Even though Congressional leaders in the House have floated the idea of passing a one-week funding bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rejected the idea Wednesday. Republicans are looking for $40 billion in budget cuts while Democrats are only willing to consider $33 billion in cuts. Democrats also argue that the cuts Republicans are demanding are ideologically driven, pointing to cuts to organizations such as Planned Parenthood and National Public Radio.

If the government does shut down, about 800,000 federal government employees can expect to be furloughed. The shutdown would also stop paychecks to military members, though Sens. Robert P. Casey (D-Pa) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) are the lead sponsors of a bill that would ensure soldiers continue to be paid through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.

Despite all of the potential negative consequences of a government shutdown and the fact that a 1995 shutdown actually cost $1.25 billion, the Tea Party faction has been practically screaming for a shutdown of what they consider a bloated bureaucracy.

With that in mind, here is a rundown on Pennsylvania’s Congressional Delegation stands on a possible shutdown. It is difficult to find any overt support for a government shutdown, though Rep. Lou Barletta is on record saying that his constituents may support a shutdown if that’s what it takes to rein in spending. One common theme is that Republicans (and even one Democrat) blame the Democratic-controlled Senate for not passing a budget last year. In December, Talking Points Memo noted that nine Senate Republicans walked away from their support of an omnibus spending bill that had been negotiated for months.

Senator Robert Casey (D): In addition to his sponsorship of the military pay bill, Casey joined 15 other moderate Democrats in signing a letter to House Speaker John Boehner urging him to avoid a shutdown. The letter calls a shutdown “irresponsible” and notes it would distract from a focus on creating jobs and reducing the debt. It also accuses Republicans of using the possible shutdown to make a political point.

Senator Pat Toomey (R): Toomey told the Allentown Morning Call that a government shutdown is “not okay” and no way to run a government. However, he also blamed the last Congress, of which he was not a part, for its failure to pass a budget on time. Toomey made similar statements in February when Congress was considering a short-term continuing resolution.

Robert Brady (D PA-01): We could not find a definitive statement on the looming shutdown from Brady. He did vote for the latest stop-gap measure that funds the government through April 8. He also supports measures that would devote any unused portion of a member’s Representational Allowance to reducing the deficit.

Chaka Fattah (D PA-02): Fattah posted a link on Facebook and Twitter linking to a poll that shows most Americans don’t want to see a government shutdown. He also wrote a post for the Huffington Post detailing his plan to eliminate the $14.3 trillion national debt in 10 years. He called for a one percent tax on the $445 in transactions that go through the Federal Reserve.

Mike Kelly (R PA-03): Kelly voted in favor of HR 1225, the constitutionally questionable bill that would declare HR 1, the Republican-sponsored budget that would cut $61.5 billion, to be the final bill from Congress should the Senate fail to pass a budget. Kelly blames the Senate for not passing a budget last year. The liberal blogosphere also called Kelly on his claim that a shutdown would not disrupt Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Jason Altmire (D PA-04): The National Republican Congressional Committee attacked Altmire for his comments on Fox News March 31 that Democrats are to blame for not passing a budget on time last year. During a recent town hall meeting, Altmire praised a shift in thinking from spending to cutting, but warned against haphazard cuts.

Glenn “GT” Thompson (R PA-05): Thompson spoke on the House Floor April 5 and blamed the inaction of the Senate for failing to pass a budget and railed about running the government on continuing resolutions. “Even if we all agree a program is efficient and needed, we can’t spend money we don’t have,” he said. He has been clear that a government shutdown would be costly and unproductive. The Center Daily Times reported that 18 Tea Party members protested Thompson’s vote on the March temporary funding bill.

Jim Gerlach (R PA-06): Gerlach also voted for the temporary funding measure and blamed Senate Democrats for not passing a budget. He is not in favor of a shutdown, saying, “Job creators need certainty to start hiring again, not one more countdown to a federal government shutdown.”

Pat Meehan (R PA-07): Meehan held a town hall meeting in March where he argued that a government shutdown would not be beneficial when a resident challenged opponents of the Affordable Care Act to do so. Still, Meehan is in favor of the Republicans’ 2012 spending plan which would cut $6.2 trillion over 10 years but has been largely panned by the left for its cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. He has also released a statement defending his vote to defund NPR.

Michael Fitzpatrick (R PA-08): Fitzpatrick also blamed Senate Democrats for not passing a budget. “The American people and job creators should no longer be held hostage to the Senate’s inaction on the federal budget,” he wrote in a press release. His press release on the Republican budget proposal was less committal than Meehan, urging his constituents to get familiar with the plan and “and be active participants in this national discussion.”

Bill Shuster (R PA-09): A spokesperson for Shuster told the Johnstown Tribune-Democrat that the Congressman hopes to avoid a shutdown. He also posted a video talking about the dangers of increasing federal government spending.

Tom Marino (R PA-10): Marino told the Sunbury Daily Item that Republicans do not want to shut down the government and called on the Senate to pass HR 1. He also posted a message on his Facebook page supporting the proposal to pay soldiers in the event of a shutdown.

Lou Barletta (R PA-11): On March 28, Barletta announced that he would not support any more stop-gap spending measures. “Stringing together short-term continuing resolutions only extends the uncertainty among local and national job creators, and that will slow our economic recovery at home,” he wrote in the press release. He also told the Morning Call that he thinks his constituents want to see the federal government reduce spending and might support a shutdown if that’s what it takes.

Mark Critz (D PA-12): Critz called on Congress to end “the partisan bickering and finalize a responsible budget.” However, if the government would shut down, he is co-sponsoring the House bill that would deny a paycheck to members of Congress. Critz also railed against the Republicans’ spending plan, saying it hurts senior citizens while keeping in place tax cuts for the wealthy and oil company subsidies.

Allyson Schwartz (D PA-13): Schwartz agrees that the government should be making cuts in spending, but has called the proposed Republican spending cuts, “reckless.” She also says that the Republicans’ 2012 budget would not reduce costs, just shift costs to senior citizens.

Mike Doyle (D PA-14): Doyle condemned passage of HR 1, calling it destructive and counterproductive. “Frankly, it’s exactly what I’d expect to see when people who hate government are put in charge of it,” Congressman Doyle wrote in his press release. “They say government is useless and inefficient, and if they get their way, it soon will be.” He also posted a message on Twitter saying that the 2012 Republican budget proposal would “destroy Medicare as we know it.”

Charlie Dent (R PA-15): In his announcement that he voted for the last stop-gap spending measure, Dent said, “To avoid the extremely disruptive impact a shutdown would have on our economy, it was absolutely necessary the House passed an additional short-term Continuing Resolution.” Dent also told the Morning Call that he is worried about a shutdown, particularly if military paychecks are not issued. Dent called the 2012 Republican budget proposal “a serious and sobering document” and said that the Medicare and Medicaid proposals deserve thoughtful review.

Joe Pitts (R PA-16): Pitts voted against the bill in March to fund the government through April 8. He also told The Hill newspaper in March that “more and more” social conservatives are considering not voting for legislation that would defund Planned Parenthood and the Affordable Care Act. On April 1, Pitts wrote about the pressing need to cut spending.

Tim Holden (D PA-17): We could not find any definitive statements from Holden, but he did vote in favor of the latest stop-gap spending measure.

Tim Murphy (R PA-18): Murphy also explicitly blames the Senate Democrats for their failure to pass a budget, but did vote for the latest stop gap measure. In his statement he said, “The time for stalling and half-measures and one-week spending bills has long since passed. The longer we postpone the difficult decisions that have to be made, the worse off we become.” He did, however, join in urging the Senate to continue issuing paychecks to military personnel if the government does shut down.

Todd Platts (R PA-19): Platts told the Gettysburg Times “Our intent is to keep government open.” However, he also blames Senate Democrats for failing to pass a budget. He also sent out a press release in early March discussing the problem of duplicated efforts in the federal budget, noting that eliminating such duplication could save $100 billion.

The 30 second ad started airing Tuesday night. In the ad, Trivedi attacks the fourth term incumbent for his vote against the H.R. 4213 (American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act), which the ad frames as supporting tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. The ad also attacks Gerlach for accepting pay raises while opposing increasing the minimum wage.

“So until those jobs come back home, I’ll take a pay cut,” Trivedi promises in the ad.

Watch the full ad, titled “Listen” here.

A Monmouth University poll released Thursday, conducted just as the ad hit the air, shows Gerlach leading Trivedi by ten points among likely voters.

At issue is the first 30-second spot of Gerlach’s reelection campaign, which juxtaposes positive messages about Gerlach with the argument that Democratic challenger Manan Trivedi supports a “far-left agenda.” Federal law entitles candidates to cheaper ad rates during the run up to Election Day—what the Federal Communications Commission calls the “lowest unit charge.” But FCC regulations also stipulate that to be eligible for that rate, the ad must close with both “a clearly identifiable photographic or similar image of the candidate” and “a clearly readable printed statement, identifying the candidate and stating that the candidate has approved the broadcast” (the rule applies only to broadcast networks, not cable). In Gerlach’s ad, the incumbent appears at the beginning, but not in a mugshot at the end as is the standard practice for such ads.

In a letter to the Reading branch of WFMZ-TV, obtained by pa2010.com, a lawyer for the state Democratic Party said the station should begin charging Gerlach its full advertising rate, and argued that Gerlach and his campaign “have forfeited their entitlement to the lowest unit charge for the duration of the campaign.” A formal FCC complaint has not been filed, and Democrats are not asking for the ad to be removed. But if the station ultimately sides with them, it could be significant, since WFMZ is often heavily targeted by area congressional campaigns as a cheaper alternative to the expensive Philadelphia media market.

“…your station should refuse to run additional advertisements from the Jim Gerlach for Congress committee unless paid for at the rate your station charges for comparable use by other non-political advertisers,” state party counsel Neil Reiff wrote in the letter, dated Sept. 21.

No further action had been taken as of Monday afternoon. A station representative did not immediately comment, and Gerlach’s campaign waved off the issue.

“This issue is two weeks old and none of the stations have contacted us,” Gerlach spokesman Mark Campbell said. “Jim appears in the entire top part of the spot so there was no attempt to hide who spot was from. Democrats are just desperate.”

Gerlach’s campaign recently noted that for much of the last decade, Trivedi didn’t live in the suburban Philadelphia district. For some of that time, Trivedi was serving as a Navy doctor in Iraq, as he notes in the new ad, his third of the campaign. Featuring other veterans surrounding Trivedi, the ad goes on to hit Gerlach for tax votes and for supporting to financial bailout.

“Jim,” Trivedi says in the ad, “I’ll proudly compare my last eight years to yours—any day.”

See the as below. It will be fact-checked later as part of pa2010.com‘s AD WATCH series.

In case you’re not versed in the intricacies of interstate gun policy, the loophole exists because the Sunshine State issues out-of-state residents permits to carry concealed weapons through its Department of Agriculture, even if those folks couldn’t get concealed-carry permits in their home state. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Dan Onorato has been forcefully calling for Republican rival Tom Corbett to use his power as state Attorney General to close the loophole.

That charge continued Monday, when Onorato used an alleged shooting by a Philadelphia man who had a Florida permit to make the case anew. During a news conference at City Hall in Philly, Onorato and District Attorney Seth Williams said Corbett should end the so-called “reciprocity” agreement with Florida that keeps the loophole open.

“We should never outsource our law enforcement responsibilities,” Onorato said in a statement later. “Tom Corbett should know better, and he should announce today that he is closing this loophole in order to protect Pennsylvanians. The recent shooting provides yet another wake-up call to Tom Corbett—even though he shouldn’t need one.”

The line from Team Corbett is that his office doesn’t have the power to make a change that can only be enacted through legislation—and indeed, state Representative Bryan Lentz (D-Delaware) has been pushing a bill to do just that. But a page on the Attorney General’s official Web site seems to undercut the idea that Corbett has no power here. It notes that in 1995, the General Assembly gave the Attorney General “the authority to enter into reciprocity agreements with other states.” And the state’s reciprocity agreement with Florida signed by an aide to Corbett’s predecessor, which you can read here, explicitly states that the “agreement may be by either Party or their successor upon thirty (30) days written notice.”

Seems pretty clear cut. Regardless, Corbett’s campaign is sticking to its guns (pun intended). Corbett still supports the current law.

“This is what voters have come to expect from career politician Dan Onorato,” Corbett campaign spokesman Kevin Harley told Philly Clout. “He exploits the death of young man and uses it as a political prop. The fact is the Attorney General cannot unilaterally change the laws of Pennsylvania. Only the legislature can do that.”

Speaking of bitter debates, the Senate candidates spent Monday bickering about the estate tax, that revenue generator that Republicans have so effectively branded as the “death tax.” The action on Monday came about as Republican nominee Pat Toomey trekked to Harrisburg, where he signed a pledge supporting the permanent repeal of the estate tax—and said Democratic opponent Joe Sestak should do the same.

“The Death Tax destroys jobs by targeting Pennsylvania’s main economic engine—small and, often family owned, businesses,” Toomey said in a statement. “Simply repealing the Death Tax would create 64,442 jobs in Pennsylvania. Congressman Sestak claims to be for small business, but he has voted multiple times against repealing this tax which hits Pennsylvania’s small businesses and farms. Pennsylvania’s small businesses like Herre Bros. need policies that will help them grow and hire more workers, not high taxes.”

The head of the aforementioned, family-owned, electrical contracting firm joined Toomey to make the case.

“If my children were forced to pay an estate tax next year, when the Death Tax rate returns to 55 percent, it is almost certain that they will be forced to sell our entire company,” Herre Bros. CEO Richard McBride said. “It simply isn’t possible to keep a company profitable when half or more of its assets are confiscated.  With the company would go the 100 jobs we provide in the Enola area – and the hundreds more we would like to provide.”

Toomey’s campaign has been burned before for death-tax-hyperbole, so Sestak’s campaign was on the lookout early in the day. A Toomey TV ad this summer, which claimed Sestak would let the IRS “take half of your savings when you die,” was called “barely true” by PolitiFact. As the Web site noted then, only very wealthy Americans would be subject to the estate tax proposal Sestak supports (individuals with more than $3.5 million and couples with more than $7 million).

Sestak’s campaign on Monday reiterated the congressman’s position, arguing that the legislation Sestak exempts 99.7 percent of Americans and leave just 7,600 of the wealthiest Americans—and only a couple hundred Pennsylvanians—paying any kind of estate tax. Citing figures from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Sestak’s campaign said that Toomey’s plan would add $1.2 trillion to the deficit.

“This is another attempt by Congressman Toomey to distort Joe’s record in order to distract people from his own extreme agenda which calls for generous benefits for the ultra-wealthy that stick the middle class with the bill,” Sestak spokeswoman April Mellody said in a statement. “Congressman Toomey believes that Wall Street is the answer to everything. Joe believes we need to level with people and start investing in ordinary Pennsylvanians in order to get this economy moving.”

Oh, and our friend John Micek at Capitol Ideas took a look at the small business advocacy group that joined Toomey at his presser—noting “clout” and “cash” they’ve got.

Lastly, there was some golf-style class warfare in the 6th District Monday. Democratic nominee Manan Trivedi’s finance director e-mailed supporters in the afternoon, saying that Republican incumbent Jim Gerlach is having “a big fundraiser at a fairly swank golf course right now.”

“If you were one of the lucky few to be invited, you get to pay $1,500 to play a round of golf,” Tyler Cole wrote. “Must be nice to be one of Gerlach’s friends.Well we decided to have a little fun with this. Manan went to the old Phoenixville Driving Range—a place the average person can afford to go—to smack a bucket of balls.”

Keeping with the low-price theme, the Trivedi campaign even made a video of the candidate driving some balls—and then asked supporters to donate just ten cents for every yard he got off the tee. He had a 225-yard drive (his form looks pretty good), so that’s $22.50 cents.

Below is the video of Trivedi at the driving range—”no caddies, no knickers, no cocktails,” as the campaign described it. “Just a guy in a pair of jeans and his Phillies hat.”

The political difficulty of achieving a congressional pay cut as a freshman aside, Trivedi’s commercials are filled mostly with the kind of boilerplate biographical information and ideological rhetoric that requires little fact-checking. Because of that, we give Trivedi’s first two ads the score of FAIR GAME.

[Click here to read more about our AD WATCH fact-checking series and the different scores.]

Trivedi’s first ad, in which he advocates a pay cut, makes no claims that require fact-checking.

In his second ad, Trivedi recalls being a battalion surgeon in Iraq and a primary care physician “at home.” Though Trivedi’s opponent has made hay of noting that he no longer practices medicine at his local hospital, both biographical claims are accurate. He did serve in Iraq, and he has been a primary care doctor in Berks County.

The rest of the ad serves as a platform for Trivedi to advocate increased infrastructure jobs and tax incentives to keep jobs in America.

See both ads below.

Saying that Toomey was “errantly” bashing folks like Congressman Jim Gerlach (R-6), state Democratic Party spokesman Mark Nicastre said Toomey’s “attack on [Sestak and Gerlach] was about as reckless as his Wall Street friends’ derivatives trades that helped cause the economic collapse. Just last month, Toomey was campaigning with fellow Republican Congressman Jim Gerlach, now he’s attacking him. What does Jim Gerlach think about Pat Toomey’s attack on his donor?”

This whole He’s-Campaigning-With-A-Guy-Who-Supports-What-He-Opposes thing is a meme pushed by both sides. Sestak campaigns with Democrats who supported the Glass-Steagall deregulatory measure that he so adamantly speaks against. Toomey campaigns with Republicans who supported the TARP bailout that he vilifies. Frankly, we’re satisfied to say that political candidates can go out on the trail with folks without having to endorse their entire ideological portfolio.

Gerlach’s campaign, for its part, shrugged off the matter. “Congressman Gerlach looks forward to working with Pat Toomey, a true champion for taxpayers, as our next U.S. Senator,” campaign spokesman Mark Campbell said.

Speaking of Citizens for Global Solutions, the group is pushing back against Toomey’s claim that it supports establishing a “global tax.” So we asked the Toomey folks to back up the claim. They directed us to a 1999 op-ed penned by a group official, in which he opines on how globalization and increasingly interdependent economies will change public policy.

At one point, the author writes: “Consider taxes: The inability to tax e-commerce effectively is resulting in loss of local and state tax revenues used for schools, police and fire departments. Some experts are suggesting a national e-commerce sales tax. Companies dependent on e-commerce for profits, however, can move offshore to avoid national taxes, leaving less funding for military-type defenses. This could bring into favor a global e-commerce tax that could be redistributed back to local, state and national governments.”

The author seems to like the idea, but that hardly amounts to the group supporting a “global tax” in its official platform. Regardless, Toomey’s camp said the important issue is whether Sestak supports things like increased foreign aid and a global tax of some kind.

“This is about Congressman Joe Sestak’s record,” Toomey spokeswoman Nachama Soloveichik said. “He has to answer whether he supports a global tax on top of all the tax increases he has already supported and whether he continues to support doubling foreign aid in this time of sky-rocketing deficits. Why won’t Congressman Sestak answer a simple question?”

We asked Team Sestak these simple questions, and, lo and behold, they answered. They pointed us back to the original answer Sestak gave to a Citizens for Global Security questionnaire, in which he said the doubling of foreign aid should be doubled by 2015, not the 2012 goal that President Obama has floated. “Joe said it would make more sense five years from now because he would support it once our economy is fully up to speed again and we are economically engaged in the world as we should be,” spokesman Jonathon Dworkin said.

Oh, and for the record, Sestak’s campaign says he does not and never has supported a global tax.

“No, and there is only one candidate in this election who wants to increase taxes on the middle class: Congressman Toomey,” Dworkin said. “His flat tax would raise taxes for 95 percent of workers while still increasing the deficit to pay for breaks for the very wealthy. And Toomey still wants to add $700 billion to the debt by extending the Bush tax breaks for the ultra-rich, even though that misguided policy, which he supported from day one, is responsible for the majority of our deficit for the next 10 years.”

Meanwhile, Toomey continued to rack up support for his campaign. The latest endorsements came from political action committees controlled by the American Medical Association and the Pennsylvania Medical Society. The groups gave Toomey their support during an event in Pittsburgh.

“The PA Medical PAC is supporting Pat Toomey because we believe that he understands the difficulty and challenges faced by physicians in providing quality medical care to our citizens,” PAC vice-chair Amy Paré said in a statement. “Mr. Toomey understands the strains and expenses placed upon our medical system by a legal system that does not improve the quality of care. He supports rational tort reform that protects patients’ rights, but addresses the tremendous costs that are imposed by an adversarial litigation system.”

And it looks like we’ll get to see at least one live TV debate between gubernatorial candidates Tom Corbett and Dan Onorato. The Pennsylvania Association of Broadcasters announced Tuesday that the two rivals will debate Oct. 16 at 7 p.m. It wasn’t immediately clear if the debate will air live statewide. But that’s our birthday at pa2010.com Central, so we might need to fire up the TiVo.

Live or taped, maybe this means we’ll stop getting releases from Onorato’s campaign calling Corbett chicken-debate-dodger.

But we’re not holding our breath.

The 30-second spot, released by Gerlach’s campaign Wednesday after pa2010.com first reported the ad buy Tuesday, paints Gerlach as an independent advocate for taxpayers, while saying Democratic challenger Manan Trivedi is pushing a “far-left agenda that’s wrong for taxpayers.”

Trivedi has already aired two TV ads. Gerlach held a financial advantage earlier this summer, though because of a higher burn rate, that edge was not as big as some expected it to be.

The race in the suburban Philadelphia district is currently No. 6 on the pa2010.com Congressional Power Rankings.

See the ad below. It will be fact-checked later as part of pa2010.com‘s new AD WATCH feature.

Obama has made more than a couple trips to Philly recently, and he’s coming again next month. In an announcement that slipped through the proverbial cracks at pa2010.com Central last week, it looks like Obama will headline a Democratic National Committee rally Oct. 10. That’s one of five so-called “Moving America Forward” rallies that Obama will hold in the closing weeks before Election Day, as he seeks to gin up excitement among Democratic activists in the hopes of narrowing that troublesome enthusiasm gap.

“President Obama is committed to delivering the change Americans voted for in 2008,” DNC chairman Tim Kaine said in a statement. “With the help of Democrats in Congress, he has worked hard to get our country back on the right track, but there is still more to be done to repair the damage caused by nearly a decade of failed Republican policies. That’s why President Obama is working hard to elect and reelect strong Democratic partners in Congress and in the states to help move America forward.”

Meanwhile, Pennsylvania competitive Senate race was all about “extremism” on Monday. Republican Pat Toomey has long tried to paint Democrat Joe Sestak as a liberal extremist, while Sestak’s campaign has said it’s Toomey who is out of step. Really, the two candidates are almost as ideologically far apart as any two politicians can be, and one person’s extremist is another person’s standard bearer.

But on Monday the focus was in Harrisburg, where Toomey held a news conference to lambaste his opponent for taking campaign cash from Citizens for Global Solutions. The group bills itself as dedicated to “educating Americans about our global interdependence.” But Toomey’s campaign labeled it a “radical, left-wing group,” noting that it advocates some moves toward greater global governance and has spoken of a so-called “global tax.” Democrats like Joe Biden, Rahm Emanuel and Bob Casey have returned money from the group, and Toomey says Sestak should do the same.

“Congressman Sestak has adopted one extreme position after another, but now his ties to the extreme left-wing group Citizens for Global Solutions raises new questions,” Toomey said in a statement. “Does Congressman Sestak support a global tax in additional to all the other tax increases he has supported? Does Congressman Sestak really want to double foreign aid to corrupt and oppressive regimes in a time of sky-rocketing deficits? And will Congressman Sestak join Senator Bob Casey and many others in renouncing his support for this radical group and returning the contributions he received? I hope Congressman Sestak will come forward and answer these questions right away.”

Sestak’s campaign said the congressman understands the importance of American sovereignty. The folks at Team Sestak also pointed us to a contribution that Congressman Jim Gerlach (R-6) received from the same group—Toomey has campaigned with Gerlach.

“Joe Sestak was proud to defend this nation for 31 years in Navy,” Sestak spokesman Jonathon Dworkin said. “He commanded a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group to protect America, and has a unique appreciation of the sacredness of ensuring the sovereign security of our country.  This unsubstantiated attack is another strange example of the extremes Congressman Toomey represents both in his attempts to distract and hide from his own record and in demagoguing. What else can you expect from a Wall Street trader who wants to privatize Social Security and eliminate taxes on Wall Street banks and oil companies, while increasing the tax burden on struggling middle class families?”

The state Democratic Party also chimed in, noting that Toomey’s voting record puts him to the right of former Senator Rick Santorum and that he helped bounce moderates out of the GOP during his time as president of the conservative Club for Growth.

“Even Rick Santorum thinks that Pat Toomey is too far out of the mainstream for Pennsylvania,” state party spokesman Mark Nicastre said.

And apparently it’s never too late in the election cycle to issue one of those debate challenges we’ve all come to love. On Monday it was Democrat Manan Trivedi’s campaign in the 6th District saying it wants at least six debates with the aforementioned Gerlach. The campaign wants all the debates to be open to the press and the public.

“I invite Congressman Gerlach to join me, in front of the press and public, to explain each of our plans to represent the 6th District, and how we plan to get them done in Congress,” Trivedi said in a statement. “It’s clear that there is plenty that he and I disagree on, and the choice in this election couldn’t be clearer. It’s time we present ourselves side-by-side in an honest and open debate so that the people of this district can see that for themselves. I know that each person’s vote is a precious and personal thing, something that should never be taken for granted, and I want to ensure that each voter has the opportunity to compare us and make an informed decision.”

Gerlach’s campaign, for its part, seems to think that two debates will suffice just fine.

“We have already agreed to two debates, which Trivedi knows,” Gerlach campaign spokesman Mark Campbell said. “We look forward to hearing him explain his well documented ‘fringe’ left wing positions such as, why Trivedi wants to raise taxes, supports tripling the national debt and cutting Medicare for seniors by $500 billion and a single-payer socialized medicine scheme which will ration care.”

Trivedi’s campaign unveiled its second ad Wednesday morning, a day after the first. The latest 30-second spot focuses on Trivedi’s biography as an Iraq War veteran and primary care doctor—credentials Democrats hope will finally be enough to unseat Congressman Jim Gerlach (R-6).

“Whether my name was on my uniform as a battalion surgeon in Iraq, or as a primary care physician at home,” Trivedi says in the ad. “I’ve always had a mission to serve my community, and my country.”

See the ad below. The ad will be fact-checked later as part of pa2010.com‘s new AD WATCH feature.