Thank you for contacting my office regarding a proposal to amend the Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I appreciate hearing your comments on this important matter.
In 1996, the Congress passed and the President signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I supported the passage of this legislation. This law has two important facets. First, the law defines marriage for the purpose of the Federal government as a union between one man and one woman. Second, it provides that no state or local jurisdiction may be forced to recognize a legal union created in another state or jurisdiction, if the definition of that union is contradictory to their own.
The legalization of same sex marriage in states such as Connecticut, Iowa, and Massachusetts has led many citizens to believe it is necessary to amend the United States Constitution in order to protect traditional marriage. Although I support traditional marriage as defined in DOMA, and although I appreciate the goal of the proposed amendment, I do not believe it is necessary to amend the Constitution at this time.
I believe this is an issue most appropriately addressed at the state level, and most states are working hard to protect marriage. Indeed, nearly every state has enacted statutory or constitutional protection for traditional marriage. Furthermore, DOMA ensures those states will not be forced to recognize unions created in the handful of states with legalized same-sex marriage. Therefore, I believe it is premature to amend our founding document at this time.
Thank you for contacting my office regarding proposals to amend the Constitution to protect traditional marriage. Rest assured I will keep your thoughts on this issue in mind if the Senate considers this issue or any related issue. Should you have any further questions, please contact my office or visit my website at www.specter.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter
The blogger who posted this letter, Hedo, has confirmed to me over email that this letter was received on September 22nd.
Arlen Specter is engaging in some of the more absurdly bald-faced flips that I have ever seen a candidate engage. He does not care about policy or ideological consistency--only about getting elected.
This all might be tolerable if Specter was simply saying that he was representing the majority wishes of his constituents. However, he keeps claiming that these about-faces are based on principle. Again, if Specter were to admit that his highest principle is getting elected, I would agree with him.
Imagine if every conservative Democrat had a primary challenge like Arlen Specter. Would there even be any question about passing the entire Obama administration agenda?
Reward good behavior--support Joe Sestak. The second Arlen Specter no longer faces a serious primary challenge, the second he no longer cares what progressives think.
A wave of new polling has come out this week, and the Pollster.com trendline tells the story. Sestak is gaining on Specter:
Currently at 44.1%--26.5%, the trendlines show each of the campaigns moving in only one direction: Sestak is up, while Specter is down. Other important takeaways:
Specter well under 50%. Specter has not reached 50% since before Sestak officially entered the campaign. All five of the polling organizations to survey the primary since July show Specter under 50% among Pennsylvania Democrats. A majority of Pennsylvania Democrats have not embraced him, and about 12% have actually stopped supporting Specter since his party switch.
Sestak will continue to gain. The only reason Specter is even ahead at all is because of his higher name recognition. Among Pennsylvania Democrats who know both major candidates, Sestak already has a narrow lead (see here and here). As such, the longer the campaign continues, and the higher Sestak's name recognition becomes, the more Specter's lead will erode.
Sestak does better among likely voters: Even aside from Democrats who know both candidates, the two polling organizations which survey likely voters show Sestak closer to Specter than the ones which survey registered voters. Rasmussen shows Sestak within 4%, and back in August Research 2000 showed Sestak within 15%. This average gap of only 9.5% compares favorably to the average gap of 24.3% across the three polls surveying registered Democratic voters. It is also reminiscent of Ned Lamont performing 10% better among likely primary voters in Connecticut than among registered voters.
Sestak better positioned than other major primary challengers. Sestak is already doing better than other recent, major primary challenges against Senate incumbents. Consider:
In 2004, Specter led Pat Toomey 52%-20% across the three polls taken on the campaign between November 2003 and February 2004. Specter went on to win, but only by 2%.
In 2006, five months ahead of the Republican primary in Rhode Island, Lincoln Chafee led Steve Laffey 56%-28%. Laffey eventually pulled into a dead heat, before narrowly losing the primary by 4,000 votes.
Also in 2006, Ned Lamont trailed Joe Lieberman by 46% only three months before the primary. Lamont went on to win the primary by about 3.5%.
U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, trying to knock off a veteran Democratic incumbent senator in the primary, will get an endorsement Monday from somebody who succeeded in doing just that: Connecticut's Ned Lamont.
Lamont defeated Sen. Joseph Lieberman in the 2006 Democratic primary, largely by running against the Iraq war and Lieberman's support of the Bush administration's war policy. But Lamont did not win the general election. After losing the nomination, Lieberman ran as an independent in the fall, defeating Lamont and the Republican nominee.
Score!
Sestak outperforms Specter in the general election. Lamont may not have won the general election, but Sestak looks well positioned to do so. According to Pollster.com, Sestak does better against Republican frontrunner Pat Toomey than Arlen Specter:
It is hard to imagine how these numbers improve for Specter, given that he is so well known across the state. Sestak, by contrast, is not only already leading, but has significant room for growth.
I like the way this is going. If you haven't already, join Joe Sestak's campaign!
Third quarter fundraising numbers are slowly trickling in. I am pretty sure they will show no Congressional candidate in the country has more than Arlen Specter.
And you know what? Even though I am working to elect Joe Sestak here in my home state, that's fine. This is because Joe Sestak has already won the campaign.
Sestak's victory may come as a bit of surprise, especially to those at Arlen Specter's $10,000-a-plate fundraisers that shut down the entire Senate. But Joe Sestak is already voting in the Senate by proxy, via Arlen Specter. Sestak's primary challenge has caused Specter to come around to the point of view of the majority of the Democratic Party) on every major issue since he entered the race.
Red about Specter's key endorsements during his previous re-election campaign, including Rove, Cheney, Bush and Santorum.
Check out Specter's opposition to conducting investigations of wasteful contracts in Iraq, to ending private contractors conducting military interrogations, and to ending interrogation techniques not allowed in the Army Field Manuel, and more.
Learn about Arlen Specter's opposition to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and earmarking funds for abstinence-only education that was originally designated for child abuse prevention.
On the environment, Specter voted against tax credits for investments in renewable technology, increased auto efficiency standards, and even President Obama's budget.
Specter has a long history of opposing progressive legislation for political gain within the Republican Party. He is sounding a different tune now, but that is only because he is facing a primary challenge. There are not many things that the grassroots do which actually change Democratic behavior in Washington, but primaries are one of them. Unfortunately, if Arlen Specter wins the May 18th Pennsylvania primary, we won't have that ability to influence him at all for the remainder of President Obama's time in office.
A new Quinnipiac poll in the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary shows Congressman Joe Sestak not only gaining significant ground on Senator Arlen Specter, but ahead among Pennsylvania Democrats who have enough about both candidates to form an opinion.
479 total registered Dems (MoE = +/- 4.5%) among whom 163 registered Dems (MoE = +/- 7.7%) that have an opinion about both Specter and Sestak.
(If registered Democrat) If the 2010 Democratic primary for United States Senator were being held today and the candidates were Arlen Specter and Joe Sestak, for whom would you vote?
All Democrats (July numbers in parenthesis)
Specter: 44% (55%)
Sestak: 25% (23%)
Democrats who have heard of both candidates
Sestak: 43%
Specter: 39%
The subset of 163 Democrats who know both candidates was sent to me, by request, from the Quinnipiac polling institute. So, I guess that makes it an Open Left exclusive!
By the end of the campaign, Specter's name ID advantage will have significantly dissipated, if not disappeared entirely. When that happens, it will be advantage Sestak.
Here is a recent letter from Arlen Specter's office to a constituent query on amending the Constitution to prohibit marriage equality. It shows Specter opposes marriage equality, favors the Defense of Marriage Act, and only thinks that an amendment banning marriage equality is currently unnecessary, but should be considered if more than a handful of states pass marriage equality:
Dear Mr. Hedo:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding a proposal to amend the Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I appreciate hearing your comments on this important matter.
In 1996, the Congress passed and the President signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I supported the passage of this legislation. This law has two important facets. First, the law defines marriage for the purpose of the Federal government as a union between one man and one woman. Second, it provides that no state or local jurisdiction may be forced to recognize a legal union created in another state or jurisdiction, if the definition of that union is contradictory to their own.
The legalization of same sex marriage in states such as Connecticut, Iowa, and Massachusetts has led many citizens to believe it is necessary to amend the United States Constitution in order to protect traditional marriage. Although I support traditional marriage as defined in DOMA, and although I appreciate the goal of the proposed amendment, I do not believe it is necessary to amend the Constitution at this time.
I believe this is an issue most appropriately addressed at the state level, and most states are working hard to protect marriage. Indeed, nearly every state has enacted statutory or constitutional protection for traditional marriage. Furthermore, DOMA ensures those states will not be forced to recognize unions created in the handful of states with legalized same-sex marriage. Therefore, I believe it is premature to amend our founding document at this time.
Thank you for contacting my office regarding proposals to amend the Constitution to protect traditional marriage. Rest assured I will keep your thoughts on this issue in mind if the Senate considers this issue or any related issue. Should you have any further questions, please contact my office or visit my website at www.specter.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter
Now, I know that Arlen Specter favors DOMA and banning marriage equality at the state level now, but given the way this primary has gone I'm pretty sure that in a week or two he will be demanding that Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell immediately sign an executive order legalizing gay marriage.
The Internet has fundamentally and forever changed the way Americans live, learn, and work. As such, I applaud today's announcement by the FCC that it will pass a rule requiring Net Neutrality. This is the right thing to do. Consumers should decide what content they view and their Representatives in Congress should not surrender that right to corporate pressure in favor of a system where telecoms selectively control our access to the internet.
Without action by the FCC, large corporations would become the gatekeepers of internet access at the disadvantage of individual users and small businesses. The FCC's new rules-- which I have called for since I first ran for office-- prevent a two-tiered system that favors large, established businesses over individuals and small businesses. The rules also prevent large providers-- such as Comcast and Verizon-- from abusing their market dominance, putting profits over the principle that the internet should be an open market place of ideas.
I championed Net Neutrality since I first ran for Congress in 2006; supported implementing a formal version of the FCC's 2005 "policy principles" on open Internet access; and has co-sponsored legislation in both the 110th and 111th Congress which mirrors the FCC's proposed plan. The bill I have co-sponsored--the Internet Freedom Preservation Act-- empowers the FCC with the ability to monitor and enforce Network Neutrality rules to protect consumers from unfair corporate practices.
In contrast, Arlen Specter has not supported Net Neutrality in the past:
Failed to co-sponsor the 2007 Net Neutrality bill (S. 215), which was co-sponsored by then Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton;
Failed to co-sponsor or introduce a Net Neutrality bill in the current Congress;
Prefers investigating internet company violations on a "case-by-case" basis rather than issuing a "general rule"
Failed to follow through on his promise to create a "coordinated plan" to ensure equal internet for all."
As such, I have two questions for Arlen Specter:
Why has he supported moneyed interests over the rights of individuals- choosing a partnership with corporate internet providers over his duties to his constituents?
Will he once again change his position on an issue because I am challenging him in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary?
Thank you to the Open Left community for the support you have shown both for Net Neutrality and for my campaign. Please continue to follow the campaign on my website, Facebook page, and twitter feed.
***Why Specter is doing the right, MLK Jr. thing regarding Afghanistan is explained at the bottom of the essay.
Senator Arlen Specter, on the floor of Senate Thursday, challenged the President's basic premise for the Afghanistan war and occupation, that we are there because al Queda needs the country as a base of operations and we're stopping them from getting that base. (Gracias to ElwoodBlz's Arlen Specter Questions Afghan War Necessity for the heads up on all this.) At his Senate website and on the Senate floor, Specter first tears down any other justification for the occupation and war as pretty damned inadequate:
While I think it is laudable to want to protect the Afghan people and to provide good governance there, it is my view that is not of sufficient national interest for the United States to put our troops at risk or to expend substantial additional sums there. The principal question, as I see it, is whether Afghanistan is indispensable to be secured to prevent al-Qaida from launching another attack against the United States.
He sums up as follows:
In sum, it seems to me that before we ought to commit additional troops to Afghanistan, it ought to be a matter of paramount importance, indispensable as a matter of stopping another attack by al-Qaida. But if al-Qaida can organize in some other spot, the issues raised by my questions, it would bear heavily on what our policy in Afghanistan should be.
In the same announcement he outlines a series of excellent questions (numbers added) for the Obama administration, questions he wants good answers for before he supports increasing troops in the country:
Pennsylvania is the primary challenge everyone can agree with! In an email leaked from Journolist, Joe Klein endorses Joe Sestak even while attacking the concept of progressive primary challenges in general:
Joe Klein on Journolist
(in reverse chronological sequence)
From: Joe Kelin
Date: Aug 29, 6:03 pm
Subject: A letter from Mr. Billy Ralph Bierbaum of Waxahachie, Texas
re: condensed journalism
To: Journolist
Luke--i think primary challenges are valid in some cases. I'd vote for Sestak over Specter in a heartbeat. They are much more tricky in the House...As for Greenwald, he knows little about politics, less about journalism and cares not a whit about the national security of the United States. I find the Limbaugh-like, knee-jerk devotion of his flock depressing.
----- Original Message -----
From: journolist@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat Aug 29 16:54:11 2009
Subject: [ JournoList] Re: A letter from Mr. Billy Ralph Bierbaum of
Waxahachie, Texas re: condensed journalism
Joe
You are arguing with a straw man. No one here is "more interested in whacking moderates than in making sure that moderate districts are represented by Democrats rather than Republicans." No one is calling for a Naderite heightening of the contradictions.
Why do you insist on characterizing people who disagree with your tactical assessments as "self-righteous political naifs" hellbent on achieving some sort of solipsistic emotional release by way of "purges" and "litmus tests"? That hardly seems civil.
In any case, the question before us is: Are primary challenges a useful means of achieving liberal policy goals? I think they are, based not only on basic human logic and my personal preference for more rather than less democracy, but also on the concrete example of Arlen Specter's recent and pleasing ideological evolution.
You seem to think they are not. Other than suggesting that a theoretical victory by a theoretical liberal in a theoretically conservative district could, theoretically, throw a Democratic seat to Republicans, what is the actual evidence from cases that is causing you to reject the validity of one half of the entire democratic process?
The whole exchange is amusing, even if the leak isn't.
Arlen Specter is having difficulty selling tickets to his fundraiser with President Obama in two weeks. So, according to PA Progressive, Pennsylvania State chair TJ Rooney is giving away $1,000 tickets to hundreds of state committee members for free:
Senator Specter promised the county Chairs free tickets to his upcoming $1000/person event in Philadelphia with President Obama. TJ Rooney then announced the Senator will pay for every state committee person to attend. This makes me thing the Senator is having trouble selling tickets if he has to begin tickets away at $1000 apiece. It'll remain to be seen if he can buy off committee people for a thousand bucks a pop. This hits me as trying to buy votes.
PA Progressive also got a video of Congressman Sestak talking at the Pennsylvania State Democratic Committee meeting over the weekend:
As the number of people in danger of losing their homes continuing to increase, Congressman Sestak has been keeping his office open seven days a week and designating two staff members to help out constituents. From the Delco Times:
For the Mignognas, Strohl, Bettcher and the Fuciles, their journey brought them to Sestak's door.
"Your office did more for me in two weeks than two attorneys that I had hired in a year and a half," Strohl said.
Bettcher said she was unsuccessful trying to refinance until she called Sestak.
"Two days later, I got a response," she said. "I've probably talked more to (Sestak's office) than my family members in the past few months to keep me from becoming a statistic."
Partly because of this, Sestak has kept his office open seven days a week.
In 2007, his office fielded 49 housing-related calls. Last year, it jumped to 224. This year, he expects to take more than 500.
"A lot of these are just conforming loans, 30 years," Sestak said. "People had it and all of a sudden, something happened."
The congressman has designated two staff members, Sean Kelly and Bill Walsh, to handle the cases.
The above excerpt is a small part of a longer story about how an effective member of Congress can make a real difference in the lives of local residents. Check it out.
Another thing we learned years ago was that the entire scheme was made possible by Senator Arlen Specter, who quietly changed the law allowing US Attorneys to be replaced. Without this change, President Bush could have threatened to fire Christie and the other USA's, but he would not have been able to easily replace them with political hacks. Apparently, Specter inserted the changes to benefit Bush and the Republican party--and after all, it's easy to guess at his motives since Bush and Rove saved in him in his 2004 primary contest, and Republican control of the Senate rested on the upcoming 2006 elections.
The biggest campaign even of the week will take place on Wednesday from 6-8 pm when Congressman Sestak debates Republican frontrunner Pat Toomey. It will be broadcast live on JoeSestak.com, and takes place in Allentown at Muhlenberg For ticket requests call (610) 891-8956 or send an email to townhall@joesestak.com.
Does anyone else find it impossible to to not start singing the Bill Joel song of the same name whenever they hear about Allentown?
In an interesting twist yesterday, the FEC ruled that donors who contributed to the Specter campaign while he was a Republican can now be contacted and informed of their right to request a refund.
The FEC voted 4-2 to advise the Club for Growth -- a conservative group tied to Specter's main GOP rival -- that it was within its legal rights to contact Specter donors and remind them of his pledge to provide refunds to any contributors unhappy with his party switch. When Specter announced he was leaving the GOP earlier this year, he promised to return campaign contributions from the 2010 cycle "upon request."
[...]
The FEC, which keeps tight restrictions on the use of donor lists, ruled that the Club for Growth can send one letter or make one telephone call to each donor, but the group cannot sell their names, addresses and telephone numbers to others, or request contributions.
In one sense, I see this as a marginal violation of privacy. If you give to a candidate more than $200 in an election cycle, campaigns are required to disclose you publicly, and you show up in public records. But there are lots of donors to campaigns who never show up. Is the Club for Growth now able to access the Specter campaign's entire donor list, even those who gave him $25 and $100? To me, I don't relish the prospect that the Club is able to view the names, addresses, occupations and employers of the entire Specter donor list, even if they are unable to use that information for their own fundraising purposes. I would hope the FEC required safeguards to keep the process blind should the Club decide to call or mail a donor.
Also, does this only apply to the Club, or can a group like National Right to Life contact these donors if they wanted to? I haven't seen answers to this anywhere.
On the other hand, this is good news for the Sestak camp- last FEC filing had Specter at $7.5 million and Sestak at $4.3 million. Specter had $5.8 million in the bank four weeks before he switched parties, which he had been raising since 2004, meaning almost 3/4 of his money was from people giving to a Republican. This may have a significant effect on draining his coffers.
Update: Over e-mail, a friend and campaign finance attorney says that the Club will only get to use information of those donors who are publicly available, e.g. contributors over $200 to the campaign per cycle. The Club is not allowed to use that information for resolicitation on their behalf.
Regarding the ability of conservative groups to "pile on" and each get one phone call and mail solicitation encouraging donors to ask for their money back, he writes:
As long as they're truly working independently, yes. The Commission seemed to place great weight on the privacy concerns of contributors and CfG's assurance that this was a one-shot letter or phone call.
To date, Specter has returned just $126,000 in individual contributions and $97,000 in PAC contributions. This could grow significantly if the Club and other groups all mobilize, although there are resource costs to them of doing that. I have doubts that a lot of people understood the vagueries of campaign finance law and knew they could get their money back.
Yesterday, I accused Arlen Specter of inventing an extremely negative electoral scenario for Democrats that no election forecaster was predicting (in a meeting with Democrats in Northeast Pennsylvania, Specter said that political analysts predict Democrats would lose six seats). It turns out that he didn't actually invent it whole cloth, as more than one person reminded me over email:
Mr. Silver said Democrats often told him his Obama-friendly polls comforted them last fall. "I don't think you should feel at all comforted about 2010," he said to a standing-room-only crowd. He said he expects Democrats will lose from 20 to 50 House seats and up to six Senate seats next year.
OK, so there is an election analyst predicting that Democrats might lose "up to" six seats next year. While I did not attend the panel at Netroots Nation where Nate made this prediction, it appears from this quote that six seats was his worst case scenario. I personally find that quite believable, as it actually happens to be my worst case scenario as well.
Still, all analyses of the current situation show the Senate outlook nowhere near as bad for Democrats, including Nate Silver's latest analysis. My forecast yesterday of a net 2-3 seat Republican gain remains the most pro-GOP outlook around. Beyond Nate and myself, almost everyone else who does this for a living either currently views Republicans gaining fewer seats or predicts no partisan change. Some, such as CQ politics, even still predict Democrats gaining seats.
All of this makes you wonder--why is Arlen Specter presenting the absolute worst-case electoral Senate scenario as though it were the consensus, current view of election forecasters? Further, why is he saying presenting this hyperbole to local Democratic committeepeople in his first tour of Northeast Pennsylvania as a Democrat? It all seems very strange. I have been to a lot of Democratic committee meetings, and I can never remember the featured speaker telling the rank and file about how badly the party was going to get squashed in the next election.
As best as I can tell, by presenting hyperbolic forecasts of electoral doom to local party officials, Arlen Specter is trying to prevent a widespread revolt against him from within the rank and file. This is actually a rhetorical move that progressives have faced from the party leadership for decades: fall in line with the status quo, or else suffer an electoral disaster. This can be seen in the pervasive use of electoral justifications for centrist positions and legislation capitulation to Republicans that has come from many elements in the Democratic Party for a long time now. The party leadership almost always justifies its deviation from the base not on principle, but on electoral concerns.
Even beyond Democrats, it is the sort of electoral pitch Republicans have made to voters for decades, too. You may not like how right-wing we are, but if you don't vote for us you will probably be killed by a terrorist. And even beyond elections altogether, it is an argument that status-quo leaders has long made to anyone who threatens their institutional power: replacing the leadership will result in doom for the rank and file. It is both brilliant and insidious in how it actually shifts blame for institutional failure from the leadership to the rank and file. Worse, it is nothing short of attempting to control people through fear, as it implies that throwing off your free and following your beliefs will result in your own destruction.
That is not the kind of politics I want to be a part of. And to honest, even beyond left-right ideological considerations, it is why I wanted to be involved in a primary challenge against Arlen Specter from the first day he switched to become a Democrat. I am tired of the leadership trying to control us, make decisions for us, and justify decisions antithetical to our beliefs, through fear of electoral demise. The leadership could tell us that they disagree on principle, but that hardly ever happens. They always use electoral concerns instead. This is especially tiring when it comes from people who can't predict elections very well, and who use what are currently the most hyperbolic of electoral scenarios in an attempt to instill fear in their first appearance before local Democratic committeepeople.
Political analysts predict Democrats will lose six Senate and 20 House seats next year, said Specter. He said likely Republican nominee Pat Toomey, a former congressman who is president of the anti-tax Club for Growth, has raised a lot of money for the Senate campaign.
"It's going to be a tough general election," Specter said.
Lose six seats in the Senate? What political analysts are saying that? Here are the four major election forecasters who have published complete Senate analyses for August. On average, they actually show more Republican-held seats threatened than Democratic-held seats:
Cook: 6 Republican-held toss-ups or leans, 5 Democratic-held toss-ups or leans
CQ Politics: 8 Republican-held toss-ups and leans; 5 Democratic-held toss-ups and leans
Rothenberg: 6 Republican-held toss-ups or leans; only 4 Democratic-held toss-ups or leans
538: 5 Republican held seats among top 12 campaigns; 7 Democratic-held seats among top 12 campaigns
Rather than predicting a Republican gain of six seats, as per Arlen Specter, these four forecasters average slightly more Republican-held Senate (6) seats as potential flips than Democratic-held seats (5).
Thanks for the pep-talk Arlen. "The party is screwed in 2010, so choose me or be even more screwed." It is always fun when party higher-ups decide to become concern-troll, Village pundits in a attempt to cajole Democrats into accepting the status-quo of powerful institutions.
"I am very concerned about one-party rule in Washington," Specter says in the spot. "That's why it's so important to elect Chris Hackett to Congress. With Chris Hackett, we'll have a check against massive Democratic control. And that's vital for our country."
Perhaps Specter talking about substantial Democratic losses in the Senate is simply his fear of "massive Democratic control" coming to the surface again.
Congressman Sestak is / was on Rachel Maddow tonight talking about veterans. You can still catch it, depending on where you live and if you watch the second airing.
When realtor Virginia Barr implored Specter to "to tell Congress to move to the center, please, and make some progress" on the critical issues facing this country, Specter found the perfect foil for his message.
"I don't know where else to move to," Specter said.
"But (a move to the center) is not going to happen until all citizens of America participate" in the political process, Specter said.
So just as lunch rush started today, a fellow Democrat came in and asked if I was going to the Sestak endorsement announcement that was to take place at 2pm in Penn Square which is about 1/2 a block from my Creamery...so naturally I closed at 1:55 and headed on over.
Now I'm back and wanted to write up my impressions while they are still fresh. Pardon me if they seem rambly, that's just my writing style.
Rep. Sestak was in Lancaster today to be endorsed by our Democratic County Commissioner Craig Lehman, a couple of City Council Members and 4 out of 5 of our State Committee Representatives (for the record, the 5th State Committee Person is running a campaign of her own and is not endorsing either Senatorial Candidate during the Primary).
Spedwybabs has lots more from the event--stimulus, Afghanistan, the public option, and single-payer.
And now for some eye candy. A campaign volunteer took 78 pics of Congressman Sestak at Netroots Nation. The pictures are beautifully shot, not to mention chock full of candid moments, backstage moments and shots of me awkwardly stumbling through my first staffing experience. You can view the entire set here. For a more soothing experience, here is a slideshow:
"The agreement we reached was the best one we could under the circumstances. We were able to cut out $100 billion from the package and include 35% in tax relief in the overall bill. My preference would have been John McCain's proposal, which I voted for, to have the stimulus package of $421 billion in tax cuts alone. I voted for the Reagan tax cuts back in 1981 and that would be the best course, but in a legislative body you don't have exactly your own choice.
Maybe they will only build half of the train station in Elizabethtown.
This should be interesting. Will Snarlin' Arlen show up?
Allentown, PA - Today, U.S. Senate candidate Pat Toomey accepted an invitation issued by Rep. Joe Sestak to participate in a town hall meeting on health care on September 2, 2009 at Muhlenberg College in Allentown. The invitation was issued after Mr. Toomey engaged the Congressman in an exchange over health care several days ago. Mr. Toomey also suggested that the two campaigns invite Muhlenberg College's Dr. Christopher Borick to moderate the meeting.
"I eagerly accept Congressman Sestak's gracious invitation, and look forward to our respective campaigns working out the logistics over the next couple of days," Mr. Toomey said. "I'm happy to welcome Joe to the great city of Allentown and I'd extend to him an invitation to share a beer with me at one of our fine local establishments after the town hall meeting."
"Our health care system desperately needs reform, and Joe and I agree that a thoughtful and constructive policy discussion is a good way to move the ball forward."
"While I look forward to a substantive debate about honest differences with Congressman Sestak, I wish such an exchange was possible with Arlen Specter. Unfortunately, with Senator Specter, one never knows which Arlen Specter will show up-the May 2009 version who opposed a public health care option, or the August 2009 version who ardently supports it. Either way, I would be interested in having a similar discussion with Senator Specter and hereby extend to him an invitation to participate with me in a separate town hall meeting on health care."
"Pat, I look forward to such an exchange; how about a great town hall on health care? Does the evening of September 2nd, in your home town of Allentown at Muhlenberg College, work for you? We'll have a great discussion of the health care reform effort. I want to show you the light on the public health care option! What do you say?"
Also, pretty cool that Toomey accepted what was an initial challenge via Twitter:
I challenge @ToomeyForSenate to a health care town hall in his home town: http://bit.ly/IUhex #sestak #toomey #publicoption
It's 11:15pm on Friday night. I'm running on 5 hours of sleep since Wednesday (only 1.5 of which was last night). We are filming all day, and editing all night. On Friday morning, we released 11 short videos covering day 1. Today, we have another stack of videos for you covering day 2, plus some more videos from day 1. We filmed a health care town hall with Governor Howard Dean, a Pennsylvania Leadership Forum with Senator Arlen Specter and Congressman Joe Sestak, a media availability with the Congressman, and four more panels. It was another busy day.
Arlen Specter has received more press for having right-wing protesters yell at him than any other Senator. According too a new Rasmussen poll, it doesn't seem to be helping him electorally:
Rasmussen, 8/11, 1,000 LVs (6/16 numbers in parenthesis)
Pennsylvania Senate general election Toomey: 48 (39)
Specter: 36 (50)
Here are my thoughts on this poll (they do not necessarily reflect the thoughts of Joe Sestak):
Rasmussen may ask pro-Republican questions on issue polls and commentary, but I have never seen a reason to discount their election polls.
It is just one poll, and needs confirmation from other sources before being taken as an overall trend.
Both Specter and Sestak have lost ground in the general election, reflecting a deteriorating political environment for Democrats in general.
Specter, who has received massive press attention for the negative reaction at his town halls, dropped 7% more against Toomey than Sestak. He also lost 6% against Sestak in the primary.
Given all of this, it is hard to see how the "extreme protesters vs. Democratic politicians: media narrative is helping Democrats right now. No politician has received more attention in this narrative than Arlen Specter, and a poll taken after his town hall in Lebanon, Pennsylvania, shows him losing substantial ground.
While it may be easy to dismiss the vague, abstract Gallup poll released on the protests yesterday, polling on Specter is far, far more difficult to dismiss. The extensive attention he has received makes him the perfect test case, really.
As I argued earlier this week, we want a people vs. the powerful debate on health care, and it seems like we are getting one. Unfortunately, the version we are getting is wingnut protesters versus Democratic politicians, instead of average Americans versus a broken, for-profit health care system. No matter how crazy those protesters may seem, it is still going to come off as individual Americans versus politicians. Many Americans will be sympathetic with anyone standing up to politicians, purely out of spite.
The "wingnut protesters are crazy" narrative doesn't seem to be working. Certainly, it hasn't been helpful for politicians like Specter to video of protesters yelling at them spread all over the airwaves and internets. I think that we in progressive media have gone overboard in focusing on right-wing protesters.
Last cycle, I started an ActBlue page specifically for Democratic Senate candidates working to pick up seats held by Republicans. I named it the Expand the Map! ActBlue page because the goal was to expand the map of competitive Senate seats. The effort was a big success, achieving over 300 contributions and $40,000 for the Democratic Senate candidates included on the page.
Today, I kicked off the 2010 edition of the Expand the Map! ActBlue page with three Democratic candidates for Senate: Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, New Hampshire Congressman Paul Hodes, and Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestak.
In New Hampshire and Missouri, we have the strongest candidates available, candidates who will also make terrific Democratic Senators. In both races, however, fundraising will always be a top priority. Missouri Republican Roy Blunt will be able to tap his lobbyist buddies and corrupt cronies for cash ad nauseum. No doubt the NRSC will also make holding New Hampshire a top priority; and the D.C. GOP establishment has already begun fawning over Palin-esque quitter Kelly Ayotte. Carnahan and Hodes need our support! A few years back, all four of New Hampshire's and Missouri's combined Senate seats were held by Republicans. Wouldn't it feel great to have flipped all four?
In Pennsylvania, y'all know the deal. Arlen Specter was a Republican Senator for decades. Even though he changed his Party affiliation, he's still not a Democrat as far as I'm concerned. Joe Sestak is a real Democrat, and he - not Specter - should win the Democratic primary. But Specter has a significant edge when it comes to campaign cash; and, Ed Rendell will do all he can to shut off Sestak's fundraising. Let Specter, Rendell, etc. know that they can't shut down the netroots by supporting Sestak!
Please, please, please help kick off the 2010 cycle's Expand the Map! effort by sending these highly deserving Democrats a few bucks. $100 makes a huge difference, $20 makes a huge difference, $10 makes a huge difference! Hop over to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page and make your voice heard.
This is not just a contribution to these Democrats' campaigns. This is a contribution toward slowing and eventually stopping Republican obstruction in the U.S. Senate. Thank you SO much!
Tomorrow at 8:30 a.m. eastern, as reported by a couple dozen news outlets, Representative Joe Sestak will be making a "major campaign announcement." The announcement will stream live at JoeSestak.com, which is also running live Twitter and Facebook updates from supporters. Please go to JoeSestak.com, sign up for email updates, and check it all out.
Since you are reading this on a blog, and given my role on the campaign, if you have any questions or concerns about the campaign, by all means email me at christopher_j_bowers@yahoo.com. I will be happy to assist you in whatever way I can.
In a related announcement, I will be working on "netroots outreach" for the Sestak campaign. Primarily, I will serve as a liaison between the campaign and the netroots community, but also as a general consultant for new media. The Sestak campaign will not be paying me directly, and I will be receiving remittance from outside PACs. The first such PAC is the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which was designed to help progressive campaigns get over the top. This arrangement will allow me to keep writing on Open Left, where I intend to keep writing about the Pennsylvania Senate campaign, too.
As a Pennsylvania resident, I was very disappointed three months ago when the state and national party leadership decided to close ranks around a career politician who had only switched parties to save his job. Senator Specter has a career lifetime crucial vote score of only 27% according to Progressive Punch, and was a top target for defeat in 2010 before his switch. Despite this, we Pennsylvania Democrats were supposed to accept him as our nominee without even being given a choice. Nice. Considering that primary campaigns have consistently proven to be the best means available for the progressive grassroots to push the Democratic Party to the left, this attempt to close down the primary was particularly top-down.
Among prominent Pennsylvania Democrats, only Representative Joe Sestak has demonstrated a willingness to challenge the Democratic establishment on their choice of Arlen Specter. It takes a lot of courage to do something like that. Also, having met him on multiple occasions, Representative Sestak is the most hardworking and dedicated campaigner I have ever met. For example, his congressional office handles more than three times as many constituent case files--10,000--than the average member of Congress. Further, not only is Representative Sestak much more progressive than Arlen Specter, as Nate Silver has recently shown, his potential primary challenge has pushed Specter into the Democratic camp on 97% of all votes, up from only 16% of the time in the month before Specter's switch. This campaign has already demonstrated real results.
You can contribute to both Joe Sestak, and the PCCC, on the Better Democrats 2010 page. Just as importantly, go to JoeSestak.com, sign up for email updates, and watch the announcement tomorrow morning. This is a campaign where you can make a real difference, both now and over the long-term. How many other campaigns can prove that? Sign up today!
Do the Blue Dogs really only have 52 members? By my estimation, it is more like 250.
Via FDL, Carolyn Maloney sums up the progressive mentality that has made Blue Dogs, conservodems, and Arlen Specter the overlords of us all. Or, perhaps more accurately, the mentality that has made us all into Blue Dogs:
To NYCEVE, Jane and the blogging community fighting to make sure health care reform includes a public option: (...)
In terms of how we achieve universal health care, I believe the best way is a single-payer health care system and I've long been a co-sponsor of that legislation. But, if single payer isn't on the table, then we must give all Americans the option of enrolling in a public health insurance plan and I will fight to make sure the public option is included in any health care reform bill.(...)
So, while I agree health care reform must have the public option and I will fight for it; I also believe health care reform is too important to maintain the status quo and, even though I won't like a bill that doesn't include the public option, if that happens, the principle of getting people health care who don't currently have it must come before any one particular method to achieve it.
Shorter Maloney: I will vote for any health care reform bill, no matter how watered down. I will give in on single-payer. I will given in on the public option. I will give in to every demand made by every conservative Democrat, and vote for whatever our Blue Dog overlords tell us to vote for in the end.
Structurally speaking, this mentality effectively makes Carolyn Maloney a member of the Blue Dogs. She will eagerly pass whatever legislation is approved of by the Blue Dog caucus, while making no counter-demands on the Blue Dogs of her own.
In the same way, most Democrats became Collin Peterson when we voted for his cap and trade bill back in June.
And most Democrats became Arlen Specter when we voted for his stimulus bill back in February:
"The agreement we reached was the best one we could under the circumstances. We were able to cut out $100 billion from the package and include 35% in tax relief in the overall bill. My preference would have been John McCain's proposal, which I voted for, to have the stimulus package of $421 billion in tax cuts alone. I voted for the Reagan tax cuts back in 1981 and that would be the best course, but in a legislative body you don't have exactly your own choice.
As I wrote earlier today, the legislation that is passed under a Democratic trifecta is viewed nationally as progressive, whether or not it actually is progressive. If progressives are willing to vote for whatever legislation is approved of by the Blue Dogs, and the conservodems, and Arlen Specter, then effectively all Democrats become Blue Dogs, conservodems and Arlen Specter.
Progressive Democrats are on the hook for policies that, because we make no bargaining demands of our own, are ultimately determined and decided by conservative Democrats. If we want to change that, then we need to keep building the progressive block. Without a progressive block, then we are just all a bunch of Blue Dogs.
