Brookline: Going for DeSantis?The Pist-Gazette decided to venture deep into Ravenstahl-Motznik country this evening. An occasion to dine at the Moonlight Café (and Bar) in Brookline turned into the perfect opportunity to spot sample opinions and views from the locals regarding the Nov. 6 mayoral election.
I must say, I’m stunned. Practically stupefied. I expected near universal support for our Boy Mayor in this hotbed of public works, firefighters and Motz Man constituents.
Instead, out of 13 people “polled”, 5 said they were voting for Ravenstahl, 6 (!!!) were voting for DeSantis, and 2 said they were so disgusted they were staying home. Luke gets 5 out of 13! That's a whopping 38% for Luke IN BROOKLINE!!!
(Ms. Pist needs a moment to compose herself before she is able to move on to the details)
Okay, the details …..
Ravenstahl Supporters
- Busboy: Young, 20’s, Democrat. Reason for vote: "Because [Ravenstahl] is young and has that fresh look.”
- Man at Bar: Young, 20’s, Democrat. Reason for vote: Ravenstahl is a personal friend.
- Man at Bar’s Friend: Young, 20’s, Democrat. Reason for vote: “I like [Ravenstahl’s] views better. Except I don’t know too much about DeSantis.”
- 3rd Man at Bar: Young, 20’s, Democrat. Reason for vote: “Luke is a good mayor. He gets around a lot. I was just at a party last night where he was at.” (These are honest-to-goodness quotes.)
- 4th Man at Bar: Young, 20’s, Democrat, Marine 3 times in Iraq. Reason for vote: “I want a Democrat no matter what.”
DeSantis Supporters
- Waitress: Older, 50’s, Democrat. Reason for vote: “Because I haven’t liked the last couple of things he’s done. The car was the last straw.”
- Man at Bar: Older, 50’s, Democrat, has a son in Iraq. Reason for vote: Democrats need change, the city is being run into the ground, we need a sensible man to take charge, golf, golf, SUV.
- Female Friend of Man at Bar: Older, 50’s, Democrat. Reason for vote: She agreed with everything Man at Bar said, but eagerly added she couldn’t wait to vote for DeSantis.
- 2nd Man at Bar: Young, 20’s, Democrat, wearing a Roethlisberger jersey. Reason for vote: “Luke is an idiot.”
- Cousin of 2nd Man at Bar: Young, 20’s, Democrat, just back from Iraq. Reason for vote: "I can't think of one reason to vote for Ravenstahl. I will have to vote for DeSantis.”
- Woman at Bar: Early 30’s, Democrat. Reason for vote: “Luke can’t tell the truth. If you're going to do something, then just do it. But don’t lie about it. And when you go to a concert, you should take your own car.”
Those Staying Home
- Young Couple at Bar: Both 20’s, Democrats. Reason for not voting: "We're done voting for politicians. No matter who it is, they’re all on the take. It’s all just a scam.”
My God, this is Brookline? I hate to say it. I hate to mouth the words so as to maybe jinx a miracle in the making. But maybe Luke is deeper in his own shit than any of us ever thought.
Ms. Pist will be “polling” at other locales throughout the city before election day. It would be enlightening and maybe even entertaining if other bloggers did the same.
17 comments:
Char -- was Louie the owner there? Too bad you didn't have a chance to poll him -- he would have given you the quote of the century!
I was picking up a friend on Saturday in Brookline and decided to gage the elections by counting yard sides on residential properties. “Not Street Corners” It looks to me as if Luke is more like 50% in a light turn out. If it should rain on Tuesday I think Luke might have a problem.
Interesting to note that you have discovered the existence of Brookline. If anything, the DeSantis campaign has done wonders for the geography knowledge of the Peduto-heads. "Pittsburgh Comet" has even discovered the existence of New Homestead.
Actually, I have a job that takes me throughout the entire city all the time.
I was in Brookline on Saturday. The response there was better than the one I got in Beechview earlier in the day but I felt like an overwhelming number of people were for DeSantis. I did go into a few of the hair salons, all of the old ladies in those places seemed to be for Luke. Some just looked at me funny but one lady was ticked off about the residency requirement. She was voting for DeSantis until the FOP endorsement. I asked her "Is this East Germany!!?"
So, most old ladies love Luke, they think we need to give him a chance. Everyone else was pretty much for DeSantis. Let's hope it rains next Tuesday.
Schultz: So you're saying that you red-baited a white-haired old lady in Brookline because she thinks that cops ought to actually live in the cities that they police?
Wait a minute.
Hold on . . .
OK, there, I stopped laughing. If all DeSantis campaign workers are this incompetent and crude, then Ravenstahl has even less to worry about than anyone previously thought.
We had a heated exchange in the salon, she was fired up. She couldn't see the logic in letting city workers live wherever they choose and instead focus on making people WANT to live in the city by improving the conditions in the city neighborhoods - schools, crime, blight, etc. I do see where she is coming from in terms of feeling safer having cops in her neighborhood - that makes sense and we agreed to disagree on that issue.
What is wrong with what I said again?
Cops in her neighborhood? Does she live in Lincoln Place?
You would be hard pressed to find any DPS employees in the crappier neighborhoods like Elliott or the Hill. It does happen, but it's rare.
schultz: In comparing the cops' residency requirement to the GDR, you were calling this old lady a Communist. That is called red-baiting.
No, I wasn't calling her a commie, I was saying that forcing people to live somewhere, forcing them to do anything in order to make a living, was comparable to communism.
She was fired up and didn't seem to mind the analogy.
schultz: It is a classic tactic of the right to compare any progressive policy to socialism or communism. The residency requirement is not anywhere near that, and your attempts to compare it to the GDR are such ridiculous hyperbole -- characteristic of you and your cohorts in the GOP -- that it should not merit a response. But I am a glutton for punishment, so here goes:
It is not unreasonable that if a city is going to give you guns and tasers to play with, and entrust you with the power to slap handcuffs on its citizenry, that you should at least also have to live in the damn city. The cops are an enough of an occupying army as it is in most city neighborhoods -- relieving them of the responsibility even to pay taxes to the city that cuts their checks is an insult to city residents.
Residency requirement is progressive? It seems like something oh-so-last-century to me.
You liken the cops to an "occupying army" and yet you want them there 24/7? Makes no sense.
Here is the deal. The underlying insanity here is that we are an average-sized county that is split into 130 different municipalities. The "safety" or "feel good" arguments for keeping cops locked up in the city are just plain hooey. The real reason people fear residency requirement removal is fear of losing more of our tax base. And if we were all mostly one tax base .... like we should be .... half of our current problems wouldn't exist.
Char: You're quite right that we should have all one tax base and that the suburbanites should be required to pay for the needed services in the city. But that is not what the suburbanites want, and the candidate you support for mayor deliberately wants to move away from that: his reasoning is that the disproportionately lower-income residents of the City should have to shoulder more of the burden to fund city services of which suburbanites are among the consumers. He and his allies like Jane Orie are against any attempt to "bail out" the city from its problems.
The kind of "consolidation" they'd like is the kind where city residents are not allowed to have any say in the provision of services, and yet the suburbs keep their privileged enclaves -- basically, disenfranchise the blacker & poorer city while leaving all the lily-white suburban enclaves of power and privilege untouched.
Char: The residency requirement was indeed enacted in the last century, as were child labor laws and the minimum wage. I imagine you think those things are retro, too.
My point is that treating the central problem (antiquated, unworkable, doomed-to-failure tax structure of the REGION) by placing last-century band-aids on the city is worse than a waste of time. Not only has precious time been lost by waging the wrong battle….. People are lulled into a false sense of security and complacency thinking a solution has been enacted when it has not.
That is one of our problems. The other is that for decades our city leaders have had no clue whatsoever as to how to be responsible stewards for our tax dollars. They’ve spent like drunken sailors on shiny new stadiums, shiny new buildings, tax breaks to the wrong people, etc, etc, etc. When labor saw the feeding frenzy going on, their “solution” was to demand an equal place at the glutton’s table. And so we’ve had 30 years for someone to wake up and start acting like a responsible adult. 30 years to reposition ourselves in some new way to replace the loss of steel. But we’ve yet to take a first real step. Too busy building the stadiums. Too busy chowing down at the feed table.
The solution to our problem is for Harrisburg to throw us some money to bail us out??? That is so very short-sighted. It’s just about as good of an idea as giving a junkie money for food knowing he’s not cleaned himself up yet and has no intention of doing so. The junkie is just going to foolishly build a 3rd stadium and then come back asking for more “food money”.
Frankly, taxing the suburbanites without giving them any vote/representation as to how the money is spent and how the problems are resolved is not only a pointless exercise and waste of money …… its also just not right or fair. I don’t care how rich or Republican someone is….. you just can’t tell them to pay the bill without giving them a say/vote in how the bills are incurred and how the bills are paid.
Another one of the big hurdles we face around here is our horrific class envy. We somehow think the only good and real solution to any problem is one where “the rich” are made to suffer and pay. Like I said, if we were all part of one taxing body, half our problems would go away overnight. Since that is the obvious solution, you’d think everyone would be feverishly working toward that end. But no, we city dwellers would rather keep our little piece of Appalachia intact (bankrupt as it is). I guess its far more emotionally satisfying for us to forcibly take money from the suburbanites by legislative gunpoint than to have to come to the realization that we are all in this together. We seem to prefer the option of huffily handing the evil Republican suburbanites the bill…..Piss them off in the meantime by making damn sure they know that somehow they are the problem and not us…..Making damn sure the money comes from “them” and not “us”..... And never once considering saying “thank you” in the process.
That is not a plan for success and rebirth. That is just a guarantee that we can continue to wail and moan whilst carrying the huge chip on our shoulders that we’ve come to love. Its just the continuation of the divisions which allow us to attack each other with such ease.
If we truly want to solve the horrific problems that face us, we’re going to have to start treating our suburban neighbors (yes, Republicans too) like friends and partners instead of an enemy we have to “take out”.
Sorry, I don't consider myself to be a member of the GOP nor the "Right." I will vote for Moderate Republicans, like Spector, like DeSantis, but I support prefer to support Democrats since their social views are more aligned with mine. I do run both Democrats for DeSantis as well as "Green is Good", which is a pro-environment blog. That sound right wing to you pal?
I agree about the need to tax suburbanites but only if their municipalities become part of the "new" city of Pittsburgh. I am all for a commuter tax but it would never pass in Harrisburg.
I missed the part where you called the residency requirement a "progressive policy." You are really hurting your arguement with such ridiculous statements.
For an example of a progressive policy check out what this here "right-wing" environmentalist came up with a couple months ago.
Post a Comment