JOE SESTAK VS. RICK SANTORUM?

This one could get interesting. Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (R) took conservative heat in 2004 when he endorsed Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in the primary. Now he seems to be taking heat from Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) who is actually running against Specter in this year's Democratic primary. Sestak appears eager to find in others that which has been dogging him - a scandal involving trades for political favor.

This tack Sestak is taking really couldn't be more transparent and odds are the White House isn't the least bit happy about his latest comments. They could - and should - spur the White House press corps. to question Robert Gibbs about the whole "Jobsgate" scandal.

Sestak has found himself mired in a percolating scandal after admitting to a talk show host in February that the Obama administration offered him a job if he dropped out of the primary against Specter. Whether demonstrating hyper-sensitivity or having a valid point, Sestak has apparently decided to go after Santorum for comments he made in reference to the latter's endorsement of Specter in 2004.

POLITICO quotes Santorum, who responded to a question about why he supported Specter over Toomey in 2004:

"The reason I endorsed Arlen Specter is because we were going to have two Supreme Court nominees coming up," said Santorum, responding to a question at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans. "I got a commitment from Arlen Specter that no matter who George W. Bush would nominate, he would support that nominee," he added.

This has the ring of misery wanting company. If this is a battle Sestak is going to pick, he's going to lose. Offering one's endorsement to the head of the Senate Judiciary committee in return for fast tracking the president's judicial nominees doesn't quite rise to the level of being offered a cushy job by the White House in return for dropping out of a Senate primary race.

After all, the senate's job is to offer advice and consent when it comes to judicial nominees. Specter understandably denied Santorum's claim but Sestak, in making this an issue, comes across as being overly concerned about being alienated by attempting to get others to join him in the frying pan. He's comparing what the White House offered him with what Santorum alleges was agreed on between he and Specter. It doesn't measure up and this speaks to how much this scandal is inside Sestak's head.

Santorum was wrong in endorsing Specter in 2004. He obviously did so because Specter would yield more power than would a freshman Senator in Toomey. Now Specter is no longer a RINO - he's a Democrat.

This may be a sign that Sestak is really getting uncomfortable with Jobsgate. Jeffrey Lord at American Spectator has been following this story quite closely and his most recent article goes right for the jugular - Sestak's honor relative to the oath he took as a Midshipman. Could it be that Sestak's conscience is beginning to hound him a bit more loudly lately?

More on Lord's work here.