By Alex Roarty
PoliticsPA Staff Writer
roarty@politicspa.com

PHILADELPHIA — Fireworks at the start of a debate Saturday night between Democratic U.S. Senate candidates Joe Sestak and Arlen Specter eventually gave way a mostly conventional affair that featured themes familiar to those who have closely watched the campaign so far.

Neither candidate emerged as the clear victor in what will be the race’s most high-profile debate, although viewers at home will likely come away with the impression that neither man holds much affinity for his opponent. With the primary now little more than two weeks away, it’s unlikely the event did little to change the trajectory of a race that shows Sestak still with plenty of ground to make up before May 18.

Specter’s strategy was apparent from the debate’s opening moment, when he challenged the southeast congressman to apologize for a recent attack ad. The spot, which was in response to a Specter ad that said Sestak had been relieved of command in the Navy for creating a poor command climate, said the incumbent was inappropriately criticizing a veteran and called him a liar.

“When he calls me a liar, that’s out of bounds,” Specter said. “I want an apology.”

Specter also repeatedly asked Sestak, as he’s done recently during the campaign, to release his personal records about from the military, seemingly bent on forcing the debate to focus on the congressman’s record.

But the challenger mostly ignored request, instead saying that he was proud to serve in the armed services and was relieved only after challenging the military’s establishment to change their vision for the Navy.

“I’ve served 31 years in the U.S. military,” he said. “I loved every moment of it.”

He then pivoted to decry Specter’s criticism as the same kind of politics he says failed the country during President Bush’s time in office.

“Arlen Specter has reverted to his old Republican tactics of saying anything to divert attention from what really matters,” the congressman said.

He added, “Negative attacks haven’t created one job.”

Sestak has built his campaign on trying to remind voters of Specter’s Republican past, and Saturday saw him using every opportunity to decry the incumbent’s voting record on issues such as the economy, Iraq war and Supreme Court nominees. He joined the party not because it matched with his principles, Sestak argues, but because it was the only way he could stay in office.

When asked what his biggest difference with Specter was, Sestak replied, “The major difference is … I am a Democrat out of core beliefs and convictions.”

Specter, in response to the same question, touted past endorsements he received from the AFL–CIO and his vote in support of President Obama’s stimulus package, among other issues.

He emphasized that, as a long-time incumbent, he’s able to influence important issues in the Senate better than a new member.

“I ask for you vote on primary Election Day based on what I have done, what I am doing, and what I can do in the future,” he said.

Most public polls have shown Specter beating Sestak between 10 to 20 points, although The Inquirer reported Friday that a poll from a separate campaign had the southeast congressman trailing by just nine points. Most analysts expect that the race will tighten in its final weeks, although they say that might not necessarily mean Specter is in any real danger of losing.

The debate is the second one held between the candidates, the first coming at an event during the state Democratic Party’s winter endorsement meeting when the two men unexpectedly shared a stage. The debate was carried live by at least one broadcast television station in each of the state’s six media markets, with several more airing it on tape-delay.

Questions over the country’s highest court also emerged as a key issue during the debate. President Obama is set to name a new nominee after Justice John Paul Stevens recently announced his retirement.

Specter, asked by the moderator to explain recent comments from former Senator Rick Santorum that he endorsed Specter in 2004 only in exchange for a promise to support President Bush’s Supreme Court nominees, again reiterated he made no such deal.

“There was never a deal,” he said. “I did not commit my vote, and I would not commit my vote under any circumstances.”

That didn’t stop Sestak from criticizing Specter over the alleged deal, saying Washington needs politicians who will stand up for what they believe in instead of fighting only for political survival.