Final Thoughts on Pittsburgh's Mayoral Race (Pt. I)

I only have a handful of posts until the mayoral election, and I want to get my final thoughts in before my final thoughts become irrelevant (if they haven't become so already). I've given some thought to the race... as well as some thoughts to work and the new Star Wars movie and the environmental impact of cluster based economic development from a historical perspective. You may call it ADD; I call it multitasking.

All the candidates have pluses and minuses associated with them (some more minuses than pluses), and I hope to crystallize my feelings on each of them as succinctly as possible.

And... we're off:

Gary W. Henderson
Why you should vote for him:
Gary has done this twice before and has lost both times. That puts him one behind Bob O'Connor, whom the Post-Gazette endorsed for similar reasons. I figure that Gary deserves at least equal consideration.

Why you shouldn't vote for him:
Gary doesn't really seem to (a) have any real interest in being mayor, as evidenced by his poor attendance at the public debates, and (b) doesn't seem to have much in the way of ideas out there. Frankly, he has not made any impression on me, positive or negative... which is actually a negative attribute.

Daniel F. Repovz
Why you should vote for him:
Daniel is young. Very young, but not youngest to run for mayor. It would be nice, for a change, to have someone in the office without a fond memory for the glory days of big steel.

Why you shouldn't vote for him:
Just because he's young doesn't mean that he's qualified. "New" does not equal "Good" any more than "Old" equals "Bad" or "Politician" equals "Pervert." [Maybe I'm off on the last one.] Daniel seems to have gotten into the habit of parroting some of the better ideas from the other candidates. He's more likely to agree with his opponents than to take a critical tack against them and prove he has some intellectual acumen. This leads me to the opinion that Daniel was set up by his frat brothers, and, to their surprise, suddenly decided to take the candidacy seriously.

Louis "Hop" centrist
Why you should vote for him:
"Hop" is the most original out of all of the candidates: unvarnished, unabashed, and outspoken. In a perfect world, his honesty and forthrightness would clinch the nomination for him. "Hop" is quick to point out the failures of the current administration, but also their successes. He's well aware that there are severe economic and racial disparities in the City, and he's willing to confront them head on.

Why you shouldn't vote for him:
"Hop" seems to lack the economic sense that is necessary for the management of a major city. And yes, that includes Pittsburgh. He appears much more ready to propose solutions that appeal to emotion than rationality, which makes him further appear as a loose canon, rather than a mayor.

Lester Ludwig
Why you should vote for him:
"Do more with less" perfectly encapsulates the dilemma of the next mayor. The next mayor is going to face increasing funding problems at the local, state, and federal levels. A measure of self-sufficiency and reprioritization is inevitable. Les seems willing to embrace unique funding opportunities in order to solve this problem.

Why you shouldn't vote for him:
"Do more with Les" doesn't quite work. His ideas, which appear to focus on "selling out" the City to corporate interests just seems wrong. I doubt many people will go for it.

William Peduto
Why you should vote for him:
Bill, again, is one of those people who is willing to take non-traditional approaches to running the City. He's also been a big supporter of the retension of young people, which, I've been told, is vital to the continuing...erm... vitality of our Region.

Why you shouldn't vote for him:
Personally, I think Bill's platform is smoke & mirrors. While I appreciate his support for the arts, the young people, and technology... I fail to see a direct causation between promoting those items and the growth of the City. Unfortunately, his platform appeals to a lot of the technorati of the East End and is, by its very nature, beneficial only to a small segment of the larger population of Pittsburgh. As I've said before, Bill's council district is probably the easiest to manage out of all nine of the council districts. I doubt that he would have had much luck, or would have even considered a mayoral run, if he had been Councilman from, say, Sheraden.

Michael E. Lamb
Why you should vote for him:
Mike appeals to my little bureaucratic heart when he talks about minutiae like bond financing. It seems like he has a very good grasp of the intricacies of the mechanics of government and would do a good job with managing processes and promoting efficiency.

Why you shouldn't vote for him:
One word: Prothonatory. Mike has no real qualifications for this office, except that he's from a political family. In this sense, he's no better than President Dubya, riding his father's coattails to a higher office.

Bob O'Connor
Why you should vote for him:
Bob will tell you that his biggest asset is his ability with interpersonal relationships. Given the City's troubles with the legislature, with a few kind, well placed words, Mayor O'Connor may be able to give us a few years of breathing room so that we can get our stuff together.

Why you shouldn't vote for him:
This point has been raised time and time again: Bob isn't an outsider. He's an insider and complicit in the City's current crisis. There's no reason to believe that he would act any differently as Mayor than he did on Council. Just because he ran and lost three times does not mean that he's the most qualified candidate for the office.

Final Thoughts?
Now that I've muddled my way through this posting, what does this all mean? It means stay tuned for Part II.