BCT Editorial – 11/12/06

This page was last updated on November 12, 2006.

Stay angry; Editorial; Beaver County Times; November 12, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Your vote still counts.

“Last week’s election returns showed that despite the crippling effects of gerrymandered congressional and legislative districts and campaign finance laws that favor incumbents, power still rests with the people.”

[RWC] It certainly has a populist ring to it, but exactly how do “campaign finance laws … favor incumbents?” I believe more than anything the single biggest advantage incumbents have is the ability to dispense pork.

“Sure, voters in some races might have had to pick the lesser of two evils when it came to candidates, but they at least had the opportunity to express their displeasure with the way things work in Harrisburg and Washington, D.C.

“What is even more encouraging is that people apparently aren’t going to be satisfied with throwing out a few incumbents. Their anger appears to have staying power.

“That’s good. With voters looking over their shoulders, members of the Legislature and Congress know they have to produce results if they don’t want peasants with pitchforks coming after them two years from now.”

[RWC] Which “Legislature?” Is the editorial referring to the General Assembly?

“Stay focused, stay angry and vote.”

[RWC] Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t believe anger and voting are a good mix.

Here’s a hypothetical example.

Let’s say Mike Veon had been an exemplary representative (Remember, I said it was hypothetical.) for 22 years except for his ill-advised votes regarding the 2005 payjacking. Would it have made sense to dump Mr. Veon out of anger over one flaw on an otherwise spotless record? Probably not.

Here’s a real-life example. There were some organizations lobbying to throw out all incumbents regardless of their records. How much sense does that make?

Anger can be harnessed for good, but when you enter the voting booth, your choice should be based on a thorough analysis of the issues, not on anger.