Letter to the editor: Saccone vs. Lamb |
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Saccone vs. Lamb

On March 13, voters in the 18th District will select their next congressman.

Rick Saccone was an Air Force counterintelligence officer in South Korea and served a year as a member of our diplomatic mission to North Korea. Following his military career, he was a TV news anchor in South Korea and has written several books on his experiences there. After he returned from Asia, he became a strong law-and-order advocate and was elected a member of the Pennsylvania Legislature, where he was instrumental in passing a number of important bills. He is a conservative and a strong advocate of the Second Amendment and the right to life. He has served four terms in Harrisburg.

Conor Lamb is a former assistant U.S. attorney in Allegheny County. Following law school, he served briefly as a U.S. Marine Corps officer in Okinawa, then returned to Pittsburgh in 2017. As a federal prosecutor, he won convictions in several drug trafficking cases.

Who is more qualified to serve in Congress? In these perilous times, America needs someone who speaks Korean, has negotiated with the North Koreans and understands their ways. We need Saccone in Congress.

Maury Fey


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.