Maher gets endorsement of former auditor general
HARRISBURG — Democrat Barbara Hafer, the former state auditor general, on Saturday endorsed Rep. John Maher, the Republican candidate for auditor general in Tuesday's election.
A Trib poll this week showed Maher, of Upper St. Clair, in a dead heat with Democratic Rep. Eugene DePasquale, of York.
Endorsements are routine this time of year but Hafer's is unusual because she's the former fiscal watchdog and she says she is supporting the rest of the Democratic ticket.
“John Maher will be a great auditor general,” said Hafer, of Indiana, Pa., formerly of Elizabeth Borough, who was elected to statewide office as a Republican.
Hafer became a Democratic after supporting former Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell. She was the GOP nominee for governor in 1990 but lost to the late Democratic Gov. Robert P. Casey, the incumbent.
Hafer said she and Maher shared important character traits. “Like me, he is independent-minded and tough enough to back it up.
“I served as Auditor General. I know the job. And I know John Maher.”
Auditor General Jack Wagner, a Democrat from Beechview, has endorsed DePasquale.
Brad Bumsted is the state Capitol reporter for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 717-787-1405 or email@example.com.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.