For Allegheny County chief executive: No sane option
"There's small choice in rotten apples," William Shakespeare wrote. But there's "no choice among stinking fish," English essayist Thomas Fuller reminded.
Welcome to the 2011 race for Allegheny County chief executive.
Rich Fitzgerald, the Democrat nominee, is a caricature of the worst 19th-century pol -- swaggering, arrogant and ignorant. Think of his baseless smearing of a Rankin steel company as a "sweatshop." Think of his outrageous "pay-to-play" e-mail to the Marcellus shale industry. Think of his vow to preserve an unconstitutional property-tax system that, in typical "progressive" fashion, shafts the very people he claims he wants to help.
D. Raja, the Republican nominee, is a caricature of the "polibuff" -- a political buffoon. Lots of plans, not a whole lot of specifics. Lofty if not admirable goals, largely beef-bereft. Worse is that Mr. Raja, too, advocates a moratorium on the long delayed but now underway property reassessment -- despite the unconstitutionality of the existing property-tax system and repeated court orders to fix it. As a businessman, Raja should know better. An illegal property-tax system is no harbinger of economic growth.
"Reason and judgment are the qualities of a leader," wrote Tacitus, the Roman historian. With each candidate possessing little of either -- and of what they do possess, it being flawed and poor -- there is no sane option in Tuesday's election. Here's to firmer apples and fresher fish in 2015.
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 â 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.