ShareThis Page
Pileggi’s defeat: A blessed check |

Pileggi’s defeat: A blessed check

“Revolutions are not about trifles,” Aristotle once wrote, “but they are produced by trifles.”

As it relates to this week’s shake-up in the leadership of the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania Senate, we certainly agree with the Greek philosopher on his first point. But to his second, we vociferously disagree.

On Wednesday, the GOP caucus sent Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi packing after eight years in favor of Sen. Jake Corman, R-Centre, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. As recently as late September, Mr. Corman had supported Mr. Pileggi, considered by many to be the most powerful pol in Harrisburg.

But a growing number of the many also had tired of Pileggi, a “moderate” who did much liberal bidding, playing chief obstructionist to a conservative agenda that, largely adopted by the House, should have sailed through the upper chamber. Think stalled paycheck protection and liquor- and pension-reform legislation. And those were no trifling matters.

But with Gov. Tom Corbett defeated by Democrat Tom Wolf this month, it was clear that Republicans had to do something to blunt the worst of Mr. Wolf’s forthcoming liberal agenda, such as a constitutionally dubious progressive income tax and a shale gas extraction tax that Pileggi surely would have enabled.

What a pity that Pileggi wasn’t removed sooner and that real reforms were thwarted. But what a blessing that a better check on the new governor will be in place.

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.