GOP city futility
I am a fan of Eric Heyl, but his column “Not all who Wander are lost, but he is” (Sept. 27 and TribLIVE.com) missed the crucial point. To even have a Republican candidate for any city office in Pittsburgh is futile. The Trib has admitted as much after a well-run mayoral campaign by Mark DeSantis garnered 35 percent of the vote in defeat. The candidate runs simply to provide voter choice.
Josh Wander chose to become the GOP mayoral candidate in a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans 5-to-1. He knew most city residents push the Democratic Party button without even considering candidates or issues. He did it to provide a choice for city folks who oppose the progressive, anti-business approach of the Democrat candidate for mayor, Pittsburgh City Councilman Bill Peduto.
In 1996, newcomer Bill Ravotti ran a bare-bones campaign in the 14th Congressional District (primarily Pittsburgh) and received 39 percent of the vote. The next time around, in 1998, he raised thousands of dollars, hired well-known professional campaign consultants, ran TV and radio ads and received 38 percent of the vote. Not only were Democrats not listening, they just didn't care to even consider a Republican!
Even though Wander's job has taken him out of town, he remains an active participant, has given interviews and stays in daily contact with his campaign staff. When Peduto left town on business for the summer, where was the outrage?
For Wander to turn down an opportunity that takes him out of town on business, for a race that Pittsburghers have proven he cannot win, would have been foolish.
Who knows? Maybe this November, the voters will defy the default choice!
The writer chairs Pittsburgh's 5th City Council District Republican Committee.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Positive & healthy ...
- Thanks for the coverage
- Sticker shock
- More answers, please
- Goodell’s ‘pick-six’
- Russia, not Rice
- Atheists & religious expression
- Ferguson & contradictions
- Hiring in Westmoreland I
- ... Or free-riding fad?
- Blame judges