Specter's endorsement. I have to disagree with Kerry on this

[Mass]

Until now, Kerry had taken a position to endorse nobody in primaries except when there was a veteran. This week-end, he apparently endorsed Specter. It is obviously his right, but given Specter's record on many issues and his age and while I am aware Sestak is not a flaming liberal either, I have to disagree with his choice (and generally speaking the establishment choice).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37063053/ns/politics/

[karynnj]

1. You wonder if Kerry and many others had to promise support

when Specter switched. It was clear at that point that Obama and Rendell did. I prefer Sestak, but wonder if this might be because Specter asked back then - and the difference between having 60 and not having it was critical. Spector was always good on the environment, but could he have made his vote on the climate bill if it happens was conditional on this?

One question that comes to mind, what was the relationship between Senator Heinz and his junior Senator? Could he and his wife be friends of Teresa's. (Not a good reason, but a human one.) Looking at all the comments on PA papers and the new polls, Specter is very likely to lose. I wonder if this - like the support of Dodd when he was not going to make it, Kerry's loyalty and sympathy for both men. This is way to late to have any impact.)

Kerry was a huge supporter of Sestak when he ran for Congress. Is it possible that Kerry had privately pushed for him to not run this year - waiting for 6 years? I also wonder how Kerry feels about Sestak calling Specter's ad swiftboating. From all accounts, Sestak was criticized exactly as Specter said and the charge was not a personal smear. In addition, Sestak's 31 year very successful career is most of his career. Would you think it fair game for Boxer to bring up HP in hr race with Fiorina? This is really equivalent. It was not equivalent to complete lies and personal smears against a 25 year old risking his life.

This is a charge that Sestak should have answered. He could point to no one questioning the quality of his work or his moral character. The charge of working people too hard - has little resonance. Isn't being a Congressional staffer known to be a burn out, long hours job? That "flaw" seems to not be a problem. In a way, by calling it swiftboating, Sestak smeared Specter.

(I actually prefer Sestak, who I know will stay a Democrat and who is younger and impressed me a lot when he spoke of Iraq back in 2006/2007. ) Like you, I wish Kerry would have stayed out of it. As it is, I doubt Kerry's late recommendation will matter mush. After all, he has had Obama and Rendell and his machine completely behind him for more than a year.

[wisteria]

3. Oh, please. There was no pack made when Specter decided to become a Democrat.

Specter is good friends with VP Biden, they would go to work on the same train every morning. This was a discussion among friends.VP Biden ask Specter to consider joining the Democrats. Specter was struggling trying to continue being a Republican and his indendent-mindedness and middle of the road views were not popular in the Republican party. Specter has always been a sort of free agent and perhaps he should of just become an independent, but he has always had support of both Democrats and Republican's in PA who like that he is for them and not just for party. Actually, Specter is a rare politician who actually transcends parties. He is liked in PA for who he is, not the party he is affiliated with.

I think your comments insult Senator Kerry judgment and cast a very poor light on our party. There were no deals among Senators to Support Specter. Senator Kerry does this because he wanted to.

Did you know that when Specter decided to switch he gave up all leadership roles on all his committees? And, he is not considered the Senior Senator in PA, Casey is.

[karynnj]

41. I didn't mean it as a written pact or contract, but Specter may

well have asked for assurances that he would be treated as a fullfledged Democratic incumbent, in good standing and have, at minimum, Obama's support. Remember that only Kerry and Lieberman did NOT endorse Lieberman - and that was a big deal even though neither endorsed Lamont.

I don't think anything I said reflects badly on Kerry's judgment. I also absolutely do NOT think he swiftboated Sestak - and have posted that elsewhere and here. No one gets a pass of no criticism of any type on 31 years of their career.

[sandnsea]

62. Oh of course there was, honest to pete

You seriously think Specter would throw away his entire life's work if he knew he was going to be booted in the next primary?? Ridiculous.

[wisteria]

69. What are you referring to?

If you refer to him changing parties, yes, he felt he stood more of a change running as a Democrat-especially since he has been associated with the Democrat party longer than Sestak has. He was a Kennedy Democrat in the 60's. Sestak has been a Democrat for approximately four years. Before that he was registered as an Independent. If you want to hold a man's independence and commitment to the people of PA against him, no matter what party he belongs to, then that is a shame. Because when it comes down to it, no party is perfect and it is only the people who count. My father was a Republican and he changed parties at one point, because he was convinced that there would be a better reception for his ideas and an appreciation for his efforts if he switched, so he did it. I am no purist, I judge a man by what he does and how he lives his life, and I see none of the monster that so many here want to make Specter out to be. I remember a dedicated DA from Philadelphia that was well liked when I was a child, I remember him running for office and losing to Senator Heinz and I remember his running and winning, eventually to work side by side with Senator Heinz. I know a man who has saved our Navy Shipyard along with the jobs of 100's of men and women, and my mother's job with the government when Republican's wanted to cut government positions. He was a Republican then, but he understood and still understands the working men and women in our state and, I know a man who is progressive enough to know we need better transportation in western Pa and is pushing for the MAG LEV.
Who are you to interfere with our state? Who are you to tell the people who they should support, and who are you to denounce someone you don't even know and I bet haven't even taken the time to find out a damn thing about. And, frankly, at this point if you are not a registered voted in PA, I don't give a damn what you think.

[karynnj]

91. You can't be serious

You can argue that he was always someone who fit in the area of overlap between the two parties - when there was overlap. As the Republican party moved to the right, he became outside its area. One of the Heinz kids argued in 2004 that his father would have been unwelcome in the 2004 Republican party. But, given the fact that Specter had been a Republican Senator from 1980 to 2009, you really can not credit him with longer Democratic ties.

It is not unfair for Sestak to point out Specter was a Republican until last year. It is absolutely true.

[wisteria]

113. He started his career as a Democrat, and Rendell and Biden asked him to come back to his roots.

Siesta has been a Democrat for four year and registered only when he decided to run for office. But, 77% of the Democratic convention in PA voted for Specter to be our Democratic nominee that was well over the 2/3 majority needed to claim victory. So for all intent and purpose-Senator Specter is the real Democrat in this race-as declared by the majority of the PA Democratic delegates.

But, to be honest, I think little of the idea that there is something wrong with changing parties. Specter is generally well received among the PA population, he believe he has a good record to defend and that record is better defended in a general election, where he has the attention of all the voters.

[MH1]

120. Why did Specter change from Dem to Republican? how long ago was that?

and how has he voted during that time?


(oh and was 'Siesta' a typo or name-calling? Because it's kind of hilarious if you ever spent time around Sestak ... the guy is a bundle of energy and never stops moving ...)

[wisteria]

126. Specter switched parties in the 60's because the Democratic party

was closed to new members running for office, Specter would not have been able to run for any elected office for years as a Democrat. That is per Ed Rendell. He understand, as I do, why Specter had to leave the party to pursue his ambitions. You have something against someone being ambitious, other than Sestak?
Oh, and it was a typo, but a good one I think.

[MH1]

130. "closed to new members running for office"?

I never heard of that ... not denying it but it's kind of interesting. Do you have any links or references elaborating on that history? Because that seems really weird and a recipe for party stagnation. Maybe part of the roots of the Dem Party's current problems?

[MH1]

79. I agree with you

and I do live in PA.

Politics here is wicked, hardball, and nasty. And I will get to see it up close in Philadelphia on the 18th. But I've made those rounds a couple times before. :) (I just hope no one's packing.)

[wisteria]

5. I don't think Specter is going to lose. There is one poll that is being

touted and it has 13% undecided with a plus or minus of 5. You know, you know nothing about the people of PA. And, you know nothing about the power of the Democratic party in PA. Specter has all the major endorsements and this will all come down to turn out. Frankly, I think this race is far from over- close yes, but over, no.
I won't get into why you want Sestak-it just appears his support boils down to people who don't like Specter. Sestak did a terrible job in the debate earlier this month, and he has never run in a general state wide election. And, his only real qualifications seem to be that he "claims to be the real Democrat" ( he received less than a third of the Democrat's votes at our convention-Specter received 77%) and he was and admiral in the Navy. He became a Democrat in 2006, when he decided to run for Congress and he does not have a progressive voting record. Before becoming a Democrat he was an Independent. When asked to release his military records to prove the charges made in one of Specter's commercials was wrong he wouldn't do it and when asked to provide the names of people who he claims offered him jobs to not run in the primary, he won't do it. I think the guy is a liar.

[MH1]

16. Specter will lose, either in May or November

if not in May, the people of PA - that is any liberals / progressives in PA - lose bigtime.

As for your smears of Joe Sestak:

Vote for Specter, campaign for Specter because you prefer his POLICIES or experience (highly overrated imo), BUT please do not ever trash Joe Sestak for offering another choice to those of us who DO NOT appreciate Specter's policies.

[wisteria]

26. And, the same goes for your guy. n/t

[karynnj]

44. I agree I know very little about PA

Much of what I know is from you and MH. I do know the power of the machine - and saw it clearly in the Obama/Clinton primary. It is incredibly powerful.

My only impression of Sestak were some appearances in 2006/2007 and Kerry's praise, which admittedly was BEFORE he was in office. I admit I know nothing of the job that he has done as Congressman. I also think that before switching Specter showed courage in going against the Republicans on the budget. I really should not have commented - and admit that I likely was influenced by the left netroots CW, which I know can be really stupid. There are Specter votes from the past that I dislike, but I do think him a brave, good person.

To me the very nastiest thing in the race is the implied smear of Spector's character by Sestak and a huge echo chamber by calling his criticism of Sestak's Navy career as swiftboating. I doubt any would question a simple line in a Boxer ad where Fiorina's HP role. No one gets a pass on 31 years of work - with no criticism allowed.

[MH1]

50. Please see my post below on why it is swiftboating

[TayTay]

54. Whoa!

I am not in favor of using someone's military record against them. This is way too easy to do and creates darkness, not light, in an issue.

My original read of what Sen. Kerry said was that he didn't like it either. We have seen far too many good people smeared on this issue on flimsy evidence that is basically a "he said, she said" thing. (That is inherently unstable because there might be political underpinnings to the opinion, as you state.)

I am NOT endorsing or letting any possible smears go by. I don't take them lightly either. My original thought in this thread was that I found the "endorsement" by Sen. Kerry to be tepid and almost designed not to interfere. Again, it was a very odd statement, given that it didn't really say much either way. (He's against swiftboating. So am I.)

I will endeavor to read more about this race in PA. I am not automatically with Sen. Kerry or against him based on this endorsement. (I don't think the endorsement was well thought out and reads badly, imho.)

[MH1]

68. Thanks Tay

I know you are fair and open-minded.

I really wish I could know what impelled JK to make this statement but I don't think we'll ever know. Hopefully Sestak wins, in which case I think it will be readily forgotten by all. If Specter wins the primary and loses the general ... or somehow wins the general but veers back to the right ... Kerry might never hear the end of it from a lot of folks in the netroots.

[wisteria]

2. Well I am pleased-very pleased.

Perhaps you don't know enough about Senator Specter. He really is not the kind of man many here have portrayed him as. He has 30 years of serving our state. He is and always was middle of the road. Conservative on issues of gun control, crime (he was our DA in Philadelphia and he was extremely popular)and fiscal responsibility. But, he has always supported Roe vs. Wade and women's rights. He supports our veteran-and is one himself, serving in the Army. He has a wonderful record of helping constituents in PA and goes out of his way to fight for jobs.He is absolutely astonishing cutting through Washington red tape. He is also pro-environmental. Senator Specter has always been a good fit for PA. As many Democrats vote for his as Republicans, because they like his independence and for the most part, they trust his judgment.Frankly, I don't care that he switched parties. He did this before, it is who Specter is. He knows how primaries go, he would rather put his record out there in the general election and let all of PA judge it at that time. My mother was a Republican and now she is a Democrat, I don't hold that against her, and she had similar reasons for switching-the extremeness and purity driving the Republicans. He was asked by VP Biden and President Obama to become a Democrat. Was it a political move? Yes, but I see nothing wrong with these types of moves when it serves the best interest of the people.

Specter is the child of Russian immigrants. His father was a fruit cart vendor and tailor. Senator Specter would go door to door helping his father sell fruit. And, he became interested in public service after he learned that President Hoover had ordered that a group of veterans-including his father- be fired on because they were marching in Washington demanding more veteran services. Specter put himself through school and he has worked hard for what he has and where he is. He is tough as nails and even though he is the same age as my father, he is amazingly quick witted, sharp and has an energy level that is impressive.

At our February convention, he was elected to be our candidate with 77% of the vote. That is more than the 2/3 majority needed. He is the "real Democrat" running in this race. And, in my opinion to lose someone like Senator Specter, with his 30 years of experience, connections and dedication would be devastating to PA. We recently lost John Murtha and our other Senator, Mr. Casey is still in his first term. And the Republican, Tommey, is as right as they come-a right wing purists dream. Toomey and Specter have spared before and Specter won. Both of these men have run in a general state wide election and Toomey is amassing a fortune unopposed in the primary. If Senator Specter does not win this primary, Toomey will be our next Senator. I would bet everything I have in the bank on this knowing PA as I do.

[TayTay]

4. Didn't read like an endorsement

John Kerry on Pennsylvania Senate Race



WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) today released the following statement on the Senate race in Pennsylvania:



“I know Senator Specter and Congressman Sestak both on a personal level. They’re both my friends, and I was involved very early in supporting Admiral Sestak’s 2006 race for Congress. I’ve been reluctant to get involved in a primary between two friends, and even more reluctant to be drawn into arbitrating the definition of the term Swiftboating. I’d like to see us get to a better place in politics where the word Swiftboating is retired from the political vocabulary.

What troubled me most about the 2004 smears was that lies were permitted to pollute the public dialogue even after they were thoroughly and publicly disproven by the Navy’s own records.



“Now, six years later, the term Swiftboating is back as an issue in the Senate primary. I cannot serve as a referee. That’s an issue for the candidates to address and the media to investigate. However, as the political season turns increasingly heated, I want to insist on a reality check about my colleague, Arlen Specter. I have known Arlen for 25 years and I know his character and the quality of his service to Pennsylvania. I’ve seen him beat cancer and seen in that fight a man who is guts and grit personified. I’ve worked with him on stem cell research and twenty first century infrastructure, and when he left the Republican Party he reaffirmed his independence once again.



“He’s a fighter and a friend, and I am proud to vouch for his character.”

[wisteria]

6. It did to me, but then we know who you are pushing for.

It is a shame people with little understanding of PA, who don't live in PA are meddling in this race.

[TayTay]

8. No, I didn't mean it like that

I meant that Sen. Kerry seemed more intent on dissuading people from using "swiftboating" terms than on actively endorsing someone.

I meant nothing more or less than that. It was not a classic endorsement. It was a defense of methodology.

[MH1]

10. you are saying that Kerry is defending Specter's smear of Sestak's record?

I still think he has a gun to his head, but I am very disappointed.

[TayTay]

13. It read like John Kerry from past elections

Telling people to be careful in how they use the term "Swiftboating." He has done that before.

[wisteria]

19. Let Sestak release his military records and disprove the accusation.

You know this will not go away if he does win the primary. Your guy can't continue to be evasive.
And, since learning that Specter is a veteran too, I don't think he would have put this out there without first verifying the facts.

You know why he is at it, why won't he let people know who it was who offered him the job if he wouldn't run. Again, he is being evasive.

[TayTay]

20. BTW, what was up with that?

I don't live in PA, and have not been following this race very much. I only know what I heard once on NPR while driving home last week. What I remember is that Sestak had some sort of problem with his command and that he was relieved due to being too hard on the troops. Seems like a really weird accusation to make.

I have heard that Sestak has gone through a lot of staff because he is an exacting boss. Then again, I like the guy. I think he's been a very good Congressman.

I do plead guilty to some anti-Specter feelings, but that's because he was a Republican for so long. I know that the Republicans have moved extreme right, but I am not all that comfortable with Arlen Specter. (It goes back to the SCOTUS hearings for Clarence Thomas actually. I never liked his questioning of Anita Hill and I thought he went beyond the pale on that one. But that is many and many a moon ago.)

[MH1]

24. What you heard was the smear

and that's why they're called smears!

Sestak was in a 3-star job (Deputy CNO) under a CNO who was appointed by Clinton. Bush appointed Admiral Mullen as CNO. Mullen replaced Sestak with his own guy, saying something about 'poor command climate'. Which basically means Sestak was seen as working people too hard. But the former CNO had nothing but praise for Sestak.

Shortly afterward, Sestak retired from the Navy as a 2 star Admiral. (not unlike Kerry who left active duty a rank below the highest pay grade he achieved on active duty - a smear that came up on Kerry in a few places, that there was some sinister meaning behind it, it is actually a typical practice, I believe).

Sestak's current COS has been with him since the Navy and was his campaign manager on his first congressional campaign, then went to Washington with him. I have no sense at all about whether Sestak's staff turnover is normal or not. I know he does keep his office open 7 days a week, and I think that isn't typical, and some staff might not like having a shift rotation that includes weekends. I really don't know. I am in the campaign office frequently and have been for some time, and most of the faces are familiar from long ago. Maybe he goes through a lot of interns because they don't measure up, or they don't like the pace? :shrug: I truly don't know where that comes from but that particular smear smells like a large steaming pile of bullshit to me.

[TayTay]

28. Turnover in Congressional offices is not uncommon

It happens a lot. (Some because of pay issues, some because a lot of Congressional staff go on to work on campaign staff.)

I like Joe Sestak. I liked him when I worked for Sen. Kerry and his family members would call the office for one thing or another. He was and is a nice guy with an incredible family. I am a "friend" of his on Facebook and, if I had any money, would probably have sent him in a donation.

I don't like accusations against someone's military record. It is a RW tactic that makes an accusation then makes the accused come up with some way to deny it. A lot of character smears can't be fully denied because they are character-based and therefore kind of subjective.

This is a tried and true political trick that Lyndon Johnson used a lot, btw. Get the opponent on record having to deny something ridiculous, just to eat up time and make them look foolish.

Based on the polls I saw, I don't think this is getting that much traction among the voters, but I could be wrong. (It's not a hot button issue. It's a personal issue and this doens't strike me as the year when this type of thing could get play, as it might have in 2002.)

[wisteria]

35. Sestak was relieved of command due to poor leadership performance.

This is backed up by two non-partisan military magazines. And, when it came out I was immediately distressed and doubled check with the Specter camp on this. They sent me the references and stand by what was claimed. Specter is a veteran himself and serves on the veteran's committee in Congress, so I don't think he would just release this without some thought. In my book it is not swift boating if it is true, and when Sestak was asked to release his military records to disprove the claims he has refused to do so.
I regret it even came out, but it is out there and if he does win the primary this will be something he will face in the general election. He can not continue to be evasive about it.

[MH1]

48. "Relieved of command" is a lie and that is the SMEAR and why Specter is a f***** liar

'Backed up' - where. Post the links, please. Here is the only Navy Times article that I found:

http://www.navytimes.com/legacy/new/1-292925-995180.php

Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (DCNO) Vice Adm. Joseph Sestak was �administratively reassigned� July 25 by new Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Mullen, according to Rear Adm. T. McCreary, chief of naval information.

�Rear Adm. Mark Edwards, currently serving as director of the Surface Warfare Division, will serve as the acting DCNO until such time as a relief can be identified, nominated and confirmed,� McCreary said.

A source within the Navy Department said there were no allegations of misconduct on the part of Sestak. Rather, he said, the move is being made because of poor command climate.

�Command climate and how people exercise their leadership responsibilities are key priorities for Admiral Mullen,� the source said, �and this position is one of the key jobs that will help determine the success of the Navy, its people, and its future force structure.�

Sestak�s removal is one of the first moves made by Mullen, who was sworn into office on Friday.

Widely viewed as an intellectual within the Navy Department, Sestak has been a key figure in fashioning the Navy�s role in the quadrennial defense reviews conducted by the Pentagon, acting as director for the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review and in an advisory role for the current review, to be completed in September.

Sestak moved into the DCNO role last October. Before that, according to his official biography, he served as director of the Navy�s Assessment Division/Capability Analysis Group, and was the first director of the CNO�s Navy Operations Group, known as �Deep Blue,� charged with coming up with new and inventive ideas for naval warfare.

A Navy official said that �while the CNO truly appreciates and supports the analytic rigor Vice Adm. Sestak brought to the his job, CNO feels a change is needed during this critical time.

For Beachmom: You know the connotations of "relieved of command" and also that it has a SPECIFIC meaning which is not the case here. THAT IS WHY THIS IS SWIFT BOATING. Wisteria did not innocently make that mistake on her own: that is coming from Specter.

Also please note the timing, what Sestak was doing, and that MULLEN WAS BUSH'S GUY.

I am done here for the day, I have work to do and if you guys don't see this for what it is, I just don't know what to say.

[MH1]

49. Another one - what Sestak's commander had to say

yeah I said I was done but I am pissed about this. Sorry. No excerpt but please read the article.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_region/20100422_Specter_blasted_for_attacking_Sestak_s_Navy_service.html

[beachmom]

55. Thanks for this article. I think you are right that the phrase "relieved from command"

from the Specter ad was inaccurate. But for laymen not in the military the term seems similar to reassigned to a lesser job. And when you change the term, the rest of the attack ad was basically based on that Navy Times article. Plus from your article there is this:

The reference to the end of Sestak's military career comes from a Navy Times article that said he had been sacked in 2005 by the incoming chief of naval operations, Adm. Mike Mullen, now chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for treating staff poorly.

Specter's campaign says the ad is accurate and will not be pulled.

The Navy has never commented on the record about Sestak's reassignment, but it also has never disputed the accuracy of the story. Sestak, who was head of the Navy's warfare planning division, had a reputation for working subordinates hard that was intense even by military standards, Pentagon sources confirm.

But it is also true that Sestak, a protege of the preceding chief of naval operations, Adm. Vern Clark, had angered many in the top echelons of the service because he advocated cutbacks in the Navy's fleet.

"He challenged people who didn't want to be challenged," Clark told The Inquirer this month.

Sestak, who had been promoted to deputy chief of naval operations, a three-star position under Clark, has said Mullen wanted his own team. In 2005, Mullen reassigned him to a lesser job. Sestak retired in 2006 as a rear admiral and was elected to represent the Seventh District in the Philadelphia suburbs.

How is it unfair for this story to be brought up in a campaign? It is information about Sestak's CAREER in the Navy. This was his job for 31 years and is fair game, especially when it is documented by creditable sources. It is clear that John Kerry did not feel the attack amounted to swiftboating, which is why he spoke up.

Frankly, I totally agree with the bold part in the article, and NOT with the unbolded part:

Still, the allegation that Sestak was bumped for being a nasty boss seems a far cry from the original Swift Boat attacks. The group accused Kerry of falsifying the record of a battle for which he was awarded the Silver Star, firing on unarmed civilians, and faking injuries to win a Purple Heart.

It's not the first time that Sestak's departure from the Navy has provided ad fodder for a political opponent: Republican Rep. Curt Weldon also brought it up during the 2006 race.

Veterans interviewed at the post yesterday acknowledged that Specter's ad presented a far less severe critique of Sestak's military service than the Swift Boat attacks that helped sink Kerry.

But criticizing a veteran's service at all is "disrespectful" and "unpatriotic," said Rocco Polidoro, a Springfield veteran.

Huh? So Sestak's entire life's career is off limits for examination? I just can't agree with that. In fact, John Kerry's record could have been examined and critiqued in 2004 based on THE FACTS. He did after all leave after the 3rd purple heart, having been in heavy combat for just 4 months (his 1st tour being off shore duty). Although hypocritical coming from a draft dodger like Bush, it would have been a true charge. What made the SBVT attacks heinous is that they decided to just make s*** up in the most awful way with nothing to back up these serious charges.

Anyway, I have no dog in this fight. I am just pointing out that on this narrow issue, I am with Sen. Kerry.

[wisteria]

51. No, they are my words, I could not find my original references.

They do not come from Senator Specter. And, I have not seen this ad for a while now, perhaps because you camp has blown it out of poportion. You have a very thin skin regarding Sestak. A general election is tough. He will be asked this question again and he can not avoid it. You should be advising him to release his records.

Let Sestak release his military records. Why won't he? What is he hiding?

[MH1]

67. Toomey can't attack Sestak this way now, he's already forfeited on that:

http://www.pa2010.com/2010/04/toomey-sides-with-sestak-in-the-ad-wars/

In a letter to Specter, Toomey said it’s “highly regrettable that you have chosen to disparage an honorable man’s military service in order to promote your own political career.”

“Over the years, you have developed a reputation for political attacks ads,” Toomey wrote. “I had not even announced my candidacy last spring when you raced out of the blocks with an attack ad that was so wildly inaccurate it was quickly discredited by fact checkers and news organizations. You will recall that your ad was characterized by FactCheck.Org as a ’scorched-earth slip-up’ and you were forced to remove it from the airwaves.

“But now you have stooped to a new low, attacking Congressman Sestak’s thirty-year military service,” he added. “This is not only insulting to veterans across America who sacrifice so much to protect our nation, but to all Pennsylvanians. Is there no low to which you will not stoop in an attempt to win an election?”

so after the 18th, it won't matter. And it shouldn't.

[wisteria]

70. Toomey might not say it, but it will come out another way. This is a high stakes game,

the Republicans and Scaife are in it to win. Why do you think so many Republicans have given money to Mr. Sestak? Do you really think it is because they like him. They want Specter out because it clears the field. Like it or not, Senator Specter still has a lot of support in our state and many people vote for the man not the party. My mother for one, who was not going to vote, but now is making a point of telling all her Friends that they have to go voted because Specter needs their support. Her words to me, "oh, I don't like that other guy" I have always liked Specter, it would be a shame if he lost". Do you really think Sestak is going to get the older vote in PA? If Specter is out their votes are going to go to Toomey. And, our state is an aging one with the majority of the population being elderly.

[MH1]

73. Weldon tried it and got his ass handed to him

as Toomey will have his handed to him.

Specter support? He trails Toomey 50-38 in latest Rasmussen poll (May 6). Specter's unfavorables are very high and undecideds very low. Sestak only trails Toomey 42-40. Sestak pulls more support than Specter and also pulls support away from Toomey. Sestak's favorables are very high and still a lot of undecideds from people who don't know him yet.

Why would older people vote for Toomey? I saw someone post that he is saying he is "against government-run healthcare"! Oh my word. Sestak will make mincemeat of that.

Sestak may not do as well on TV cameras but he will run circles around anyone on meet and greet, because he has twice as much energy and the fitness to keep going. And people who meet Sestak like him.

[beachmom]

53. I just want to respond about that article.

I completely agree that "politics" (and not just R vs. D but internal politics) could have been why Sestak was moved to another job. I certainly allowed that that could have been why, which is unfair but how life works sometimes, in corporate life as well as in the military. But I did not find the Specter ad to have descended into Swiftboatland. I realize now you are upset about "relieved from command" as opposed to what it said which was "reassigned". But no one said he faked wounds, shot a kid in the back, said shots were fired when none were, etc. about Sestak. Specter took that Navy Times article & turned it into an ad. He definitely went "dirty" and negative, but I still don't see how this was full scale swiftboating except for the use of a term.

[MH1]

80. Specter is insinuating dishonorable behavior or incompetence

when there is zero evidence for that, and there are ample public records of Sestak's service record.

Isn't the insinuation of bad conduct without evidence the same as what they did to Kerry? I agree this is about 1/100th the magnitude but it is still despicable.

Also, remember the one swift liar ad where they took Kerry's OWN WORDS out of context? "they cut off ears ...." Remember that? I always considered that part of the swift boating. But by your definition, it seems, if that was the only allegation they made it would not have been swiftboating, and maybe would have even been 'fair game'. Actually I thought all someone had to do was read Kerry's entire testimony and the facts would speak for themselves. But guess what? I tried it with a couple guys who'd seen the ad and they said they read it, but still agreed with what was presented in the ad! THAT is why it is a smear, even though on some level it is 'the truth', and that is why it works, and that is why it is despicable. And why I think JK should NOT be defending Specter on this.

[karynnj]

92. Your own estimate of the 1/100th magnitude is why it is not swiftboating IMO

Where the line is drawn is, of course, subjective. The big difference is that "insinuation" is not the same as specific, horrendous charges that were complete lies.

As to the ad of them using Kerry's own words, that was an issue that Kerry should have been well prepared to handle. Even in 1971, Kerry was aware that doing what he was doing could derail ANY political career. That was echoed in Going Upriver by Bob Kerrey arguing that you couldn't both run for office and lead an anti-war movement, but Kerry did. It was predictable and fair that such a major part of Kerry's biography would be part of people's decisions. The distortion was that they started mid sentence.

Like you, I did (and do) think that the best defense is reading the entire testimony. But, like you, I know there are people who argue that he should not have repeated things others said - unless he could prove them. It also is a very jarring list soberly read by Kerry. Having watched hearings - the norm would have been for a witness to fill the entire time given with detailed stories - as that was what they were there to speak of. Kerry, acting to make his testimony more than that - spent much of his time placing the blame with the government, demanding care for the vets and expressing an idealist hope that the war could result in a massive turning of foreign policy. However in doing this, he gave the Republicans that short disturbing passage, where little of the empathy and emotion showed in the later parts showed. It was a powerful ad, but unlike the stuff on his service, was not really swiftboating. The Kerry team should have been prepared with a powerful counter ad - already in the can because Bush using this was a no brainer.

That it was the Senate committee and the military that had the powers needed to investigate is lost on some. George Butler's Going Up River explaining the context is even better than reading the full testimony, but I would assume that it was seen only by those already on our side. This was a tricky issue and one that Kerry likely would have been better addressing head on. Maybe if they had more money, Butler or someone else could have distilled some of his movie to make a 1 or 2 minute explanation and defense. But even if they would have had the money, the difficulty was that it was 2004. Had Kerry NOT run in 2004, but in 2008, it would have been much easier to stand behind his heroic 1971 actions.

Kerry's testimony before the Senate was something that both hurt and helped. In 2003, I saw Kerry as anti-war based on some comments and even when Dean claimed he was the only viable anti-war candidate, painting Kerry as with Edwards and Gephardt, I took that as just politics - using the fact that he did not have to vote and Kerry's vote to gain advantage. I had seen both Kerry and Dean on talk shows in 2002. Kerry had seemed more intent on avoiding war to me. How much of my willingness to reject Dean's framing was due to my image of Kerry from 1971? Could that have played a part in Kerry getting more anti-war Iowa caucus goers than Dean?

later in the general election, the hardcore Deaniacs, best known for holding their noses, never got this, but I wonder how many others reacted like me. As someone once wrote, we have a tendency to believe things that fit stereotypes and ignore those that don't. (ie Clinton misspelling a word would never have been like Quayle misspelling potato) Most people, except a noisy few, never bought the image of Kerry as a warmonger. Had it been Gephardt or Edwards who gained the nomination, there would not have been the same trust.
It was the trust going forward that Kerry would work to stabilize Iraq and use international and regional diplomacy to end the wars as quickly as he could that made me totally invested in him winning. If anything, the image of 1971 made me think of Kerry as more of a dove than he really is.

[beachmom]

106. I always thought that the SBVT saying JK had faked his medals was

what made the crime so horrible. I mean this was about someone who was being shot at and IN COMBAT for which he was accused of being a poser, a phoney, and even a coward. I also felt that Part Two of the attack (his protest of the war) was less effective, since everyone knew he protested the war. The truth is, MH1, a lot of people were uncomfortable that he did that, and his speaking of the Winter Soldiers, even in context, also made them uneasy. But, that stuff was a matter of the public record. And I do think the Kerry campaign was ready for those attacks, including unfairly taking his words out of context. There were some weirder charges, about him illegally negotiating with the enemy in Paris (didn't happen), but they didn't gain much traction.

For me, the swiftboating was about taking events from the fog of war, for which there was ample evidence that Kerry deserved those medals, and just making stuff up with no evidence to back up those claims. The Navy REFUSED to look into the charges, whereas that Navy Times article had a quote from the Pentagon. It was recent history, and actually I think your defense on the situation (that Mullen came in & had a different team in mind; that one can normally go down a rank right before retiring; that being a tough commander is normal in the Navy) pretty much answered the charge. I just don't think it was an effective attack & not particularly heinous, and I didn't see an entire machine rise up (well, at least yet, we haven't gotten to the G.E. yet) parroting charges that are untrue. It just doesn't feel like swiftboating. But as Karynnj says, it's all subjective, and as you say, a matter of some semantics. You're closer to the action, and see it differently, and maybe we can all just accept our differences on our perception of these events.

As to the endorsement, I think we are in total agreement.

Edit: I also wanted to share this article with you about someone in the Navy who was truly relieved of command:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1969602,00.html

A Navy admiral stripped Graf of her command of the Japan-based guided missile cruiser U.S.S. Cowpens in January. The just-released IG report concludes that Graf "repeatedly verbally abused her crew and committed assault" and accuses her of using her position as commander of the Cowpens "for personal gain." But old Navy hands tell TIME that those charges, substantiated in the IG report, came about because of the poisonous atmosphere she created aboard her ship.

The case has attracted wide notice inside the Navy and on Navy blogs, where her removal has generated cheers from those who had served with her since she graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1985. While many denounced Graf, even greater anger seems directed at the Navy brass for promoting such an officer to positions of ever-increasing responsibility. Graf declined an interview request.

There is an issue of timing. This article came out, and not soon after Specter did the ad. My first thought was remembering this Time article. I wonder if that was the point of him doing what he did.

[karynnj]

59. MH,

I know you have a military background, which many of us - including me - don't have. What is the difference between "administratively reassigned" and "relieved of command" Reading between the lines of your comment, obviously there are negative connotations in the latter, that are not in the former. Am I reading this correctly that the latter should be used only when there are allegations making the person not fit to continue. (asking because to me, the two seem synonyms)

[MH1]

65. What "relieved of command" means and why it sounds so bad (which is why Specter used it!)

Okay, I originally posted from a bad source and can't find a good one real quick, but the short version is that "relieved of command" is

a) for misconduct resulting in UCMJ action

b) applies only to those actually in a commanding officer role

(you can confirm that basic sense of the term by googling "relieved of command" )

At the time, Vice Admiral Sestak was not in a commanding officer role, so the statement could not be applicable in the first place. And the Navy Times article made clear that no misconduct was alleged. Some people disliked his style and Mullen wanted him out for whatever reason. (Given the other circumstances I highly doubt it was because he cared that a couple subordinates were unhappy, but that's just mho. Usually in the military people don't get to pick their bosses style.)

However, Admiral Sestak did successfully command a battle fleet during part of his career. ANOTHER reason the implication of Specter's ad is a smear. He could be implying that Sestak was relieved of that command, which he was not.

I really don't care about the semantics of whether this should be called "swiftboating" or not. Clearly, for very good reasons (not even counting the intensely personal ones), John Kerry would prefer the term not EVER be used for a political smear. But that horse has already left the barn and every other time a veteran is attacked now, it will be called swiftboating. Sestak is just using the common vernacular.

Whatever you call it, it is a despicable smear, and many veterans are not happy about it. Sestak served 30 years in the military, earned a high rank and many awards, and was honorably discharged. That is all that matters. He no more needs to release his records (with whatever exploitable trivialities they might contain) than John Kerry did.

[karynnj]

83. Thanks for the detailed explanation

I understand better why you think it a despicable smear. I think Specter really should have used different words - as he likely understood more than I did.

I agree that the word is in the common vernacular, but the word did put Kerry between two people he did not want to choose between. Kerry actually did respond by putting all his non-medical records up on the web. To some extent, this proves that doing so is unlikely to definitively stop the issue. As Sestak was in the Navy about 10 times as long and at a much higher level, releasing everything would be ridiculous. I saw in your other post that his boss before Mullen is standing solidly behind him - that likely is the best solution.

I hope, win or lose, that Kerry and Sestak can get beyond this weak endorsement.

[wisteria]

60. Let me clarify, he was relieved of duty for creating a

Poor command climate.”

I apologize for my misrepresentation-not being at all familiar with military matters.

[MH1]

64. He was re-assigned from one desk job to another.

"relieved" implies relieved of command, which is for misconduct. Which was not the case here, as clearly stated in the Navy Times article. Some folks disliked his style including the incoming commander.

[karynnj]

47. I don't think that criticism raises to the level of swiftboating

Sestak can contest the quote that Specter includes - and it is a quote, not something made up. Wisteria posted several - at the time of it happening - links that all said things similar to that. Rather than get his PREVIOUS superior or the man who removed him to explain what his performance was. I really don't see how this is different than arguing that Fiorina was a disaster at HP.

[MH1]

71. what was quoted that he was "relieved of duty"?

from what source? because as I understand the term, it is NOT true.

Sestak was re-assigned. "Relieved of duty" implies misconduct and UCMJ action. Not the case at all.

That Fiorina was a disaster at HP is public knowledge that can be proved by PUBLIC records. There is a reason Kerry did not release his military records during the campaign - they are not public records.

There are PUBLIC records that document Sestak's service as honorable and noteworthy. If he had been discharged dishonorably, that would be PUBLIC - just as the case with Kerry. Since he was honorably discharged with various awards, I think it is wrong to insinuate that there was something dishonorable or wrong with his record. I guess that's just me. :shrug:

Oh and I do think it is "swiftboating" as the term is now used, to insinuate that a 30-year veteran with an honorable service record is hiding something dishonorable in it, when there is NO public record that credibly suggests it. (Being a hard ass and pissing people off enough to be re-assigned by a new boss is hardly dishonorable. Is it?)

Again that's just me. But until the law is that a) all veterans' military records will be publicized if they run for office and b) ALL CITIZENS must serve in the military in order to be qualified for public office (thereby putting all office seekers on a level playing field) I think that an honorable discharge should be enough. Again, just me I guess !

[MH1]

11. I live in PA

and we think differently about the candidates but I very much agree about the outsiders meddling in this race.

[Mass]

9. I did not either when I read what you posted, but the AP link I posted says that

they called back later and a Kerry spokewoman said it was an endorsement.

Kerry's press secretary, Whitney Smith, later said Kerry was endorsing Specter.

[TayTay]

15. Again, not much of an endorsement

No ringing list of accomplishments, no bold exclamations of an exciting future. Kind of tepid on both sides. (No ringing list of things against or for Sestak either.)

Not a great endorsement if it had to be clarified.

I don't think it means much for either side.

[Mass]

18. I agree. This is why I was surprised to see the clarification.

My first read was that he meant he wanted to retire "swiftboating" from the political vocabulary.

[beachmom]

23. The MSNBC article, however, states:

The 2004 Democratic presidential nominee released a statement praising Specter as a "fighter and a friend, and I am proud to vouch for his character." Kerry's press secretary, Whitney Smith, later said Kerry was endorsing Specter.

MSNBC thinks it was an endorsement and the press secretary seems to have encouraged them to think that.

[TayTay]

29. Not much of an endorsement if you have to clarify it later

I think Kerry likes both candidates. He is certainly not going out of his way to spin for either guy here. This is a pretty mild endorsement.

I wonder why Kerry stepped into this one. Again, I think it's because of that use of the term "swiftboating." I genuinely think he hates the term and was reacting more to that than the virtues of either Dem candidate.

[beachmom]

32. That's the only thing defensible about the statement (see my criticism downthread)

If this was solely about JK being upset about Sestak's use of the term swiftboating, well, then he had a point. You guys know me: I am a stickler about that term. It's about smears & lies said over and over again, with NO EVIDENCE. Even when presented with evidence that the charges are lies, the swiftboaters continue to tell the same exact lies plus inventing a few more. It is a web of proven lies. I didn't see that in PA.

[MBS]

57. This is EXACTLY my take on JK statement, too n/t

[wisteria]

45. It was an endorsement and I think Sen. Kerry was being diplomatic about

it,not wanting to disappoint Sestak camp to much.

[Luftmensch067]

31. Thank you for saying this, Tay

I read JK's e-mail first and then saw that news sources were touting it as an official "endorsement" which was certainly not how I read it. I think I can understand that forum members from PA might see it that way, but I don't know that I think that it was intended as such.

Oops, should read all of thread before commenting! Just saw the that it has been confirmed as an endorsement. I agree it's not a very strong one!

[Inuca]

56. Sounds to me like a sound endorsement of the man

and a very reluctant endorsement of the candidate. It also reads like there is authentic like and respect for Specter. And that he is upset that swiftboating (as a term and as an issue) even surfaced in this contest between democrats.

[wisteria]

72. I agree with you there. He was reaffirming the good character and honor-ability of Sen. Specter.

And, I also think he does not like the idea or even suggestion of Swift Boating becoming a part of the back and forth. I was surprised he did this, and really did not expect any politicians other than Biden, Casey and Obama to endorse him. Win or lose, I think this was a kind thing to do, to set the record straight on the character of Senator Specter.

[sandnsea]

61. I didn't read it as an endorsement either n/t

[wisteria]

74. Then you read it wrong. Kerry's office has confirmed it was an endorsement

and, Senator Specter's web page and an e-mail have confirmed it is.

Does that bother you that perhaps, someone does not agree with your opinion of Senator Specter. It is what it is and Senator Kerry has worked with Senator Specter for years. I would think he knows him better than you do.

[sandnsea]

81. Yep, I just checked my email

and it was confirmed as an endorsement.

I think you mistake my comments. I think the Democratic Party, and leadership, have a responsibility to support Specter. It would be just plain dishonorable to woo him over and then dump him. In that sense, I've got no problem with Kerry's endorsement. I just didnt read the email that way, I read it as a refutation of the swiftboating accusations, while remaining otherwise neutral. I wish he could have remained neutral. I think the Democrats in PA have the right to have an actual Democrat on the ballot. I think we can do better than Specter, but most certainly a lot worse too. I just keep thinking about Joe Lieberman. We should have dumped his ass when we had the chance. I don't want Specter to get all cocky if he gets back in.

[wisteria]

87. That it definately was too. Thanks for setting me straight. n/t

[MH1]

7. Specter supports a flat tax and elimination of the estate tax; and a ban some abortions.

Kerry may 'vouch for his character' but Specter's politics speak for themselves, loud and clear.

I vote for who will represent me and the policies I care about. Arlen Specter has NEVER EVER been that man (Clarence Thomas, Acalia, Roberts, Alito, Bush's wars, Bush's tax policy, his own flat tax bill, limiting women's access to medical procedures ... I don't need a longer list but I could make one easily if I try).

Joe Sestak is a wonderful man who I have had the pleasure not only to meet, but talk to on multiple occasions and see in action.

I agree with Tay that Kerry's statements don't read like an endorsement, but either way: he is wrong if he supports Specter over Sestak, and I am sure it is because he has a gun to his head politically. Regardless, I am extremely disappointed that he would make this statement at this time. As much as I like John Kerry from our experiences in this group and a couple times of meeting him, I KNOW Joe Sestak. Kerry is wrong to do this.

edit to remove part that was in the wrong place.

[wisteria]

14. And, most of the state, which is un-progressive agrees with him.

You forget, PA is a large state, described by some as the cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, with Pennsyltucky in between.

[MH1]

17. I have more respect for the people of PA

and I think they will earn it on May 18 when they vote for Joe in the primary and send Arlen and his fiscally irresponsible policy positions to the showers.

[wisteria]

22. I too respect the people of PA, how could you assume otherwise?

Simply because I do not support your guy? I think we need to retain the experience of Senator Specter, without him we would be at a deficit. I respect the people of PA enough to want them to continue to have the experience and support that Senator Specter provides them with.

[wisteria]

12. FYI, I am volunteering for and supporting Senator Specter.

And, I would appreciate it if you would consider my feelings before taking sides in this primary in this forum. There is a lot at stake in PA, and those who do not reside in the state perhaps do not understand the politics.

So you tell me. should I stay away from the Kerry Forum because you will all be expressing your support of a candidate I find atrocious and feel will do great damage to the representation in PA?

[MH1]

21. I think you are the only one here who feels that way

and I ** KNOW ** Sestak.

I am trying hard to stick to critiques of Specter based on his policies and political record, and stay away from personal attacks. If you do the same for your critiques of Sestak, we should be able to keep this a civil discussion.

I don't see why it should be off limits in this forum, since John Kerry chose to insert himself in the race, and some of his fans have a problem with that and want to discuss it.

[wisteria]

25. Perhaps, but just because I am in the minority does not mean my feelings should not be

taken into account.
And, I am being civil, I really do not know what you refer to when you say I am not. Perhaps, anything negative at all about your guy? And, you have made it clear that "you know" Sestak, but really, I know a lot of my neighbors too, that doesn't mean I know what really goes on inside their homes.
Senator Specter is not my neighbor, but I feel like I know him, from his time as Phila. DA, to his runs and in some cases losses for the Senate and even his run for President. He is not the evil politican childish progressives make him out to be.

Frankly, I don't care that I am the minority here, I will stand with the man who has 30 years of service to the people of PA and not with the one with four short years in Congress with a mediocre voting record.

[MH1]

27. Perhaps the reason Kerry had to say something TODAY

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/eyeon2010/2010/05/so-endangered-democrats-how-wi.html

Specter could be getting some press about his previous treatment of Kagan. Time to change the subject.

And alas time for me to go back to earning my own pay ...

[wisteria]

37. You aren't telling me something I don't know. No big deal in my book.

And, this references the same old polling source, with 13% undecided and only calls to 440 redidences and a plus or minus of 5. No one is willing to committ to anything more than to close to call. As I said, it will depend on turn-out. Specter has a long history of pulling wins out of what look like close contests. We still have two weeks to go and if that hokey ad with the dubbed Specter voice is Sestak's zinger, than I think Specter still has a great chance of winning this.

[wisteria]

52. Senator Specter has released the following regarding the President's choice for the SC.

Frankly, I don't see this as a huge issue in the Democratic primary, but for the record,

Specter Comments on Elena Kagan


Washington, D.C.
Monday, May 10, 2010 -


Today U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) made the following comments regarding President Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court of the United States:

“There is no doubt that Elena Kagan has exemplary academic and professional credentials. And she has been a pioneer for women, serving as the country’s first female Solicitor General and as the first woman to be Dean of Harvard Law School. I applaud the President for nominating someone who has a varied and diverse background outside the circuit court of appeals.

"I voted against her for Solicitor General because she wouldn't answer basic questions about her standards for handling that job. It is a distinctly different position than that of a Supreme Court Justice.

“I have an open mind about her nomination and hope she will address important questions related to her position on matters such as executive power, warrantless wiretapping, a woman’s right to choose, voting rights and congressional power."

[Inuca]

58. Good statement

and I am glad that he came up with something soon, he had to.

[beachmom]

30. I'm glad we have backers for both candidates in this forum.

To get two perspectives.

I agree with Kerry that "swiftboating" is an overused term. It does not mean critiquing someone's military record. What it means is just making stuff up with no creditable or reliable evidence to back it up. I think the situation in PA is not remotely having to do with the SBVT lies on Kerry for which there was no Navy Times article or military record to back up their charges. Having said that, I still am not taking sides in this race, and am more a spectator.

Finally, I do not like that Kerry has endorsed Specter (however mildly). I just don't think he should get involved with primary races except under extraordinary circumstances. He comes across as vouching for a fellow member of that exclusive club in the Senate. Very DC-Insiderist, which I don't find appealing. Kerry is better when he gets out of the cocoon and talks to regular people. It is clear to me he hasn't been doing that enough lately (especially his praise of the oil industry last week for backing his climate bill, when the oil spill catastrophe had just hit -- that is tone deaf, and only getting out of the beltway can cure a person of that insular thinking). Endorsing Specter now (instead of waiting to endorse the primary winner) will drive a further wedge between himself and liberals on the blogs for which he has so much common ground with.

He needs to be better advised and he needs to talk to people like us more.

[TayTay]

33. I completely agree with this

I don't understand the point of the statement that the Senator put out. It seems to be too mild to be effective and doesn't really say anything, one way or the other. (He's against swiftboating. Well, ah, good for you.)

The climate bill is a very delicate compromise and includes a lot of things that Kerry probably hates. One of them is probably the oil compromise. You lay down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. That is this bill.

Yet, the bill, flawed as it is, is still a huge step forward. (Oy, what times we live in.)

[beachmom]

34. Oh, I agree on the climate bill. It's awful. Yet better than doing nothing.

I just think he got caught in a pretty bad soundbite last week.

[TayTay]

36. Yup.

Timing is everything. Ah, as the main thrust of this thread shows, imprecise wording has consequences.

[wisteria]

40. I like to think he does not make this endorcement lightly and only

did it because he does know and respect Senator Specter. And, Senator Kerry really risks nothing at this time in doing so. So, for me, personally, I am pleased he made it, but I can understand other's opinions on this.

[MH1]

66. I agree very much with your second paragraph

It can only hurt Kerry to make this endorsement now - unless Specter wins, which is seeming less and less likely every day ... and if Specter does win, what could he be holding over Kerry? A vote for or against a bill? Sheesh politics sucks, to even have to think of that.

On the other hand, if Sestak wins, all will be forgotten quickly because JK will get behind him with big $ just like the rest of the establishment. Sestak understands "if you want a friend in DC get a dog". So in THAT sense JK has nothing to lose by this endorsement. But what you said about looking insider-ish and all I think is correct, so he doesn't help his relationship with the left at all.

[TayTay]

38. When is the primary? n/t

[Mass]

39. May 18th, I think. I feel sorry I started this thread. I was just curious of what people

thought about this endorsement.

I agree with you that it is not much of an endorsement and I doubt it will have a big effect, but I was surprised to see that the spokewoman confirmed it was an endorsement.

[wisteria]

42. You are correct, May 18th. And, this is not shaping up to be a good year for

Democrats in PA. All indications are we will have a Republican Governor after eight years of a Democrat and that could really impact the voting results down the ticket.
I am not mad you posted this. I might have posted the ensorsement myself if I had seen it before you did. You had know way of knowing that MH1 and myself are at polar ends in this election. I still like and respect her and we will remain friends no matter what the outcome. My feelings about Mr. Sestak being another matter.

[TayTay]

43. politics is about taking sides

and fighting over things that matter. We can't hide from that in order to promote unity all the time. It would be false to pretend that we don't have differences. It would also negate the very reasons we log into discussion boards. (If I want to hear from someone who agrees with me all the time, I will sit and orate in front of a mirror.)

I respect the choices the folks from PA are making and applaud them for being active in campaigns. I find threads where primary concerns are aired out in public to be honest and informative. They can also get heated. This is the nature of politics.

Again, I have nothing but the deepest respect for all who have posted here and the deepest of respect for their opinions and choices. Nothing said here has changed that or is likely too. A spirited discussion is a good thing.

[wisteria]

46. Thank you.

My link keeps fading in and out, so I will now move on to other things.

[cadmium]

63. I felt the same way. I am speculating

that he is carrying White House water with the endorsement. Like you note - it wasnt very strong so possibly his heart wasnt in it.
Just speculating.

[wisteria]

75. He didn't have to say anything at all. Why is that when he does,

it can't be much of an endorsement because he isn't saying WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR?

I was an endorsement based on the integrity of the man and his years of experience.

His endorsement went to Specter-not Sestak, no matter how you analyze it. That is the way all the media is portraying it and that is the way I am going to take it. He endorsed a friend and someone he knows is more qualified and has more experience. And, he confirmed that Senator Specter is a good man.

[beachmom]

77. He didn't have to do this. Even if it was carrying water for the WH, he

could have said no. He doesn't owe them a damned thing.

[MH1]

78. I'm sure there's all kinds of power plays going on there

and another thing I'm thinking is that maybe he is reading the tea leaves and figuring it doesn't matter anyway. Sestak has the momentum and if Sestak wins, JK's endorsement will probably be forgotten by all but the most hard-core Kerry haters. So in another week this could be a non-issue, but whatever JK was promised will still be there.

Or maybe he really thinks Specter is a good guy. In which case I happen to disagree with him. I do know that he likes Sestak and I am willing to bet there was a phone call or something before this statement.

[beachmom]

102. Good point. I hope Sestak isn't permanently mad at JK here.

That would be most unfortunate. Especially if Sestak wins the primary and the general, and they have to work together. I would think they would work well together.

[MH1]

105. I doubt that Sestak is very mad at JK at all

Sestak is a VERY smart guy and understands it's "politics". and like I said somewhere, I bet there was a phone call. Sestak would've known this was coming.

On the other hand, there are many Sestak supporters who are more prone to get mad about it, and if Sestak loses the primary they might not forget it. And the worse the November outcome (Toomey win or Specter reverts to republican voting) the more they will remember every little thing that prevented their side from winning.

I am disappointed in JK but that's life. Still when it comes down to it right now, if I needed to choose where to send a campaign contribution between JK or Sestak, it would go to Sestak. But mad? nah not really. Politics sucks and they are both politicians.

[MBS]

88. I agree with your speculation! n/t

[beachmom]

76. I checked over at DailyKos for the fallout. People don't seem to think

much of Kerry anyway, based on the comments. Kind of sucks how all that work he put into wooing the netroots is being wrecked in a matter of a year. I'm not saying that sometimes you have to disappoint the activist base, but geez, this endorsement was not something he had to do. We all worked hard to help him rehabilitate his good name after losing in 2004 and being made the only scapegoat for that disappointing election year. Now it's all gone up in smoke.

I guess I am not just lamenting this Specter thing, but a series of things he has done in the last year. Sigh.

Edit: to be clear, there was no gun to his head to do this. This was Kerry's decision. He is his own man & doesn't owe people big favors at this point. I think we should have no illusions about that.

[karynnj]

82. The problem may be that where Kerry is now being the toast of the netroots

is not possible. We have all seen diaries where he is able to reach people and he does some of what they want in terms of having a real dialogue. Even then, when his position is theirs, there is a lack of real warmth on the part of many Daily Kos bloggers. Yet, they are giddy when every "new" hero they have has a diary - even if it is clearly not written for them and they simply drop it.

There are some people who will always be their hero - like Howard Dean and to a lesser degree Wesley Clark. Now, I think Dean started out helpful on healthcare, but then ended up making me dizzy following his comments. He is now trying to lead on DADT and is saying the votes are there - something no one in Congress has said. To me, he is pandering to them. They are the base of whatever power he has.

In 2005 through 2008, it is hard to find anyone whose positions, actions and words were closer to what I think were the goals of Daily Kos. The one issue where Kerry really is not in line with them is that he is far more open to the fact that the global economy is a reality and he rejects simplistic solutions here. On everything else, it is hard to think of anyone who was stronger, better or more effective than Kerry in pushing the positions they wanted. But, he was NEVER their hero.

When you look at who their big heroes were - from Dean to Edwards to Grayson, the impression I get is what they want is demagoguery. They want to be pandered to. Kerry has never done that, even when he reached out to them. In addition, too many of them were to some degree poisoned in 2004. They were by and large supporters of Dean. Their disappointment when that dream died is likely tied to their latent resentment towards Kerry. Part of that was the Trippi based rhetoric of the last month of the Dean campaign which was as toxic as the PUMA stuff of 2008. It was not just Kerry's IWR vote, because they were open to John Edwards, who had nowhere near Kerry's liberal credentials.

On this, the awkwardness of the statement makes it seem that Kerry was asked and tried to avoid getting involved in the swiftboating charge. Sestak, though he was simply doing what was politically best for himself, by using that word put Kerry in an awkward position. Without that it seems likely Kerry would have stayed quiet.

I assume Kerry has known with several of these things what the left's reaction would be. He had to know in the 1970s that staying true to who he was and not becoming a pawn of the left made many on the left dislike him - even as the right wanted to destroy him. Over the Obama term, he seems to have placed more value on getting things accomplished and being a loyal ally of the President than on personal popularity - especially with the netroots.

On climate change, there is first of all very little passion on Daily Kos. Beyond that, on all things the left wants "no compromises with businesses or Republicans. Any bill with any chance to pass will do both - and will be as hated as Baucus' healthcare bill.

[ProSense]

84. It's becoming chaotic

"When you look at who their big heroes were - from Dean to Edwards to Grayson, the impression I get is what they want is demagoguery. They want to be pandered to."

There was a time for debate. Now, there are some who will turn on anyone who doesn't adhere to their precise standards: Kuchich on health care or Wes Clark endorsing Blanche Lincoln. There can't even be a debate about good or bad policy. For example, Krugman believed that Brown-Kaufman wouldn't address the problem and it was bad policy. He explained why the size of banks was not the issue. Some on the left don't care, they just want to stick it to the banks no matter what.

They have latched onto every distortion and refuse to let go. It used to be interesting to read the different POVs, but now I read everything with caution because so much of what is being passed off as fact is laced with distortions.

Look at the distortions aimed at Kagan. It's impossible to change the perception of her detractors. I just watched Lessig destroy Greenwald's argument. He pointed out that Greenwald based his claim that Kagan supports Bush's policy on a misinterpretation of a piece she wrote long before Bush and 9/11. It's ridiculous.

This is from a diary I read recently:

My guess is that at some future date this article will be misinterpreted to say that I argued against Elena Kagan. Except for executive power (where I am as progressive as anyone in the country), I am a judicial moderate. Kagan might wind up being exactly my kind of justice. And so far, Sonia Sotomayor has been great - and Obama picked her (which some will argue is evidence to "trust" him again). My point isn't that Kagan is terrible or can't do the job. My point isn't that Obama secretly wants to pick a conservative (or a progressive, as his defenders would claim). My point is that Obama has no intention of burning up political capital (according to his perception) by publicly standing up and fighting for for his own so-called side and will defer to the center or right-wing given any opportunity to do so. And this is another example of that.

Summary: So what if Obama achieves the right outcomes, he isn't doing it my way, the politically stupid way and expending political capital when it isn't necessary.

There is no rationale, just blind outrage even when there is nothing to be outraged about.

Over the past year, I've seen diaries by elected officials and candidates completely attacked in ways that make some of the flamefest that used to occur in diaries about JK look like romances.

It's simply dangerous trying to pander to people who make outrage and distortion their first response to every position that doesn't conform to theirs. The GOP tried this with the teabaggers. Look where it got them. Utah and Maine are being overrun by kooks.

[wisteria]

86. It is a sad period for our country, these angry people-not knowing really what they want

eliminating good people for not adhering to their scatterbrained idea of what is right and fair. It is an ugly time to be a politician and try to be a public servant.

[Inuca]

90. Did you see

Olberman's interview with Turley last night? Very much in line with your summary above. Basically he was saying that he would rather have (what he would consider) a principled and "pure" choice that would be ineffective than somebody effective but "impure"

[karynnj]

94. No, I missed it

I have to admit that I liked Olberman more when Bush was President. You can be purists when you don't have the power to do anything. To do so now when you can do things, but chose to maintain your purity, is a waste. The correct comparison is not to the "perfect solution" but to what is in place.

Yesterday, posing as my husband online, I viewed a webinar put together by an industry group on how the healthcare plan affects businesses. (Per my husband, the group's politics lean right.)The provisions were of course familiar, but what this different perspective let me see was that it really does look good. Upfront, the speaker said that the cost to implement was not as great as they had feared. Yet when he went through what happens in each plan effective after September 23rd, there are real gains. This is very good as the topic here was the impact on people with employee paid plans - the people in least need of improvement.

I would imagine that many families with college kids who will be graduating in this economic environment are relieved that their kids will be covered until their 26th birthday. Without that, many likely would have remained on the plan for a year at the COBRA rate. The good news is that the law means that a 25 year old is treated like a 12 year old if the plan covers dependents.

Many might also benefit because specified preventive care and immunizations will be without any copay.

There have been millions of posts on what the healthcare plan requires. But, there were somethings that I hadn't known - including the fact that when they say kids until 26 are covered - that does not mean simply that they are allowed to buy in. In addition, I found that all companies will eventually have to include the amount they paid for the person on the W2, even though it will not be taxed. This is good for two reasons. It will provide a fantastic data resource for future healthcare modeling and it will mean people will know how much the company pays. (They already know how much they pay - I would bet that if people knew this back last year, there would have been far fewer cadilac plan threads.)

But, that is a tangent. The point is that the bill that passed was actually not far from what was hammered out by the Senate Finance Committee. In retrospect, Baucus did a very good job. The bill passed with very narrow margins in both Houses. It is pretty clear that they really could not have done much better than they did. Yet, if I posted something innocuous about Baucus, the comments would be extremely unpleasant. Adam Green, with his ads that essentially accused Baucus of having been bought by corporations is a hero on Daily Kos, but any fair appraisal would show that Baucus did far more to improve healthcare than Green did.

[Inuca]

107. Interesting stuff

and I agree about Baucus. I used to be quite mad at him myself, not at the same level of paranoia as so many in the blogosphere, but still, mad. And I still think that it may have helped had he not tried to appease Snowe, Grassley and Enzi for so long and delayed the whole process by so many months, including the awful past summer. But in retrospect, yes, he did a pretty damn good job. I remember during the markup in his committee, while the various public option variants were discussed, he kept saying that he opposes anything that cannot pass, or something to that effect. It was very infuriating, but he was indeed correct.

Edited to add: I also agree about Olberman, at times he is almost a lefty version of Glen Beck. But he still has his moments... far and in-between unfortunately. Back during the black years, he had an almost cathartic effect at times, what was happening out there was so damn ugly and dirty, I guess I feel I owe him for that :-). OTOH I am liking Rachel Maddow more and more, I think she is past the forced goofiness of her TV beginnings (her current goofiness somehow seems different, more natural, I don't know, it's difficult to explain but it stopped bothering me), and she is coming into her own. And she is still very young, I hope she will stick around and get better and better, because as Tay would say, she is "wicked smart" :-).

[beachmom]

96. Not to be a jerk, guys, but I strongly advise against watching cable tv news.

It rots your brains. :)

[Inuca]

108. You are probably right

but I am adicted. Does knowing that it may be dangeroud to my mental health help, at least a bit :-)?

[karynnj]

93. Wow,

That excerpt is really telling. It is mindboggling that he felt a need to argue that even when the results show Obama did something well , it has to be written off as almost an accident.

The sad thing is that it really is within the two bases that there has been in the past the most energy for change. It is sad that now when change is so needed, our base which should be happier and more enthusiastic, is splintered and extremely cynical and angry.

[beachmom]

95. I didn't completely agree with Cenk's diary, but a lot of it jived with what

I have been thinking. Thing is, Obama is running a pretty centrist WH. I always viewed Obama as being fairly moderate so I am not all that angry about it. However, the fact that Kerry has been going along with that centrism, I find distressing. Kerry reps Mass. and has no reason to be so moderate go along get along. I want to see more fire in his belly, instead of constantly being the "loyal soldier". It may be safer, but it hardly is what he was elected to do.

There are the "heroes" of the left, and then there are those who gain grudging respect. Kerry was on a path to be in the latter group. But this last year he has completely abandoned it. Yeah, his staffers will write a diary for him to post once in a while, but I do not see real passionate engagement.

[ProSense]

98. I disagree.

It may be safer, but it hardly is what he was elected to do.

There are the "heroes" of the left, and then there are those who gain grudging respect. Kerry was on a path to be in the latter group. But this last year he has completely abandoned it. Yeah, his staffers will write a diary for him to post once in a while, but I do not see real passionate engagement.

President Obama was elected to get things done, not to fight futile battles. His temperament hasn't changed much since the election. In fact, he's fighting back more now, but in a different way. He has to govern.

This is the problem with Cenk's flawed logic. He wants the President to engage in battles for theater. He's not interested in the outcomes, he just wants a fight.

One thing I haven't seen, or didn't expect much, was a whole lot of difference between Obama and Kerry on policy. Kerry will pick his battles, but I don't expect him fighting for the sake of fighting. He has always been one to try hard to get things done. He will fight when it's imperative.

Frankly, I don't see Obama's policies as moderate. I see someone determined to move the ball forward on many issues. There was an eight-year lapse, and much needs to be done despite the cynicism. The fact that he achieved health care reform in this climate is a significant achievement. Come to think of it, the health care fight was a classic example of the impact of cynicism on the process of trying to legislate. A lot of the blame falls on the Senate, but the alternative to building a coalition was to scrap the plan. Ridiculous, but some saw that as a viable alternative. What about climate change or financial reform? Should those be scrapped because they're likely to be imperfect?

It's ridiculous to see how many people on the left are trying to prove that Obama is no different from Bush and labeling him a sellout and closet Republican. What happened to the efforts to contact Senators to fight for change? There are no consolidated efforts to get people elected. The DNC and all the Democratic organizations have been written off as DLC. The only thing bloggers like Cenk and Hamsher do these days is write pieces that equate Obama to Bush or to portray him as a sellout.

Kerry reps Mass, yes, and they just elected Scott Brown. Maine is being overrun by kooks. The fact is, and I strongly believe this, the perpetual outrage right and left, often using the same arguments (health care reform is unconstitutional), is emboldening the RW --- not the GOP, the RW. There is even some defense of teabaggers coming from the left. It's disgusting.

I have to clarify that "perpetual outrage" isn't meant to characterize disagreement. It's a reference to being outraged at everything the administration does, and introducing distortions to support the outrage. This is what we're seeing with Kagan, who is being portrayed as a RW Republican who is anti-choice, supports Bush's policies, and secretly disagrees with Obama and Stevens on Citizens United (serioulsy, it's pure insanity).

[beachmom]

103. I guess where I mainly agree with Cenk was his football analogy.

That Bush brought the ball down 80 yards and Obama is only moving it back maybe 2 yards. And there is a feeling that time is running out. After November a lot less is going to be done.

As to Obama & Kerry, I just think their roles are different. I overall approve of Pres. Obama and am not outraged by the job he is doing. He has to govern the whole country. But I expected Kerry to take things a bit more out of the comfort zone. Kind of like during the campaign when Kerry would say stuff about McCain (about his temperament) that the Obama campaign couldn't say that early on. It was a way to bring the ball partially down the field until toward the end where it was a closing argument for Obama and against McCain. Why not do that on policy? Trot Kerry out to take the hits, and then after the talking point has been absorbed, the President can use it.

Anyway, JMO.

[Inuca]

109. As they say out there...

+1 :thumbsup: :-) I agree with everything you said, and said very well.

[Inuca]

89. Great post, Karyn

And I 100% agree with your statment that much of the netroots are looking for demagoguery and want to be pandered to. It also applies to the reaction to Obama. Some of the stuff I am reading (on DU mainly, but not only) make me want to pull my hair off. Obama doing things that Bush did not even dare dream of, that kind of stuff... it's infantile and idiotic, and I extremely sorry to say that.

[wisteria]

85. My opinion is that much of the net roots never much liked Senator Kerry.

I give him credit for continuing to try and reach them. The Kos crowd is the worse. I have yet to figure out who the net-roots actually likes. It seems they are always at someone for something and pick their favorites-not by experience, causes or even votes. It all seems to be like a sports game-they go with the cool guy who claims to be on their team and takes on the enemy - nothing much else matters to them.

[beachmom]

97. It's not about getting someone to like him. But rather to respect him.

JK has the respect of the netroots for what he did in 1971. If you bring up his work on Iran/Contra/BCCI, that grudging respect will appear again. Kerry/Feingold timetable for withdrawal is another. But since his re-election? What the heck has John Kerry done to deserve respect from the left wing of the party? Being for further troops going into Afghanistan? The excise tax in the health care reform bill? Watering down the climate bill with fossile fuel industry giveaways and partnering with Lieberman? Waiting until the absolute last minute to back Cape Winds when it was already a done deal for being approved? Okay, he is for net neutrality. What courageous thing has he DONE for net neutrality?

I realize a lot of the folks at dkos are certifiable, illogical, infuriating, etc. But sometimes a politician will make a move that they notice that transcends personality and primary wars memories. John Kerry hasn't done a darned thing to earn that respect. He is playing it too safe, trying to garner favor from the likes of Joe Klein! I mean look at the lame journalists he follows on Twitter!! How about at least following Ezra Klein instead of bloody Tom Friedman.

[Mass]

99. I am confused what you expect of an US Senator.

When you are in the majority, there are two choices: be part of those who shape the law, with all the compromises that this implies, or be part of those who stand in opposition, because they disagree with one thing or another. Kerry has chosen to be in the first group, I think, and while I certainly will disagree with choices he makes, I don't think his goal is to please the netroots. His goal, as explained in previous interviews in 2009, is to be part of those who shape the future of the country. I also think this is why he was elected in the Senate by MA people.

I dont disagree with specific things you said were a disappointment, but our role (not as the Kerry group, but as the netroots in general) is to pull in the direction we want to make sure we are heard, and this requires more than posting on a blog or a forum.

Now, I don't blame the netroots or the grassroots to disagree with him. It is their role to keep the pressure until a decision is made. It can only help people who want to change things to make sure left-wing opinions are heard. This is why I thought it was important to make noise early on on both the Healthcare Bill and the Climate Bill. Actually, Kerry asked that to the netroots, as did Obama early on for both grassroots and netroots.

Governing is messy. If is like a game of tug of war where both sides pull to have the advantage. The forces who pull are not the Senators, those are grassroots and netroots.

[Mass]

100. BTW, the MA race for gov is a sign that MA is not that liberal.

Three candidates running nearly 1/3, 1/3, 1/3

Deval Patrick, the liberal in the race,

Baker, a moderate Republican

Cahill, a conservative Democrat who mostly runs to an independent mostly to the right of Baker.

While Patrick, as the sitting governor, is slightly ahead, Cahill runs second, and Baker third. Cahill does not hide he runs in the tracks of Scott Brown, quoting him in interviews.

So, at this stage, the state is not safe (even if my part of the state in the backyard of Harvard is very liberal).

[beachmom]

101. Well, I don't disagree with your post, except for the fact that it always

seems that it is the left that is disappointed. On some issues, I probably am not even "the left", but my main point is that every decision JK has made in the last year or so (tough decisions I am talking here) have been toward the center. He has not clashed with the WH once in public. I don't see why a Senator has to be 100% with the WH or 100% opposition. I don't feel they have to make that kind of either/or choice. Other Senators have done this delicate dance better. I am thinking of someone like Bernie Sanders, who often is with the WH, but will sometimes go out on his own and try to move the conversation left. I don't ever see John Kerry doing that. No doubt, behind the scenes, he may be stating a more liberal case, and hope he can get the best of compromises. But I never have seen him publicly really stake out a claim that is really against what Pres. Obama is doing on great issues or small. Didn't he do this with Clinton? I mean, I don't think that served him well, honestly.

As to Mass., well, yeah, maybe they are going in a Libertarian direction, which is most unfortunate. But on the eve of Democrats sweeping all branches of government, I didn't see Republicans cowering toward the center. Now they are radicalized and poised to do pretty well in the midterms. Why are the dynamics so completely different for Democrats?

[Mass]

104. I dont disagree with you. I just dont think this has anything to do with the left

netroots.

Very selfishly, I would hope that Kerry disagrees with Obama when I do. That is all. I have stated that for a long time, including at times when I felt pretty lonely here (talking out in support of the public option). I have not changed my mind. But he does not have to disagree for the sake of it, I just would hope to see him stating his mind, and he actually has sometimes, but it was not large stories that retained the media attention, more about foreign policy.

I just dont believe it is his role to make sure he pleases the left wing netroots (and I am very much left wing).

[MH1]

110. Philly radio personality Smerconish just spread the smear on Hardball

He's carrying water for Specter and he can get away with the lie "relieved of command" because ya know he's just a radio guy and doesn't know better. Yeah, right.

F*** SPECTER. Whether or not it's "swiftboating". (Saying someone was relieved of command when they weren't is NOT swiftboating? Come the f*** on.)

[beachmom]

111. Is he that guy who always comes on MSNBC?

That's just one more reason why I avoid cable tv (a 4th meta item on this thread, lol). The worst common denominator always rules on cable tv news. I can't figure out why he's bringing that stuff up now. How is that relevant now?

[MH1]

112. Yes but more importantly he practically owns the Philly airwaves

for those who listen to that sort of crap. He has a morning show and is also on in the late evening (not sure if that's live or rebroadcast, I don't listen to it, just caught it scanning a few times recently)

And actually he's mostly a huge breath of fresh air over Beck, Hannity, and their ilk, which pollute the radio during most of the rest of the day. He's fairly moderate and supported Obama. But he's also a nutjob on a couple things, like the Mumia case He is so anti- Mumia and spends so much time on it that he almost makes Mumia supporters look sane. But that's more a quirk, the rest of the time he can be scarily decent-sounding. I do think he's more honest than Beck et al. I think he supported Obama because Palin scared the living shit out of him. And because he wanted someone to take a strong line on Pakistan and Afghanistan and believed Obama would do a better job there.

But anyway ... for all these reasons it really sucks for him to repeat the smear. Of course he was going to support Specter ... he's a former Republican (or maybe still republican despite supporting Obama) himself. But it goes against the way he talks about supporting cops and veterans, to spread a smear like this.

So anyway there is your media effort. I just hadn't heard it before, probably only because I don't listen to this stuff that much. Like you said cable news will rot your brain.

[wisteria]

115. I have seen him on MSNBC, and he seems like a decent and reasonable guy.

I don't get him in my area. I have the worst of the worst in RW talk radio droning on and on all day.

[wisteria]

114. Sestak has refused to release his military records to disprove the claims.

If he has nothing to hide, why not release them? It would end all of this speculation.

[beachmom]

116. Um, really? Not sure you want to go there. THAT does remind me of something.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/kerry_allows_navy_release_of_military_medical_records/

Just because a candidate doesn't release all their military records under pressure in the heat of a campaign doesn't mean they were hiding anything (except maybe some mediocre grades in college).

[wisteria]

118. Yes, I want to go there, I think it is a fair request. Really.

Sestak has accused the administration of back door deals and says they offered him a job he wouldn't accept-yet he won't say who it was. A statement is made regarding a questionable command situation, which is backed up with references, and all Sestak has to do is open some of his records to disprove the accusation and he is evassive about it. I will go there, this goes right to the core of his leadership qualities and is not swift boating.

[wisteria]

132. I have decided that their is enough good and positive things about Senator Specter

that I can promote, rather than pursue the release of the military records attack on Mr. Sestak. Senator Specter has a record of serving the people of PA for 30 years that he can be proud of, and on which I can sing his praises. Mr. Sestak's service to our country is one of the achievements in his life that he is very proud of, and one which I personally feel un-comfortable pursuing. MH1, you will not see another word written by me here at DU calling for him to release his records.

[MH1]

135. Thank you, I appreciate that

I have a better understanding why some support Specter (although I am still far from it) and I think to those who prioritize the same things, the case can be made positively.

In any case, come November I will be pushing the 'straight D' ticket so I will be voting for whichever one of them win the primary. Well if it's Specter I'll think of it as a vote 'against Toomey' but it will count the same. Hopefully you'll do the same if it's Sestak. Because Toomey is worse than either of them, I'm sure we can agree on that! :)

[karynnj]

128. Not exactly true - Kerry did release all his records (or - with the medical ones allowed

media access.) What he wouldn't do was sign the form to have the Navy give the records directly to newspapers. Other than the grades, the papers all said that what they got was what was there in 2004 - except for one sheet recommending him for accelerated promotion.

[MH1]

129. He didn't ever give full free access to whoever wanted them

Which is what the swiftboaters wanted and why they still claim he never released them.

And that is exactly what the "not swiftboaters" attacking Sestak would keep asking for, even if he gave them as much as Kerry released.

[karynnj]

131. At this point, - given that the three papers all said they were what he

had on line - except for medical records - they have all of them.

I think that Sestak has released nothing - so it is not the same.

[MH1]

117. Yeah claims as in "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

The Navy Times article was perfectly clear. There is no reason in the world for Sestak to release his personal records. He served honorably and earned a high rank, including positions of HUGE responsibility, and NO ONE has credibly questioned his service.

You want to know Sestak's record? Start here:

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/s/joe_sestak/index.html

[wisteria]

119. It goes to the core of his real leadership abilities. That and how he treat his staff.

and, what he pays them. I won't even get into him trying to pass himself off as a progressive when he has a very conservative voting record.

[MH1]

121. Stop with the "very conservative voting record" nonsense, I have given you this link

many, many times.

Project Vote-Smart. non-partisan. LOOK IT UP.

If you continue to spread that when you should know better, how can it not be called a lie?

[wisteria]

123. I have information that states otherwise. And, besides I don't care at all for his close association

with Republicans like Scaife. Look, I will say what I want. Sestak claims he is the real Democrat, but I think that is misleading and unfair to someone who has served the state for 30 years and has always done what was in the best interest of the state-no matter what party he was associated with. You think that everything Sestak attacks Specter on is fair, but anything directed at Sestak is unfair and lies. I resent Sestak for screwing up this race-win or lose.I think he should have stepped aside and respected Specters 30 years of service to the people of PA. I think his ego and a need to get back at the party lead him to continue to run. He has taken much Republican money to win and didn't seem to mind. I don't trust your guy, I don't see him as you do, and I will not support someone I think has less ability and experience to get the jobs that need to be done in PA. Toomey has more experience for gosh sakes and the people are going to see this in the general election. Yes, he was entitled to run, but for the sake of Pa and the Democratic party, I wish he hadn't.

[MH1]

127. Please give a link to your info. It is fair to feel that Sestak should have stepped aside

when asked, (after being asked to run, before they knew Arlen would switch), but why not just say that? Why spread misinformation? Let people choose for their own based on documented facts.

I disagree strongly that Specter has always done what's in the best interests of the state. If I didn't feel I had to constantly refute misrepresentations about Sestak, maybe I'd have time to collect some links to demonstrate why I feel that way. Certainly, I think his voting record on Supreme Court justices (not to mention the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill travesty) has been a huge disservice to all Americans, inside and outside of PA. But there is more and I should go dig up the links. Well ok DOMA is one and I've posted that link all over. Then there is his environmental record. So I guess what is left is earmarks and supporting the coal industry?

What has Sestak attacked Specter on, that was unfair, in your opinion?

Why do you say Toomey has more experience? Technically that is correct - He has three terms in Congress, Sestak has two - but during his term Toomey also contributed to repeal of Glass-Steagall - he has an achilles heel a mile wide in the current political climate. Besides being a wingnut. I don't think Pennsylvanians will put 'experience' above all else, particularly when the difference is minor (and vets and many others will appreciate Sestak's 31 years of HONORABLE military service more anyway).

Finally, you can "say what you want" but if you misrepresent someone's record in violation of readily available and verifiable facts that have been presented to you, it is yourself that you have to deal with in the end.

Please post a link or links that rebuts the readily available and verifiable public record of Sestak's political votes and positions since taking office.

[wisteria]

133. Toomey has run a business and has run in a general state wide election.

This besides his time as a congressman.

[wisteria]

134. Well , when Sestak implies that Specter has always been right in step with the Republican party

and has always voted with them and not in the interests of PA, that is a lie. I would not have expected him to not support Bush while he was a Republican- that comes down to party loyalty. Obama has obviously forgiven him for supporting McCain and Palin and seems to recognize that it came from party loyalty. When Sestak claims he is the real Democrat that is a lie. He lost badly at our convention in Feb. The delegates voted over whelmingly - with 77% of the vote to make Specter our Democratic nominee. When Sestak implies he is the real Democrat that is an insult to all the members who voted for Specter.
And, that ad in which Specter's voice is dubbed and spliced together to form a synister sounding sentence in which he claims to have switched parties for self-serving reasons only is just wrong. Mr. Sestak has not run on any issues really on what he intends to do to serve the people of PA. Mostly he has run as the supposedly real Democrat and attacked Specter for changing parties-all of which the Republicans loved.This has been a mean sprited campaign not based on policy and issue differences between Specter and Sestak. There has been no real substance to it. And, the decision to switch was not Specter's alone. He was asked to do so by Rendell-a very close friend, Biden and Obama. Rendell asked his to come back to his roots.

[MH1]

122. It doesn't go to the 'core' of anything. It is merely desparate searching

for some triviality - like Kerry's ugly mug shot in his records, or his grades - to try to change the subject from Specter's record.

Short of disciplinary action - which the Navy Times was very clear about - WHAT, for example - just give an example - would trump the distinguished career that is reflected in Sestak's public record? A subordinate complained about him? Give me a f**** break.

Did you even read the facts of Sestak's career at the link I gave you? Or do you not care? Is it only dirt you are interested in, and if you can't find it in the public record you want to demand that personal records be released?

And yes, you are sounding EXACTLY like the swiftboaters on this line: "when will John Kerry release his records?"

[wisteria]

124. Listen, I am never desperate about anything.

I call things as I see them-win or lose, I fight for the candidate I beleive is the most qualified and the best fit for PA. Specter has lost races before, he is a pragmatic man. I have to wonder though how Sestak would behave if he loses-he thinks he has this all sewn up. He could be in for a mighty fall from that big head.

[wisteria]

125. Oh please, it doesn't even come close to that level.

Ok, I give up your guy is a saint, he should be made the new Pope. I still won't vote for him though.