Category: default || By jt3y

The Post-Gazette editorial board put a hurt this week on incumbent state Rep. Ken Ruffing, a Democrat from West Mifflin ... or is it actually Brigadoon? After all, it seems like he only surfaces around election day, and then disappears back into the moors for two years.

Not only did the P-G endorse Bill Kortz (one of the "PA Clean Sweep" candidates) for the Democratic nomination, it also pointed out Ruffing's habit of vanishing into the mists whenever the villagers ask too many questions:

He voted for the 16 percent to 34 percent pay raise and took it. Then he voted to repeal it. He said he donated the raise to an autism-awareness organization, but he did not return a reporter's phone calls when asked for documentation on which group received the money. The incumbent also did not attend his interview with the Post-Gazette editorial board, although he said earlier that he would.

"Any legislator who refuses to answer questions about his record should not be rewarded with another term," the paper declares.

Meanwhile, WTAE-TV alleges that when Ruffing does answer questions, his answers aren't reliable.

The Allegheny County Democratic Committee sent out a mailing that features a picture of a slovenly man, sitting on the couch, watching TV. The text makes reference to a WTAE-TV news report that found Ruffing was actually at home when he was supposedly voting on a property tax reform bill in Harrisburg.

I didn't see the report when it first ran back in November, so I decided to go watch it. It's both amusing, and kind of sad.

Reporter Paul Van Osdol asks Ruffing if he was in Harrisburg for the vote. "I was there for the first day of the special session," Ruffing says. When Van Osdol tells him that no, WTAE has video of him, in West Mifflin, checking his mail that day, Ruffing petulantly replies, "Do you have it on tape? Fine. Well, then run it."

Of course, the transcript of Van Osdol's report makes at least one serious mistake (it calls Ruffing a "U.S. representative"), and as you Alert Readers know, no one is perfect, including the Almanac's editor. Maybe Ruffing just misspoke.

But his flip answer sure sounds like that of a kid caught with his hand in a cookie jar, trying to act tough: "Sure, you caught me, but they were just cookies."

Yeah? Well, they're the taxpayers' cookies, and if you don't think you owe the taxpayers some answers, then perhaps you've had enough.

...

In addition to Kortz, Ruffing is also being challenged by C.L. "Jay" Jabbour, longtime bête noire of former state representative and current West Mifflin Councilman Richard Olasz Sr.

Jabbour (who most recently served on county council, but resigned to run for the legislature) probably has the best name recognition in the district after Ruffing, simply because of his longevity.

But Kortz is the only candidate who appears to have a campaign website, so I'll link to it.

He also has a blog, but it appears he doesn't quite know what to do with it. As of this Almanac's writing, the last (and only) message on Kortz's blog is dated March 5. It reads (and I quote):

"Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!"

Of course, his constituents don't appear to know what to do with it, either. The last (and only) comment as of this writing? "Hi, this is a comment. To delete a comment, just log in, and view the posts’ comments, there you will have the option to edit or delete them."

...

Well, we may not be computer savvy at times, but we sho' nuff love us some dirty tricks in the Mon-Yough area.

While there is a website called kenruffing.com, one look will tell you it isn't run by Ruffing. In fact, it's not clear who's running the website ... it's registered through an anonymous service in Arizona called "Domains By Proxy."

The very same service is also the registered agent for the stopmatta.com website.

Perhaps the allegations on those websites are accurate and fair. But it's awfully hard to judge their credibility when the people making the accusations hide behind anonymous Internet proxies.

...

In Other Business ... Alert Reader Jeff of Hempfield Township, who says "fooey" to my argument that deadbeats (like those in Hempfield) should have to pay for police protection like everybody else, passes along a poll by the Pennsylvania Economy League in which residents were asked about that very issue:

Despite pressure to control state spending and keep taxes down, there wasn’t much public support for requiring local communities relying on state police for protection to pay for this service. The poll found under a third (29%) said local communities should pay. Close to two-thirds (63%) said state government should continue to provide this service for free.

I would like to see how the question was phrased, and how many people knew the background of the issue. I don't think many people in urban areas of the state realize that large, suburban communities like Hempfield in Westmoreland County and Canton Township in Washington County are not paying for local police coverage. If they did, I think they'd be just as perturbed as I am.

But I suspect that the only people who really have strong opinions are people who live in places with police departments --- like Greensburg and North Huntingdon --- that abut communities sponging the state police. And since they're not much of a voting bloc, this issue is clearly a non-starter.