Penn Live Endorses George Scott in Pennsylvania’s 10th Congressional District


George Scott

A lot of his here in south central Pennsylvania are following the congressional race in the 10th District.  Trump loyalist and incumbent Scott Perry (R) is running against Lutheran clergyman (ELCA) George Scott (D).  Because of the newly redrawn congressional maps in Pennsylvania, the district that includes my hometown of Mechanicsburg is now up for grabs for the first time in decades.

Last week Penn Live (the online version of the Harrisburg Patriot News), endorsed Scott:

Here is a taste of the endorsement:

Scott, who aspires to be a “servant-leader,” is a political moderate at a time when American politics is badly in need of some moderation. 

He impressed the board with his views on healthcare, women’s reproductive rights and his commitment to increasing the minimum wage and expanding Medicaid coverage, among other issues. 

Unlike Perry, who has marched in lockstep with the House’s most conservative faction, Scott has said he will not support current House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for House speaker should Democrats retake the majority on Election Day. 

His aspiration to bipartisanship in an institution where that tradition is a dying art was also refreshing. He told the board that “it all starts with personal relationships … not just with people in my party, but with folks on the other side of the aisle … who want to solve tough issues.”

He shares Perry’s commitment to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

But unlike his Republican opponent, Scott also believes that right must be balanced with better regulation, including background checks for all gun sales and bans on products like bump stocks and high-capacity magazines.

Scott has also called for a strong federal policy to address climate change, and says one that has caught his eye is a carbon fee-and-dividend proposal advanced by the Citizens Climate Initiative that would tax fossil fuels at production or point of importation, according to the carbon dioxide (one of the top greenhouse gases)  produced.

The idea is to get business, industry and government to more quickly convert to conversion to renewables and other cleaner fuels.

After three terms in Congress, Perry has emerged as a sharp-elbowed partisan and loyal conservative foot soldier of the hyperpartisan Freedom Caucus, a coalition of GOP lawmakers whose main priority often seems to be less about effective governance and more about ensuring a permanent state of legislative paralysis on Capitol Hill. 

Perry has voted repeatedly to repeal the Affordable Care Act, without approving legislation that would have replaced former President Barack Obama’s signature legislative achievement.

In 2017, he voted in favor of the GOP-authored alternative, the American Healthcare Act. Despite recent attempts at Republican white-washing, the bill would have made it harder and much more expensive for people with pre-existing conditions to obtain insurance coverage.

Perry voted against a carbon tax proposal and has said his preference is to let market forces continue to attack the problem. He pointed to large emission reductions that have occurred organically in recent years as American power plants have moved from coal to natural gas as a fuel source.

Perry’s assertion to a constituent that he didn’t want to pay for maternity care for other women because “I have two children, and we’re not having any more,” is dangerously short-sighted and a profound violation of the social contract between Americans.

Perry joined with the Freedom Caucus to call for the impeachment of the Rod Rosenstein, the senior U.S. Department of Justice official, who oversees Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. 

And he made the bizarre assertion, without providing any evidence, that ISIS was behind the mass shooting in Las Vegas that wounded hundreds and resulted in the death of 59 people. Asked by the board to substantiate that claim, which he still stands by, Perry declined, saying he’d been given access to confidential information he could not share.

The Nov. 6 midterm offers central Pennsylvania voters a chance to forge a new direction, in a new district, with someone who truly represents their values. George Scott is that candidate.

Read the entire endorsement here.

12 thoughts on “Penn Live Endorses George Scott in Pennsylvania’s 10th Congressional District

  1. I hope you haven’t replied simply because you lost interest. Because if there aren’t any solutions conservatives can embrace than how’s a christian to express concern for climate change without being accused of being fully on board with the global warming scriptures?


  2. Sheridan,
    I would not call the term “pro life” a euphemism. We don’t need a euphemism for allowing innocent babies to live. With that being said, you do have a valid point about “pro birth” also being a good term. As far as your supposition that mother and child are on their own postnatally, I cannot follow your logic. Please explain.


  3. What is a moderate’s solution to climate change? Why isn’t the solution proposed by James A. Baker III, George P. Shultz and Henry M. Paulson Jr. considered moderate, if not conservative?


  4. Alex: To clarify: I was not accusing George Scott of anything, other than being someone who has adopted, in nearly every respect, the progressive position on global warming, including all the Left’s favored tax and re-distribute remedies to combat it. Which is fine — those are his positions, and I’m sure they are heartfelt.

    But the man is not in any sense a moderate, as I understand his across-the-board views.


  5. James – Why do conservatives use the euphemism “pro-life” when what they really mean is “pro-birth.” Their “pro-life” meme seems to have a short life span – from gestation to birth – because after birth the kid and his mother are on their own.


  6. Has George Scott done any of the things you mention in your second paragraph, or anything to suggest George Scott is treating Climate Change as a religion? Is it possible for a christian – like George Scott – to think that doubling the concentration of greenhouse gases is going to have grave consequences, but not be accused of falling for a false religion? What would that look like, and how would it be different than what George Scott has said and done?


  7. Sure: I was suggesting that many of those — and here I’m primarily discussing the scientific community — who believe in the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, have become closer to members of a religion than practitioners of scientific inquiry.

    That is, they accuse skeptics (I’m sorry — “deniers” — gotta love that connotation) of heresy for deviating from the approved “consensus.” We have seen this repeatedly with attempts within the discipline to hijack the peer-review process in order to prevent dissenting views from being published; complete unwillingness to address the repeated falsification of predictive climate models; vitriolic personal attacks on those who do not agree on the scope of man’s contribution to warming, and who have the temerity to point out that scientists are not in the business of advocating public policy. Targets have included environmentalists like Bjorn Lomborg, MIT’s Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry and many others. We’ve even seen progressive politicians like Robert Kennedy, Jr. openly advocate for jailing — I’m not making this up — those who won’t fall in line and agree on whatever re-distributionist scheme is being advocated by people who fly their Gulfstreams to conferences in Monaco to decry C02 emissions.

    This is not the behavior of people who believe in science. It is the behavior of propagandists who want to silence any debate on a very complex topic.


  8. Thanks Tony for your insights about the predilections of the editorial board of this particular newspaper. In light of that, their verbal gymnastics in support of Mr. Scott seem all the more disingenuous. It is as if they want us to believe they are thoughtful people.


  9. James: as you suspect, the PL editorial board is comprised of fairly lock step Democrats, and there is no closeting: they are openly progressive on pretty much any issue. Mr. Scott is a fairly conventional progressive D — pro-universal health care, pro-choice, fully on board with carbon taxation and the rest of the global warming scriptures, pro-gun control, etc. Of course, in the view of PL, this makes him a “moderate” — in much the same way that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer et al. are “moderates.” (It is a media rule that perhaps other than sainted John Kasich, there are no R moderates, only “sharp-elbowed partisans.”) Mr. Scott has smooth elbows, and just wants to implement common sense solutions. See?


  10. Interesting article, John.

    I am not sure how much weight newspaper indirsements actually carry these days. In 2016 Trump received only a small percentage of them. In any case let me offer a few random thoughts

    Where are the liberals complaining about separation of church and state? I would guess they would be more vocal if a conservative Baptist clergyman we’re running for office. What will Gorge Scott do to keep his religious views out of his voting?

    Mr. Scott’s supporters state that he will not march in lock-step with Nancy Pelosi. I wonder how much money she has thrown into Scott’s campaign coffers? What about the old folksy saying, “She will dance with him that brung her.” I predict that if Mr. Scott is elected, he will toe the Pelosi line. His votes will reflect Pelosi’s SanFrancisco values and not those of his Pennsylvania district. I think the editorial board of this particular newspaper is likely composed of closet Democrats who seek to create the impression that they are objectively looking at the issues.

    The final thing which caught my attention in the indorse ent is that Scott will support “women’s reproductive rights.” Why do liberals and Democrats use this tired euphemism? Are they afraid to come out and clearly say what they are really advocating?


Comments are closed.