Taj-
I didn’t say that Sestak wouldn’t have voted for it in the Senate. You should really sign up for a class in logic.

If you actually knew anything about the vote, you’d understand that Specter brought over Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe for a 61-vote total.

Had Sestak been Senator instead of Specter, he could NOT have brought over Collins and Snow. Thus we would not have had enough votes to stop the Republican filibuster and bring the stimulus to a vote. Any suggestion that Sestak could have brought over any Republicans to break the filibuster is beyond absurd.

Specter showed REAL leadership on this, the kind that Sestak neither has nor understands.

An old proverb: Who’s the bigger Fool: The Fool or the Fool who follows him?

You say that if Sestak had been in the Senate, the stimulus wouldn’t have passed? Why, then, did he vote for the House version of it?

30% of the time? Are you counting all votes, including meaningless procedural votes? Specter is with us on pro-choice, stem cells, civil rights, approving liberal judges, health care, unions and the stimulus. That’s more that I can say for some of the Blue Dog Dems in the party. Specter also has shown the clout to get things done for Pennsylvania.

As for “commitment to the party”, I was referring to Sestak’s consistent policy of failing to help local Dems and party members, and showing zero interest in the fortunes or philosophy of the party. His recent railing against the “establishment” is playing into FoxNews talking point. Specter, on the other hand, was a much bigger help to Dem candidates and committees in the 2009 cycle and has been a consistent defender of Obama.

The Republican party made a big shift to the Right, and moved away from people like Specter, who aren’t ideologues.

Do we really need a picture of Sestak and Bush together, after Sestak voted TWICE to give Bush a blank check on Iraq? Do we need a picture of Sestak and Cheney to commemorate Sestak voting with the Republicans to fund Cheney’s office?

We know who and what Specter is. Don’t be fooled by Sestak.

Really, David?? Specter is the definition of “devoid of real commitment” to his party….he bailed on his because the time had come for him to actually lose an election, and jumped to a party whose values he supports 30% of the time.

I am not saying Sestack is the progressive democrat in the world, but at least he’s a democrat. Go ahead and scour the internet – see how many smiling photos of Sestack you find where he is arm-in-arm with Bush. See if there are any videos of Santorum happily endorsing Sestack as he did Arlen. And just take a look at the current Supreme Court – we have Arlen to thank for those Roberts and Alito confirmations.

I am not saying I disagree that Specter may be in a better position to beat Toomey, but I can stomach supporting a candidate who, at the moment, is merely a Republican in liberal clothing.

Actually, Rendell’s a pretty good fundraiser and has tons of contacts and favors to cash in.

GOPHawk-
You and James have it all wrong about my support of Specter. He’s merely the least objectionable candidate, and the best suited to take down the most objectionable candidate, Toomey.
I think Sestak is a complete phony as a Democrat and, if given the chance, could become another Joe Lieberman. Sestak’s already shown himself to be a hawk and an opportunist, and devoid of any real commitment the party he’s supposed to be a member of.

Toomey’s an avid supporter of the deregulation, tax cuts and other policies that caused the economic crisis.

Imaging if Sestak or Toomey had been in the Senate instead of Specter. The stimulus package wouldn’t have passed and the country would have fallen into economic collapse. That alone is a sufficient reason to support Specter over the other two.