ShareThis Page
Jesse White’s chutzpah |

Jesse White’s chutzpah

| Thursday, January 22, 2015 8:55 p.m

Chutzpah, selective amnesia and the pot calling the kettle black all come to mind when Jesse White presumes to tell others how to debate fracking — without owning up to his own shocking misconduct in that very debate.

Mr. White is the Cecil Township lawyer whose four-term run as a Democrat state representative was ended last November by Republican small-business owner Jason Ortitay of South Fayette. Surely swaying voters was White’s 2013 online use of phony names, plus two constituents’ names, to bash fracking supporters, which district attorneys in both Dauphin and Washington counties investigated.

Now, in a submitted commentary, White chides both sides in the fracking debate. His own appalling behavior goes unmentioned as he questions whether others “have gone to such distasteful extremes that finding a reasonable middle ground may be nearly impossible to accomplish.” He urges the shale gas industry to “Stop turning neighbor against neighbor” and anti-fracking activists “to realize they are marginalizing themselves by being absolutist in their views.”

White even says “challenging the gas industry” caused him to lose his House seat, ignoring the likelihood that his tactics turned off voters more than his stance did.

It’s all quite something, coming as it does from a man who provided a textbook example of how not to credibly take part in the fracking debate — or any debate, for that matter.

Categories: Editorials
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.