It’s with slightly mixed feelings that I announce that City Paper is co-sponsoring a mayoral forum on Wednesday, April 29 at 6 p.m.

On the one hand, I’m pleased that challengers Carmen Robinson and Patrick Dowd will both be on hand for the event, which is being held at Carnegie Mellon University’s McConomy Auditorium. But Mayor Luke Ravenstahl’s campaign has told us he will not be attending — citing other committments.

Without going into the whole behind-the-scenes saga, I’ll just say that our cosponsors, the Pittsburgh Urban Magnet Project, did just about everything they could to entice Ravenstahl to come. All to no avail. 

No big surprise — Ravenstahl has been publicly unenthusiastic about debates from the outset. But it’s sad anyway. Ravenstahl has billed himself as a young, fresh-faced mayor. But he can’t get out to a debate held on a college campus and co-sponsored by PUMP — which is all about engaging young people in politics. (Other sponsors include CMU’s student government, the Urban League Young Professionals, and the county chapter of the Young Republicans.) There are just two debates scheduled for this race (the first of which is taking place tonight) … which means there are city council and, hell, school board races that are getting a more thorough airing.

I’ve heard plenty of suspicion that Ravenstahl is “afraid” to debate Dowd. I don’t buy it. I’ve said this before, but Ravenstahl did quite well at the last debate we hosted with PUMP, a 2007 match-up with Republican challenger Mark DeSantis. Sure, Dowd is more pugnacious than DeSantis, as demonstrated by Dowd’s accusation that Ravenstahl was using the Stanton Heights shooting to avoid debates. But I’m pretty sure Ravenstahl could handle himself — as demonstrated by his response to Dowd’s accusation.

So why not meet the challenge head on? 

Avoiding debates is just Politics 101, of course. Any debate inevitably helps the challenger, if only by giving him or her added visibility. So usually, it’s in the incumbent’s best interests to have as few debates as possible. 

That said, isn’t it about time Ravenstahl graduated to the next grade level? To the extent that there are any issues in this campaign — to the extent that there’s a campaign at all — they often focus on allegations that Ravenstahl goes AWOL, or fails to follow through, on key policy discussions. Which means that, no matter how the debates go, Ravenstahl would be depriving his opponents of a key talking point — just by showing up. 

Now, though, because of Ravenstahl’s reputation, he isn’t going to be able to grab a smoke without setting off a chorus of sniping: “He has time for THIS, but not for discussing key issues before the voters?”

Case in point: this post over at Progress Pittsburgh:

Monday, April 13, 2pm – Mayor Ravenstahl is seen in Bloomfield with his campaign manager – looks like they were filming a campaign commercial

Tuesday, April 14 – Mayor Ravenstahl spends 20 mins at the Lawrenceville Block Watch. 

Actually, attending a block watch doesn’t seem inappropriate to me. But reliable sources inform us that Ravenstahl was shooting a TV ad that Monday. An informant stationed at the Pleasure Bar (I have a whole network of these folks, just to keep track of the music editor) tells us that Ravenstahl was on hand long enough for “several costume changes.” 

Ordinarily, I wouldn’t care. And Ravenstahl did appear at a candidates forum this past Saturday. But according to another of my sources — this one a CP staffer who (hopefully) hadn’t just been sitting in a bar — the audience was miffed that he came late. Prior to his arrival, moderator Tony Norman pondered whether the mayor should be allowed to speak, and there was some booing.

The mayor got to speak anyway — with the added bonus that he didn’t have to engage in any give-and-take with his rivals. Most likely, none of this will cost Ravenstahl. At least, not this time around.

This article appears in Apr 16-22, 2009.

E-mail Chris Potter about this post.

7 replies on “Debatable Tactics”

  1. The lack of public animus to Ravenstahl only proves how irrelevant the City and its government has become. Voters aren’t going to fire Ravenstahl if they don’t think he has any influence over what they consider important. Time to draw up the merger papers and be done with it.

  2. In the debate tonight Rvenstahl said something about participating in dozens of debates/fourms before the primary. Sort of a disconnect with not having time for the tihrd televised debate on KDKA. We had other things going on, so I missed what was said about the Mayor publishing his schedule. Maybe Bob Mayo can tell us (I heard him ask the question, but not the answer).

  4. Eh, while there are arguments in favor of consolidation, I’m not sure a lack of public animus toward Ravenstahl helps make the case. If I read you right, you’re saying that because we don’t have the will to get rid of a single politician, we should scrap the entire government?

    To play Devil’s Advocate, maybe the lack of public animus toward Ravenstahl means … much of the public is content with the job he’s doing. I’m not saying they’d be right or wrong, but suggesting consolidation as a “plan c” fallback sounds a bit like saying, “Well, we can’t beat the incumbent with the electorate we have. So we’re going to change the voter rolls instead … by expanding them until we find some people more likely to agree with us.” Sort of a reverse gerrymandering.

    Actually, “reverse gerrymandering” doesn’t sound so bad. But I’m not at all convinced that the suburbs are doing politics any better, or any more honestly, than we are. There’s plenty of evidence to the contrary, even if it gets less attention than the city’s foibles.

    Perhaps the idea is that, if progressives can’t effectively oppose the city’s “machine,” then we’ll go outside the city’s borders and find someone who can. Perhaps the goal is to find a suburban machine with its own pinstripe patronage network, etc. And then the two machines will battle it out. That would be a charming bit of realpolitik, but I find it hard to get excited about. What’s the best-case scenario? Jim Roddey?

    Not that *I* have any great answers …

  5. Chris – My terming Nordbergian consolidation “Plan C” was meant far more in jest than in earnest. However if Plan A doesn’t work and Plan B doesn’t work, we’ll be in need of a Plan C. And frankly, now that I’m considering it seriously, at least then we will have something like 2-party government.

    Can’t wait to see the campaign commercial.

  6. Apologies if I was reading more intent than you … um … intended. But yeah, using consolidation to add some diversity to the political gene pool would be consistent with some of your other positions. I’m just wary because in recent months, I’ve had reason to spend time at government proceedings outside the city. And what I’ve seen has not been encouraging.

  7. “Without going into the whole behind-the-scenes saga, I’ll just
    say that our cosponsors, the Pittsburgh Urban Magnet Project,
    did just about everything they could to entice Ravenstahl to come.”

    Did they try inviting some Steelers or other celebrities? He’d show up then.

    Advertising $1 well drinks might also work.

Comments are closed.