The ink wasn't even dry on the Keith Rothfus' election certificate when he took one for the team — not his voters of 12th Congressional District team, but for the “Club for Growth” team run by his mentor, Grover Norquist. Thanks to Raymond Anthony for pointing that out in his Jan. 14 letter, “Rothfus' first vote.”
During the campaign, Rothfus apparently never visited Millvale, Fawn Township, Tarentum or other Alle-Kiski Valley communities devastated by Mother Nature in recent years. If he had, he would have told Norquist to “visit my turf and see why I can't vote against aid to victims of Sandy.”
Who does Rothfus owe allegiance to — Norquist or the residents of the 12th District? Never mind, his vote answered that.
Like Mr. Anthony said, God forbid this area gets hammered again by Mother Nature — the Allegheny doesn't spill over its banks or heavy snow creates the kind devastation it has in the past in so many municipalities of the 12th District. Can you possibly imagine our former congressmen, Mark Critz or Jason Altmire, voting no on an issue like aid to those victims still homeless?
No matter how you try to color it, Mr. Rothfus, your first vote was embarrassing to the people of your district. Of the more than 400 representatives, you were one of only 60 who voted no. Whatever your rationale and your priorities, clearly Western Pennsylvania wasn't among either.
Last fall's TV campaign ads were quite negative, but even more accurate. When we need assistance pumping out basements, let's make our first call to Rothfus; our second to Norquist.
Gerald R. Shuster
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.