ShareThis Page

The Thursday wrap

| Thursday, June 24, 2010

Danny O's circus: Democrat gubernatorial nominee Dan Onorato is challenging Republican candidate Tom Corbett to 14 debates. That's to be expected, given that Mr. Onorato, the Allegheny County chief executive, trails Mr. Corbett, the state attorney general, by 16 percentage points. Hey, better yet, why not travel around the state and appear at all those summer carnivals• The Corbett campaign would be wise to dismiss Onorato's attempts to turn the debates into a traveling circus and away from his poor record. Four debates, broadcast statewide, would be the more dignified approach.

Folly's cost: From Canadian Free Press writer Fred Dardick: "A Harvard University study of (President) Obama's global warming legislation estimates it will cause the price of gas to increase to $7 a gallon. Because of higher energy costs, whatever is left of our manufacturing sector will be transferred to China where energy is cheaper and they aren't so concerned about carbon emissions." Yet another example of "progress" from your garden-variety "progressives."

Arlen's whine: Lame-duck U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, Confused-Pa., says Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito "have done a reverse course" in some of their rulings. Of course, Snarlin' Arlen -- the Democrat turned Republican turned Democrat turned Cranky -- has no experience reversing course, eh?

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.