When Did Ed Rendell Become
Such a Wuss?

The former governor is wrong: Rob McCord’s attack ad on Tom Wolf is fair game.

Ed Rendell

When did Ed Rendell become such a wuss?

Ed’s pretty much been sitting out the race to be the Democratic nominee for governor in 2016, but he popped up over the weekend to decry an ad — from Rob McCord’s campaign, aimed at frontrunner Tom Wolf — as just too much negativity.


"I know the feeling of desperation when you're losing, because you believe in yourself," Rendell told a press conference, presumably in the act of clutching his pearls. "And I believe that Rob McCord believes in himself and believes that as governor he could do good things for the people of Pennsylvania. But that desire, that knowledge, should not overcome basic decency."

Oh my!

Here’s the ad in question:

And whew, that is tough! Painful, even! But … also entirely fair.

Here’s what happened, according to various sources: In 2001, Wolf was the chairman — he says “honorary chairman” — of York Mayor Charlie Robertson’s re-election campaign. That campaign came to a halt when Robertson was arrested on charges of having helped incite a 1969 race riot that killed a young black woman. Testimony quoted Robertson, at the time of the incident, encouraging rioters to to “kill as many n– as you can.”

Now: All of this information was fresh when Robertson was arrested. And Wolf’s response, when asked on the day of the arrest about the issue, was that he would keep serving the campaign if Robertson “wants me to.” It turned out to be a moot issue: Robertson quickly withdrew from the race. (Later coverage suggested Wolf helped convince Robertson to withdraw, which is where the McCord ad maybe strikes a false note.)

But is it “indecent” — as Rendell would have it — to raise the issue now? Nope. There are many reasons we give our votes to candidates for office. It’s more than the sum of their position papers: Maybe we find them likable; maybe we simply believe they have good judgment. McCord is using the incident to call Wolf’s judgment into question. Far from being indecent, that seems a ripe topic for debate.

To be fair, there’s a couple of ways Wolf could’ve responded to this attack. He could’ve said the newspapers quoted him early enough in the process that he didn’t have the full picture of the allegations against Robertson that we have available to us 13 years later, and he didn’t want to act rashly. That would’ve been plausible. And it would’ve offered a defense of his judgment, telling voters that Wolf doesn’t sway immediately with the winds, but will pause to make sure he has the right facts.

Instead, Wolf’s response has been to A) decry McCord for going negative and B) release a campaign video featuring statements of support from black residents of York. Neither of which really addresses the central question about judgment. Voters will get to decide how best to weigh all this information, as they should.

Back to Rendell. Certainly, he’s been willing to throw the occasional elbow or two over the decades in pursuit of his political agenda. It’s part of his appeal! Certainly, he wasn’t too squeamish to defend Hillary Clinton in 2008, when she was engaged in a Pennsylvania primary campaign against Barack Obama that the New York Times called “mean, vacuous, desperate.”

“Let me say this,” Rendell said at the time. “You know that I have in my political career eschewed negative campaigning. But this is a rough and tumble, as Senator Clinton said, this is a tough election and the stakes are high. And everybody talks about not only what they want to do but talks about the weaknesses of what they think the other candidates” are.

Well then. It's just politics.

Maybe Ed’s gone soft. Or maybe he just goes out of his way not to condemn negative campaigning when his buddies are engaged in it. Whatever. The old Ed Rendell would’ve taken the punch and thrown one back, instead of complaining about the fight; maybe he should teach friends like Tom Wolf to do the same.

Follow @JoelMMathis on Twitter.

Be respectful of our online community and contribute to an engaging conversation. We reserve the right to ban impersonators and remove comments that contain personal attacks, threats, or profanity, or are flat-out offensive. By posting here, you are permitting Philadelphia magazine and Metro Corp. to edit and republish your comment in all media.

  • FactcheckGuy

    Negative campaigning may be part of politics…but its one of the worst parts. McCord’s attack ad was a Hail Mary attempt by a 3rd place candidate to garner some needed attention. Injecting race into this campaign is an ugly (and in McCord’s case) transparent way to ingratiate himself with African American voters. McCord must not realize that the African American constituency is both savvy and smart about who they choose for a candidate and they are way too astute to be seduced by such obvious pandering. Rather than attack Wolf’s character, he might be better served explaining why he misled voters about his supposedly “poor single-mom upbringing” when in fact he was mostly raised by his college professor mom AND college professor stepfather in the affluent Lower Merion suburb in the Main Line. McCord suffers from a serious case of “anything to win” syndrome and has abandoned the probably decent person he once was in pursuit of his personal political ambition. At this point….McCord should just confine his rhetoric to the relevant policy issues that will impact the lives of Pennsylvanians TODAY.

  • victimsvoice

    Here are a few things to consider: 1. Charlie Robertson has the same presumption of innocence until proven guilty as every other citizen. After hearing all the evidence, a jury of his peers found him NOT guilty. Just because a witness said that Robertson handed out ammunition and made inflammatory racial remarks (32 years before the trial) does not make it so. Witnesses lie sometimes. Witnesses get things wrong sometimes. None of us is in a position to determine the facts but there apparently was not enough credible evidence to find him guilty. 2. Rob McCord took campaign contributions from Tom Wolf when he ran for Treasurer. I read somewhere that McCord took $20,000 from Wolf. If McCord really thought Wolf was a racist, do you think he would have taken the money? 3. It is irresponsible to incite racial tension which is one result of the ad. The people of York are working hard to overcome the past and move forward. To open this wound is painful and damaging to the efforts of all who strive to overcome racial bias.

  • rabbit23

    amen. agreed 100%. Fast Eddie, stop pandering. McCord is right – it does speak to Wolf’s judgement.

  • hipocrat

    I think it’s funny as hell how tons of people talk about money buying politicians and political office as if they think it’s a big problem, and then turn right around and vote for the candidate with the most air time. If people voted by researching the candidates and choosing wisely then elections couldn’t be bought with ad budgets like Wolf is buying this election. Personally, if I were married to a black woman and had to watch her be on the receiving end of racism, to go through the anger that is watching someone you love experience injustice, I would absolutely run that ad if I felt Wolf turned a blind eye to racism. As far as York needing to heal, healing doesn’t occur by ignoring race issues and trying to sweep them under the rug. It is healed with dialogue, real heartfelt apologies, and real change.

  • Fuzziness

    So we’re electing a governor this year…not 2016. Kinda ruins the rest of the “opinion” piece when the writer doesn’t get simple facts right. Ugh. Doesn’t make a lot of sense anyway, this article, Ed is as entitled to his opinion as you are Joel. Difference is, he won’t waste time writing an article with a purposefully eye grabbing title to express it.