“A clever old trick” – Really?

It’s not that he was “demanding and forceful”, it is that he was unreasonable. Big difference.

I expect that Specter will develop this into a theme with record departures/turnovers from Sestak’s campaign and congressional staff, and then connect it to Sestak’s flagrant violations of hourly minimum wage standards.

Sestak cannot brush away the well-reported claims of his many former staffers since he left the Navy. Specter is probably going to build a consistent story around Sestak as the enemy of decent, hard-workers.

Adam, Sestak may have a very good reason not to “hang a lantern” because he just might be creating enough rope to hang himself.
I’d be shocked if the Specter campaign doesn’t already have former Sestak staffers lined up and ready to go on the record. If I was them, I’d let Sestak dig himself a big hole, then totally destroy his credibility with accounts of his exploits. Sestak can have 10 people come out and say he was a great boss, but it takes only one or two with a story of abuse to shatter that.
(By analogy, if a guy has 100 female staffers, how many does he have to sexually harass to get in trouble? 99 females not harassed don’t matter if even just one was harassed.)

Don’t forget, Specter’s a prosecutor. A good lawyer never asks a question unless he already knows the answer. The Specter campaign had this thoroughly researched by last summer. Sestak does not want this thoroughly fact checked.

Sestak’s running on platitudes like “I will change/fight Washington establishment.” But, then it’s “Watch me attack my own party and the President.”

I’ll reiterate: if Representative Sestak cannot stand the heat, then perhaps it is time to get out the kitchen.

Sestak can’t “hang a lantern” on it because he has a history of mistreating people. All Specter would have to do is get one or two Sestak’s former Navy underlings, one or two former congressional staffers, and one or two former campaign staffers to show a clear pattern of abuse. It would be rather easy to do because the admiral has given Specter plenty of ammunition.

If Specter didn’t attack Sestak’s biggest asset – you know that Toomey would have done the exact same thing.

AND Sestak is coming across as a whining little school girl which further ruins his “admiral” image.

Sestak’s audacity is beyond belief. The Obama Administration has to reckon with fiscal and budgetary woes, mounting unemployment, two major wars, etc. But Sestak called upon the Vice-President of the United States to put aside all of these pressing matters, and focus on Specter’s ad! This narcissistic monster ascribes more importance to his own inflated ego than to the urgent problems plaguing this republic.

Mullen relieved him
His staff turnover is the highest of any rep. in the class of ’06
divide annual staff salary by the 70-hour week he brags about and you often get sub-minimum wages
127 missed votes, most in PA delegation
smearing his own president

All of the above are FACTS. If you can’t challenge their veracity, try to deligitimize them by using the “swift-boat” label. Won’t work. Specter by at least 10%

But HateSestak has no problem with Barrack Obama and Joe Biden taking time out to campaign for Arlen Specter.

And Saunders would have you believe that Specter believes minimum wage for all. Well, for example, the military is paid well below minimum wage as their “duty” hours are 24 to a day. Divide that into their salaries with no overtime. Don’t hear any problem with that from Specter’s camp.

Keep on twisting/lying about facts. FH could prove each thing you haters say as a lie and/or twisted. Hope he saves me the energy. Me thinks you all protest too much.

We are not as stupid as you might think.

To “Not a blind follower…..”

Who is “FH” (pardon my ignorance)?

Has Sestak commented about below-minimum-wage for military? I doubt it, so why single Specter out on that? Besides, minimum wage legislation clearly exempts the military.

Please advise what other facts I may be “twisting”. Also, isn’t “twisting” in the eye of the beholder as opposed to truth, which usually stands on its own merit?

How Specter’s smear is playing in “T” country: from the Sunday Tri-County Courier Express in DuBois, PA:

http://tinyurl.com/3yn4zd2

“Sen. Arlen Specter’s attacks on the Naval service record of retired Adm. Joe Sestak are worse than the “Swift Boat” attacks launched against Sen. John Kerry by President Bush’s supporters during the 2004 election.

“The Specter attacks are worse because they are patently false, whereas there was some doubt, due to the passage of time and difference in memory, as to the details of Kerry’s service aboard one of those-named craft in the Vietnam War.

“There is no doubt about Sestak’s service. It was honorable, and outstanding.

“Specter’s claim that Sestak was “relieved of duty” relies on an ordinary-speech interpretation of that phrase, rather than the specialized military interpretation of that phrase. Most of us think that someone “relieved of duty” is guilty of some crime. When admirals or generals are relieved, the action can be taken because of failure in command, or because of politics, or merely because a new commander wants members of his/her own team in place…

…[F]or Arlen Specter, himself a veteran (Air Force, early 1950s) to “go negative” in such a patently inappropriate way speaks far more badly of the character of Specter than it does of the character of Sestak.

“By most accounts, Sestak was not a much-loved military officer. He was a workaholic, blunt, demanding, sometimes intolerant – and very competent…

“Sestak served honorably in the U.S. Navy, and deserves praise, not censure, for that service, according to all the information we can find.
Specter’s charges border on flat-out lies.”

Bruce-
Since you posted this twice, I’ll repeat my counter-argument.
Besides the fact that Specter’s ad was a factually accurate quote of the Navy Times article, you failed to include this little tidbit from the opinion (not news) piece you selectively quoted:
“We’re not thrilled at the candidacy of Sestak for a U.S. Senate seat from Pennsylvania. Sestak is a spend-and-spend liberal from the Philadelphia suburbs. His votes in Congress have been out of sync with prevailing political sentiments in and around the Tri-County Area.

Basically, this is part of Toomey’s supporting team going after Specter and propping up (self-inflicted) wounded-Joe, hoping to get him across the finish line. The author of the piece is a registered Republican with a nearly 100% voting record. Bruce, wake up and smell the Toomey puppets instead of seeing Specter puppets where they don’t exist.

The author’s comparison of this to the Kerry situation (and declaring it worse) is completely at odds with the facts. The Navy Times article was a contemporaneous report, prior to Sestak’s political career.

Adam-

Well said. Which begs the question: why isn’t the Sestak campaign smart enough to figure out the same thing?

Lee-
Visit the Sestak campaign offices, see who is in charge, and you will have your answer.

For those that can’t make the trip…

The Campaign Group is doing the ads and has never beaten Specter, Their record will likely remain intact. As in 2006, they got Joe to save his pennies for a solution (massive TV ads) that lined their pockets with commissions.
The idea that Joe avoided in 2006 (and this cycle) was spending money throughout the cycle on mailings, newspaper ads, etc. to build up Joe’s name recognition over time, which would feedback to help his fundraising. Of course, that doesn’t produce a commission for people that place TV ads.

As for the campaign strategy itself, it’s always been “people will hear Joe’s story (31-years in the Navy) and not care about anything else”. They simply can’t believe that people won’t like and believe (and worship) Joe. It’s apparently beyond their comprehension.

Who runs the campaign to make the big decisions, set the tone, and the messages? Joe, his brother and his sisters.

Their view of Joe is different than that the rest of the voters. Their knowledge of the PA electorate is very limited. They’ve alienated members of the Delco Dems who do possess better knowledge and could have helped. The Sestak experience in the 7th in 2006 was a huge anomaly, with luck, national mood, local players, an FBI raid, and many factors they didn’t understand (and still don’t).

They’ve never understood the maxim: “If you want a friend, you have to be a friend.” Instead, the local party, candidates, donors, etc. were all viewed as resources to exploit, rather than to enhance. There was no real investment in the local or state party. The local party was treated as weak, and ineffectual (despite their efforts in 2006). So rather than tie himself to losing candidates, Sestak abandoned them (creating a self-fulfilling prophecy to justify his original lack of support).

In 2006, Sestak was an unknown. He pleaded with us to help him and have faith in his longshot candidacy. However, when our longshot candidates were up to bat, Sestak didn’t return the investment of faith or help with fundraising.

When asked to help by hosting an event (which means inviting donors), Richard Sestak said “Why should he? It’s not his contest. No one here did anything for him.”

That’s the attitude that sunk the campaign. It’s a combination of ego and selfishness that trumps intelligence. If Joe and his brother want to know why they lost, direct them to the nearest mirrors.