The state row offices: Freed, Maher & Irey Vaughan |

The state row offices: Freed, Maher & Irey Vaughan

Republican David Freed is a candidate for state attorney general.

In the open and hotly contested race for Pennsylvania attorney general, experience and commitment to criminal prosecution go to Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed. The Republican is a lifelong, no-nonsense prosecutor. His Democrat opponent, former Lackawanna County prosecutor Kathleen Kane, suggests law enforcement has to change its “priorities” to prevent crime. The focus for this important office must be clear. For attorney general, vote for David Freed.

In a state where corruption and Harrisburg go hand in hand, the next auditor general must continue the bird-dogging tradition of Jack Wagner, who’s term-limited and stepping down. The clear choice is Republican state Rep. John Maher of Allegheny County, a CPA who built his own auditing firm and whose commitment to government transparency and accountability is unflinching. His Democrat opponent, York County state Rep. Eugene DePasquale, doesn’t have the same bona fides. On Nov. 6, vote for John Maher for auditor general.

For state treasurer, Republican challenger and longtime Washington County Commissioner Diana Irey Vaughan offers innovation over the status quo of Democrat incumbent Rob McCord. And that will be crucial in dealing with the state’s pension crisis. Among Mrs. Irey Vaughan’s accomplishments: seven consecutive county budgets balanced without a tax increase. She’ll do for Harrisburg what she’s done for her county. For treasurer, vote for Diana Irey Vaughan.

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.