Share This Page

Raja over Smith II

| Monday, Oct. 8, 2012, 8:56 p.m.

Driving along Gilkeson Road in Mt. Lebanon, I couldn't help but notice a large number of “Matt Smith for state Senate” signs. I wondered how many of those signs were funded by money that state Rep. Smith didn't have to spend participating in the primary.

Raja won a very contentious and expensive Republican primary in the 37th Senatorial District. In the district's Democrat primary, Greg Parks, a relatively unknown Pleasant Hills councilman, quietly conducted an email write-in campaign and garnered sufficient votes to win the Democrat nomination.

But curiously, nine weeks later, on June 29, Parks withdrew from the Senate race, citing undisclosed “personal reasons.” And two weeks after that, Democrat Smith announced his intention to run for the 37th District Senate seat. Arguably, Smith, Parks and other political insiders have successfully gamed the system to place Smith's name on the ballot.

At a minimum, Smith is complicit in these shenanigans. Do we want another typical political insider to represent us in the Senate? And yes, Smith is still running for re-election to his 42nd District seat in the state House. Unfair? Ultimately, the answer to both of these questions is up to the voters to decide.

Steve Lynch

Upper St. Clair

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.