Graphic: In Focus: Michele Bachmann Timeline

National Journal
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
May 29, 2013, 2:14 p.m.

“The war is es­cal­at­ing big time” between Rep. Joe Ses­tak’s (D-07) and Weekly Stand­ard ed­it­or Bill Kris­tol’s new pro-Is­rael group, “with the group in­creas­ing its ad buy slam­ming Ses­tak as soft on Is­rael and Ses­tak de­mand­ing that cable TV pull the spot on the grounds that it’s a vi­cious smear.” Emer­gency Com­mit­tee for Is­rael spokes­per­son Mi­chael Gold­farb said the group is doub­ling the size of the buy for the new spot.

Want More On This Race? Check out the Hot­line Dash­board for a com­pre­hens­ive run­down of this race, in­clud­ing stor­ies, polls, ads, FEC num­bers, and more!

“The crux of the ad’s at­tack on Ses­tak: It hits him for sign­ing a let­ter cri­ti­ciz­ing Is­rael’s Ga­za block­ade, for re­fus­ing to sign an AIPAC let­ter de­fend­ing Is­rael, and for ‘rais­ing money’ for a fun­draiser for the Coun­cil on Amer­ic­an Is­lam­ic Re­la­tions. The ad de­scribes CAIR as an ‘anti-Is­rael or­gan­iz­a­tion the FBI called a front-group for Hamas,’ even though CAIR has re­peatedly denied this and no charges were brought against the group.”

The Ses­tak camp “ini­tially blas­ted the ad and de­man­ded that Com­cast re­frain from run­ning it. Ses­tak’s camp ar­gued that it’s highly mis­lead­ing to claim he ever raised money for CAIR, be­cause he’d only at­ten­ded a CAIR event that was free of fun­drais­ing, and ar­gued that the ad badly dis­tor­ted oth­er of Ses­tak’s Is­rael-re­lated po­s­i­tions. But Kris­tol’s group re­spon­ded, and it ap­pears Com­cast is go­ing to con­tin­ue to run the ad. Also, the group’s doub­ling of the ad buy means it will run on broad­cast TV” dur­ing 7/23’s Phil­lies game.

“Now Ses­tak is re­doub­ling ef­forts to get the ad taken down. In the new let­ter to Com­cast, the Ses­tak camp ba­sic­ally ac­cuses Com­cast of mis­lead­ing its view­ers.” Ses­tak’s camp or­gan­ized a press con­fer­ence today in Philly where Jew­ish lead­ers will de­nounce the group’s camp against him. “The Ses­tak camp faces a fa­mil­i­ar di­lemma: Should it ig­nore the Kris­tol group’s at­tacks, or should it ag­gress­ively re­but them, which risks draw­ing more me­dia at­ten­tion to the group’s ef­forts? Ses­tak is opt­ing for the lat­ter, ag­gress­ive ap­proach” (Sar­gent, “The Plum Line,” Wash­ing­ton Post, 7/19).

Ses­tak ap­peared on “Morn­ing Joe” 7/20 a.m.

Ses­tak, on the con­tro­ver­sial Is­raeli ad: “Look, my per­spect­ive on Is­rael is prob­ably unique in the en­tire Con­gress. … I was ac­tu­ally the lead­er of the very first ex­er­cise that ever brought a Muslim na­tion to­geth­er with Is­rael and over­saw it in a mil­it­ary ex­er­cise to bring it about. This is done by a right wing. And it harms Is­rael. One of the greatest stra­tegic lever­ages that Is­rael has is a bi­par­tis­an sup­port for that coun­try. It’s a vi­tal in­terest of ours, and I was out there every day try­ing to en­hance its mil­it­ary.”

Ses­tak, on the let­ter he wrote to Sec/State Clin­ton: “I signed a let­ter that said we have to en­sure that Is­rael has $10 bil­lion every — year for its mil­it­ary as­sist­ance. I also signed a let­ter that said that as I went about the world, we have vi­tal in­terests. Is­rael is one. We have im­port­ant in­terests. We also have hu­mane in­terests.”

Ses­tak, on the block­ade: “I think it’s a leg­al — yes, I’d like to see it end. But not un­til we can en­sure that there is a two-state solu­tion. I think Is­rael has the right to have a block­ade so that arms aren’t flown in­to those really caus­ing harm in ga­za, which is Hamas.”

Ses­tak, on his elec­tion: “Well, I’m in a dead heat. And we know that. But at the end of the day, this elec­tion in Pennsylvania will not be de­cided by what people see on the na­tion­al level. They know they’ve been slammed. They know they’ve been ripped apart. But they know more than any­thing else they don’t trust Wash­ing­ton. I stood up to the Demo­crat­ic es­tab­lish­ment when it made a bad de­cision for that primary. At the end of the day, I be­lieve what John F. Kennedy said, some­times the party asks too much.”

Ses­tak, on which is more im­port­ant, de­fi­cit or stim­u­lus: “It is cre­ate jobs. That’s what’s most im­port­ant. Let me tell you. That’s what we tried to do with the stim­u­lus. Right now what it is is mak­ing sure that you cre­ate jobs by get­ting people to work” (MS­N­BC, 7/20).

The Blame Game

Ses­tak and ex-Rep. Pat Toomey (R) “agree that fed­er­al budget de­fi­cits are troub­ling fin­an­cial prob­lems. Ses­tak and Toomey blame each oth­er for the debt, which is a theme they’ll re­vis­it over and over.” Toomey “painted Ses­tak as a tax-and-spend lib­er­al who sup­ports budget ‘ear­marks’ for polit­ic­al pet pro­jects and lacks ‘fisc­al dis­cip­line.’ Ses­tak re­spon­ded quickly on a con­fer­ence call, say­ing Toomey sup­por­ted de­fi­cit spend­ing” un­der Pres. George W. Bush that “did dam­age to Amer­ic­an eco­nom­ic sta­bil­ity” and made things worse by help­ing to de­reg­u­late Wall Street.

“Both politi­cians … brought fisc­al ex­perts to bol­ster their claims. Toomey was en­dorsed by the Coun­cil for Cit­izens Against Gov­ern­ment Waste, which asks can­did­ates to sign a ‘no pork pledge.’”

Chair Tom Shatz “said it had ex­amined 120 votes by Ses­tak on spend­ing is­sues” and gave him a 0 rat­ing. Shatz:”There’s no evid­ence that his vot­ing pat­tern will change if he’s elec­ted to the Sen­ate. Pennsylvani­ans can­not af­ford to have someone like Rep. Joe Ses­tak con­tin­ue to dig a deep fisc­al hole for the na­tion.”

Ses­tak was joined by Moody Ana­lyt­ics eco­nom­ist Gus Fauch­er “who de­fen­ded Ses­tak’s votes on con­tro­ver­sial is­sues like bank bail­outs and the fed­er­al stim­u­lus pack­age. Fauch­er said spend­ing policies in the last dec­ade ran up the de­fi­cit, with the stim­u­lus play­ing a small role in that in­crease while help­ing to re­start the na­tion’s eco­nomy.”

Toomey “seized” on a story in the In­quirer last week that noted Ses­tak has taken $119K in camp con­tri­bu­tions from people “who work for com­pan­ies re­ceiv­ing fed­er­al fund­ing through ear­marks.” Ses­tak had vowed to re­fuse or re­turn such con­tri­bu­tions. Toomey called ear­marks a “very deeply flawed prac­tice.”

“Ses­tak noted that he has sub­mit­ted le­gis­la­tion that would al­ter the way ear­marks are dis­trib­uted.” He in­sisted the policy on con­tri­bu­tions “was not done to score polit­ic­al points but to in­still a sense of ac­count­ab­il­ity in his of­fice, though it has been tricky to keep pace with the thou­sands of checks that come in. Asked if he would re­turn the money, Ses­tak said he had not read the story and did not know the names of the con­trib­ut­ors who had re­ceived ear­marks” (Bren­nan, Phil­adelphia Daily News, 7/20).

“Data from the web­sites Le­gis­torm and Open­secrets … re­spect­ively, shows Ses­tak kept about $62,000 in dona­tions from seni­or of­fi­cials at com­pan­ies re­ceiv­ing his ear­marks. Toomey spokes­per­son Nachama So­lo­veichik: “If you make a pledge and you don’t keep it, isn’t that be­ing un­ac­count­able?”

“Ses­tak said Toomey … has been duck­ing ac­count­ab­il­ity for his votes as a con­gress­man to de­reg­u­late the fin­an­cial in­dustry, cre­ate an un­fun­ded Medi­care pre­scrip­tion drug pro­gram, and pass tax cuts” in ‘01 and ‘03 without cor­res­pond­ing spend­ing cuts. Ses­tak “said those votes … helped turn Clin­ton-era budget sur­pluses in­to today’s re­cord de­fi­cits and dam­aged ‘Amer­ic­an eco­nom­ic se­cur­ity.’”

So­lo­veichik: “Joe Ses­tak thinks let­ting av­er­age tax­pay­ers keep more of what they earn some­how de­prives Joe Ses­tak of money that is right­fully his to spend. He’s wrong. Keep­ing tax rates from bal­loon­ing up is es­sen­tial for cre­at­ing jobs and grow­ing our eco­nomy” (Wereschagin, Pitt­s­burgh Tribune Re­view, 7/20).

What We're Following See More »
Trump Deposition Video Is Online
18 hours ago

The video of Donald Trump's deposition in his case against restaurateur Jeffrey Zakarian is now live. Slate's Jim Newell and Josh Voorhees are live-blogging it while they watch.

Debate Commission Admits Issues with Trump’s Mic
19 hours ago

The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.

Trump Deposition Video to Be Released
19 hours ago

"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."

Chicago Tribune Endorses Gary Johnson
23 hours ago

No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."

USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
1 days ago

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."