Joe voted to give Bush a blank check, without timetables, TWICE.

Joe leaves out Specter’s opposition to Judge Bork.

Except for the 58-42 Alito vote, Joe’s site does not refer to a single Senate vote that occurred after Joe was sworn in.

I’ll bet you that for all the “bad” votes Joe is complaining about he never made a single call or wrote a single letter of complaint to Specter at the time about any of them.
I wonder how many times Joe has actually voted for Specter?

Lee-
Good points. Joe entered this race claiming his campaign would be about what he was running FOR, not against. Other than criticizing Joe for missing votes and campaigning on the taxpayer’s dime, Specter’s been running a fairly positive campaign and promoting Democratic policies.

Sestak’s actions serve only to weaken the party and our chances in November. Sestak is totally playing into Toomey’s hands. Notice how Toomey’s ads state he’s running against Specter and don’t mention Sestak?
Sestak’s actions effectively amount to a campaign contribution to Toomey.

Why do you think Clinton-arch-foe Richard Mellon Scaife has given $4,800 to Sestak?

Sestak’s campaign cannot be totally about Specter’s record. Sestak has to begin (it’s past time IMO) to define himself before Specter does. He has to start giving us reasons to turn out and vote for him; not merely why we shouldn’t vote for Specter.

Otherwise: 1) voters will stay home as they did last week; 2) Specter will tell the voters who Sestak is; and 3) even if Sestak beats Specter in the primary, Toomey will have a good shot at beating a wounded Sestak having no clear identity in the voters’ minds.

Too much focus on Specter increases Toomey’s chances in November 2010. History shows that few candidates win concecutive primary and general elections by going negative in both.