Here’s a little political news for a Friday afternoon: The Gertrude Stein Political Club, the city’s longstanding LGBT voters’ organization, has endorsed Franco “Dok” Harris for mayor. 

From the group’s endorsement: 

An active Democrat for many years, Harris is currently running as an independent/third party candidate. Mr. Harris is a well-spoken and well educated businessman who happens to share the most famous name in Pittsburgh with his Steeler father, along with his mother Dana Dokmanovich’s name and her long-time democratic and progressive activism. He dropped by the endorsement meeting to speak about growing up in the North Side’s Mexican War streets–which he described as benefitting from “a rich diversity” of race, age, wealth, and orientation– and to emphasize his enthusiasm for working with, and for, all Pittsburghers, most definitely including LGBT citizens.

This is just the latest chapter in what has been a very interesting political story in recent years: the extent to which local politicians have begun coveting the support of LGBT voters. Mayor Luke Ravenstahl has sought the support of gay organizations in the past … and I’m sure Kevin Acklin, Ravenstahl’s other challenger this November, would have liked to have the Gertrude Stein club’s support.

But although Acklin supports gay marriage, and supported the countywide anti-discrimination ordinance, he is also anti-choice. (Editor’s note: Some readers objected to this characterization of Acklin’s position, with some justice. See the comments section below.) That’s not going to help you with a group like the Gertrude Stein Club, which identifies itself as Pittsburgh “home-grown LGBT & feminist organization.” Besides, Harris has impressed other LGBT advocates as well, as you’ll see from this blog post by Sue Kerr. 

So if you’re an anti-Ravenstahl voter trying to decide which of these two challengers to back, here’s an issue that may help you to distinguish between them. 

The Stein Club announced some judicial endorsements as well:

— State Supreme Court: Jack Panella

— Superior Court: Robert J. “Bob” Colville, Anne E. Lazarus and Kevin F. McCarthy

— Commonwealth Court: Barbara Behrend Ernsberger and Linda S. Judson

Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas: Joe Willams, Susan Evashavik DiLucente, Arnie Klein and Don Walko. (The Club also backs Judge Kim Eaton in her bid for retention.) 

In local municipal races, the Club “enthusiastically support[s]” county councilor Amanda Green, the District 13 representative who sponsored the anti-discrimination ordinance. It also backs Thomas R. Michalow, the Democratic challenger in District 1, where he is taking on Republican Matt Drozd.

For city council, the Club chose Natalia Rudiak in District 4, Robert Daniel Lavelle in District 6, and Bill Peduto in District 8. For the city’s school board, it reiterated previous support for Sharene Shealey in district 1 and Thomas Sumpter in district 3.

The Club also backed a Wilkinsburg Borough Council candidate, Ward 2’s Pamela Macklin (Ward 2).

This article appears in Aug 27 – Sep 2, 2009.

E-mail Chris Potter about this post.

8 replies on “BREAKING: Gertrude Stein Political Club endorses Harris”

  1. Acklin’s answer on the Steel-City Stonewall questionnaire does not strike me as particularly “anti-choice.” Is that really a fair characterization?

    “
    As a lawyer, I have read and studied the Roe v. Wade decision. I believe it strikes a balance between protecting the interest of the state and ensuring the safeties and freedoms of its citizens. Though I am personally opposed to abortion, as Mayor I would not work to undermine the law as it stands today.

    This, I believe, puts me in the company of most Pittsburghers and most Americans: wanting to reduce the number of abortions. Unlike Luke Ravenstahl, who voted against them when he was a member of Pittsburgh City Council, I fully support the creation of “bubble zones” around health clinics and doctor’s offices. While protesters have a right to have their voices heard, public safety should always take precedence.
    “

  2. Emma —

    Thanks for your comment. I stand by my characterization of Acklin’s position, since as your citation documents, it does reflect his personal beliefs. (And pro-choice advocates may have reason to prefer someone who actively supports, rather than tolerates, their reproductive freedoms.) But thanks for quoting from the questionnaire — it certainly provides a more nuanced look at his position than my original post did.

  3. Also, at the risk of beating a dead horse, Acklin in the past has supported ultra-conservative Republicans like Rick Santorum, whose positions on reproductive freedom are well known. Obviously, Acklin is very much his own man, and far more open-minded than those he has supported in the past: You can bet Santorum wouldn’t have been up there at the county, talking about the merits of an anti-discrimination bill. Still …

  4. Potter – Acklin’s questionnaire says he is “personally opposed to it.” That does not necessarily mean he is “anti-choice.” That is like saying that because I am pro-choice I have to be pro-abortion. I am not pro-abortion. I support a woman’s right to choose but I personally do not like abortion. It seems that this is the prevailing sentiment in America these days and even some churches are coming around to accepting that this position is the best way to achieve common ground between the two camps.

  5. Oh Lord, I really don’t want to get into a semantic debate about this question, since that argument has been going on for decades. But if I read your position correctly — all that truly matters is what Acklin claims* he would do as mayor — then why not call Acklin “pro-choice” as well? That would strike me as a bit Orwellian, and probably would strike you the same way. But it shows that any label is going to be inherently unsatisfactory.

    The more frequently used descriptor of Acklin’s position is “pro-life,” and I’ve used that in the past. But that too is a politically loaded term, which puts choice advocates such as yourself in the position of being, I guess, “anti-life.”

    We could argue the merits one way or the other all day long. (And I’m anticipating a broadside about my lazy thinking and reliance on easy labels from Chad Hermann in 5 … 4 … 3 … ) But the main thing is that Acklin’s position has been stated in all its fullness here, thanks to Emma’s well considered intervention.

    * And obviously, we should be skeptical about what ANY politician claims he would do once elected. Especially if: a) they have supported candidates who have sought to do the opposite when THEY were in office, and b) they acknowledge private beliefs to the contrary position.

  6. Also, I’ve noted in the body text above that there were objections to the “anti-choice” characterization, and directed them to the comments herein. Hopefully that addresses all the concerns here. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to solve some less vexing problems, like the Israeli/Palestinian question.

  7. Abortion is nearly irrelevant to a mayor’s duties, and therefore to a mayoral campaign — a point willfully disregarded by zealots on both sides.

    Not so long ago, anti-abortion fools removed a small borough’s mayor from office because his anti-abortion views were deemed insufficiently intense. A municipal mayor’s job involves street lights, parks, stop signs and paving. You could extend that list all day long without including abortion.

    It seems reasonable to wonder about Mr. Acklin’s historical support of the Rick Santorums and Pat Toomey’s. It seems foolish to base an endorsement on Mr. Acklin’s position on abortion (especially on a caricature of that position).

    Of course, foolish arguments might be the norm in any process that produces an endorsement of Don Walko for judge.

  8. Well, in fairness, any caricaturing of Mr. Acklin’s position on abortion would be my responsibility alone — since it seems to be my use of the phrase “anti-choice” that’s at issue. The Club’s explanation for its rationale is cited above, in italics.

Comments are closed.