Corbett's fortunes: Troubling truths
It oftentimes takes an outsider to place into proper perspective the insider game that is politics. Those too close to a political scenario typically might see the trees but the forest remains opaque in a heavy fog.
But a Thursday assessment in The Wall Street Journal burns off that fog and exposes a hardly flattering portrait for Gov. Tom Corbett, now seeking a second term. It should shake the Shaler Republican to his foundation and cause the GOP-controlled Legislature to radically overhaul its mission.
Mr. Corbett's “re-elect numbers” have been running between “abysmal” and “are you kidding?” Here's how The Journal's Allysia Finley sees it:
“The truth is that Mr. Corbett and the state's Republican legislature have accomplished little in the way of reform over the past three years to stoke economic growth. The governor has proven unable to corral his caucus to pass even de minimis pension, school and tax reforms. The GOP's moderates and tea party wing have often tangled over the size and scope of reform while Mr. Corbett sat on the sidelines.”
And no matter what Democrat emerges from a crowded primary field or what outside money influences might or might not come into play, Ms. Finley concludes that if Corbett loses in November, “most of the credit will belong to Mr. Corbett.”
Ouch. But the truth usually hurts.
Show commenting policy
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.
- The climate summit: Down for the count
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- A chilly reception
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Your right to know: Those racy emails
- Saving RadioShack: Innovation vs. focus
- Saturday essay: Saving Catalpa
- Ban felon-lobbyists? A better idea
- The Box