2010 Pennsylvania Democratic Senate Primary Is a Race to the Bottom

It's hard to imagine a race in which the candidates generate less enthusiasm than the current Democratic Senate primary in Pennsylvania, which is held May 18.

On one side is Arlen Specter, who started out as a Democrat, switched to the Republican Party years ago, and switched back last year, because, as he said, "my change in party will enable me to be reelected."

Setting aside the blatant self-interest, Specter seems to be getting a little long in the tooth. He's made a few gaffs, including walking on stage while Sestak gave closing remarks at a progressive forum.

And recently he thanked the Allegheny County Republicans for their endorsement at the Allegheny County Democratic Committee's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner -- twice!

Between switching parties, the "old age gaffes," and the embarrassing exchange with Congresswoman Michelle Bachman, where he insisted she "act like a lady," I question whether Specter has the mental capacity to spend another six years in the Senate, (in fact, I question whether he should be there now) and the country needs someone at the top of their game to figure out the mess Washington has created.

That leaves Joe Sestak, currently a Congressman from the 7^th district. Up until this last week, it appeared Sestak didn't have a chance, but the polls have shown a recent tightening. As of May 10^th, 2010, Rasmussen has Sestak at five points over Specter.

Congressman Sestak is trying to run as an acceptable alternative to the long-time Senator, but he has some troubling baggage of his own. First, there are the accusations made in Specter's campaign ad (that Sestak was relieved of duty in the Navy because he created a "poor command climate," and that he had the worst attendance record of any Pennsylvania congressman and nearly the worst in the entire Congress.)

Sestak has claimed the White House offered him a major position if he dropped out of the Senate race. At the least this seems unethical (on the White House's part, not Sestak's. He can't help what people offer, and to his credit if the offer was made, Sestak didn't take the position.) However, if Sestak is trying to show how ethical he is by pointing out the administration's lawbreaking, why has he let the ball drop?

Congressman Darrell Issa, top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee says the Obama administration might have broken the law by offering Sestak a position. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that anyone has followed up on that accusation, and Sestak has done a poor job of playing the Jimmy Stewart character in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, if that was his intent by making the accusation.

In addition, Sestak isn't paying some of his staffers minimum wage. Surely this is a turn-off to union members. What is it about Congressmen in general and Democrats in particular that justifies them either exempting out of or ignoring the laws they pass? While paying staff a low wage may seem fiscally prudent, paying below the minimum wage is illegal.

And there's the low-ball Sestak threw in a recent campaign ad, where he used a photo of Specter taken in 2008 after a round of chemotherapy, to consider. As someone with family members who've had cancer, I found this particularly offensive.

As to endorsements, one of the few Sestak has received is from none other than Representative Barney Frank (D, MA,) one of the masterminds of the mortgage and banking mess. There isn't a person in this country unaffected by Frank's poor decisions, especially concerning Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Any candidate endorsed by Frank gives me pause.

The other ringing endorsement Sestak has received comes from Rep. Eric Massa (D, NY)-yes, THAT Congressman Massa, who made such a spectacle of himself after resigning from office.

Specter isn't without his own endorsements, in fact, he's practically flooded with them. He's received the nod from almost everyone in the Democratic Party, including President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Pennsylvania's Governor Ed Rendell.

The question is, why? Why do all these politicians want to keep turncoat Specter in office so badly? After all, the Senator has already changed parties twice. Who's to say he won't switch a third time, perhaps deciding he should actually be an Independent. And do any of these politicians-with their approval ratings hovering at or below the 50 percent mark-really think they're doing Specter a favor?

In this year of discontent, it probably doesn't much matter who wins the Democratic nomination; he'll face a tough fight in November against the likely Republican challenger Pat Toomey. The bigger question is, why can't the Democrats find someone -- anyone -- better to run?