The Katz Report

Friday, April 20, 2007

It’s 25 days until the election. This morning, to focus my mind on the race, I got up early to read the two Philadelphia papers. But wait — nothing on the front pages. In the Inky, a B-6 story about AFSCME Council 47 endorsing Fattah. In the DN, only a Clout piece about some hypothetical PAC (known under U.S. law as a “527”) being created to fund a “stop Knox” ad campaign.

So it’s come to this: In the city’s most important election, the press has made its view clear: We’re bored as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore! I will watch over the weekend, but I don’t expect to see much more.

I was taught three things about campaigns: You define yourself, you define your opponent, then you define the stakes of the election. How have the five Dems done? Here’s my report card, which explains why this has been as listless a campaign as any I can remember.

Define yourself: Tom Knox has the clear advantage. Thirteen separate TV ads have helped Philadelphians get to know a guy they don’t know and helped him connect with them despite his enormous personal wealth. He came from public housing. Sent his Navy pay home to his mother and brothers. A real up-from-the-projects story.

Bob Brady has identified himself with his working-class union roots, his political party and his public service/politician career. We know where he’s come from and who he is.

Dwight Evans has defined himself as a lifelong public servant who has accomplished a lot in Harrisburg and has been out front on leadership change in the police department, gun control, education reform and neighborhood economic development. Despite a lagging campaign, we know the public “Dwight.” He suffers from a lack of connection to the private one, though.

Chaka Fattah, who started early but with pathetic fund-raising that meant he functionally entered the race (TV-wise) late, defines himself by his personal roots in the House of Umoja anti-gang initiative and his concern for the poor and left behind. His enemies have been successful in creating a “country club” identity with stories about his passion for golf as well as his penchant for taking it easy. It’s unclear whether any of that will stick, but it did have an early impact.

Michael Nutter has defined himself as the antithesis of John Street. His latest ad, coming somewhat late in the game, portrays his lovely daughter and seeks to reinforce the obvious fact that he is African-American and that he is a very nice guy and lovable dad. That he felt he needed to send these messages four weeks before the election tells us something about how well the anti-Street message worked to define candidate Nutter.

Overall, the candidates have done B+ work on defining themselves.

Define your opponent: Flunking. All of them. Here’s the thing that amazes me: These guys go out to forums every night. They have news conferences. They have joint TV appearances (one already, three more to go — and let’s not call them “debates”). Does anyone even try to point out how he really differs? At most, Evans calls Fattah’s airport privatization “voodoo economics.” No one seems to want to touch Knox. As a result, the race has come down to one in which the established political pros (the other four) seek the claim “I came in second!” Way to go. Terrible performance. Grade: F. FUBAR.

Define the stakes of the election: Holy geez! Does anyone recognize that the entire crime-fighting system of this city has spiraled out of control? It’s broken. FUBAR! Five hundred or 1,000 more cops won’t fix that and can’t be funded anyway.

We’re still bleeding jobs. It’s rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic — watching taxpaying businesses move to tax-free Keystone Opportunity Zones. The net profits tax remains a killer. Our processes for planning, zoning and building are sadly antiquated. We’ve evolved no new vision. Schools are better but hardly shining beacons of opportunity. SEPTA is on the verge of financial and facility decrepitude. Hello? Anybody home?

The bottom line: I don’t think taking down the sale sign, carrying a table around, driving your kid to school, selling the airport to create a new war on poverty, or promising to fix it without defining what “it” is represents defining the stakes of the election. Grade: F.

So if you’re wondering why this election has seemed as significant as a cup of warm spit, you probably need look no further than the campaigns our candidates are waging. If there were a law against political malpractice, these five would all be breaking it.

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

They call them “debates.” But as any student of American history knows (see the “Lincoln-Douglas debates” or ”Kennedy-Nixon debates”), this weekend’s televised event was actually just another forum in the interminable schedule of candidate forums. A joint appearance of talking heads. If there was any debating going on, I missed it.

With five candidates and only 60 minutes, there isn’t much damage possible or benefit to be derived, and the event lived up to this standard. Does the word “boring” jump to mind? How about “disappointing”?

I’ve been “in” so many of these it’s hard to remember them all. My first — with Frank Rizzo and Ron Castille in 1991 — was exciting (despite my presence) because of the epic battle taking place between Frank and Ron. I tried to wedge my way into the five-candidate, Democrat-only TV debates in 1999 but was denied. These were largely non-events as well.

So what can we glean from Saturday night’s “performance”? Does anyone know that to come across as honest and forthright you’re supposed to look into the camera, at the other end of which are the eyes of your would-be constituents? Does anyone understand that when you’re anywhere from six to 20 points down, it might make sense to take on (maybe even try to tackle) the front-runner?

Once again, it was Tom Knox who made the news — by promising to forgo repayment of his massive campaign loans. Smart. What isn’t smart is a bunch of guys waiting for the an opportunity to demonstrate their capacity to break away from the pack. To draw a little blood. Okay, what about a pin prick? But noooooo. Everyone acted as if time was their friend, as if one guy, with all the money, wasn’t starting to blow them away. If ever there was a moment when someone needed to challenge Knox, Saturday night was it.

For the life of me, I didn’t get it. And from my numerous conversations with many voters, neither did most of you.

Monday, April 16, 2007

Candidates often promote Big Ideas, but since Bill Clinton’s presidency, a safer and politically more effective strategy has been the promotion of lots of little ideas — something Clinton was the master of.

Chaka Fattah has largely jettisoned this newer approach, becoming this primary’s most aggressive proponent of big and bold ideas. His Opportunity Agenda would significantly expand the city’s role as a major sponsor and operator of a wide range of what used to be called anti-poverty action programs, including expanding early childhood education and literacy initiatives, emphasizing science curricula, increasing college opportunities, providing apprenticeships in the building trades and job re-training for ex-offenders — and the list goes on and on and on. It is breathtaking in scope — essentially a 21st-century re-do of Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” — and even more so in its optimism that our city government, facing enormous fiscal pressure, could productively and effectively execute any or all of these well.

Which leads to the second bold proposal: how to pay for it all.

Fattah is no “tax and spend” liberal. Rather, he has morphed into a “privatize and spend” liberal. He has offered a plan to “lease” the Philadelphia International Airport, borrowing from Gov. Rendell’s proposal to lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike to finance other road and transit infrastructure projects. Fattah has valued the airport at $3 billion, which, when “monetized” through private acquisition (read “privatization”), would yield $1.9 billion to the city (after retiring airport debt). He would invest that pile of cash and use the earnings to pay for his agenda.

After a lifetime in government, candidate Fattah’s grasp of how the private sector works is like a stroll in la-la land. His airport lease would come with multiple strings — all current municipal employees would be retained, their contracts, work rules and benefits protected, and everything would remain status quo.

Yo, Chaka, have you noticed the two 900-pound elephants in the room?

First are the airlines. You’ve heard of them, haven’t you? Not exactly a robust industry these days. They signed long-term leases, one provision of which is called the “majority in interest.” Cutting to the chase, it says that a majority of the gate users (read: US Airways) get to decide on most major issues. So you think that the spiraling-near-dead US Airways says, “OK, sell this asset and monetize our rental payments so you can fund city government’s program expansion”? And after they agree to do this in Philadelphia, that Delta says “OK, we’ll do the same at Hartsfield in Atlanta,” and American says “Go to it” in Dallas and United tells Denver to “Have a ball” with their lease revenues? Dream on.

And then there’s the buyer, the company that pays the $3 billion and then has the mayor tell them whom they can hire and fire and how to structure the operation of the airport. Can’t wait to make that deal!

The Fattah plan is brilliant politics and speaks to the depth of feeling that Chaka Fattah has about trying to do something to expand opportunities for those who have missed out or been left out. His roots in Mantua and the great work his family did with troubled youth fires his passion. But the promise, while well-intended and smart politics, is built on a series of assumptions that, both programmatically and financially, is really a house of cards: one light blow and the whole thing falls.

Read week two’s entries.
Read week one's entries.