The wingnuttiest proposal from a Democratic Senate candidate this cycle is Arlen Specter's flat tax.
For fifteen years, Arlen Specter has supported a 20% flat tax proposal that would slash taxes on the rich and significantly raise them on working families. He introduced it as recently as March of last year.
While it was reasonable to assume that Specter had dropped this position now that he had become a Democrat, Specter's website is still promoting the plan and his campaign spokespeople are still defending his flat tax proposal today:
Rep. Joe Sestak opened a new front in his assault on Sen. Arlen Specter as his campaign criticized the incumbent's long-standing support for a flat tax to replace the current income tax system.(...)
Chris Nicholas, Mr. Specter's campaign manager, dismissed the criticism as "yet another negative attack from Sestak.''
"Because his attack didn't spell out any new approach on this issue, he must be endorsing the status quo, odd for a guy who keeps trying to tell us he's an outsider,'' Mr. Nicholas said. "Specter's flat tax would downsize the IRS and save all Americans time and money. Sestak should explain why he's against that.'
This article is from today. And from Specter's website, he adds that he would like to see the estate tax and dividend taxes permanently repealed in their entirety:
In March 1995, I introduced the first bill in the Senate that would create a Federal flat tax. This legislation proposes completely replacing current tax provisions with an across-the-board 20 percent Federal tax on the income of individuals and businesses. I also included provisions in this bill that would eliminate the estate tax as well as the tax on dividends. In the 110th Congress, I reaffirmed my commitment to reforming the Federal tax system by introducing similar flat tax legislation.
Now, I work for Joe Sestak, so take this with whatever grain of salt you want. However, no matter who the messenger is on this one, this is hard-core right-wing tax policy. It is coming from a Democratic Senator in Pennsylvania, and he is still promoting it on his Senate website, and defending it through campaign spokespeople.
And remember Specter coming out against the war in Afghanistan? Well, he hasn't introduced a single bill, or cast a single vote against the war, but he has since suggested that we pre-emptively attack Yemen.
This is some pretty right-wing stuff. If you don't think Arlen Specter will maintain a façade of supporting progressive policies once the primary is over, check out Joe Sestak. He is on Facebook and Twitter, too.
I sat down this morning with Rep. Joe Sestak to discuss the news around Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and specifically questions around implementation of a repeal. Many of you know Sestak's political history, but a little on his military background. Sestak is a decorated, former 3-star Vice Admiral in the Navy and the highest-ranking former military officer currently serving in this Congress. He also served as Director of Defense Policy at the National Security Council and as policy adviser to Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Vern Clark, where he oversaw a process, in his words, "to try to change the Navy". I was interested in talking to Rep. Sestak particularly because he had spent time overseeing structural change in the Navy and understands the process.
The main point Rep. Sestak made to me is that the year-long "study" that Sec. Gates announced at yesterday's hearing is an unnecessary delay, and change could be instituted far more rapidly. More in the transcript.
Adam: Thanks for joining me. First, I want to ask about your reactions to yesterday's Senate Armed Services hearing.
Rep. Sestak: I was very pleased to see the significant step that's being taken by the Defense Department to move forward and accept that Don't Ask, Don't Tell has to be repealed. I also believe, however, that the implementation study that's going to be done doesn't need to take a year. I believe it should be done in a shorter period of time. We have many lessons that we've learned from previous areas of integration: African Americans into the military, women into defense combat roles. During 1970 through '74, we had a strategic naval operation by Admiral Zumwalt- this is as I was entering- and he instituted many significant changes in our military and he did them quite rapidly. Now maybe you don't just want to do them with what is known as a "Z-Gram", a message that comes out that says, "implement this", but I believe we can do this more rapidly. That said, it's a significant step that we've taken because it's going to happen, but the Congress has to vote on it, so let's make sure we have everybody there, let's make sure we have the courage to do it and do it rapidly.
Adam: You talked about a "Z-Gram"- what is the fastest process that could and perhaps should be taken versus a long, drawn-out process?
Rep. Sestak: A "Z-Gram" was where the Chief of Naval Operations would say, here's the new policy. The best way to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell is to call the flag leadership together and then they meet with their commanders, then those officers meet with their subordinate commanders, and through the chain of command there's an explanation of why and how this policy is going to be changed. You have the chain of command, the leadership including the chief petty officers, who are the backbone of the Navy, understanding why. Then you set out, on this date certain, this will be the change. But the problem is they're going to study it for a year first, then there will be the implementation. And I just think that's an awful long time to study an implementation.
We are a military that understands processes very well. If anyone can go off and implement something rapidly, it's the military, because we do so many war plans, we do so many contingency plans, it's a part of our culture, we can take how to do this, stick it into a model, and do it in a fairly short timetable. I don't want to take away from the importance of having moved this out there, but at the end of the day, we know this is going to be done. The military is such a young organization, and we're well beyond any previous stereotypes. We can go about this business, and I would like to see Congress move on this rapidly. In fact, I believe it should be in the defense authorization bill, and that would take 2-3 months to get it through the process. It's about time to implement it.
Adam: What do you think our odds are of including it in and passing it through the defense authorization bill?
Rep. Sestak: Well, I think it's pretty darn good. But then, I've only been in politics a few years, but this is something where the Commander in Chief speaks, I think people have the courage to do the right thing. There are those on both sides of the aisle who are still opposed. However, I think at the end of the day, the Commander in Chief saying let's do this, with the military's leadership saying let's do this, you'll find that there'll be more than enough votes to make it happen.
Adam: The New York Times reported a few weeks ago that the Pentagon was considering separate shower facilities and locker rooms. In the past, there has been discussion of pilot programs. Is any of this necessary to go through during implementation?
Rep. Sestak: No. They're serving out there right now. They go into showers, non-gay or gay, right now into sports gyms. It's a way of life. Let's go out and make it happen. We don't need to go through a pilot program. We don't need separation of showers. We're beyond all that.
Adam: If the Pentagon implemented the timeline that you outline, how long do you think that should take?
Rep. Sestak: I would say two to three months. Because you can do this in a nice deliberate way and still finish it in that period of time. Someone used the phrase to me, the military is always "ready". We can do these things. I always remember former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Crowe once said, supposedly to President Clinton, just tell the military to do it and they'll do it. In the meantime, I think the President should consider an executive order, under a stop-loss provision, that when you don't want someone to be discharged while the study is being done, why kick people out that you know you're not going to in about a year? Second, I think those who were dismissed under the wrong policy should be permitted to come back in.
Reid also declares that Olympia Snowe was negotiating in bad faith, that she was never going to support a health care bill, and that talking to her was a waste of time.
Given that both Lieberman and Snowe were negotiating in bad faith, we should have been pushing for reconciliation as hard as we were pushing for the public option.
Then again, Kissell only leads a potential primary challenger 49-15, and only 28% of Democrats know he voted against the bill. For an incumbent, those are pretty weak primary numbers-someone could actually knock him off. However, the North Carolina primary is on May 4th, so it is unlikely that a strong primary campaign would be able to gear up in such a short time.
Ned Lamont's main opponent in the Democratic primary for Governor in Connecticut has dropped out. Current polling on the campaign indicates that Ned is now the strong favorite in both the primary and the general election. Get ready for Governor Lamont!
It turns out that if I delete content from a website that I--quite literally--own, then I am engaging in censorship. I don't remember the part of the first amendment that declares everyone is allowed to use everyone else's printing press.
This is the last day to submit your comments to the FCC in support of Net Neutrality. Go do it, now.
The FDIC is trying to limit risky bank behavior by linking it to limits on executive pay. The good news not just the ruling, but that the ruling is causing blowback from the conservative members of the FDIC. This is a perfect example of the type of fights Democrats have to pick with financial institutions in 2010. As I wrote yesterday, banks must be portrayed as the culprit, and Democrats have to come across as fighting the banks father than colluding with them.
Keep picking fights like these, and pick them as publicly as possible.
Entering the day, 59 Senators were publicly committed to confirming Dawn Johnsen to the Office of Legal counsel in the Department of Justice. Here is a fun timeline on how the 60th vote was secured today:
12:10 p.m.: TPMDC posts a challenge from Joe Sestak urging Arlen Specter to stop blocking Dawn Johnsen's nomination to the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice.
1:30 p.m. Main Justice reiterates Sestak's challenge.
3:48 p.m.: Specter campaign sends a press release to TPMDC and Legal Times saying that he now supports Dawn Johnsen's nomination.
****
This sort of thing happens a lot on the Sestak campaign, and it is pretty great. I have never found it so easy to flip how a Senator votes. I wish it was this easy for all 100 Senators.
Through his his willingness to stand up to the party leadership and primary challenge Arlen Specter, Joe Sestak just got Dawn Johnsen enough votes to be confirmed in the Senate. Think about that--it's pretty amazing. It is certainly the biggest accomplishment of any congressional campaign in the 2009-2010 cycle. Please, show Joe Sestak some love for this:
I was a little surprised to read Susie Madrak writing about Joe Sestak's potential conflicts with other Senators as a negative:
It's a legitimate question since, as Howard Dean pointed out, the Senate is a gentlemen's club and your effectiveness is closely tied to your ability to build relationships.
I can certainly confirm what Susie writes about Joe Sestak expecting his staff to work very hard, and I can also confirm that he isn't going to build great relationships with the leadership. But really, why is this a bad thing? He was still ranked as the most productive freshman in the House back in 2007. Further, current Senate effectiveness does not seem particularly effective to me, largely because relationships are valued so much more than solving major problems. Supposedly, these relationships are built so that major problems can be solved, but how's that working out for us now?
Last week, Senator Claire McCaskill said the Senate was putting off the climate change bill for several months, because pushing it now was too hard and would make too many Senators mad:
Some senators are skeptical lawmakers will be ready to tackle another huge issue after finishing health care. "After you do one really, really big, really, really hard thing that makes everybody mad, I don't think anybody's excited about doing another really, really big thing that's really, really hard that makes everybody mad," Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said. "Climate fits that category."
To put it one way, maintaining Senate collegiality is more important than taking steps to avoid ecological apocalypse. Don't we actually want to do away with this attitude, rather than support it?
Maintaining a friendly atmosphere seems extremely important to Senators, but it is hard to see how it has any benefit to progressives, America or the world. Take Joe Lieberman as an example:
It is the collegial atmosphere that resulted in Joe Lieberman receiving a standing ovation from Democratic Senators, even after he had promised to run as an independent against a Democratic Senate nominee in Connecticut.
It is the same collegiality that easily kept Joe Lieberman in the caucus--and gave him a chairmanship--after endorsing and campaigning with John McCain throughout 2008.
It is the collegial atmosphere that resulted in the Gang of 14 working to keep the filibuster back in 2005. This is the same filibuster that is now working to block or water down virtually every plank of the Democratic platform, resulting in Senators like Joe Lieberman de facto President.
That's what Senate collegiality gets us. When we need to fix major problems in this country, a Joe Lieberman types holds veto power. When the Democratic base tried to hold the Joe Lieberman type accountable for this, Democratic Senators praise said Joe Lieberman type. When Joe Lieberman type goes even further off the reservation, Democratic leaders do whatever possible to not hold him accountable. And then, when we ask why Democrats in the Senate aren't solving major problems, we are told that maintaining this collegial atmosphere to protect Joe Lieberman types is more important. And then they ask us for more money.
This relationship-focused collegiality just doesn't seem to work, and breaking it up would probably be an improvement. Say whatever else you will about Joe Sestak, but his willingness to even engage this primary challenge--against the wishes of much of the Democratic leadership at every level--demonstrates he is willing to challenge a dysfunctional, status quo that simply is not producing results. Further, time and time again, Sestak's challenge to the status quo has demonstrated an ability to get results. Arlen Specter is suddenly voting and talking like he is Bernie Sanders only a few months after flipping against EFCA and introducing flat-tax legislation to the Senate. Has there ever been a more successful campaign to change a Senator's behavior?
Relationship-focusing politicians just isn't what we need right now. The status quo institutions are not working and, from what I have seen, you can get more positive results by challenging the gentleman's club than by working within it.
During a three-hour tirade about Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to transfer five detainees from Guantanamo Bay to the United States for criminal prosecution, Rush Limbaugh attacked the "dangerous" "ideologue" Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), who in a Fox News interview that day discussed his support of Holder's decision.
--If Democrats do lose a significant number of House seats in 2010, the chamber as a whole will shift to the right. However, given who will lose, the Democratic caucus will actually shift significantly to the left.
--Yey, there is lots of water on the Moon! That's great and all, but if you want something that will really excite you about potential human colonization of space, check out the new VASIMR rocket--it can travel to Mars in only 39 days! Best of all, it was actually designed to ferry people and goods back and forth to a permanent Moon base, and is already being tested on the international space station. The pieces are really falling into place...
--New Stargate Universe tonight-and the premier of the Prisoner on Sunday. Woo-hoo
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.
The last day of the third fundraising quarter of 2009 (whoa, time really flies!) is this Wednesday, September 30. Our Democratic candidates for Senate need to make as big a fundraising splash as possible in the third quarter to help refute the growing conventional wisdom among the traditional media pundits that 2010 could be a Republican year.
Please, please, please consider making a contribution today to our Democratic candidates for Senate via the Expand the Map! ActBlue page. I've set some lofty, pie-in-the-sky goals that, if we were able to meet them, I'd be wonderfully surprised and gratified and blown away by your generosity.
Democrat
Currently At
Goal
Distance to Goal
Robin Carnahan
$681
$1,000
$319
Paul Hodes
$780
$1,000
$220
Joe Sestak
$758
$1,000
$242
Charlie Melancon
$193
$400
$207
Please click on over to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page and make a contribution to help stop ongoing Republican obstruction in the Senate. Every contribution makes a real impact whether it's $100 or $25 or $10 or, well, any amount. Want to rebel against multiples of five and contribute $63 or $39 or $27, knock yourself out!
Remember, the fundraising quarter ends this Wednesday, so please contribute today if you can. Thank you SO much!
The Hill has a particularly irritating article today about Democratic moderates complaining that the leadership isn't doing enough to protect them from the voters. Specifically, these Democrats are worried they might actually have to take sides on things, and that would be bad:
Pelosi also helped Blue Dogs avoid a showdown with the powerful National Rifle Association by allowing a vote on a bill that would erase many of the District of Columbia's gun laws. And to the relief of some centrist Democrats, the Speaker has refused to have the House vote on immigration reform and a union-backed "card-check" bill until the Senate acts first.(...)
What irks them most is the sense that the Senate won't pass anything so strong, if it passes anything at all. So they expect to get beaten up for voting on a bill that will never become law.
"What bothers me is I was put in that position unnecessarily," said one vulnerable lawmaker.
Yes--it must be bothersome to have to take a position on an issue when you are a member of Congress. What an annoyance!
It should not make any difference whether a member of Congress is forced to vote on a bill or not, because that member of Congress should have a public statement detailing their position on that vote or potential vote. They should tell voters straight up that they support or oppose card-check, and if they support or oppose erasing most D.C. gun laws. From that point, voters can make an informed decision, and the candidates can be attacked or supported based on their stated positions.
Instead, these centrists are anonymously complaining that they are forced to take a public position on these issues. That is abdication of leadership, and a rejection of the basic idea that voters have a right to know who is representing them in Congress.
For progressive activists, this attempt by centrist Democrats to avoid taking positions is a straight up attempt to trick us. In 2007, six Senators who are all now Democrats--Tom Carper (DE), Blanche Lincoln (AR), Ben Nelson (NE), Mark Pryor (AR), Arlen Sepcter (PA), Jim Webb (VA)--voted in favor of an Employee Free Choice Act with card check, but flipped in 2009 once that legislation had a chance of passing. They told us they favored something they actually opposed, and raked in campaign contributions at least partly as a result of this. Mark Pryor received over $200K directly from labor during his 2008 re-election bid, for example.
It is difficult to see how this attempt to avoid taking a vote on legislation favored by progressives is anything other than conservative Democrats trying to trick progressive Democrats into handing over their money, time and votes. It is a game they think they can play with us, probably because they have successfully played it with us for some time now. We need to work to put an end to it.
Legislation recently introduced earlier this week to repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act is one upcoming opportunity to put an end to these games. Even though this legislation was co-sponsored by 91 members of the House, from what I am told by sources on Capital Hill, the Democratic leadership wants to avoid a floor vote. Once again, the leadership is working to protect them both from progressive activists and from their own constituents.
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.
I'm very pleased to let you know that Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak, candidate for U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania, will join us at Senate Guru tomorrow, Thursday September 10, at 5pm Eastern Time for a live blog session. I'm sure he will update us on how his campaign is going, discuss a variety of issues, offer his thoughts in response to tonight's Presidential address on health care reform, and, of course, field your questions.
I hope you will be able to join us for the first candidate liveblog session of the 2010 cycle at Senate Guru. Bring your questions for Congressman Sestak and invite your political junkie friends to join us. (And, if you're really excited for the conversation, support Congressman Sestak with a contribution via the Expand the Map! ActBlue page.)
Right now, 14,000 people are losing their health care coverage every day because our costs are skyrocketing. Meanwhile, too many politicians in Washington, who seem to be ignoring the lessons from Wall Street, would rather leave our health insurance reform up to the insurance companies. No matter what the final bill looks like, we deserve to know how our Representatives and Senators will vote on a public option - up or down!
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.
