Primary 2013: Remely in the 42nd
Published: Tuesday, May 14, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Three candidates are vying in a special election next Tuesday for the 42nd Legislative District seat vacated by Democrat Matt Smith, who was elected to the state Senate. The winner will serve the unexpired term that runs through 2014, representing those in Green Tree, Mt. Lebanon, Thornburg, Rosslyn Farms and parts of Bethel Park and Scott.
Dan Miller, 40, a Democrat, is a former Mt. Lebanon commissioner and former history teacher who works as a special education attorney. George Brown, 52, a Libertarian, is a software engineer. Dan Remely, 62, a Republican and a Mt. Lebanon School Board member, is a property turnaround specialist.
But it is Dan Remely who, clearly, is the better choice and on a variety of levels.
First, there's his wealth of financial experience. He's been at it for a long time. That experience will not only serve district constituents well but will be a valuable asset in a state Legislature that far too often appears to be befuddled by finance.
Second, Mr. Remely has good people skills. He's affable, engaging and responsive. His engagement in the community is almost the stuff of legend. And he won't forget who's the boss.
Additionally, a Remely win would go a long way in slowing, if not reversing, a sloppy slink toward the Democrat side of things in this area.
Thus, we endorse Dan Remely, the Republican, for the 42nd Legislative District seat.
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.
- The Thursday wrap
- Anti-fracking scandal: More junk ‘science’
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday Takes
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- ‘Merit selection’ for judges? No thank you
- More ObamaCare fallout: Medicare disadvantage