Joe Sestak, Three-Star Democrat, Takes the Navy's Name in Vain

During interviews on NBC’s Meet the Press and CBS’s Face the Nation, Democratic nominee for the Pennsylvania Senate seat and retired Navy three-star Admiral Joe Sestak evaded questions about a potentially felonious job offer from the White House, by invoking his Navy experience.

MR. GREGORY: …So isn’t it in the–in the spirit of transparency, were you offered a job by the administration?  And what was it?
REP. SESTAK:  I learned, as I mentioned, about that personal accountability in the Navy.
REP. SESTAK:  I felt I needed to answer that question honestly because I was personally accountable for my role in the matter.
MR. GREGORY:  What’s the answer?  What’s the job you were offered?
REP. SESTAK:  And–but anybody else has to decide for themselves what to say upon their role, and that’s their responsibility.

Admiral Sestak’s inappropriate retreat into his Navy comfort zone was reminiscent of Admiral Boom, the cannon firing character from the movie Mary Poppins, whose inability to reassimilate into civilian life leads him to couch every conversation in nautical jargon.

As ridiculous as Admiral Boom’s rooftop flagship, Representative Sestak’s words show the result of taking the Navy core values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment and warping them through the Liberal moral relativism machine. Honor becomes a matter of individual choice and a standard that one must not impose upon another. Courage is recognized in a refusal to divulge the truth to a constituency that deserves to know. Commitment to the Democratic Party outweighs the Congressional oath of office. Given his statement that he would “be honored to stand with the President of the United States,” Admiral Sestak’s credo seems to be: I will not lie, cheat or steal, but I will tolerate, laud and protect fellow Democrats who do.

It is a common and, in my opinion, valid tactic for high ranking military officers turned Democratic politicians to highlight their service in terms of defense policy expertise, foreign affairs acumen, and unimpeachable patriotism — all attributes that appeal to a right-of-center electorate. Surprisingly, Admiral Sestak did not take this approach in the remainder of his interviews. Instead he touted his military career as a valuable qualification for imposing an unabashedly liberal agenda on an unwilling public. His overall logic appears to be that if a policy works in the Navy, it is good for Pennsylvania. He did not volunteer, nor was he pushed to address how his proposals would be funded.

In his own words:
“This is payback to this nation, as far as I’m concerned, because they took care of me and my family with TRICARE, wonderful health care. They took care of my daughter when she had a health issue. I wanted everyone to be like in the military–health opportunities because the dividends that accrue to our nation are immense.”

In an infuriating display of Democratic elitisim, Admiral Sestak advocates this “wonderful” idea — the private-insurer-killing public option for federally mandated healthcare — because the military healthcare system managed his family’s health well. A man who undeniably received deferential treatment by virtue of his rank and position has no business using his positive experience to justify government healthcare for the rest of us. My personal TRICARE misadventures aside, I wonder how other men, lacking the advantage of senior rank, must cope with their daughters’ suffering at the hands of Dr. Hasan and Dr. Velasquez, both of whom the military medical bureaucracy inexcusably failed to weed out.

He continues:
“[In the Navy] we don’t even promote you above a certain rating or rank unless you have an education, an associates college degree.  I’d say pretty much those are kind of principles that give dividends to our nation. Imagine a work force that’s healthy and educated, that can compete with China and India.”

I find it troubling that Admiral Sestak proposes expending taxpayer dollars to implement a military-inspired policy on a population of which 75 percent of 18 to 24 year olds are ineligible to serve because of “criminal records, obesity, or lack of education.” Ironically, in Admiral Sestak’s homeport, Philadelphia, the ineligibility figure is between 80 and 90 percent. (Perhaps not coincidentally, in 2008 Barack Obama received 83% of the Philly vote.) In my Navy, money thrown at Running, in a training program that has failed to achieve Crawling and Walking, would be grounds for a phone call to the Fraud, Waste and Abuse Hotline.

I cringe at the thought of what other military practices for public consumption schemes might be floating around in Admiral Sestak’s head. Perhaps the energy conserving “Turn Off Your Heat for the Season on 15 March No Matter What the Weather” bill is being drafted as I write this. Mandating Space-A travel for underserved populations on otherwise unfilled commercial airliners might resonate with left-wing voters. Can we look forward to Orwellian mandatory physical training to promote the general welfare? After all, it works in the military.

Active duty and reserve military personnel voluntarily, but temporarily, give up certain individual liberties in exchange for a respectable job opportunity and a chance to serve their country. Their spouses and children living with them in base housing or on overseas installations similarly relinquish a bit of independence. The fruit of this sacrifice is intended to be greater freedom for the rest of us. Admiral Sestak’s suggestion that the top-down military act as a domestic governance model for our We-the-People-up Republic flies in the face of the Constitution that he himself swore to protect throughout his 31-year career.

Allowed to carry out his liberal agenda, Joe Sestak, like a blast from Admiral Boom’s cannon, will leave us scrambling to protect ourselves and our property. You can stop him by supporting Republican nominee Pat Toomey here.