Before I begin my response to the PG's laughable endorsement from Sunday's paper, I want to say one thing to the general public:
I've made up my mind. Tonight's second mayoral debate demonstrated that there is one qualified candidate for mayor: Franco Dok Harris. He has the education, work experience, and community service background that would enable him to lead the city. His platform appeals to Republicans and Democrats alike. He knows how to manage the red tape in this city from his days assisting business owners in setting up shop and home owners in keeping their houses. He has no funding ties to big business or a party machine. And he has practical plans to resolve our biggest issues without being satisfied with the status quo or making empty promises. Best of all, if he is elected mayor, Harris can clean house in the mayor's office, rid us of the old guard who have been lining their pockets at the expense of taxpayers for years, and sever the chains to campaign fundraisers that siphon fat contracts out of our city's government.
I invite all registered Republicans (like me) in this city to join an enormous portion of the registered Democrats (and a sizable chunk of registered Republicans) in this city who have decided to vote for Franco Dok Harris on November 3. As a Republican-Independent, Acklin cannot garner enough votes to win--Democrats in this city simply will not vote for a Republican. Acklin may appeal to the east end since he lives there, but remember, what you do in the voting booth is private. If you, like most of the city, want to get rid of the incumbent, then you'll have to join forces with the northern and southern ends of the city--almost all of whom are split between Harris and Ravenstahl. Spread the word to your friends, get them out to vote, and change this city for the better!
Now, onto my critique of the PG's embarrassing endorsement.
========================================================================
The title of the PG editorial last week was “Pittsburgh voters
should stick with the incumbent,” but you give us no legitimate reasons
why Ravenstahl is the best person for the job.
You admit that he is a “work in progress,” “has yet to articulate a
vision for the future,” won’t work with state legislators, needs to “distance
himself” from the “party machine,” had a “bumpy start” marked by “ethical
lapses” (to put it mildly). The
only positive about him is that he is “well served by various aides” and has a
“smart staff” (and possibly influential businessmen who stand to gain from city deals...Acklin's accusations in the second debate may merit investigation). Pittsburghers are
not electing his employees into office.
We are voting for a mayor—a leader—not a follower or an oligarch. You acknowledge that this is a “pivotal
time and nothing less than the future is at stake,” yet you are willing to bank
on someone whose best quality is that he has better people around him and
gamble on someone who views this job as an “entitlement” (he isn’t even
campaigning). We’ve all seen how
successful gambling has been around Pittsburgh since the casino opened.
You
list his alleged accomplishments with words like: “spoken out for,” “pushed,” “sought to,” and “argued
for.” All of these terms indicate
that nothing he has tried to do has actually been done. There are some things you mention that
he has achieved: “he got tough on
landlords” (yet drugs and guns are stashed in all types of for-rent property in
our neighborhoods); “he ordered cleanups of residential neighborhoods” (i.e.,
neighborhoods create their own volunteer cleanup programs because the city
won’t clean up city-owner lots/buildings); he has been fiscally conservative (but what
money he did spend was done so wastefully or for the benefit of his
fundraisers); and he requested “support from non-profits” (not from the wealthy
organizations themselves, but by proposing a tax on their needy clients). This last part is shocking. He wants to get more out of our
non-profits so he is asking hospital patients and college students
to foot the bill? This “solution”
is totally bereft of any shred of logic.
And you give him credit for—rather, he takes credit for—accolades won
for the city by its private sector (greening up the city, developing high-tech
jobs, maintaining a low cost of living).
Hopefully
people read the start of your article, wherein you list the qualities of two better-suited candidates for the office (one with legal expertise and one with
financial/business expertise). The
only reason you state for not endorsing them is, essentially, that you don’t
think that they will win. That is
not a ringing endorsement for the current mayor. So, why not endorse the person who you think can actually do
the job without needing to have his hand held by his retainers? Retract your selection and tell
Pittsburgh who you think would be the best candidate for the job, not who you
think will win or who will give it a good try. Until then, I’ll remain saddened by your willingness to risk
the next four years on someone who you wish will grow into the job, and shake
my head every time I drive by a gilded trashcan sitting on a corner where no
trashcan is needed.
Our
city deserves a captain who is proactively approaches problems with foresight,
not someone who stamps out fires.
We need someone who will astutely administer our public trust, not
someone to play sports socialite.
We have settled for the “status quo” (the war-chant of the Ravenstahl
office) and mismanagement for too long.
Last November, this city voted for change, but for an office that
affects daily operations here far less than people believe it does. Now, this city needs to be encouraged to vote for a change that will affect our lives and wallets every day.
Rather than acquiesce to mediocrity,
endorse a competent candidate and encourage Pittsburgh to vote. If you endorse Franco Dok Harris or
Kevin Acklin and cover the election, then your only negative for them—your assumption that they cannot win—will
disappear.