I agreed more with Toomey - still do - but both candidates took clear, defensible stands. I thought that would serve Sestak well in his primary challenge to newly reminted Democrat Arlen Specter, who sometimes could be fuzzy on issues.
Then, it looked as though Sestak might get away with portraying himself as a Washington outsider by running a campaign that showed just how different he was. Not anymore. Now, with all the recent missteps, the strategy seems to be: Adopt the persona of Michael Scott, Steve Carell's character on The Office: all heart but no clue.
Start with the attacks on Toomey as a big spender during his time in Congress, from 1999 to 2005. A flier handed out by Sestak's folks at a recent Toomey news conference pointed out that there was a $125 billion surplus when Toomey first took office, but a $412 billion deficit when he left. Devastating, right?
Republicans did spend irresponsibly during the Bush years when they controlled both Congress and the White House. But while Toomey is an unabashed promoter of tax cuts in order to spur economic growth, he also took a hard line on spending. For example, he was one of only 25 Republicans who voted against the $400 million Medicare prescription-drug program in 2003.
But let's use Sestak's reasoning and look at his side's spending record. In 2007, when Sestak went to Washington with the new Democratic majorities in Congress, the deficit was $160 billion. This year's projected deficit is $1.5 trillion, almost 10 times what it was when Sestak took office. So you'd think Sestak would keep quiet on spending, or at least have a good explanation for his votes in favor of trillions in bailouts, stimulus, and record budgets and deficits. Apparently not.
