ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Lamb wrong choice

| Friday, Feb. 2, 2018, 8:57 p.m.

In regard to “Conor Lamb says he wouldn't support Nancy Pelosi to lead House Democrats,” two words come to mind: as if. Are we really supposed to buy that as anything more than posturing? We know full well Pelosi will win without him, and he will vote in lockstep with her extreme agenda.

Lamb knows his brand of progressivism doesn't fly around here. That's why he has been running so far away from it.

Of course, it is also why Rick Saccone is the better choice, anyway. Saccone has a consistent record of standing for innocent life, for our right to defend ourselves, for veterans, and against crushing taxation and wasteful spending. He shares our priorities.

Lamb cannot compete with that, and he is just trying to avoid being pinned down to positions he knows are unpopular. But why would liberals support him if he is supposedly so ashamed of their agenda? And why would the people here vote for him when they have the real deal in Saccone?

This little Lamb doesn't have what it takes to be the right choice for the Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional District.

Stanley E. Pricener

Sewickley Township, Westmoreland County

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.

click me