“Freindly Fire Zone”

It could be a battle royale between the two former prosecutors, but what about Joe Sestak?

Assistant District Attorney, Delaware County.

Assistant United States Attorney, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, specializing in prosecuting illegal firearms cases and violent drug offenders.

Governor-appointed Safe Schools Advocate for the School District of Philadelphia --- a position that was ultimately “eliminated” not for budgetary reasons, but because he publicly chastised the Governor and Department of Education for their willful failure to protect students.

Was often mentioned as a possible nominee for United States Attorney.

And now, this person is considering running for Congress as a strong get-tough-on crime candidate.

Such a resume would seem a great springboard for elected office, as law-and-order candidates have met with great success lately: Governors Tom Corbett and Chris Christie are former prosecutors, as are Pennsylvania Congressmen Tom Marino and Pat Meehan, as well as State Representative Todd Stephens.

But here’s where it gets interesting.  All the aforementioned politicians are Republicans, but this resume belongs to Jack Stollsteimer, a self-styled RFK Democrat who is strongly positioned to win his Party’s nomination in next year’s Seventh Congressional District race.  To claim the ultimate prize in November, he would have to beat not just a Republican, but his former U.S. Attorney boss, Rep. Pat Meehan.

But first things first. Will the path to the nomination be clear, or will a well-known Democrat with a history of success --- and unpredictability --- decide to throw his hat into the ring? And if so, when?

                                                                                *****

The district, which includes most of Delaware County, parts of Chester County and a section of Montgomery, is traditionally perceived as Republican, because voter registration favors the GOP, and the Delaware County courthouse has long been controlled by the well-oiled Republican Machine.

But while Republicans hold a majority of offices throughout the county, their grip on power has been slipping.  No Republican presidential candidate has won Delco since 1988, and numerous Democratic state legislators now represent districts long-held by the GOP. But perhaps most telling, in 2010 --- the largest Republican wave since 1946 --- both Governor Tom Cornett and U.S. Senator Pat Toomey lost the county.

Yet Pat Meehan won by ten points.

Meehan’s impressive showing was bolstered by the Republican tidal wave and the fact that it was an open seat, since former Congressman Joe Sestak ran for U.S. Senate.  That substantial victory has provided him a solid foundation to launch his re-election bid. 

But to stay in office, he will have to wage an aggressive campaign, taking nothing for granted. Unlike last year, he now owns a voting record. And when it comes to Congress, Seventh District voters have an independent streak that defies conventional political wisdom. 

In the 70’s and 80’s, the Seventh was represented by Bob Edgar, arguably to the Left of Mao and universally recognized as the most liberal member of Congress.  After giving up the seat to (unsuccessfully) run for U.S. Senate, Edgar was replaced by the generally-conservative Republican Curt Weldon. But in the Democratic wave of 2006, he lost to Sestak, a former Navy Admiral who, like Edgar, was unabashedly liberal.

Understanding the volatile electorate, the District’s wild fluctuations of the past, and sensing that the seat is not as safe as last year’s election results would indicate, the national Republican Campaign Congressional Committee has “enrolled” Meehan in its Patriot Program.  An effort designed to assist mostly freshmen, the program targets the top ten GOP legislators whose perceived vulnerabilities will likely lead to tough reelection fights.

                                                                *****

Stollsteimer has been actively courted not just by local leaders but the national Democratic Campaign Congressional Committee. To take on Meehan, though, he must first secure the Democratic Party’s nomination.  To that end, his plan is to aggressively work the committee to earn its endorsement, hopefully avoiding an expensive, and potentially bruising, primary fight. He has already made inroads, having secured the backing of several highly influential Democrats within the Party hierarchy.

"Jack would be a great candidate if he decides to run, with a strong profile and reputation for independence and integrity, that has attracted the attention of the national Democratic Party," a Party leader in the district told “Freindly Fire.”

That official requested anonymity, though, as the path has not yet been smoothly paved for Stollsteimer --- or any other potential candidate.  And that’s because there is an 800 pound gorilla hovering in the wings who could change the dynamics of the race at a moment’s notice --- for both the primary and general elections.

And in typical fashion, that individual is playing it coy, not announcing his intentions whether to seek the Congressional seat --- which he happened to hold just seven months ago.

Joe Sestak is the ultimate wild card, an independent Democrat who has often clashed with Party powerbrokers and a person to whom the terms “conventional wisdom” and “predictability” simply do not apply.

He gave up what virtually every political analyst stated was a near-100 percent safe seat, to run as David against Goliath --- 30-year incumbent powerhouse Arlen Specter, whose war chest dwarfed that of Sestak. The political insiders not only didn’t give Sestak much of a chance --- he was trailing by more than 20 points just a few months out from the primary --- but did everything in their power to stop him. 

They attempted to talk him out of running, not just to keep the Congressional seat safe but to avoid a primary challenge to Specter.  When that didn’t work, there was the “Job Gate” offer, in which Sestak said the White House dangled a high-ranking position in exchange for his dropping out of the senate race. But that didn’t work, either.

Then the D’s took the gloves off, with prominent leaders, including then-Governor Rendell and the state Democratic Party chairman, openly attacking Sestak on numerous fronts.  They said he could not win a general election, and predicted a Sestak primary victory would be “cataclysmic” in the fall election.

And yet, despite the GOP wave, Sestak lost to Toomey by a mere two points.

Would Sestak present a viable candidacy to Meehan?  Absolutely.  The 2012 elections will be more favorable to Democrats, not just because a presidential year always brings out more voters, and political waves are never sustainable when they crest at such a high level, but because the “Republicans-are-destroying-our-Medicare” issue will undoubtedly gain traction.  Democrats are already pointing to their win in the recent New York special election as evidence, given that the seat was widely expected to remain in GOP hands.

But for the Democrats to be successful in the Seventh next year, they need to unify soon or risk losing good candidates.  Very few will be willing to put blood, sweat and tears into a campaign --- and they would have to open a committee very soon --- while the specter of a Sestak candidacy still looms.  And if Sestak declines to run, but announces that decision late in the game, precious time will have been wasted.

Sestak would most likely be able to establish a grassroots operation and generate significant fundraising relatively quickly, due to the national network gained from his senate run, but the same is not the case for other candidates. They would have to lay the groundwork, and that takes time and resources.  And many potential donors and campaign workers will stay on the sidelines, reluctant to commit to someone like Stollsteimer --- no matter how attractive a candidate he may be --- until Sestak makes up his mind. 

In an age where campaigns routinely begin over a year out from the election, any significant delay could prove a boon for the Meehan camp. Translation: the longer Joe Sestak remains noncommittal, the less likely the Democrats’ chances for success next November.

Will Sestak get back into the political fray?  If so, would it be for Congress, a position some think is not prominent enough for someone used to commanding a carrier-battle group --- especially when he would likely return to Washington in the minority? And why would Sestak still be touring Pennsylvania, meeting new Democrats statewide, if he intends to run in the relatively small Seventh District? 

It is never easy when it comes to predicting anything regarding Joe Sestak, and experience has shown that most “experts” are wrong anyway.

So the biggest question is the simplest one: at this point, does even Joe Sestak himself have any idea what he is going to do?  Whatever the answer, it’s in the best interest of his Party to make up his mind quickly.

Let the games begin.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative
reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries
and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including
The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick
Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in
Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national
television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Joe Sestak, fresh off his primary win dethroning 30-year incumbent Arlen Specter, may have thought he was entitled to a brief honeymoon.

Instead, he has been ravaged by a firestorm for the last week.

Sestak is not only facing a major threat to his political career, but also the possibility of being on a police blotter.

Being subpoenaed and facing possible criminal charges are not exactly the best ways to start a general election campaign.

*****

It was no secret that the President was backing Specter after the incumbent switched parties and voted for all of Obama’s crucial initiatives, and the President committed himself to Specter’s re-election.  (Of course, that was before Obama abandoned Specter in the final weeks of the campaign after seeing the poll numbers go the wrong way.)

The cauldron in which Sestak finds himself stems from his statement earlier this year that the White House offered him a high-level job in exchange for abandoning the senate race. 

Based on Sestak’s own words, this is a quid pro quo --- a “you do something for me, and in return, I’ll give you this” arrangement.

Quite simply, you can't offer somebody a government job in return for receiving anything that could be considered a benefit.  And Specter’s re-election would have been a huge benefit to the White House.

So when it comes to this type of quid pro quo, it’s against the law.  Period.

But here’s the problem: no one is talking.

The White House: Mum’s The Word

According to news reports, the White House originally denied that any conversation ever took place.  But now, after the heat started rising, Administration officials have changed their story.

The President’s spokesman now states that while discussions with Sestak did in fact occur, “nothing inappropriate” transpired. 

And what assurance are we given that no laws were broken and nothing inappropriate took place?

The White House checked into the matter itself.

Wow.  That’s a relief. After all, the Obama folks tout themselves as the most open, transparent and accountable Administration in history.

But merely saying “nothing inappropriate” took place just doesn’t pass muster.

Assuming that the offer was made, by definition, someone is lying.  Either Sestak made the whole thing up, or the Administration’s collective nose is growing at an exponential rate.

If an official attempted to make the deal, that is bribery --- a federal offense. And since Sestak is a U.S. Congressman and a retired Admiral with 31 years in the Navy, it’s probably safe to think that he wasn’t offered a secretary position. 

Or at least one that involves taking dictation.

But maybe Secretary of the Navy?  If so, that’s a position that would clearly need approval at the highest levels of government.

So it might be a good idea that whoever made the offer consider buying Soap-On-A-Rope.  In bulk.

So much for White House transparency.

Is Sestak Criminally Liable?

I had the opportunity to interview Congressman Sestak this week during my weekly appearance on the radio show “Political Talk.”

Holding fast to his script, Sestak refused to say who offered him a job, and what the position was, instead stating that, for his part, he has been honest in answering the job-offer question.

He then deflects follow-up questions with vague answers that anything more is “for others to talk about,” and that he wants to talk about issues affecting Pennsylvanians. 

This oft-repeated response makes it seem that Sestak is absolved of any wrongdoing, and that all that is required of him is to verify that the quid pro quo offer was made.

Wrong.

First, the longer he stalls on coming clean with what really happened --- the names, dates and details involved --- the quicker his political career implodes.  Being embroiled in a controversy that simply won’t go away is not a good way to win elected office.

But infinitely more important, Sestak has, perhaps unwittingly, backed himself into potential legal trouble, as criminal liability in this case is a very real possibility. 

Obstruction of justice? Aiding and abetting? Failure to report a crime? Conspiracy?

Could he be charged with these serious offenses? Time will tell, but that may depend on how thorough an independent investigation is performed, if one is done at all.

Why does it seem that the only way people tell the truth anymore is with a subpoena?

And at this point, no matter what is forthcoming by either side, an investigation must take place.  Failure to do so will only result in a higher level of people’s mistrust of government.

David Axelrod, Senior White House Adviser, denied that a job offer took place, but added that if it did, such an action would be a “serious breach of the law.”

But on the radio show, Sestak said that this type of issue isn’t what concerns Pennsylvanians.  Rather, they are interested in how government is going to solve their problems.

At best, that answer is at least half wrong.

More than ever, Americans are looking for leaders who provide accountability, transparency and conviction --- people who will make the tough decisions to get the nation back on track, political repercussions be damned.

Sidestepping a public corruption scandal that may reach the very highest levels of government, and one in which he’s the most critical figure, is an indication that Sestak is not that type of leader.

For the sake of good government and his own integrity, Joe Sestak needs to come clean now, tell the truth, and let the chips fall where they may.

Anything less is unacceptable.

On far too many occasions, the media gets a story wrong. Whether that stems from laziness, ignorance or incompetence --- or all three --- the people deserve better.

As the drama of Pennsylvania’s nationally-followed primary played out, two major stories emerged.

The media got only one right.

*****

First, the one they got wrong.

As Senator Arlen Specter was heading for defeat --- the end of an era --- at the hands of Congressman Joe Sestak, the prevailing sentiment was that this result somehow translated into a “message to Washington.” This was usually followed by commentary that it showed people were angry at the policies coming out of the nation’s capital.

People are angry, to be sure, but this race had nothing to do with that.  In fact, Sestak’s election, from a policy standpoint, was an affirmation of Barack Obama’s agenda.

Sestak --- an incumbent, by the way --- not only voted for bailouts, the stimulus, federal takeovers of industry, and national health care, but wants to go considerably further.  More taxes, more spending, more regulation, more bureaucracy --- flat-out, Sestak just wants more government.

Since he, like the President, believes government knows best, how is that, in any way, a “message to Washington” and a repudiation of the current political environment?

It’s not.

Remember that this was a Democratic primary election, and Joe Sestak’s positions appeal to the Party’s Leftist base. And why not? He is one of them.

We also heard that there was an anti-incumbent message, which, overall, is true. Specter fatigue was running high, given that he has been a senator for a third of a century. But even that was a smaller factor in his defeat.

This senate election became a referendum on whether Specter was an untrustworthy political opportunist due to his party switch last year. Sestak’s ad showing Specter, in his own words, justifying his switch because it would “enable me to be re-elected” was the turning point in the race.

And it certainly didn’t help Specter when TV ads showed him not only being embraced by Sarah Palin, but being called an “ally” who could be “counted on” by the Devil himself --- at least to the Leftists --- George W. Bush.

Specter had a major credibility problem, and Sestak had enough money to inform voters of that --- over and over again.

That’s the whole issue, plain and simple. How anyone can extrapolate anything else is just ridiculous.

You want a “message to Washington?” Look to Tea Party candidate Rand Paul’s stunning victory in Kentucky, or if Pat Toomey beats Sestak in the fall, but don’t look to the Sestak-Specter race.

*****

The story the media did get right was Barack Obama’s abandonment of Specter in his hour of need.  Of this, there is no dispute.

And make no mistake, Obama should --- and will --- pay for his callous, calculated and crass political decision.

After successfully wooing Specter to join his Party, and immensely benefitting from that switch (as Specter was THE decisive 60th vote in favor of the stimulus), Obama blatantly turned his back on his one-time ally, humiliating an against-the-wall Specter.

Why? Because the President put politics before principle.  Despite the fact that he gave his word ---in front of the entire nation --- that he would help Arlen in any way, Obama broke that promise.

Specter saw the election slipping away, and repeatedly implored the President to campaign in Pennsylvania for him.  But those calls were rebuffed. 

It makes no difference whether Obama’s appearance would have helped or hurt Specter.

That is completely irrelevant.

What matters is that the President --- our leader and supposedly a role model --- broke his word to save his own skin.  Or so he thinks.

Ironically, the very reason Specter went down --- lack of credibility --- will now haunt Obama as he hurriedly tries to pass his agenda before Republicans win a sizable number of congressional seats this fall.

“What’s that, Mr. President?  You want my vote on a controversial issue, and in exchange you’ll give me A, B, and C, and, geez, you’ll even campaign for me when I need you?” 

That question will be echoed repeatedly between now and November as the President advocates cap-and-trade, spending and tax increases,  Wall Street reform, internet regulation, and a host of other issues.

And you know what he’ll hear more often than not?

“Hmmm.  You know I love you, Mr. President.  The same way you told Arlen that you loved him.  But after you hung him out to dry when he needed you most, you can’t blame me for thinking that your promises are a bit hollow right about now.  And by the way, you’re not up for re-election this year.  But I am.  So don’t take this the wrong way, but don’t let the door hit you in the derriere on the way out!”

Obama’s calculated move of not stopping in Pennsylvania, while flying over it on election day, was viewed as a political gain.  Short-term, he may be right.  But in the long-term, which in this case is the next 6 months, his decision will backfire in a big way.

Give George Bush credit for doing one thing right (which is not an easy thing to do).  He gave his word that he’d go to the wall for members of his party facing tough election challenges. And he came through in a big way.  Despite the risk to his prestige and political capital, Bush crisscrossed the country stumping for his allies.  And he emerged a stronger leader because of it.

Barack Obama may be naïve in many policy matters, but he should have been smart enough to know the value of keeping his word, both personally and politically.

But he didn’t. And he will suffer the consequences.

Want the most fitting possibility? Specter could actively campaign against, and attempt to derail, Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court nomination.
After all, he voted against her before as Solicitor General, and now he has nothing to lose.

Literally.

And for that, he can partially thank Barack Obama.

Aren’t paybacks hell?

Note: This column first appeared in Philadelphia Magazine's Philly Post.  Read all of Freindly Fire's Philly Post columns here:

http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/author/cfreind/

As millions of Pennsylvanians head to the polls for today’s primary election, experts have noted that the electorate is restless, volatile, and even angry. They attribute this to unpopular spending policies and a backlash over ever-increasing taxes.

With so many people losing jobs, houses and retirement accounts, the level of interest in how the people’s business is conducted has reached record highs.

At the same time, the level of cynicism and mistrust is also off the charts.

Many activists have learned that challenging the establishment is a daunting task, leading some to become frustrated by the entrenched business-as-usual order that prevails.

As a result, there is a growing perception that most candidates are just more of the same, cleverly disguising themselves as reformers and agents of change to appeal to the electorate’s current mood.

And that’s not an unfounded perception.

All the candidates for U.S. Senate and governor have snappy television ads and slick mail pieces, and all promise virtually the same thing: more jobs, lower taxes and a reformed, more accountable government.

But since all of the candidates detailed below are current office holders, they are, by definition, part of the very establishment against which they campaign. So how do people know which ones to trust, and for whom to vote? 

Trite as it sounds, people need to do their homework. Being busy at home, work and with children’s activities may be a way of life for many, but it’s simply no excuse to be ignorant.

And corrupt and lazy public officials exist on such voter ignorance.

Too many citizens either don’t vote, especially in primaries, or pull the lever merely because of a TV ad or yard sign.

Given the enormous problems that confront us, it’s time for voters to make better informed decisions.

Granted, there is no such thing as a perfect candidate, but if more than a precious few exercised the three “C’s” --- common sense, core values and consistency --- our government would be infinitely more efficient, and we might actually have a chance of turning the ship around before it plows into the iceberg.

As an Election Day primer, Freindly Fire cuts through the political spin to look at the not-so-well-known political baggage each candidate brings with him, with the hope that such knowledge will allow readers to make the best, most educated choice for Pennsylvania’s future as they head to the polls.

U.S. Senate

-Thirty-year incumbent U.S. Senator Arlen Specter, who has been defying the odds for much of his career, has to contend with the fallout stemming from his highly-publicized Party switch. The question is whether Democrats will follow the lead of President Obama and Governor Rendell in welcoming Specter into the Party, thankful for his decisive votes over the last year, or whether he will be booted from office because he is viewed as the ultimate political opportunist interested only in prolonging his own career.
Interestingly, Specter’s deciding vote on the stimulus plan --- made as a Republican ---was done so against the advice of trusted political advisors. 

Had he gone the safe route and voted with the GOP against the bill, he would have virtually assured himself no primary opponent (as he had also announced his opposition to the union-backed “Card Check” bill). So not only might the opportunism charge not stick, but Specter may, in fact, be rewarded for what he calls his most important vote of conscience.

-Joe Sestak has saturated the airwaves with commercials stating that Specter’s time has come and gone, with fresh blood needed in Washington.  Running as an outsider, he has branded himself as an atypical politician.  Yet his steadfast refusal to release records concerning his controversial departure as Deputy Chief Of Naval Operations, his paltry pay for campaign workers ---while family members make thousands ---, and his large number of missed votes have led to questions about his character, judgment, and integrity. 

The problem Sestak faces is that, for the most part, people aren’t voting for him; instead, he must rely on “Specter fatigue” --- voters coming out against the incumbent. If Sestak is viewed as just another politician, voters will choose the “devil they know.”

Governor (GOP)

-State Representative Sam Rohrer touts himself as a constitutional conservative while campaigning for fiscal responsibility and limited government.  Yet on the most important issues to many in the GOP, Rohrer did the opposite of what he now preaches by voting for an unconstitutional payraise as well as hiking his own pension by 50%.  And that pension vote is the largest contributing factor to the state’s pension crisis, which is the ticking time bomb awaiting the next governor when state pension payments jump eightfold in the next three years.

-Attorney General Tom Corbett is certainly the most believable candidate who talks about “reforming Harrisburg,” since his legislative corruption probe has netted ten felony convictions, as well as indictments of two former House Speakers --- actions once thought unthinkable by many. But he is still dogged by charges from opponents that his investigations, as well as his lawsuit against Obamacare, are politically motivated.

Corbett’s most notable policy issue is his no-new-taxes pledge. While a sound policy, Corbett will be severely tested not to break it as the fiscal crisis grows to almost unmanageable proportions over the next Governor’s term.  Such pledges prove popular at election time, but the corollary is unmistakable: break it at your own peril.  One only has to look at how much free time President George H.W. Bush had after he uttered --- and then broke ---one of the most remembered pledges in political history: “Read my lips, no new taxes.”

Governor (Democrats)

-Allegheny County Dan Onorato’s $8 million war chest has staked him to a large lead, allowing him to run as the reformer who will clean up Harrisburg.  But as the candidate most closely linked to Ed Rendell --- the very Governor who has presided over the environment that needs to be “reformed” --- Onorato has learned to dance the Harrisburg Two-Step perfectly: reaping the Rendell Machine’s largesse while publicly calling for change. 

It remains to be seen in the general election if Onorato’s stategy will be seen as genuine or a business-as-usual extension of the Rendell Administration.

- State Senator Anthony Williams has run perhaps the most unusual campaign. Despite being late to the show, he has raised an astounding $5 million, mostly from a few individuals advocating school choice.  Of particular interest is that, despite receiving some of the largest campaign contributions in the history of Pennsylvania politics from these one-issue folks, Tony Williams has never introduced true school choice legislation.

 One must question how Williams can convince people that he is their education savior when he hasn’t actually gotten any education reform legislation passed. Meanwhile, the system continues to crank out functional illiterates from deathtrap schools.

The larger question is how a Harrisburg insider --- one who also voted for the payraise --- can effectively run as reformer. And the answer is that he can’t, which is why, despite his millions, he hasn’t moved up at all in the polls.

-Auditor General Jack Wagner is viewed by many as the most genial of the Democrats who, if he could have raised any money, would have been the D’s best shot in November.  Wagner has shown his independence by taking the Rendell Administration to task for waste and conflicts of interest in a number of audits, and has shown himself to be the only voice of reason and fiscal restraint on the Delaware River Port Authority Board of Commissioners. But with little campaign cash, Wagner’s chances are dismal at best. Some say good guys finish last in politics, and that may well be the case in this race.

-Montgomery County Commissioner Joe Hoeffel, while involved in a number of controversial issues in that job, has shown himself to be one of the most open and honest candidates in this race. A self-proclaimed proud liberal, Hoeffel chastises all of his competitors as being too conservative. Hoeffel admits that his philosophy would be a hard-sell in a general election, especially in this electorate’s anti-Democrat, anti-tax-and-spend mood, but has not backed off his platform. But with virtually no money in the bank, Hoeffel’s fight will be to stay out of last place.

*****

Given the fiscal armageddon Pennsylvania faces in the next four years ---the state is facing budget deficits upwards of $7 billion---, it is important to elect those most likely to take on the business-as-usual culture and put principle before politics. Cutting through the political spin and taking a hard look at the candidates now and in the fall --- both the good and bad --- and holding them accountable, is the best, and only, way to steer the ship back to calmer waters.

But given that voter turnout today is only expected to be average or slightly above, that message may sink in after it’s too late.

A bruising GOP primary battle is one step closer to reality for U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

As expected, rival Pat Toomey resigned yesterday as president of the fiscally conservative organization Club For Growth (CFG), vowing to announce his candidacy shortly.

Sensing a Toomey candidacy as imminent, the Specter campaign continued its attacks on Mr. Toomey’s Wall Street connections.  In a letter sent to the former congressman yesterday, Mr. Specter questioned why Mr. Toomey’s biography on his former organization’s Web site “has been altered to delete any reference to the many years you spent selling risky derivatives.”

Mr. Specter said the original biography listed Mr. Toomey as having “developed and managed a $21 billion derivatives trading operation for Morgan Grenfell Finance Inc. … yet your new online bio omits any mention of your work as a derivatives trader, merely noting that your ‘first career was in investment banking from 1984 through 1991.’ ”

The 30-year incumbent concluded by asking Mr. Toomey to explain the discrepancy about the “basic fact” of his professional career. He also asked why Mr. Toomey “ ‘omitted this fact’ as he readied his Senate campaign,” and asked when were the changes made.

 Mr. Specter’s questions come just weeks after his campaign launched a statewide TV advertising blitz that attempted to tie Mr. Toomey’s Wall Street links to the nation’s financial meltdown.

FactCheck.org, an independent, nonpartisan organization, published an article rebutting many of the commercial’s statements.

Peg Luksik, a conservative grassroots activist from Johnstown and an announced candidate in the race, expressed her disappointment that Mr. Toomey would change his biography.

“It is unfortunate that Mr. Toomey made that choice. It’s like giving someone a stick to hit you with.”

Ms. Luksik said that the biography change made it appear that Mr. Toomey was hiding something. “Why would you do that? I’m sure he didn’t do anything wrong. His (Wall Street) background is part of who he is.”

Likening the situation to what would happen if she removed the extensive pro-life activities from her biography, Ms. Luksik stated, “People would ask me if I was insane. It just doesn’t make any sense to me.”

Former Indiana U.S. Rep. Chris Chocola has succeeded Mr. Toomey as Club for Growth’s president.

During his time in Congress, he was known as a staunch taxpayer advocate, fighting for limited-government and free-market principles.  He has served as a member of the group’s Leadership Council since 2007.

“I feel extremely honored to have been able to lead such a great organization,” Mr. Toomey said upon resigning. “I have known Chris for many years and I have nothing but respect and admiration for his commitment to free enterprise. ”