ShareThis Page

Shuster's tepid conservatism

| Thursday, Feb. 11, 2016, 8:55 p.m.

I recently received a political mailing from U.S. Rep. Bill Shuster stating that he is supported by U.S. Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina. Heritage Action for America, the political-advocacy arm of The Heritage Foundation, has as its purpose to hold Congress accountable to conservative principles. The following is according to the latest Heritage Action for America scorecard from January: The average House Republican conservative voting record is 63 percent. Shuster had a 47 percent conservative voting record, 16 percentage points below average. Meadows had an 85 percent conservative voting score.

Shuster's voting record is a whopping 38 percentage points below Meadows'. I called Meadows' office and asked why he would support a Republican with a below-average conservative voting record. I received no answer.

After 15 years, it's time for a change. Vote for conservative Art Halvorson in the 9th Congressional District.

Earl Eck

Altoona

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.