[Editors' note: Refraining from following links before reaching the end will promote readers' enjoyment.]
Jim Roddey (left), whose misplaced focus and consequent lackluster performance as Allegheny County Executive squandered Republicans' best recent chance to disrupt Democrats' unearned electoral superiority in local politics, has indicated Republicans expect to pick from a half-dozen or so candidates who desire to succeed Dan Onorato, who replaced Roddey. From a field that large, Republicans should expect a candidate who checks most, if not all, of the boxes on the modern conservative wish list, spotlighting the question: Who in Allegheny County fits the current conservative profile?
Conservatives no doubt will prefer a candidate for whom safeguarding the interests of the wealthy -- even at the expense of those lower on the economic ladder, if necessary -- is unambigously an overarching priority.
If increased revenue is required, the conservatives' favored candidate would invariably choose a regressive method of revenue generation.
To survive a Republican primary or enthuse conservatives in a general election, a candidate must be anti-abortion.
Today's viable conservative candidate opposes living-wage laws and resists the homosexual agenda.
A strong Republican candidate would be expected to rail about government spending on low-level employees while arranging plenty of pinstriped patronage for big-firm lawyers, political insiders and the like.
To survive in today's conservative circles, a candidate must be reliably, and unreasonably, pro-gun.
A Republican candidate should villify "activist judges" (and argue that the failure of Robert Bork's nomination was a travesty) while, if possible, defying the courts (and, if necessary, the constitution) when convenient to the advancement of the conservative platform.
Against this background, the ideal Republican choice for county executive may begin to seem obvious.
Infinonytune: Watch That Man, David Bowie
20 minutes ago