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.
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
Six worthy items on health care for this evening (most of which were first posted on Open Left in Quick Hits):
The RNC sends out a press release attacking the co-op proposal. No one could have predicted that Republicans would also not agree to the co-op "compromise" proposal, either. Just like no one could predict that Republicans will still attack the health care bill once co-ops are dropped, too.
In an interview today on MSNBC's "Morning Meeting with Dylan Ratigan," Senate Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley (R) said he'd vote against any health-care reform bill coming out of the committee unless it has wide support from Republicans -- even if the legislation contains EVERYTHING Grassley wants.
"I am negotiating for Republicans," he said. "If I can't negotiate something that gets more than four Republicans, I'm not a good negotiator."
Grassley will only vote for the bill if it is supported by a majority of Republicans. Given that the RNC is already attacking co-ops, that should be an easy bar to cross. It truly is a relief that Grassley is negotiating in good faith.
Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY), says that President Obama could lose "100 votes" in the House if the public option is dropped:
WEINER: The President does seem like he's moving away from the public plan, and if he does, he's not going to pass a bill. Because there are just too many people in Washington who believe that the public plan was the only way that you effectively bring some downward pressure on prices, and if he says well we're not going to have that, then I'm not really quite sure what we're dong here.
BECKY QUICK: So you would not vote for a bill that made it through, if it got through...
WEINER: Not only I but I think there's probably a hundred members of the House, who believe for various reasons that you need to have something to bring down prices. Otherwise you're basically, what you're doing, you're keeping the cost arc. . . the CBO agrees with that. You know as it was, I think the public plan had been watered down so much. So if the President thinks he's cutting a deal to get Senate votes, he's probably losing House votes.
It is a good thing that the Democratic leadership will be able to make up the votes by negotiating with Chuck Grassley and through Kent Conrad's co-op idea. Here is the video on Weiner:
Joe Sestak (whose campaign I work for) seems to have found a way to avoid rowdy protesters at town halls: just hold the meetings in places where right-wingers feel uncomfortable about being loud and noisy. Recently, he has held two town halls, one in a predominantly African-American church, and another in a veteran's center. Neither event had significant protests.
So, just find places wingers are scared of--like African American churches--and the protests melt away.
Speaking of town halls, is the national news media just done with that story? There is virtually nothing about the health care protests today on the Elections section of Google News. Last week, there was virtually nothing but the town halls in that section of news. Either national news outlets are bored with the story, or there are more taken with the latest conflict: Dems vs. Dems on health care. Or both.
As Democrats, we should have known all along that fighting with ourselves was a sure way to clear Republican protesters off the headlines. There are few stories the national political news media likes more than Dems vs. Dems.
Here is a great speech by Howard Dean to fire you up on the health care fight:
I spoke just before Howard did, and I remember almost nothing about what I said. Best speech I have heard in a while.
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.
