunningham's control told me that the old bridge could have been saved, along with substantial money. this source is an expert, but wishes to remain anonymous. don has nice teeth, smiles easy and plays the guitar.
ReplyDeleteCunningham = Rendell.
ReplyDeleteName ONE Rendell program or initiative Dahnny didn't/doesn't support. Just ONE. In fact, he's championed most of them.
The flak is heaviest over the target. His supporters are screaming because they know they can't run from Dahn's Rendell U. cheerleader costume.
Cunningham = Rendell.
MM,
ReplyDeleteI said your claim concerning Cunningham and that bridge is spurious. It is.
You seem to think that the word "spurious" means I'm accusing you of suggesting that Cunningham acted improperly. Look up the word.
Your claim is spurious and here is why. You don't bother explaining why it could have been done more cheaply but make a bald assertion backed by a confidential source for whom you provide no details.
First, it is "somebody." Then, it's "someone close to the project who wishes to remain anonymous." Then it's someone eho is "highly qualified." We still don't know whether this "highly qualified" person is an engineer or an unsuccessful bidder or has a written cost estimate. We do not know whether this info was made known to Cunningham.
What we do know is that this "highly qualified" person rendered no opinion until after the work had started. We do know that you never opened your mouth about it or tried to offer your expertise to Cunningham.
On this basis, you slam him. This is a spurious claim.
When I call you out, you say this. "you do make implications about other politicians, and then say if you had 'proof' they would be in jail." When you say that I make implication about politicians for which I have no proof, you in fact are charging me with making spurious allegations. And what's worse thasn being spurious, I'm accused of knowing I'm acting spuriously and can't can't prove the allegations I make.
I find that highly offensive. It is an assault on my integrity. It is also completely untrue. You know better than most know I do not make charges about pols unless I can back them up. In fact, I sometimes have information that I end up not using at all.
In my last comment, I asked whether you had anything to add to the discussion concerning Cunningham's viability as a gubernatorial candidate. If not, I suggested you drop these repeated referencess to something that means very little to that larger issue.
Instead of dropping it, you have pursued it and added unnecessay snarks at Cunningham and me. Don't bother commenting again unless you have something to say about Cunningham's viability as a gubernatorial candidate.
ran for city council quit mid term
ReplyDeleteran for mayor quit mid term
became Gen Services Secretary quite mid term
What' next?
Gov/ quit mid term?
Do the words opportunity spell DON?
Cunningham is up against some pretty powerful history.
ReplyDeleteSince 1968, Pennsylvania voters have always flip flopped their governors.
Shapp (D)
Thornburgh (R)
Casey (D)
Ridge (R)*
Rendell (D)
*Schweiker served out the remainder of Ridge's term, but was not elected.
Prior to 1968, governors were only allowed one four year term in office.
Pennsylvania governors always seemed to be the opposite party of the President at the time.
Shapp, 1971: Nixon
Thornburgh, 1979: Carter
Casey, 1987: Reagan
Ridge, 1995: Clinton
Rendell, 2003: Bush
Molovinsky was the first person to write about this issue.
ReplyDelete"I find that highly offensive. It is an assault on my integrity."
ReplyDelete"These personal attacks, which are of course made anonymously, are irrelevant."
"the personal lives of elected and other public officials are none of our business."
"I am questioning your statement. Did this confidential source do any sort of study? Is this persona na engineer? Is his report reduced to writing? Or is this just someone who dislikes Cunningham telling another person who doesn't like Cunningham something negative about Cunningham?"
"I also think they are flawed bc you rely on a source you won't ID"
These are all comments that Bernie has made in this piece, but has a problem with anyone who has the same questions of him. Fuck you Bernie you empirical son-of-a-bitch. You are the biggest liar and non factual so called blogger on the internet. You have no credibility as your old habits as a former attorney are creeping into this blogworld. Remember when you were in Scranton and said you had the authority to speak for the defendants but you were lying and got caught and now you are doing it again. Get a life and do some form of community service rather then commit slander and libel at will and hide behind the bloggers bill of rights you fuckin' loser.
I have no life, yet here you are at 1:06 AM on a Saturday.
ReplyDeleteIn case you haven't noticed, your personal attacks just make you look like a lunatic and make me look good. So thanks.
It's nice to see things here didn't change much! Same old radical support for the insane.
ReplyDeleteSo supporting Cunningham makes me a radical? All righty then.
ReplyDelete