Back Channels: Sestak campaign is starting to confound

Eleven months ago, U.S. Senate candidates Pat Toomey and Joe Sestak headlined an impressive town hall on health-care reform.

They calmly and clearly laid out the sides in the debate, something that I saw nowhere else in the summer of angry town halls. U.S. Rep. Sestak argued for the Democratic plans in Congress, even a public option. Former GOP Rep. Toomey took the side of free markets and less government intrusion.

Even more impressive than the substance was the tone. Each candidate was well-informed, and focused civilly on the merits of his case, whether promoting his side or disagreeing with his opponent.

I agreed more with Toomey - still do - but both candidates took clear, defensible stands. I thought that would serve Sestak well in his primary challenge to newly reminted Democrat Arlen Specter, who sometimes could be fuzzy on issues.

Then, it looked as though Sestak might get away with portraying himself as a Washington outsider by running a campaign that showed just how different he was. Not anymore. Now, with all the recent missteps, the strategy seems to be: Adopt the persona of Michael Scott, Steve Carell's character on The Office: all heart but no clue.

Start with the attacks on Toomey as a big spender during his time in Congress, from 1999 to 2005. A flier handed out by Sestak's folks at a recent Toomey news conference pointed out that there was a $125 billion surplus when Toomey first took office, but a $412 billion deficit when he left. Devastating, right?

Republicans did spend irresponsibly during the Bush years when they controlled both Congress and the White House. But while Toomey is an unabashed promoter of tax cuts in order to spur economic growth, he also took a hard line on spending. For example, he was one of only 25 Republicans who voted against the $400 million Medicare prescription-drug program in 2003.

But let's use Sestak's reasoning and look at his side's spending record. In 2007, when Sestak went to Washington with the new Democratic majorities in Congress, the deficit was $160 billion. This year's projected deficit is $1.5 trillion, almost 10 times what it was when Sestak took office. So you'd think Sestak would keep quiet on spending, or at least have a good explanation for his votes in favor of trillions in bailouts, stimulus, and record budgets and deficits. Apparently not.

Harrisburg Patriot-News columnist Laura Vecsey reported on July 26 that Sestak was called to account for the bailouts at a Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon. His response didn't impress David N. Taylor, executive director of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association, who raised the issue.

"His direct answer was incomprehensible and then it disintegrated into baby talk about the house being on fire," Taylor told Vecsey.

"Incomprehensible" seems to be the campaign theme going into the fall.

Take the flap over his speech at a fund-raising dinner for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. I agree that members of Congress should meet with those with whom they disagree. But what's with Sestak's claim that he appeared before the fund-raising began? That makes sense only if this was the first fund-raiser in the history of nonprofits that didn't sell tickets in advance.

Then there were the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ads Sestak's campaign wanted pulled because they said he "voted with Nancy Pelosi 100 percent of the time." Two stations did pull the ads. In fact, according to Congressional Quarterly, Sestak did vote with Pelosi 100 percent of the time in 2009, but 96.6 percent overall since he's been in Congress. I can't wait for the next debate where he pounds the lectern and cries, "I vote independently 3.4 percent of the time."

Overhyping his Mr. Independent credentials also got Sestak in trouble with that so-called job offer from the White House. During the primary, he was happy to imply that he had thumbed his nose at the Democratic establishment by rejecting a high-level government gig. Post-primary, when he needed the establishment, the story became: Nothing to see here. No federal case. Just a chat between an exaggerating congressman and a former president.

Seems Sestak also exaggerated on that pledge not to keep contributions given by earmark seekers. He has on hand about $120,000 from such donors. And now it's not a pledge, more a confusing hope that applies only to certain points in the budget process. Guess it's a good thing for Sestak and his donors that Democrats aren't bothering with a budget this year.

Sestak is a decent guy with a long, distinguished record of military service. But now, unlike in last year's debate, he sounds like just another career politician. Or Michael Scott, who once famously said, "I do want the credit without any of the blame."