ShareThis Page
Letter to the editor: Lamb is deja vu all over again |
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Lamb is deja vu all over again

| Saturday, March 24, 2018 3:51 p.m.

For me, Conor Lamb’s win was what Yogi Berra called “deja vu all over again.” Forty-four years ago, another special congressional election was held in Southwestern Pennsylvania to fill a seat considered “safe Republican.” This 1974 special election drew national attention as the first of five scheduled that year, seen as a referendum on Richard Nixon as Watergate unraveled. This year’s race tested the president’s popularity, considering that candidate Donald Trump won the district by nearly 20 points less than two years ago.

The Democrats faced an uphill battle in ’74 when they nominated an ex-Marine to run. He faced an establishment GOP candidate. The outcome was in doubt when the polls closed, but the Democrat emerged as the winner by about 120 votes. Sounding familiar?

The special-election winner won handily in November, going on to a distinguished career in Congress. His name was Jack Murtha.

Over the years, Murtha became a staunch Nancy Pelosi supporter. It’s laughable that Republicans spent $10 million trying to label Lamb as a “Pelosi liberal” but when their candidate lost, they said it was because Lamb ran as a conservative.

Berra also once said that “it ain’t over ’til it’s over.” Get over it, Republicans; it’s over.

Glenn Plummer


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.