ShareThis Page
Election 2006: Jack Murtha in the 12th |

Election 2006: Jack Murtha in the 12th

| Thursday, October 26, 2006 12:00 a.m

Leadership — often challenging, occasionally controversial — is a hallmark of John Murtha’s 32-year career in Congress. It’s a record distinguished by standing tall when others wouldn’t and putting principle ahead of partisan politics.

Mr. Murtha’s exemplary service qualifies the Johnstown Democrat for re-election in the 12th Congressional District.

In wartime and peace, no member of Congress has been a stronger, more steadfast voice for this nation’s military than Murtha. Yet when he challenged the U.S. course in Iraq and called for troop withdrawals last year, many dismissed him as a know-nothing.

In reality Jack Murtha was well ahead on the learning curve. He recognized the fallacy of pursuing Iraqis’ welfare through U.S.-supplied warfare. Eleven months later, U.S. officials now are finally talking about a timeline for Iraq’s self-determination.

Closer to home in a sprawling district that cuts through nine counties, Murtha, 74, has been an outstanding representative of the people, securing the means to promote economic growth and prosperity for jurisdictions big and small. His record speaks for itself.

Murtha’s challenger, Republican Diana Irey, 44, a Washington County commissioner, is an up-and-comer. We urge her to run in the future. But we find no reason to replace the experienced incumbent, especially at this critical juncture.

The 12th District, and certainly America, needs John Murtha .

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.