Pittsburgh, City of Embarrassment

How embarrassing can the Pittsburgh mayoral election get?

To answer that question, you must go to the op-ed page of the Post-Gazette this morning.

Recently, the newspaper asked the campaigns to have supporters of the three mayoral candidates write columns on their behalf.

It seemed an earnest exercise. Who knew it would be such a revealing public spectacle, albeit one with the potential to make alert Pittsburghers laugh until they cry (or perhaps cry until they laugh)?

The standard was first set Wednesday when the piece written to support Kevin Acklin was written by Dan Acklin, his uncle ("Vote for My Nephew," Oct. 28). Reading this, an average reader might wonder if Kevin Acklin had any supporter not related to him who could offer a credible opinion. But who needs supporters like that when you have family?

This was a hard act to follow. It would require a really good public display of op-ed incest to top.

Unfortunately, Franco Dok Harris did not enter into the spirit of the occasion. He did not recruit a relative with the same name, not even a famous one, to write a piece for him. His oped ("Vote for Harris," Oct. 29) was written by Justin Strong, a local entrepreneur. How credible could he be when he was not identified as a member of Dok's family?

Not to worry. The piece this morning written on behalf on Mayor Luke Ravenstahl was a classic in the Pittsburgh-family school of politics ("Re-elect Luke as Mayor"). It was written by Cindy Ravensthal, Luke's mom, the very woman who gave him his first juice box.

It contains a wonderful paragraph, the like of which has not been seen since Patti Burns and Bill Burns used to co-host the KDKA news at noon - the famously corny Patti and Daddy Show, which set off gagging reflexes all across the city.

Luke's Mom writes: "From the time he was little, Luke has known the value of money. When I would give him a dollar to go to the candy store, he didn't waste all of it getting candy for one day, he would stretch that dollar so that he could have himself candy for a week. I've watched proudly as my son carries those same principles into running the city."

This is not a knock on Mrs. Ravensthal. I am sure she is wonderful woman and means well.

No, this is a knock on those in the Ravensthal campaign - and the Acklin campaign - for threatening people in Pittsburgh with dry heaving and skin crawling up the arm due to chronic civic embarrassment.

Do they really think there is political advantage in treating the people around here like a bunch of overly-sentimental rubes?

 

Posted Oct 30 2009, 11:03 AM by Reg Henry
Filed under: , , ,

Comments

Infinonymous wrote re: Pittsburgh, City of Embarrassment
on Fri, Oct 30 2009 12:44 PM

1)  As pathetic as a gold star from mom is in this context but, to be fair, the candidates had to try something.  Pandering to rubes may not provide an advantage in most races, but we already know that with the city electorate these attributes constitute substantial disadvantages:  education, intellect, experience, familiarity with standard English, a record of accomplishment, lack of scandal, altruism, a coherent philosophy of governance.  Short of trotting out a Super Bowl ring, what could these guys do that might provide a political advantage with City of Pittsburgh voters?  Cue:  Mom.

2)  Who forced the Post-Gazette to publish that gibberish?

3)  If nothing else, this exercise was good practice for Mrs. Ravenstahl's eventual letter to the judge seeking leniency for her son.

thescarletpumpernickel wrote re: Pittsburgh, City of Embarrassment
on Fri, Oct 30 2009 2:52 PM

Does Mrs. Ravenstahl still lay-out Luke's clothes in the morning? Maybe make him some hot cocoa with extra whipped-cream?

Didn't Nixon trot out his puppy "Checkers"?

(Do politicians still kiss babies?)

Titan Lee wrote re: Pittsburgh, City of Embarrassment
on Fri, Oct 30 2009 3:08 PM

"Do they really think there is political advantage in treating the people around here like a bunch of overly-sentimental rubes?"

Overly-sentimental rubes?  No.

Rubes? Yes

my opinion wrote re: Pittsburgh, City of Embarrassment
on Fri, Oct 30 2009 5:19 PM

As my close friend Dr. Phil says, you teach people how to treat you.  These people (they are the same people for the last 60 years just the names have changed) are the ones the people of Pittsburgh keep returning to office.  Voters will have to look past the "D" button when they vote and make them earn the vote.  Those running know they are in.  What's the question?

kevin morris wrote re: Pittsburgh, City of Embarrassment
on Sat, Oct 31 2009 6:56 AM

Reg, your paper requested crap, and the candidates delivered. Kind of hypocritical for you to complain now.

As for courting the rubes, you do realize that for every potential voter with an IQ of 120 or higher there's one with an IQ of 80 or lower, don't you?

William McCloskey wrote re: Pittsburgh, City of Embarrassment
on Sat, Oct 31 2009 10:04 AM

Reg: The embarrassed party here should be the Post-Gazette for its dreadful impersonation of a great American newspaper. One can only point out: "You asked for it, you got it."

It was bad enough when you started recycling New York Times editorials on a next-day basis. Now we're treated to features on house shopping in Morocco.

Maybe you should instead have asked China Millman for her critical take on the candidates. You know: 2 1/2 stars = poor.

William McCloskey

Regent Square

GreenEggs wrote re: Pittsburgh, City of Embarrassment
on Sun, Nov 1 2009 10:16 AM

The info about how Luke budgeted for candy as a kid is the kind of Raymond Carver material that brings the reader to greater understanding.  As far as I know, that sort of fiscal conservatism is the only trait  I have in common with the mayor or the rest of the Democratic politcal machine, and that makes me feel slightly more human.  Too, I am better able to visualize city government as real people, and not as mere stick figures in an amalgum of graft.  

Sadly,  none of the mayoral candidates present  a long term strategy for sustained economic growth.  But how upset can anyone get when Luke's mom presents a perfecly angelic view point.  Why limit debate to things that matter?