The PennLive Editorial Board, in deciding which candidate to endorse for the 31st Senatorial District, asks, “Who speaks best to the issues of our times?”
In its elitist view, this is determined by a candidate’s “awareness, independent thinking, and a willingness to listen hard and learn.”
According to the Editorial Board, I, along with my opponent “demonstrated a basic familiarity with a range of state issues and a desire to be open-minded,” yet my opponent is the better candidate.
In the words of the Editorial Board, this is partly “based on her age (she’s a millennial), gender, and experiences in the classroom;” and partly because I cited “supporting law enforcement” as one of my top issues. PennLive is apparently incredulous that I believe that the “bad apples” in law enforcement should be punished, but refuse to perpetuate what the media outlet insists is “widespread racism in policing.”
The readers need to decide which candidate speaks best to them. Is it the retired U.S. Marshal who does not theorize about our criminal justice system, but who has lived it and worked it for 23 years, with officers of every race, color, and creed? Is it the husband and father, born and raised in this area, who, even PennLive admits, is “motivated by a desire for public service” and has a “desire to be open-minded?”
Is it the proven legislator who has reached across the aisle on numerous occasions to get important, life-changing bills passed, all with bipartisan support? Laws which made medical marijuana legal; helped reform our wasteful welfare system to assist our most vulnerable; increased penalties for offenders convicted of attempting to lure children; provided for additional educational benefits for military families; led a task force that developed landmark school safety and security legislation; and gave parents crucial information regarding the availability and importance of medical exams and tests to prevent Sudden Cardiac Arrest in our children (Peyton’s Law).
Or is it the former music teacher, who is an idealist, short on real-life experiences, but yes, is a female, a millennial, and endorsed by declared socialist Bernie Sanders?
PennLive comments that my opponent is also the right choice because we need to rid ourselves of the “status quo.”
Again, every aforementioned piece of legislation received bipartisan support, and if my lifelong community service and my capitalist approach to solving issues is “status quo,” then the voters should look elsewhere.
I’ve been a lifelong member of our community, not a three-year resident like my opponent, who has already run for office twice and lost. Just two years ago, voters rejected her candidacy for state house when she lost by nearly 40% of the vote. This is clear evidence that voters of the 31st Senatorial District oppose her platform endorsed by socialist Bernie Sanders.
I’ve dedicated my entire adult life to serving the people of Pennsylvania, and I’ve represented my constituents and their voices in the Senate. I’ve fought for children and seniors. I’ve held the line on tax increases. I’ve voted to fully fund education at record levels.
If you want law and order, if you want safe neighborhoods, family sustaining jobs, and good schools, you’ve made the choice before and I again humbly ask for your vote on Nov. 3rd.
Mike Regan is the incumbent senator in the 31st District.