PRIMARY 2014: Nominate Mark Critz and Bill Shuster
We typically leave the respective political parties to their own devices in primary elections and refrain from making endorsements. But two races on Tuesday warrant our endorsement this cycle (and the Democrats' gubernatorial race is not one of them):
• Five Democrats are seeking their party's nomination to become lieutenant governor. But one rises above the pack. And that's Mark Critz.
Mr. Critz is no stranger to the mechanics of politics and government. He served faithfully as the late U.S. Rep. Jack Murtha's top aide, won the right to succeed him in a special election and later won the seat in his own right. Critz was defeated by Republican Keith Rothfus two years ago. Critz knows the players and the people well and would serve Pennsylvania with distinction in the No. 2 spot. That said, you can bet there are a goodly number of Pennsylvanians who wish he was seeking the gubernatorial nomination.
• Twelve years of experience. Chairmanship of the all-important House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. A solid record of constituent service. That's Bill Shuster, the Republican incumbent in the 9th Congressional District.
And though his two challengers each bring some good ideas to the table, Mr. Shuster clearly is worthy of being returned to office.
A vote Tuesday for Bill Shuster is a vote for the best interests of all Pennsylvanians.
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.
- U.N. Watch: Another jaded ‘inquiry’
- The revolving door: Washington’s ‘gift’
- Sunday pops
- Expanding Medicaid: Gov.-elect Wolf embraces a false premise
- Union ‘fairness’: The dues racket
- The regulatory state: EPA picks a fight
- U.N. Watch: Resist the temptation
- Picking winners & losers: Stop the idiocy
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- A ‘warming’ wake-up call: Models aren’t foolproof
- An NLRB ambush