(11/1) While viewership of the Presidential debates has been high, the debate between myself and Incumbent Dan Moul for the 91st District House seat was far more informative. No drama, no accusations or posturing. Just clear answers from both candidates to the same questions about the major issues facing the Pennsylvania legislature.

The difference between our candidacies is crystal clear. Dan focused on apportioning blame for Pennsylvania’s problems. At various points, he blamed our current governor, previous governors, other legislators, and the teacher’s union. He resorted to partisanship frequently, noting "I won’t tell you which party he’s in, but…" when assigning blame. At no point did he accept any personal responsibility for his lack of success.

While Dan focused on assigning blame, I focused on the need to work together to solve those problems.

I think the most telling part of the debate is when Dan explained why he believes he hasn’t been able to deliver on his promise to lower property taxes or resolve major budget deficits in education, specifically pensions.

In his exact words, "When you say that you have been there 10 years and haven’t fixed it, for anyone who understands how it works up there, first of all 10 years is not a ton of time, even though it sounds like a ton of time, I haven’t reached enough seniority yet to even become a chairman of a committee let alone the guy that makes the decisions as to what bills come to the House floor. OK?"

Dan’s argument at this point is that we should keep him in Harrisburg, even though he hasn’t delivered on his promises, because only "senior" career politicians can make a difference. This is a far cry from his campaign rally in 2006 to "end" professional politicians.

Dan advocated for "Term Limits" when he ran in 2006. He wanted to end "professional politicians". He was right then. In the 10 years since, we’ve paid him over $850,000 and he’s changed his mind about term limits. Obviously, that benefits him. But does it benefit you?

As for Dan’s claim that only "senior" (i.e. "professional"?) politicians can make a difference, I completely disagree. Leadership isn’t something that’s handed out in exchange for seat time. It does not require decades. It requires initiative and determination. If you want to be a leader, you need to just be a leader. Make the establishment listen and take notice.

The professional politicians in Harrisburg have not served us well. We need people who are willing and able to change the status quo.

The other thing that will stand out from the debate is how often we agree on issues of taxes and balancing the budget. The real difference is that you already know that Dan can’t deliver.

After you compare our positions side by side, please vote for the person best qualified to represent your needs in Harrisburg. Vote for me – Denise Weldon-Siviy.