ShareThis Page
Verbatim |
Featured Commentary


| Saturday, October 25, 2014 9:00 p.m.

“Regulators are little more than roadblocks standing in the way of innovation.”

— Claire Caine Miller, writing in The New York Times, on government crackdowns on the likes of Lyft, Uber and

“The message from Democrats has been the same since the end of the primary season this summer: The Obama 2012 model is coming to midterms, and it’s going to save the Senate. The Obama model for re-electing a struggling incumbent requires holding down GOP base turnout and keeping Republican-leaning swing voters at home through a barrage of negative ads. Then it’s about juicing the Democratic base with the use of sophisticated targeting and expensive voter contact efforts. But as we get to the final days before the election, fresh questions arise about the strategy — first and foremost whether the blue team succeeded in the first part of the mission. The latest polling suggests that it did not.”

— Fox News political analyst Chris Stirewalt.

“Groups like the NAACP and ACLU are looking to justify their continued existence, decades after they won the fight. Opposition to voter ID helps them fundraise and pay salaries. So next time you wonder why Democrats oppose photo ID, don’t fall for the easy answer. Don’t think it’s because Democrats have organized cheating operations. The real answer is much more sophisticated, and much more sinister.”

— J. Christian Adams, writing in The PJ Tatler (, on why Democrats oppose voter ID.

“This court and I had no idea whatsoever that Justice McCaffery was using court equipment to forward this material — we do not monitor a justice’s email.”

— Ronald Castille, chief justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in his concurring opinion that Justice Seamus McCaffery should be suspended with pay for admittedly sending sexually explicit emails to a friend in the state Attorney General’s Office.

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.