ShareThis Page
Two Democratic hopefuls in Senate race accept Meadville debate offer |

Two Democratic hopefuls in Senate race accept Meadville debate offer

| Thursday, September 24, 2009 12:00 a.m

Two of the three candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate next year have accepted an invitation to debate at Allegheny College in Meadville.

One of the two Republicans seeking the party’s endorsement in the primary also has agreed to a debate.

A date for the debates has not yet been set, a college spokesman said.

State Rep. Bill Kortz, D-Dravosburg, announced Wednesday that he “looked forward to this opportunity to give the citizens of Pennsylvania a chance to hear each U.S. Senate candidate’s stand on the important issues facing our nation and its citizens.”

U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Delaware County, informed college officials that he, too, is interested in participating in the debate, said Josh Tysiachney, a public affairs officer at Allegheny.

Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Philadelphia, has not yet responded to the invitation, Tysiachney said.

College officials also are planning a debate between candidates seeking the Republican nomination.

Conservative activist Peg Luksik of Johnstown has accepted an invitation to debate. Her GOP rival in the spring primary, former Lehigh Valley congressman Pat Toomey, has not yet responded to the college’s invitation, Tysiachney said.

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.