“I'll take ‘Political train wrecks' for $400, Alex.”
“Those who don't think Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett is in trouble.”
“Who is ‘nobody'?”
These are difficult (if not panicked) days for the Republican incumbent seeking re-election next year. The hallmark of his legislative agenda — privatizing liquor — couldn't make it through the Republican-controlled Legislature (not even a watered-down version).
A major tax increase on the wholesale price of gasoline and diesel fuel was euphemized when it should have been euthanized.
Pension reform? Ha! Tick-tick-tick continues the clock counting down the time-bomb's detonation.
A light bulb went off a few months ago at Corbett headquarters (that after repeated pulls on the chain yielded no light and somebody discovered that the bulb needed to be screwed in). There's been a wholesale shake-up of his staff. Whether they are astute enough to install tone-deaf defeaters and a bully pulpit remains to be seen.
But just about every Democrat (and his brother, sister, cousin and third half-cousin twice removed by marriage) is ready to challenge Mr. Corbett. There's so much blood in the water that even former state Auditor General Jack Wagner has visions of easy pickin's and is toying with a run.
There are whispers anew of a GOP primary challenge (though that's about as likely as the Legislature cutting its size or seeing a salamander surfing on the Susquehanna).
Can this governorship be saved? Perhaps the better question is if it should be saved.
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.