ShareThis Page

For U.S. Senate: Nominate Sestak & Toomey

| Sunday, May 9, 2010

Pennsylvania Democrats have a chance to end the commonwealth's longest-running joke on May 18 by rejecting Arlen Specter for nomination to a sixth term to the U.S. Senate. And Pennsylvania Republicans have the opportunity to nominate a real-deal conservative in hopes of returning an important voice to Washington.

Mr. Specter, a Democrat turned Republican, turned again a year ago when he came to the astonishing conclusion that Republicans had had their fill. Faced with polling numbers that showed he would lose, and lose badly, in a GOP primary rematch with former Congressman Pat Toomey, Specter did what most self-serving political ferrets do -- he sought refuge with his political homies and rejoined the Democrats.

But Specter, ever the clever dick, miscalculated. He thought party muckety-mucks could quash any primary challengers and give him a free ride into November. Joe Sestak had another idea. The congressman representing Pennsylvania's 7th Congressional District refused to play the game and is nipping at Snarlin' Arlen's wingtips.

Mr. Sestak, a retired Navy admiral, could not be a better messenger for the Democrats' agenda. He's incredibly intelligent, thoughtful and articulate. And his expertise on matters military is impressive. Pennsylvania Democrats would be wise to nominate the public-service minded Joe Sestak and reject the personal opportunism of Arlen Specter.

Mr. Toomey faces modest competition from Peg Luksik, the perennial one-issue candidate (abortion) who's so inconsequential in this race that one poll had Toomey running unopposed.

Simply put, Toomey's conservative credentials are rock solid and he's a voice of economic sanity so rare in politics today.

Republicans should do on May 18 what they should have done in 2004 -- make Pat Toomey Pennsylvania's Republican nominee to the U.S. Senate.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.

click me