Sestak: Not interested in Corbett's job, but maybe Toomey's
HARRISBURG — Former U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he won't run for governor next year but is strongly considering a rematch against Republican Sen. Pat Toomey in 2016.
The Democrat told the AP in an interview that the U.S. Senate is racked by a lack of trust and “careening from crisis to crisis.” The retired Navy vice admiral said he believes his skills would be more useful in the Senate instead of the governor's office.
“I have spent a lot of time listening to and talking with the people of Pennsylvania ... in their homes, at diners, coffee shops, in labor and small business gatherings, and VFW halls,” he said. “The government of the people has rarely been held in such low regard by the people, undermining our sense of unity — what we stand for and what we are capable of.”
Sestak beat Republican-turned-Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter in the 2010 Democratic primary, but narrowly lost to Toomey in the general election.
Sestak said he will “fully support” whomever the Democratic Party picks to challenge Republican Gov. Tom Corbett. Already, there are more than a half-dozen declared and prospective candidates.
Sestak, who had previously held open the possibility of a gubernatorial campaign, raised $460,000 in the first quarter of this year.
The state Republican Party recently filed a complaint against Sestak with the Federal Election Commission, contending that he should have declared which office he is seeking once he raised more than $5,000.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Rossi: Crosby’s debt to NHL paid in full
- New York City hunkers down as Nor’easter threatens blizzard conditions
- Funeral for Joey Fabus, honorary Bethel Park police officer, draws crowd
- WVa natural gas line explodes near Ohio border
- Pitt coach Narduzzi adds N.J. linebacker recruit
- Second teen charged in Jan. 1 Tarentum shooting
- Penguins’ Fleury surrenders 7 goals in 1 period of NHL All-Star Game loss
- Leechburg Road to reopen after two-vehicle accident
- Islamic State group pushed out of Syria’s Kobani
- Drops in gasoline prices won’t likely last, analysts say
- ‘Free’ wine kiosk initiative costs state Liquor Control Board $300K