There’s been an interesting little drama unfolding in Dan Onorato’s gubernatorial campaign. And it may well hold the key to his hopes for victory in next month’s primary.

On Sunday, April 18, Onorato appeared with other candidates (or their representatives) at the endorsement meeting of the 14th Ward Independent Democrat Club. During that gathering, Onorato stated — as he has before — that when it comes to abortion, he supports Pennsylvania’s law as currently written. 

Pennsylvania’s abortion law is highly restrictive, of course. But it does permit abortion — as every state must do, thanks to Roe v. Wade. So by implication, that would make Onorato pro-choice, right? 

Tell it to the good people of York, PA.

The day after the 14th Ward meeting, this story appeared in the York Daily Record. The story reported that a York-based pro-life group called ACTION — Americans for Christian Traditions in our Nation — plans to hold a forum for gubernatorial candidates this coming weekend.

There are six candidates in the race — four Democrats and two Republicans — but the story reported that Democrats Joe Hoeffel and Anthony Hardy Williams 

were not invited to the event, [ACTION president Ron] Cohen said, because they are not anti-abortion. Although ACTION is bipartisan, he said the group endorses only candidates who are anti-abortion. 

Auditor General Jack Wagner is anti-choice [UPDATE: It turns out that, after this blog post came out, Wagner too qualified his position on abortion rights] as are Republican contenders Sam Rohrer and Tom Corbett. So they all got invites. And what about Onorato? Well, here’s where it gets interesting. The version of the story currently online says the following:

The news release [sent out by ACTION] said Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato would send a representative, but spokesman Brian Herman said there were never any such plans …

Herman said Onorato would support abortion rights as governor.

“He supports the existing law as it is Pennsylvania and he will veto any attempt to change it,” Herman said.

Funny thing is, when this story first ran on Monday, it said Onorato WAS sending a representative. And Brian Herman wasn’t quoted at all. Here’s an earlier, Google-cached version, which I’m repeating the relevant portion of in case it disappears: 

Onorato’s representative will give an introduction but won’t participate in the questions, said Ron Cohen, ACTION president.

The story was updated, it seems, at 6:06 p.m. yesterday evening. But by then, the Hoeffel campaign had seized on the earlier report. 

“That Dan Onorato was invited and is actually sending a representative of his campaign to this breakfast, confirms that he’s pro-life,” Hoeffel said.

What happened here? I’ve got a call in to the reporter who did the story, and will post his reply. But it seems pretty obvious that after the story came out — and after the Hoeffel campaign jumped on it — Team Onorato went into damage control, and the story was updated to reflect the campaign’s position. 

A position which, by the way, ACTION organizers still seem unaware of.

A post on the organization’s Facebook page reported only that “[W]e have had 2 of the Democratic candidates now informing us they will not be able to attend. The latest is Jack Wagner will send a representative, Dan Onorato will not be participating at all.” 

As of this writing, the Facebook page makes no mention of Onorato’s stated pro-choice position — for the apparent reason that the group was unaware of it.

Asked what happened to Onorato’s participation in the event, ACTION Treasurer Angie Kline told me, somewhat drily, “When you figure that out, let us know.”

Initially, Kline told me she thought Onorato probably dropped out simply because he got a better offer somewhere else. “Our organization is just 150 people,” she said. But when I told her that the Daily Record was now reporting that Onorato supports the current law and would oppose any changes, she said, “We were under a different supposition.”

And really, can you blame them? As Hoeffel’s camp noted,in earlier elections Onorato had received the backing of LifePAC, a pro-life group. His 2007 re-election bid was also backed by People Concerned for the Unborn Child (see page 3).

Of course, this kerfluffle could be just an innocent misunderstanding — crossed wires between a campaign, a community group, and a local newspaper. Such things happen.

But the whole incident reflects one of the most interesting facets of this campaign: At least when it comes to social issues, Onorato has manged to be all things to all people. On Sunday, he’s a pro-choice progressive; the next day, he’s touted as being pro-life. And despite a clarification issued hours later, I’d bet that most of ACTION’s 150 members still think he agrees with them. 

And abortion isn’t the only such issue he seems to be neutralizing. When the Steel City Stonewall Democrats endorsed a gubernatorial candidate, the pro-LGBT organization actually split down the middle between Onorato and Hoeffel. Clearly, Onorato’s efforts to tout his “progressive policies such as … Allegheny County’s non-discrimination ordinance” have borne fruit. Even though he was a latecomer to the initiative, which started with county council. 

As someone who watched Onorato on Pittsburgh City Council — where he was consistently among the least progressives voices — I’m impressed by how he’s been rebranded. But then hardly anyone remembers those days, as a recent post by Sue Kerr reflects.

Kerr had previously argued that Onorato had exaggerated his role in passing the county’s non-discrimination ordinance, while passing up opportunities to take the initiative on other LGBT causes. But even Kerr — who pays closer attention to this stuff than anyone I know — didn’t realize how unsympathetic Onorato had been early in his career.

“I was a chump and I can admit it,” Kerr posted, with admirable bluntness. 

Well, OK. I wouldn’t be a liberal if I didn’t think people could change. (Or — in the case of politicians — they can at least recognize when times are changing, and respond accordingly.) And whatever his motives may be, I prefer Dan Onorato the gubernatorial candidate to Dan Onorato the city councilor.

The thing is, I think he’s still getting credit for being both those guys. 

UPDATE: Another take on this story comes via Alex Roarty, an excellent correspondent from the Web site PoliticsPA (which I really need to start reading more often). Roarty’s piece, among other things, raises the possibility that the confusion here might have begun with the Wagner camp. 

This article appears in Apr 15-21, 2010.

E-mail Chris Potter about this post.

10 replies on “The Two Dan Onoratos”

  1. Perhaps the more interesting question: Would you prefer Dan Onorato the gubernatorial candidate or Dan Onorato the governor?

    The candidate calls himself the Democrat, but it seems open to debate whether, freed from campaign coyness, he would be a Democrat.

    He is still the Democratic favorite, largely because there is no strong Democrat running.

  2. At the Pittsburgh Stonewall event, Onorato used his speech to growl accusingly about BLOGGERS and MISINFORMATION making it look like he was silent on the LGBTQ protection ordinance until the 11th hour. “ASK AMANDA GREEN!”, he said. “WE HAD CONVERSATIONS!” But the fact is the legislation took WAY longer than it should have — months and months even after the jam-packed public hearing — and he didn’t say boo in public about it until about the day before.

    PGH Stonewall split its endorsement between Onorato and Hoeffel — a guy from suburban Philly. I think it should signal something that Onorato couldn’t take care of his own backyard.

  3. There are a few errors here in both the article and the comments which are important to point out.

    Onorato wasn’t ” latecomer to the initiative, which started with county council.” as if that is a bad thing. Yes, it started in Council, but he was aware of it and participating as would be appropriate to his role from the day it was introduced.

    It is fallacious to say that the legislation took “way longer than it should have.” Clearly spoken by someone who has never tried to pass legislation before. There is no guide book that says how long any legislation should take, and the size of the public hearing is no relevant measure.

    While I have respect for Bram R, his representation of Onorato’s speech is not the same speech I heard that day. A video of it is on my blog, thomascwaters.com. Watch for yourself, and there is no growling about bloggers.

    Has Onorato been rebranded, has he changed as a politician, or some of both? And how much does it really matter? That is the more important question. Truly Hoeffel is the most progressive candidate running, but what does Pennsylvania need as a governor. The whole state of Pennsylvania- not just the ultra liberal far east and Pittsburgh.

    I also don’t agree that the split vote at the meeting means anything about Onorato’s own back yard. The turn out was fairly small for a city with a very large GLBT population, and from my perspective the SCSD as a group is extremely negative towards anyone except Hoeffel.

    If Hoeffel such a great candidate, why are people like Kerr and Bram so busy wanting to attack Onorato instead of simply educating everyone about why Hoeffel is the better choice?

    There are 2 real questions: What has Onorato done for Allegheny County, and is that what is needed for the State of PA? I think it is. We can talk all we want about LGBT issues, but jobs, economy, govt spending- these are the main tasks we need from our next governor. The other question is, which Dem is most likely to be able to beat Corbett in the Fall. Remember, we are talking about the whole of PA.

  4. Doesn’t Mr. Onorato claim he is running to change Harrisburg so counties will no longer be forced to do the things he did in Allegheny County — maintain regressive and illegal assessments, impose a drink tax, and all the other things he said he found distasteful but necessary — instead of running to expand the Allegheny County experience statewide?

    Mr. Waters appears to be confused. His candidate’s record(s) can make that understandable. And the field is weak enough that every candidate has about as good a case to make as any other. But if Dan Onorato is your kind of Democrat, you’re probably not much of a Democrat.

  5. Welcome to the site, tcwaters. You raise some valid issues to consider — about electability, for example. But I’d like to respond to your assertion that the post contains “errors.” As far as I can see, you’ve raised just one — my contention that Onorato was a “latecomer” on the bill.

    I base that on the fact that this legislation was presented in the summer of 2008 —

    http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A49977

    — and Onorato didn’t make a public statement of support until, I believe, the spring of 2009. (In any case, supporters of the measure were VERY much in doubt about Onorato’s position through the winter of 2009 — it was a subject of considerable discussion at a January 2009 pro-LGBT rally, for example.) During the intervening months, Green’s bill lost some of its original cosponsors, and there was REAL concern that the measure would die on the vine.

    In the end, the important thing is that the measure passed, with Onorato’s support. But he sure didn’t LEAD on that issue, as he does on many other matters that come before the county. I stand by my characterization.

  6. tcwaters wrote:

    “If Hoeffel such a great candidate, why are people like Kerr and Bram so busy wanting to attack Onorato instead of simply educating everyone about why Hoeffel is the better choice?”

    We ARE doing plenty of that. But to answer your question, it is because Onorato is the slight front-runner, the extreme money-leader, and a person whom a fair number of persons are not comfortable with as a prospective governor. I don’t think I fall quite 100% into that camp, but in addition to the ideological dubiousness Potter describes here, Onorato has pressed a fair number of court cases straight into the ground — regarding both taxing powers and your basic checks and balances in government. So he spends a good deal of time defending and explaining himself. There’s a bit of a “Slick Danny” dynamic he needs to overcome.

    I honestly can’t account for my clear recollection of Dan’s complaining of “blogs” or “bloggers” and “misinformation” at that event, having watched your video. I will say that during Pam’s introduction of Dan, she delivered an *extensive note* regarding missing questions on Dan’s questionaire and how that occurred (nobody’s fault). THAT could have been the occasion of Dan’s little tirade, before his formal hello caught on tape.

  8. Chris,
    Thanks for the welcome, and you are correct. I should have been clearer. There was only one comment in your article that I was calling an error, the other issues I would call errors were all in the comments. I also appreciate your additional comments.

    While my involvement in the county ordinance was minimal until Spring 2009, it was clear to me in January 2009 that he was supportive of the bill. Was that late? Maybe, maybe not. There is a concept here that I think would be fascinating to dig into.

    So, we have an elected body of County Council, and their role is to introduce and pass legislation and send it on to the County Executive. In that regard the two entities share power. Now, would we only want Council to deal with legislation that the CE was publicly supporting, or would we want a Council who deals with legislation because their constituents feel it is important. When do you want the CE to get involved, and in what way?

    But Chris, if you take away the issue of a characterization as late or not late- I asked real and important questions. Come on Chris- I’ve been a fan of your writing since way back before there was a City Paper.

    Bram,
    There was no “tirade” by Dan Onorato about missing content, however there was massive criticisms of him by a few in the blogsphere over it, when as you pointed out, it was not the candidate’s cause at all. That is one of the good or bad things about the blogoshere. Bloggers don’t have to research and validate things, they can just say whatever they want, true or not true.

    But what I find so amazing is that you call your recollection a clear memory. I think one of the problems Onorato has faced, here in Pittsburgh it appears as if a few people have been so critical in their reception that they aren’t seeing or listening to him. Their minds are made up and that is that. I think in a Primary season that is a dangerous position, because come the day after the Primary, Onorato may be the candidate that is there to beat Corbett. I wonder how these folks will turn their rhetoric around to start supporting Onorato, if he wins the Primary?

  9. TC- Thanks for the opportunity to engage this.

    My view of the race is that Corbett is in the lead, and there is an 8-year pendulum in PA due to swing to the R’s, and the most likely way for a Democrat to win is if Corbett loses it himself. Which, by the way, I think is fairly likely. He’s a prosecutor before he’s a politician. That lawsuit against health care reform was a little wobbly. His active prosecution during the campaign is raising eyebrows.

    So basically, I’d rather pick the BEST Democrat, and the best leader. Because I see an opportunity. You seem to me fairly afraid of alienating the middle, but I don’t want an opportunity for strong progressive executive leadership to be squandered. Onorato is by most accounts to the right of Rendell (maybe you’ll argue this?) and I call that “losing ground”. Nobody has yet alleged that Joe Hoeffel is as looney bin left as say, Dennis Kucinich — Joe’s views are actually mainstream Democratic party views in MOST of the country. If we start governing, it could be this part of this country too.

    So I like Joe, then possibly it’s a tossup between Dan Onorato and Jack Wagner. That part of my mind’s not made up yet. I think Wagner is closer to my politics, but Dan does have a wily energy.

  10. tcwaters wrote: ‘There was no “tirade” by Dan Onorato about missing content, however there was massive criticisms of him by a few in the blogsphere over it, when as you pointed out, it was not the candidate’s cause at all.’

    You’re kind of shorthanding this so that it loses all meaning.

    In 2007, Onorato most certainly DID not only skip answering questions, but disappeared the questions themselves. See: http://2politicaljunkies.blogspot.com/2007/04/dan-onoratos-magic-act.html

    That was mentioned by bloggers this time around in reference to his LGBT cred.

    On this year’s form, a portion of his answers were missing on the SCSD’s website due to no fault of Onorato, but that was quickly corrected and did not become a real issue.

Comments are closed.