(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Specter, Sestak clash in Senate primary race debate | TribLIVE
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20181216210931/https://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_679166.html

ShareThis Page
Pennsylvania

Specter, Sestak clash in Senate primary race debate

| Sunday, May 2, 2010

PHILADELPHIA -- In the one and only broadcast debate of the Senate Democratic primary, it took all of 70 seconds for one candidate to demand that the other apologize.

And the other one hadn't even spoken yet.

Throughout the debate, Rep. Joe Sestak, 58, of Delaware County, sought to tie Sen. Arlen Specter to President George W. Bush and the Republican Party he left a year ago. Specter, 80, of Philadelphia sought to cast doubt on just about everything about Sestak.

The debate took place at Philadelphia's FOX affiliate, a block from Independence Mall. They had debated once before at a state Democratic Committee forum in Lancaster in February.

Specter, in ads attacking Sestak, has quoted from a Navy Times article in which an anonymous source said Sestak was relieved of his Pentagon command post because of a "poor command climate." In a counter-ad from Sestak, a veteran asks people to tell Specter "don't lie" about Sestak's military record.

"Nobody has ever called me a liar," Specter said last night during the first question of the night. "When he calls me a liar, that's out of bounds. I want an apology."

He didn't get one.

Specter repeatedly asked Sestak to release his military records. Sestak, a former admiral, defended his 31-year military career and noted his former boss, Adm. Vernon Clark, told the Philadelphia Inquirer he was a "patriot's patriot." He accused Specter of reverting to "his old Republican tactics" in attacking his service record.

"What this means once more is that a senator who has been down there 30 years has nothing to run on except tactics that have nothing to do with the working families of Pennsylvania," Sestak said. "Pennsylvanians are hurting and negative tactics haven't created one job."

Specter, the longest-serving senator in state history, said his tenure makes him a more effective advocate for the state.

Sestak noted Senate Democrats did not let Specter keep his seniority when he switched parties.

"He's the junior senator from Pennsylvania," Sestak said.

During a segment on gun control, Sestak noted Specter voted against the assault weapons ban.

"Why should our police have to go up against the same armament as our soldiers in Baghdad," Sestak said.

Specter said he is now against allowing people to buy guns at gun shows without submitting to a background check because of the "increasing crime rate," but believes the best way to combat crime is with longer prison sentences.

Specter criticized Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, whom he voted to confirm and whose confirmation hearing he oversaw as head of the Judiciary Committee, for steering the court to the right on issues such as unlimited campaign spending by corporations and unions. He said he would have to revisit how he evaluates nominees for the high court.

Speaking after the debate, Specter declined to say whether he would vote against Roberts if given the chance, because "I'm not going to revisit the vote."

Sestak accused Specter of switching positions for political expediency, and said it contributed to a Washington culture that "hurt the integrity of the system."

Sestak told Specter afterward that the two should have more than one televised debate. Specter declined.

"I told him I'd treat him the same way he treated" his 2008 Republican opponent, Specter said later. "He's had more than a fair shot."

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.

click me