Verbatim |
Featured Commentary


“Private Internet providers already compete with each other to provide broadband access to millions of Americans, and limiting their ability to sell their products how they see fit will stifle innovation and competition, not encourage it. The Internet is not broken, and there is no need for a team of government bureaucrats to come in and fix it.”

— Chris Chocola, president of the Club for Growth, on President Obama’s decision to ask the FCC to classify the Internet as a public utility.

“(Ohio Gov. John) Kasich won re-election by marrying George W. Bush’s compassionate conservatism to John McCain’s maverick image. But some political observers worry that he combines Joe Biden’s political instincts with Chris Christie’s occasionally off-putting brusqueness.”

— Joel Gehrke, a political reporter for National Review Online, handicapping the McKees Rocks native’s presidential chances.

“(T)he Obama administration treats the law, not as a rule to be followed, but as an irritant to be avoided when it conflicts with preferred outcomes. The ends, as the saying goes, justify the means.”

— Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a Baldwin native, writing in The Washington Times on the need to slow down the Obama administration’s confirmation “rush” of Attorney General-designate Loretta Lynch.

“The odds that the Republicans will hold the Senate and seize the presidency (in 2016) are better than the odds that Democrats will win the House, giving the Republicans a better chance than Democrats of enacting their agenda.”

— Nate Cohn, writing in The New York Times.

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.