If the field is weak, why endorse anyone?

In your editorial "For Mayor: Pittsburgh Voters Should Stick With the Incumbent" (Oct. 18), you cite the mayor's ethical lapses, lack of vision and close ties to the Democratic political machines as liabilities and then conclude that "In this weak field of candidates, Luke Ravenstahl is the obvious choice." In other words, the least of three evils?

If the Post-Gazette editorial board truly believes, as it has suggested, that a lack of viable opposition candidates (even within the Democratic Party) is reflective of a stagnant political climate, why endorse anyone? If the election is the sham that it appears to be, why not show some leadership and say that "we cannot endorse anyone because there isn't, truly, a race"?

Single-party rule is no cause for celebration in a true democracy and endorsements simply lend legitimacy to that which is not. Or, as our president is known to have said, "You can put lipstick on a pig ..."

SEAN McLINDEN
Glenfield