Wander deserved mention
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Thursday, March 14, 2013, 8:55 p.m.
The news story “Labor group won't endorse candidate for Pittsburgh mayor” (March 9 and TribLIVE.com) chronicling the candidates who appeared before the Allegheny County Labor Council omitted a very significant event.
Josh Wander, a Republican seeking the Republican Party's nomination for Pittsburgh mayor, appeared before the labor council, along with all the other candidates the story mentioned, to ask for its endorsement. If we are to truly stop the political inbreeding and regain true two-party rule in Pittsburgh after almost a decade of mind-numbing debt, the Trib should at least give fair representation to both parties.
The Trib may have not considered Wander's viability, but he is just as viable as many of the latecomers to the Democratic Party's feeding frenzy over Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's unexpected abandonment of his re-election campaign over recent revelations.
The writer is president of the PA Republican Leadership Council (pagopwing.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.
- Lebo’s coyotes
- Fix icy hazard on Rt. 66
- Tarentum’s ‘questionable practices’
- We pay to keep poor warm
- Saved her life
- Enslaving themselves
- Metcalfe wrong
- Zealots’ tactic
- Conspicuous by absence
- Drought answer?
- Beneficial, irreplaceable