TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | Joe Sestak

Gingrich Turns to Swift-boating

By on 09 January 2012

Maybe Obama reelect can finally get a day off, if for no other reason than to watch the coming onslaught. They’ve certainly done the job on Romney Republicans seemed too squeamish to do themselves, but which is now about to land hard on Mitt’s presidential campaign. Whatever vestige of Reagan’s 11th commandment was alive is now D.O.A. once “King of Bain” was born.

The debates grabbed the attention all weekend, but Tina Brown’s The Daily Beast broke the story on Friday, which the New York Times has now picked up:

Thanks to a $5 million donation from a wealthy casino owner, a group supporting Newt Gingrich plans to place advertisements in South Carolina this week attacking Mitt Romney as a predatory capitalist who destroyed jobs and communities, a full-scale Republican assault on Mr. Romney’s business background.

The advertisements, a counterpunch to a campaign waged against Mr. Gingrich by a group backing Mr. Romney, will be built on excerpts from a scathing movie about Bain Capital, the private equity firm Mr. Romney once ran. The movie, financed by a Republican operative opposed to Mr. Romney, includes emotional interviews with people who lost jobs at companies that Bain bought and later sold.

Nobody’s a better target for a swift-boating type of campaign than Mitt Romney, especially in the age of Occupy.

I know a lot about swift-boating strategy and the right’s utilization of the tactics, but they’ve never been turned back on one of their own. So, you’ll forgive me if I find something delicious in the devilishness of Newt Gingrich’s diabolical plan. Swift-boating takes scorched earth to a whole new level.

As a little history, John Kerry formed the Patriot Project after he lost the presidency to push back on swift-boating, and I was a member of the small team who worked to aid Democratic politicians, many of them veterans, being targeted by the right. One such person I helped was Rep. Joe Sestak, who called me personally and sent me a note for my work against Kurt Weldon, with Howie Klein calling my writing for Patriot Project “bareknuckle, steely-eyed analysis.” Another was the late Rep. John Murtha, also back in 2006, when I did an article of almost 4,000 words, “John Murtha: Anatomy of a Smear,” delineating the right’s smears against him and how they developed and expanded. Swift-boating is usually taking something laudable, like a veteran’s exemplary military service, then twisting it into something negative, even using it as a character assault.

Newt’s Super PAC Winning Our Future is about to give the “King of Bain” Mitt Romney a little of his own medicine. That Gingrich has David Bossie on his team, the king of “Hillary, the Movie” that launched Citizens United, is just perfect. Wayne Barrett runs down Gingrich’s swift-boat alliances today for the Daily Beast.

Citizens United, which also bought $250,000 in pro Gingrich ads in Iowa, shared the same fundraising website producer with the swift boat group. David Bossie, who runs the organization that won the Supreme Court case that opened the floodgates for the “independent” super PACs that buried Gingrich, placed a 30-second spot right before the Iowa caucus ostensibly promoting a 2009 movie that he and the Gingriches produced about Ronald Reagan. “It’s for movie sales,” a Bossie spokesman explained. – Wayne Barrett

However, what Newt Gingrich and his billionaire casino backer Sheldon Adelson, though Gingrich can’t be directly involved with the Super PAC, are doing is taking Mitt Romney’s vulture capitalism, painting it as evil and making Romney the face of it. What’s stunning is that Gingrich is calling out a fellow Republican for using capitalism, the foundation of Republicanism, and bending it to his will.

It’s the reason George Will blasted Gingrich earlier and why I wrote Newt had committed the worst offense of all: demonizing the tools of the trade of modern capitalism, which Republicans trumpet.

The tactics of Newt’s friends is something David Axelrod and the Obama team know all too well and is a strategy they’re going to unleash against Mitt Romney if he wins the nomination. Politico covered their plans in brief earlier.

Both Republicans and Democrats have no guiding vision and lifting dream to offer in 2012. It’s a race to the bottom between Mr. Cool and Mr. Ice, unless Gingrich can reverse Romney’s current trajectory. If the tactic wasn’t being utilized by Newt Gingrich it might work, but since it is and the target is the tools of capitalism the outcome is less sure.

In swift-boating, it’s more effective if the person utilizing this strategy and the tactics comes off cleaner than the person being hit.

Is this any way to pick a president?

Newt Gingrich is about to Occupy Mitt Romney’s presidential dreams.

Read full story · Comments { 26 }

Election Eve: Dems Way Down, Sarah Still Rising

By on 01 November 2010

Happy Election Day eve, with numbers coming out on Pres. Obama that are devastating for Democrats. Among likely voters, Obama is down to 44% approval; his approval among white voters at 38%, realizing that 85% of likely voters in the tough states across the rust belt and Midwest are white. Bill Clinton’s approval among whites in ’94 was 44%. So, right now my 50 seat House number actually seems low. Nate Silver’s scenario is negatively harrowing.

Segue to Sarah Palin who made a very bad bet with Christine O’Donnell that people want to use to paint her entire midterm prowess. Add to that Joe Miller losing after his surprising primary win and this would become her bookend nightmare endorsement, because Alaskans would deliver it. However, PPP has Miller favored again, remembering that betting on a write-in candidate, when nobody can really poll a state, is tough. Alaska is truly the who knows? midterm state.

However, the O’Donnell-Miller outcome won’t matter for Sarah going forward, because the Tea Party energy is what will capture the House in a big way for the right. Even after the silly doomsday predictions about Palin’s demise after she quit the governorship, which I never bought into, she turned the negative spin on its head. So, the politician who comes out of 2010 the strongest is Sarah Palin. That sound you just heard is the GOP establishment’s head exploding.

From Mike Allen, flop sweat at old boys’ club central over the rise of Sarah Palin’s power:

Top Republicans in Washington and in the national GOP establishment say the 2010 campaign highlighted an urgent task that they will begin in earnest as soon as the elections are over: Stop Sarah Palin.

Interviews with advisers to the main 2012 presidential contenders and with other veteran Republican operatives make clear they see themselves on a common, if uncoordinated, mission of halting the momentum and credibility Palin gained with conservative activists by plunging so aggressively into this year’s midterm campaigns.

The Senate has always been safe and the day before Election Day seems it will remain that way. But tomorrow is going to be one hell of a ride.

The long shot surprise for the Republicans may well be Harry Reid hanging on in Nevada. There is no get out the vote machine like Reid’s, and as I said from the start, to vote against Harry in Nevada is not a good bet. Jon Ralston, someone who knows Nevada better than anyone, believes he will, too. If Harry does hold on he shouldn’t be majority leader any longer. From Ralston:

Harry Reid is the most resilient figure in Nevada political history. He should not even be here. He lost a U.S. Senate race in 1974, embarrassed himself in a mayoral race in 1975 and should have lost his re-election bid in 1998. But he found a way to win 12 years ago, and he will again Tuesday.

The only thing that can change this is if the Republican wave becomes a hurricane. We’ll know early in the evening tomorrow.

My emotional bet is on Joe Sestak. I just love the guy. I can’t bet against him. But considering the white voter anger (file this under white voter exodus), Toomey just may pull this out on the energy of the anti Obama wave. If he does, Patty Murray is going down too.

Another one I think Dems could win is West Virginia, with Joe Manchin pulling through with a victory.

Democrats will lose Kentucky to Rand Paul by a wide margin; Rubio in Florida with Crist closing too late; Blumenthal in CT; the seat held by Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas will be lost to Boozman; Evan Bayh’s seat will go to Coats; Feingold a likely loss in Wisconsin to Ron Johnson; and also North Dakota with John Hoeven winning. Will Buck pull out a win? It’s a toss up right now, lean Democrat. Murray or Rossi is too close to call, too. Boxer will win, because conservatives like Fiorina don’t get that CA is a women’s freedom state. Kirk versus Alexi Giannoulias is for Obama’s old Senate seat and Kirk is likely, with lots of gloating to come if he wins. Missouri is going to go to Roy Blunt, who is as bad as it gets.

The House is another story completely, mostly bad, for Dems, with Tea Party energy fueling the fury and the turnovers that are going to take the rust belt through the Midwest away from Democrats, making 2012 a lot tougher than anything Obama saw in the general of ’08.

The Tea Party energy, however it manifests, remains a big win for Sarah Palin, because they’re unaffiliated and she put them on the map with her public persona. She earned publicity through getting 10,000 people to show up in Searchlight, NV, which isn’t easy, plus picks like Nikki Haley, with Sarah Palin putting her on the map. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire will also win, and if Joe Miller can hold on, well, with the big House win Sarah will claim victory. The midterms still a net win for Palin and her Tea Party power that all began in NY-23, which will benefit Republicans who couldn’t come close to doing the job they did.

Where to look for good news so Dems can come out spinning a save? If they can win the governorships in California, which is likely, Ohio, which is very tight right now, as well as Florida, get ready to see and hear a lot of positive spin despite the House losses. On top of this if Harry Reid wins there will be extra White House gloating. Democrats need these big states for Obama’s 2012 reelection.

One thing’s for certain, it’s going to be wild.

Read full story · Comments { 23 }

Obama on Defense: ‘Yes we can, but…

By on 28 October 2010

At this point in time, with the polls revealing almost all bad news, Mr. Obama should be on offense. The title above is a quote from Pres. Obama with Jon Stewart, which brought one of the biggest laughs of the night. What’s worse is the title of The Hill post today, which was given to them by Obama: Obama pleads for patience from Stewart on ‘Daily Show’. It’s the weakest midterm election year message I’ve ever heard delivered from someone who is supposed to be leading his party into battle.

Segue to Dana Milbank:

“In fairness,” the president replied defensively, “Larry Summers did a heckuva job.”

“You don’t want to use that phrase, dude,” Stewart recommended with a laugh.

Dude. The indignity of a comedy show host calling the commander in chief “dude” pretty well captured the moment for Obama.

[...] “I think what I would say is yes we can, but — ”

Stewart, and the audience, laughed at the “but.”

Obama didn’t laugh. “But it’s not going to happen overnight,” he finished.

Try shouting that slogan at a campaign rally, dude.

Talking with Jon Stewart last night, Pres. Obama didn’t say the words “unemployment” and “jobs” until around 27 minutes into the program. He even invoked Larry Summers, saying “Larry Summers did a heckava job,” which brought a wry smile from Stewart with the retort, “You don’t wanna use that phrase, dude.” Obama seemed to pause to recalculate, then said “pun intended.” But clearly it wasn’t. The entire conversation with Stewart was an exercise in self-defense for Obama himself, not one word was said about Sharron Angle or any of the Tea Party opponents and their tactics or philosophy, nor did Obama give Dems one talking point or sound bite that would make their case. It was a colossal collapse.

Contrast Pres. Obama to Joe Sestak, someone who is in the fight for a Senate seat that could still go either way. Talking with Lawrence O’Donnell, Sestak showed how it’s done and what a Democrat sounds like when he’s making the case. Here’s one part in particular that struck me (from the transcript):

Lawrence O’Donnell: now, you’ve also said, based on your 31 years in the navy, a commander of an aircraft carrier, everyone in the military is a democrat, they just don’t know it. i guess that means the absentee ballots from the military are going to be good for you. what did you mean by that?

Joe Sestak: we did it because it paid dividends to this nation of healthy productive warriors. when i was on the ground in afghanistan, there were healthy people on the ground. we don’t promote you above a certain rank unless you have a certain degree in education. come on in, learn a skill, have a pension. and so i said, everyone in military’s a democrat, they just don’t know it. because we invest in our people. but what we also do in the military, is hold that investment. our people accountable for the responsibilities. those wonderful men and women. and that’s what i think is the best of both sides. when the republican senator endorsed me, we don’t necessarily agree on anything. we can do principle compromise. find out how best to invest in people, but hold that investment accountable. and so that’s what i meant. and those two attributes like we did during the clinton era, those were the best way to move our nation forward. and we created 23 million jobs during that era. during the bush/ toomey era, zero jobs and doubled our national debt.

In the following segment, it didn’t take Ann Custer 27 minutes to get to what’s on likely voters’ minds. She’s running as a progressive in a New Hampshire seat that has been Republican-held for the last 100 years, minus 6 or 7 years.

Lawrence O’Donnell: in new hampshire’s second congressional district, ann custer’s primary opponent called her an unelectable progressive. at a debate she was asked, in a year when everyone understands the country is moring back toward the center if you were to become the nominee, would you try to distance yourself from your own positions? custer did become the nominee, stood by her progressive supporters, and is now actually leading her tea party republican opponent former congressman charlie bass. new hampshire democratic congressional candidate, ann custer. ann custer, you are a study for washington democrats, progressives, moderate democrats, they’re studying your candidacy and say, how is she doing this? progressives believe you’re succeeding because you are sticking with your progressive ideals, your progressive issues, and that compromising toward the middle of the party would be a mistake for you. that seems to be the case, so far, according to the polls, you are proving right. in new hampshire. how have you done this?

Ann Custer: well, lawrence, it’s all about the grassroots. honestly, this campaign is all about real people and real lives, and we’re focused here in new hampshire on creating good jobs. you know, congressman bass voted all those many years, 12 years, 15,000 votes in washington for all of those failed economic policies, encouraging companies to ship jobs overseas. new hampshire has lost 16,000 jobs to china. it’s more as a percentage of our total employment than any other state in the union. and it’s not what we want to be number one at. so i’ve been talking to families all across my district. 130 house parties, and i’ve just finished 30 diners in 30 days and i want to care more about main street than wall street. i want to care about creating jobs and helping working families. if those are progressive values, i am very happy and proud to stand for them.

Bot Joe Sestak and Ann Custer know what’s important to people and they make the case on what voters are interested.

Contrast that to Barack Obama, who is supposed to be leading Democrats. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, there can be no doubt Obama cares about voters, but his first thought, which was seen through his performance on the “Daily Show,” but in also stiff-arming Frank Caprio in Rhode Island, is about himself.

Democrats are going to experience massive losses next Tuesday. It’s not because of Democratic principles. It’s because of Barack Obama and the midterm message, which is more about saving his presidency than what the people want to hear from politicians right now. It’s about defending his own milquetoast policy prescriptions because he doesn’t believe in progressive answers, which not only haven’t worked, but don’t represent what real Democratic policy prescriptions, when applied without conservative compromise, can do for people.



This essay has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 25 }

Joe Sestak Catches Toomey, Turns PA to Tossup

By on 19 October 2010

The House is one midterm story, but what’s playing out for the Senate is quite another. Only Democrats voting can turn these tough races where Republicans are still favored into a Senate seat. It’s also why Markos gets the tweet of the day. With two weeks left, some conservative right-wingers are losing altitude, with Democrats closing, though this won’t hold for Dems if the talk of turnout on the Right manifests.

Jack Conway has closed within 5 points of Rand Paul, which is why Paul went on Sean Hannity doing damage control over Conway’s ad that drew blood (and cries for a follow up). Too bad media insiders like Chris Matthews felt it necessary to help the right-wing on this one, taking Rand Paul’s side yesterday, when Conway’s ad exposes Mr. Paul.

The Sestak story goes hand in hand with yet another poll showing former Pres. Bill Clinton’s power in the 2010 midterms. The New York Times has a story on the loss of the Southern white Democrat, while African Americans remain a strong pro Dem block, which also features Clinton’s role in reaching out to southerners. However, the prognostication is something that may have many progressive Dems jumping for joy.

For the first time since Reconstruction, Republicans also are well-positioned to control more state legislative chambers and seats than Democrats in the South, which would have far-reaching effects for redistricting.

“It’s not a good prospect for the Democratic Party in the South,” said Glen Browder, a former Democratic congressman from Alabama. “It should be a moment of reflection for Democrats. When you forfeit the South, your sights tend to drift too far left.”

The “drift too far left” for people in Alabama simply means that they’re more Republican than Democratic, which is how Dems get watered down policy prescriptions that don’t do the job and piss people off.

However, Dems losing Pennsylvania is another thing altogether, which bodes ill for Obama in 2012, as does what’s happening in Ohio. From PPP on Sestak:

You can put Pennsylvania Senate back in the toss up category. Joe Sestak leads Pat Toomey 46-45 in our newest poll of the race, erasing the 9 point deficit he had in an August PPP survey. Toomey’s support has remained stagnant over the last 2 months while Sestak’s has gone up 10 points from 36% to 46%. – PPP

Toomey would have handed Specter his lunch, so it’s great that Rahm lost out. The race is now a toss up, but that’s saying something considering where Sestak once was in the race, with two whole weeks to go. I’ve had one-on-one conversations with Rep. Sestak. He’d make one hell of a senator for Pennsylvania, while representing blue collar Dems better than most.

Another interesting development is that Robin Carnahan has closed to 5 points on the sleazy Roy Blunt. I’m still very skeptical she can pull this out, because Blunt’s fundamentalist followers in my home state of Missouri are formidable, his network in the state smaller and younger, but not unlike Harry Reid’s tentacles in Nevada.

The House is almost assuredly gone for Dems. Unlike others, I never for a second believed Dems would lose the Senate. But since Russ Feingold is likely a goner, so getting Joe Sestak in the Senate would indeed be a tonic.

However, looming over the midterms is the trouble Pres. Obama and the Democrats are currently having with Independents. It’s bad news.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Not These Guys Again

By on 06 October 2010



The fat cats at the big corporations are drooling at the prospect of “Speaker Boehner,” and why not?

The industries giving the most to Boehner: insurance companies, drug manufacturers and Wall Street firms, all of which now face new regulations adopted by the Democratic-controlled Congress. The political action committees and employees of insurance firms, for instance, donated nearly $426,000 to Boehner’s campaign committees through June 30, according to the center’s tally, compared with $118,000 in insurance industry donations to Pelosi’s fundraising accounts. Don Seymour, a Boehner spokesman, said contributors know that Boehner “understands the best way to help create new jobs is to cut spending, stop all the tax hikes and end some of the uncertainty facing job creators.” – USA Today

Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie are right behind them via American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, accumulating money to dump into races to push the GOTP over the top, especially in close, margin of error races.

American Crossroads GPS is far from the only soft-money organization that has pledged massive spending on conservative candidates. Together with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($75 million), Americans for Prosperity ($45 million), the Club for Growth ($24 million at a minimum), the NRA ($20 million), FreedomWorks ($10 million) and a host of less prominent groups, Republicans have been promised an eye-popping $400 million in “independent expenditures” — the FEC’s term for almost-unrestricted political campaign spending that can be impossible to trace back to its sources. – Political Correction

But the story Think Progress broke yesterday about the Chamber of Commerce buy-in against Democrats is frightening. Through a heavier presence in Bahrain, the Chamber plans to accumulate money overseas, then funnel it into the midterm elections, targeting Democratic candidates. The same type of operation is also in play in India, according to the Think Progress investigation, as are “affiliates” in other locales, like Egypt and well beyond. From Think Progress:

The largest attack campaign against Democrats this fall is being waged by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a trade association organized as a 501(c)(6) that can raise and spend unlimited funds without ever disclosing any of its donors. The Chamber has promised to spend an unprecedented $75 million to defeat candidates like Jack Conway, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Jerry Brown, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), and Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA). As of Sept. 15th, the Chamber had aired more than 8,000 ads on behalf of GOP Senate candidates alone, according to a study from the Wesleyan Media Project. The Chamber’s spending has dwarfed every other issue group and most political party candidate committee spending. A ThinkProgress investigation has found that the Chamber funds its political attack campaign out of its general account, which solicits foreign funding. And while the Chamber will likely assert it has internal controls, foreign money is fungible, permitting the Chamber to run its unprecedented attack campaign. According to legal experts consulted by ThinkProgress, the Chamber is likely skirting longstanding campaign finance law that bans the involvement of foreign corporations in American elections. [...]

… Previously, it has been reported that foreign firms like BP, Shell Oil, and Siemens are active members of the Chamber. But on a larger scale, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce appears to rely heavily on fundraising from firms all over the world, including China, India, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Russia, and many other places. Of course, because the Chamber successfully lobbied to kill campaign finance reforms aimed at establishing transparency, the Chamber does not have to reveal any of the funding for its ad campaigns. Dues-paying members of the Chamber could potentially be sending additional funds this year to help air more attack ads against Democrats. [...]

We’ve all seen this horror film before. Here we go again.

…and all because of an anti Hillary film by David Bosse, the same wingnut who just produced the film touting conservative female politicians this cycle. Bosse’s Clinton derangement over all the years finally paid off when the Supreme Court rendered a decision that changed the midterms back to an unfettered cash free for all.

Boehner’s the ring leader of this crew, which gives you a foreshadowing of what could happen come November 3rd.

Read full story · Comments { 31 }

Sestak and Bloomberg Show How It’s Done

By on 18 August 2010

…As its defenders point out, the Community Center at Park51 will occupy not a solitary inch of the 16-block site on which the Twin Towers stood. Once built, the center will indeed house a mosque, “open and accessible to all” — but also a swimming pool, basketball court, auditorium, library, day-care facility, restaurant and cooking school. The center is being built by a private organization on land it legally owns. – Ground Zero: Exaggerating the Jihadist Threat

Joe Sestak schools Obama on leadership.

“Do I respect those sensitivities? Oh yeah. When I walked out of that Pentagon, 30 people who I knew never walked out of that building. My 9/11 is that Pentagon. Am I sensitive to their desires? Sure I am. But I also upheld the Constitution for 31 years. I lived with men and women of all religons and you know what? They’re all equal, and I believe that is what’s most omportant in this.” – Sestak joins Bloomy in supporting religious freedom on mosque

This is what leadership looks like. You say what you mean, mean what you say, no equivocation, no clarification required.

I’ve had the pleasure of interviewing Joe Sestak on a couple of occasions a few years ago. I went at his first opponent, Rep. Weldon, very hard to do whatever I could independently as a political writer to help Sestak. Also interviewed him when he was backing Hillary. Right now Sestak is really up against it, because all Democrats running in 2010 are facing a lackluster electorate on the Left, with Toomey ahead according to PPP. Doesn’t change that what Bloomberg said yesterday is dead on.

“A vote for Joe is a vote for leadership, a vote for Joe is a vote for independence, and a vote for Joe is a vote for the results our nation so desperately needs.” – Mayor Michael Bloomberg

The fun didn’t stop there. As TexasforHillary writes in his diary, Sestak and Bloomberg also took down a Jews for Palin supporter. A member of the group saber rattling on Iran. Also see Ramsgate’s diary that links to the developer’s determination. There is a lot of pressure being brought to bear, so who knows where this will lead. But if the Cordoba House is moved it will be an embarrassment for this country around the world, because the furor behind it has now put America’s tolerance on trial.

As for Mayor Bloomberg, he’s been an unflinching champion of reason and leadership during the Cordoba House hysteria, which says a lot about the man. Who knows if he’ll run in 2012, but if he does it won’t be a flaky Perot gambit.

Bloomberg and Sestak were both challenged publicly yesterday on their mosque views. They didn’t flinch. Here’s an excerpt:

Sestak chimed in, “As you know, I haven’t taken very good direction yet from party leadership. All that said, I strongly believe in the constitutional right of religious freedom and in the separation of church and state applying equally to everyone. Those are rights that I defended for 31 years in that fine U.S. Navy. This is an issue for New York to resolve as long as it respects those constitutional rights. … Let’s also step back and say, ‘Let’s stop playing politics with religion.’ “

When someone asked about the sensitivities of the Sept. 11 families, Sestak said, “Do I respect those sensitivities? Oh yeah. When I walked out of that Pentagon, 30 people who I knew never walked out of that building. My 9/11 is that Pentagon. Am I sensitive to their desires? Sure I am. But I also upheld the Constitution for 31 years. I lived with men and women of all religons and you know what? They’re all equal, and I believe that is what’s most omportant in this.”

Bloomberg then volunteered, “I happen to be a supporter of Harry Reid. I don’t agree with him on everything, and I’m never going to agree with anybody on everything.”

At the end, a Republican committeeman from Montgomery County, Pa., called out Sestak for the CAIR fundraiser and also tried to call out the mayor.

“Look,” Bloomberg said, “I would suggest you go from here directly to the library, get a copy of the Bill of Rights and you’ll realize that everybody has a right to say what they want to say. I happen to believe that that is the most important right that we have — the right to say what we want to say, which includes pray to whomever we want, in any place we want, in any manner we want and I think that another mosque in New York City would add to its diversity and be good for the city, but if you want the terrorists to win without firing a shot, then you take away the very freedoms that our young men and women are around the world fighting for. You take away the very freedoms that those who tried to save others at the World Trade Center site and in Pennsylvania and in Washington. Our firefighters and police officers ran into two twin towers. They didn’t ask what you believe.”

Pres. Obama should take a lesson from Joe Sestak and Michael Bloomberg. They showed him how it’s done.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Mosque Politics

By on 16 August 2010

What Barack Obama and his White House political team haven’t learned could fill a large notebook at this point. But you’d think they would have at least learned from George W. Bush’s two-term presidency. The American electorate care less if a president is right than if he stands up strongly even when wrong. This last weekend’s political message teeter tottering is just the latest incompetency from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Obama was correct on Friday, but by end of the day Saturday they had boiled down an important message to vacillating weakness.

Today Mark Halperin weighs in warning Republicans, while Michael Gerson makes the correct point that Obama being “hapless” doesn’t make him wrong.

Meanwhile, the New York Post gets a juicy quote from Hamas:

“We have to build everywhere,” said Mahmoud al-Zahar, a co-founder of Hamas and the organization’s chief on the Gaza Strip.

The Post goes on to channel Glenn Beck, repeating the Abdul Rauf on tour for the State Dept. talking point, which was about promoting understanding between cultures, nothing more. But as Glenn screamed last week, he’s not interested in diplomacy.

The nexus of all this goes back to go back to a post I did in February about Pamela Geller, who is at the center of this political napalm. Her book, “The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America,” is the foundation for the attacks on Pres. Obama on this front.

What Halperin and others, including Republican strategist Mark McKinnon don’t understand about the Republican Tea Party, circa 2010, is that reason has nothing to do with voting this year. It’s the year of These People Suck. The other problem with Halperin’s plea to Republicans is that he assumes that people have long memories. They don’t.

The news cycle moves on so quickly that there’s nothing to lose on the right by being extreme. It used to be that actions led to consequences. It may again, but right now it’s all about fueling the outrage.

That the current mosque politics plays into the feelings from people that Pres. Obama doesn’t understand them and doesn’t get what they’re feeling is all that matters. Elections are about emotions, not about, as Halperin pleads to Republicans, “doing the right thing.”

See Harry Reid for further evidence, forced by Tea Party opponent Sharron Angle to weigh in (update), giving an ignominious nod to the fearmongers, though of course Mr. Reid respects religious freedom. However, he “thinks that the mosque should be built someplace else.”

The brightest spot in all this is New York Mayor Bloomberg, who unlike Pres. Obama didn’t waffle on what was right. The mayor’s endorsement of Joe Sestak tomorrow, which I tweeted early today, is likely to cement mosque politics as a central point in November’s elections, especially since the right is already gearing up. And though it’s too soon to tell, Bloomberg reaching out to Sestak is a sign that the New York City Mayor, an Independent, is ready to widen his reach. That he sees the bankruptcy in both political parties and their leadership, sensing a 2012 opening widening, just might be at the foundation.

This post has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 60 }

‘Emergency Committee for Israel’ Targets Joe Sestak

By on 12 July 2010

Leading conservatives will launch a new pro-Israel group this week with a scathing attack on Rep. Joe Sestak, the Democratic Senate candidate in Pennsylvania, the first shot in what they say will be a confrontational campaign against the Obama administration’s Mideast policy and the Democrats who support it. – New conservative group will oppose Obama Mideast policy



Anyone paying attention around here knew this was coming. I told you so, though they’re just getting started, because the ultimate target will be Pres. Obama once 2012 skirmishes begin.

The name says it all: “Emergency Committee for Israel,” implying that Israel is in dire danger from Democrats, this ad focusing on Rep. Joe Sestak who is running for Senate.

The Emergency Committee for Israel’s leadership unites two major strands of support for the Jewish state: The hawkish, neoconservative wing of the Republican Party, many of whom are Jewish; and conservative Evangelical Christians who have become increasingly outspoken in their support for Israel. The new group’s board includes Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol and Gary Bauer, the former Republican presidential candidate who leads the group American Values, as well as Rachel Abrams, a conservative writer and activist. Former McCain aide Michael Goldfarb is an adviser to the group.

“We’re the pro-Israel wing of the pro-Israel community,” said Kristol.

The new committee declined to disclose its funding – as a 501(c)4 advocacy organization, it isn’t required to – but said it had raised enough to air its first ad, starting this week, on Fox and CNN and during a Philadelphia Phillies game. The ad attacks Sestak for signing a letter criticizing Israel’s blockade of Gaza while not signing a defense of Israel circulated by the group AIPAC, and for appearing at a fundraiser for the Council on American Islamic Relations, which it describes as an “anti-Israel organization the FBI called a ‘front-group for Hamas’.”

It’s the first salvo in what will be a wide, angry and vitriolic argument over Pres. Obama’s Middle East policy.

A few years back I wrote a long essay entitled, “Who is More Pro Israel?” The premise was about the jockeying to prove who was a better friend to Israel, even as both parties have shown unyielding fealty to our Middle East friend.

None of this means the U.S. needs to approve of what the Netanyahu government has done on settlements, and certainly not on the Gaza flotilla disaster.

But now Bill Kristol has finally come out and confirmed what I’ve been writing for months. We’re now in a march into the fight over who belongs in the “pro-Israel wing of the pro-Israel community.”

Where this leaves U.S. diplomacy, the two-state push, not to mention Democrats going forward is likely nowhere but in lockstep with the right.

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

Bill Clinton Intermediary, but Sestak Navy Sect. Job Rumor False

By on 28 May 2010

–Sestak statement added below–

Greg Sargent was the first to break the story.

Bottom line: nothing here, put away the popcorn.

Now, I’m a regular watcher of “Morning Joe.” So, I was cringing every time Scarborough began ranting about Sestak being offered the Sect. of Navy job. Chuck Todd did his best to keep Joe Scarborough, as well as Mika Brzezinski, from leaning too far forward on this story. They ignored him. Mika is supposed to be a seasoned journalist, so she really has no excuse. As for Joe, he should know that just because a politician demurs from addressing the issue you want answered doesn’t mean the assumption you’re implying is true. Joe Sestak never at any time answered in the affirmative to the SecNav query Joe kept pushing. Even in a very contentious back and forth with Chuck Todd, they wouldn’t listen to reason.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


I’ve interviewed Mr. Sestak on multiple occasions. (Interestingly, so have Joe and Mika.) As I wrote earlier, there was no way I believed he would be involved with anything remotely illegal or unseemly. If he’s guilty of anything it’s being too honest, but also a little contrarian, which has gotten him in trouble before, because he didn’t like the big-footing of the White House. Sestak was committed to his run for Senate, period.

White House sent out a memorandum to members of the media, with this the bottom line as far as I’m concerned:

… White House staff did not discuss these options (Sect. of Navy, Uncompensated Advisory Board Options) with Congressman Sestak. The White House Chief of Staff (Rahm Emanuel) enlisted the support of former President Clinton who agreed to raise with Congressman Sestak options of service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board. Congressman Sestak declined the suggested alternatives, remaining committed to his Senate candidacy. – Memorandum from White House Counsel Robert Bauer

As for Pres. Bill Clinton’s involvement, anyone surprised that Mr. Emanuel would enlist him to go to Joe Sestak, a Hillary primary backer, especially after the Obama backed Arlen Specter, as is customary in the support the incumbent mode of the Big Two parties, is simply naive.

The White House memorandum was specific as to why they reached out:

… Efforts were made in June and July of 2009… .. which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a high-level advisory capacity for which he was highly qualified.

It’s not like the Obama White House pulled a John McCain, offering a position to someone unready and unqualified for the job.

There is nothing inappropriate in Pres. Clinton’s outreach or the White House wanting to keep Sestak in his House seat, which is a tough win for Democrats. That’s pure Rahm, who knows these races.

To the rumor Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski were huffing and puffing about all this week, that Sestak was offered the SecNav job, the White House council simply said: “This is false.”

UPDATE: Joe Sestak’s statement:

“Last summer, I received a phone call from President Clinton. During the course of the conversation, he expressed concern over my prospects if I were to enter the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate and the value of having me stay in the House of Representatives because of my military background. He said that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had spoken with him about my being on a Presidential Board while remaining in the House of Representatives. I said no. I told President Clinton that my only consideration in getting into the Senate race or not was whether it was the right thing to do for Pennsylvania working families and not any offer. The former President said he knew I’d say that, and the conversation moved on to other subjects.

“There are many important challenges facing Pennsylvania and the rest of the country. I intend to remain focused on those issues and continue my fight on behalf of working families.”

Read full story · Comments { 37 }

Joe Sestak Didn’t Offer Himself the Job

By on 26 May 2010

In the heat of a rough primary campaign Joe Sestak said he was offered a job by the White House. Contrary to Joe Scarborough’s statements, Sestak never said specifically what job. But his primary political gamesmanship is now coming back to haunt him. No doubt Ed Rendell is enjoying this after his machine was humiliated by Sestak’s win. Republicans smell an opening and are amassing:

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder today, all seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee “urge the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate Congressman Joe Sestak’s claim that a White House official offered him a job to induce him to exit the Pennsylvania Senate primary race against Senator Arlen Specter.”

The seven – Sens. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Jon Kyl or Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John Cornyn of Texas and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma – allege that the offer would appear to violate federal criminal laws, including 18 U.S.C. 600, which prohibits promising a government position “as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity” or “in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office.”

But Greg Sargent has this exactly backwards.

It’s long past time for the White House to say what happened on their end, if only for the sake of the Senate race. If for no other reason than this sort of thing goes on all the time. The White House’s silence is what’s made this worse, even if you think Sestak is being hoisted on his own primary petard. It’s an important Senate seat and Pennsylvania matters to Obama looking forward.

After his win, Joe Sestak is now dependent on The Boss and his machine, both of which has a history of taking care of themselves, not others.

Not that this will hold off Republicans, who are moving forward as only Republicans can do.

For those of you political novices, this is a perfect example of Republican hardball 101. It’s something that Democrats never play and from which lessons are never taken.

Someone in the White House has to take the fall on this or Pat Toomey is going to benefit. Who will it be? …or will Obama hang Sestak out like he hung out Arlen Specter?

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

Sestak was Honest, Now It’s Over to Rahm

By on 24 May 2010

“I think what the White House should do is, to some degree, say, ‘Here are the facts,’” Weiner said Monday morning during an appearance on MSNBC. “If there’s not a lot [to] what’s going on here, then just say what happened.” – The Hill

Robert Gibbs said yesterday that “nothing inappropriate happened.”

Okay, but we still don’t know what specifically did occur.

Senate candidate Joe Sestak was frank yesterday on “Meet the Press,” saying he was offered a job.

The Obama administration has not been up front about this since they tried to muscle Sestak out of the Democratic primary. Now they’re allowing a stellar candidate to hang out there without coming clean about their part in this political offering now threatening to tie Pennsylvania Democrats in knots while trying to take down Pat Toomey.

The truth will set you free, or at least stop the drip, drip, drip of a story that, as Rep. Weiner said, Democrats should not allow to live into next week.

However, I’m not at all sure the White House has the political dexterity at this point to pull this story out of Darrel Issa’s hands. But it’s a chance to illustrate that the Obama machine still can fight for its own.

Senate candidate Joe Sestak deserves nothing less, after all, all he did was run a great race and beat Arlen Specter. He didn’t ask to be put in the middle of this drama. Someone in the White House did that all on their own.

Read full story · Comments { 33 }

Political Zen

By on 21 May 2010

Rep. Souder resigned this week.

Ideological purity versus implementation of policy for the public’s welfare, the purpose of politics, don’t mix. See Rand Paul.

However, there are times when you have to take a stand and go down fighting if the principle you’re asked to compromise is a bridge too far. One of the most telling moments that “a powerful Left does not exist in America,” as David Sirota writes, came on health care. From Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who disgraced herself on women’s rights during the health care debate, to the “progressive pro-choice caucus,” but also Planned Parenthood, NARAL, etc., there was a system-wide collapse standing up for women’s individual rights. Now women have riders, and a dwindling reproductive health care market to face in the future. When someone on the “left” stands up to rail against the Hyde Amendment in Congress let me know. Until then there is no “progressive pro-choice caucus” that matters.

Of course, the political patter went that health care needed to pass to protect Pres. Obama. Newsflash: this is not the job of Congress.

It’s this rubber stamping, back the boss idea of Congress that has made people so distrustful of what is supposed to be an equal branch to the executive. People’s opinions won’t change until politicians become independent of their party’s bosses to truly represent what the people want.

YOU and the web are making it all possible, slowly but surely.

Joe Sestak shows the new way forward. He was stiff-armed by Pres. Obama and the Washington establishment machine, including Big Labor. But he said screw the elite, ran a great race and won. (Both Sestak and Paul are on “Meet the Press” this Sunday.)

In Arkansas, Blanche Lincoln is being forced into a run-off, with Bill Clinton big-footing Halter, which many think may not work and I, personally, hope it does not. Jack Carter out of Kentucky went on “Hardball” and dropped a little oppo about Rand Paul that has turned the Kentucky Senate race into a jump ball.

Activists got their pound of flesh this week; the establishment and politics as usual took a hit. It’s not nothing.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

What It All Means

By on 19 May 2010

The outcomes of both contests, along with a Democratic primary in Arkansas that pushed Senator Blanche Lincoln into a runoff election in June, illustrated anew the serious threats both parties face from candidates who are able to portray themselves as outsiders and eager to shake up the system. – Specter Defeat Signals a Wave Against Incumbents

The political shift has begun, but it’s a long way from over. Last night’s elections say a lot about where we are in U.S. politics today and it’s not just about an anti-incumbency, anti-Washington, anti-establishment pounding, though that’s certainly the most visible message from last night.

First, the Democratic message is as strong as it’s ever been. It’s just people don’t like the politicians delivering the message, which boils down to watered down principles from the politicians beholden to forces outside the people who vote them into power.

Secondly, the Republican message lies in a rumpled heap, one of the reasons Democrats continue to have a chance with renegade candidates, because there is nothing on the other side to believe in. Republicans stand for nothing, because they’ve taken William F. Buckley’s “vote against” theory of conservative challenge to an extreme, with the messengers people of a bygone era.

Enter the Tea Party, which still remains the most formidable and erratic energy in the country, though I would add it has yet to prove what it will create, because it’s still mostly about being against things, with the proof of “taking our country back” not having trenchant meaning, because voters don’t know what it means. However, if politicians like Rand Paul can expand it towards foreign policy to tap the anti-interventionist sentiment they may have something, as Republicans won’t stand on that hill, and ironically neither will Democrats.

But for the first time progressives finally have a successful standard bearer in Joe Sestak, with Halter of Arkansas not far behind. However, Mr. Sestak is much more establishment oriented than the outsiders on the right, say Sarah Palin, after all he is from the military. He also worked hard for Hillary Clinton, not exactly an anti-establishment type. He also would likely have voted for health care, so his women’s rights creds while very good still tilt towards supporting the Democratic Party line. But let’s remember, he’s from Pennsylvania, a state that still loves the Clintons and remains a more conservative voting land, seen also through the fact that independents wouldn’t have a chance to run outside the big two parties. Perhaps that’s why it means even more, because the meaning of change has been defined Democratically through Joe Sestak, a more progressive politician that forced the meaning of change on the establishment from within. It’s one reason the Democratic Party brand remains strong and voters still want Dems to control Congress.

That leads us to Mark Critz who represents the last vestiges of the two party reality, which exists in other places in the country, but is not where things are trending in politics. Pres. Obama and the White House, establishment Democrats, and even Republicans were all looking to PA-12 as a harbinger of where the Big Two stand. With Critz winning, Democrats are crowing, while Republicans are now saying that if they can’t win PA-12 their dreams of taking the House are done. I don’t do predictions, so I’ll let you take care of that one, but the establishment in both Big Two are missing the message here by a mile and so are most analysts. Mark Critz is a Democrat by party affiliation, but not philosophy. He obviously was a better candidate, but he also had the king of the Third Way Dems, Bill Clinton, standing by his side. Critz is anti-women’s rights and would have voted against the health care bill, while being pro-gun, too. He represents the far right of the Democratic Party, which isn’t the future, but represents the past, including the state of Pennsylvania, which hasn’t before taken to upstarts and independents, that is until Joe Sestak landed, his military admiral’s background a sure sign to Pennsylvanians that he’s a-okay.

So, while the Big Two dig for meaning of their relevance in PA-12 the truth is that voters elected a “Democrat” who doesn’t believe in the Democratic Party’s foundational tenets. Forget about gay rights. A conservative Democrat simply beats a conservative Republican, even if they would vote much the same on many issues, because the Republican brand has been smashed to smithereens. When you add Bill Clinton to the mix for the conservative Democrat in Pennsylvania, your chances go up exponentially. Critz is a win for one of the Big Two establishments, a system which is slowly being redefined.

And with that redefinition comes the chance of Congress once again meaning something besides a rubber stamp for their party’s president, or obstructionists for the sake of saying no. The most important signal being that voters are telling politicians that they want a Congress that means something and is accountable to the people who send them to Washington, not simply someone who is to toe the political party line.

Which brings us to Pres. Obama and the White House political machine, which was soundly humiliated yet again. Whether you look at Virginia, Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts, New Jersey going red, or that Obama couldn’t help Arlen Specter and neither could Joe Biden, let’s not forget, as he has eyes on 2016, but also that Blanche Lincoln has been forced into a run-off that she may well lose in Arkansas, another place Obama cannot help; add Harry Reid and Nevada, who Obama can’t help either, and what you’ve got is a Democratic president that has no coattails, with candidates winning in spite of him. Yes, Pres. Obama is personally liked, but there is nothing in last night’s foreshadowing that will make Barack Obama or his White House political team sleep better thinking about 2012. The White House has now been shown that change is more than one man, it’s about policies that matter, not compromises made because you won’t take a stand with anyone but Goldman Sachs, BP or Big Insurance. The good news for Obama is that Republicans are a mess.

It’s also why Sarah Palin is smiling today, though it’s unlikely Palin or Mitt Romney has a clue of the obstacles the right still faces.

The Big Two parties remain the vehicle through which most candidates can rise. But as Charlie Crist illustrates in Florida, all it takes is a strong politician with independent leanings to break away and push forward on his own. Joe Sestak did that inside the Democratic Party, while the White House and the entire Democratic D.C. establishment worked against him, but he won by almost 8%. As for Rand Paul’s win in Kentucky for the Tea Party, the passion and purpose is there, but the discipline is not, as there isn’t a single Tea Party member, including Sarah Palin, that has any message discipline, which a good progressive candidate can expose. Rand Paul will be formidable and may turn out to be unbeatable, but a long campaign season with a lot of light and attention has also proved that Tea Party activists, with their Republican roots, still aren’t equal to a true progressive upstart.

To take it to policy for a second, Dr. Howard Dean said something today on “Morning Joe” that was right on point about where everything is going. He said that on health care there would be changes, with one of the first things to go being the individual mandate. I’ve said from the start that the individual mandate is anti-democratic and should not stand. Let’s hope he’s right, because it would be the first sign that the national politicians are listening to the people, who sent a powerful message to Pres. Obama and the Big Two last night. If PA-12 tells Democrats anything it’s on health care. The American spirit is alive, it’s fierce and it will not be forced by powers from on high.

Many of you, including the activists who want to move your party in a direction that reflects your values, principles and purpose, have said for some time that it’s been frustrating, that you feel no one is listening, that you are not being heard and can’t get your message through. Well, last night was your night.

National politics will never be the same again.



Screen capture from Huffington Post and Politico.

Read full story · Comments { 25 }

Joe Sestak: ‘A Win for the People Over the Establishment, Over the Status Quo, even over Washington, DC’

By on 18 May 2010

Meanwhile, AR Lt. Gov. Bill Halter forces Sen. Blanche Lincoln into runoff, according to CNN.

Not sure even Bill Clinton can save her. It’s a cinch Pres. Obama cannot.

As for the DSCC and the Democratic Party elites, they backed the guy. Never bet against a military man.

Though the White House and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee strongly backed Specter in the Pennsylvania primary fight, the DSCC quickly released a statement responding warmly to Sestak’s victory. “Joe Sestak has a compelling life story and a powerful message of change. He knows what is wrong with Washington and, if elected to the Senate, will shake up how business is done in the Capitol,” DSCC Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said.

I would love to have heard Sect. Hillary Clinton’s call to Joe Sestak. Die hard Clintonites will remember that Sestak worked very hard for Hillary Rodham Clinton in the primaries.

This post has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Election Night 2010, Take One

By on 18 May 2010

BREAKING NEWS… AP CALLS IT FOR JOE SESTAK.

Lawrence O’Donnell re Sestak win, “White House political operation is reeling from this result and they should be.” Shorter: they suck. Also, Big Labor gets stiffed on this race, too.

UPDATE: Critz brings it in for Dems, so Bill Clinton did what he needed to do on this one. NBC’s Chuck Todd agrees.

UPDATE (10:07 pm): Neil Oxman, take a bow. Keith Olbermann reports that Andrew Mitchell heard from two Specter aides that he can’t overcome Sestak lead looking at Allegheny county.

CNN calls it for Jack Conway.

UPDATE (7:52 pm): Rand Paul the projected winner in Kentucky. Mitch McConnell takes a big hit on this one.

~~~~~

Amidst real fears that November could be trouble for Democrats, but also portend bad things for Pres. Obama’s agenda, the Democrats do what they should have done from day one. Speed up health care benefits to people, or at least market the pluses so people know who gave them the goodies.

Top administration officials, who meet regularly with outside special interest groups to coordinate the public relations effort, have so far focused on expediting and amplifying four key areas of the new law: expanding coverage to young adults, covering sick people with pre-existing conditions or high medical costs, providing tax breaks to small businesses and helping a select group of seniors pay for prescription drugs. [..]

In every case, the administration’s objective is unmistakable: Make sure as many Americans as possible know as quickly as possible about the health care changes they will find most attractive. …

[...] There are two big reasons Democrats feel the need to step it up. First, polls that show the public still isn’t backing the legislation. Most show mixed feelings at best and often hostile attitudes toward the law. The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll found that 44 percent think the health plan is a bad idea; 38 percent think it is a good idea. Second, the heavy spending in anti-reform advertising: In the past month, anti-health-reform groups have poured $3.8 million into television advertising, nearly doubling the $2 million that has come from pro-reform forces, according to Evan Tracey, founder of TNS Media Intelligence. – Politico

But tonight, all eyes are on Pennsylvania, where Pres. Obama could take a one, two punch. It all depends on the outcome of the Specter-Sestak showdown, as well as the race for John Murtha’s seat. McCain took the district in 2008, meaning an appearance from Pres. Obama wouldn’t do it.

So, Bill Clinton has been campaigning for and with Mark Critz. He did a robocall Critz urging Pennsylvania voters to keep Jack Murtha’s seat in Democratic hands.

It’s another example of Democrats trying very hard to keep red districts blue and doing so by supporting candidates who are against women’s individual rights. Critz also says he would have voted against the health care bill.

Christina Bellantoni of TPM was told by “a Democrat close to the White House” that “If the bottom were really falling out the GOP should be walking away with this race.” Former Rep. Tom Davis went even further:

“They should win this election today. … .. If the Republicans don’t win this I think they have to look mechanically at what they’re doing.” – former Rep. Tom Davis

TPM is billing this as a “bellweather” for November: Bellwether Seat? Dems Confident A Win In PA-12 Tonight Would Bode Well For Nov.

Again I question the value of selling women’s rights out for the sake of a right-wing district that doesn’t acknowledge our fundamental freedoms. Democrats supporting these candidates are making it easier for Congress to move rightward on women’s issues, which is the wrong way to go. Women’s rights has been a foundational part of the Democratic Party, but it seems as the 21st century dawns they’re making more and more compromises in order to win over conservatives.

As for health care, needless to say Critz voting no would have been a real issue for Pres. Obama.

A 50-state strategy is important for the presidency, but what good does it do Democrats if they work for congressional members that move the party to the right, while sacrificing core principles in the process?

No one seems to be saying anything, because Republicans would be worse.

So, where are the women in leadership positions on this? They are silent, thus sending a message that Democrats can get away with it. You know, because they are.

However, if Democrats win, putting Mark Critz in the House, the person who helped pull it off is Bill Clinton, a man still beloved in Pennsylvania. Of course, Blanche Lincoln also had WJC’s help, but she may find herself headed towards a run off. Oregon is getting lost in the Penn excitement, while everyone is expecting a Rand Paul win. And if Specter pulls it out, the White House can breathe a bit easier, though going into today it was Sestak gaining, but with turnout and voter enthusiasm low it’s now a jump ball.

Throwing a damper over the whole day was the Connecticut bombshell about Blumenthal. If you want to know the media’s mood on it all you had to do was listen to Chris Matthews today, which I don’t do very often anymore. Matthews threw the guy under the bus then backed up. Simmons, the actual Vietnam veteran, will be a guest on his show tomorrow. The Republican machine has already moved into action, with vets on the right demanding an apology from Blumenthal. Via Ben Smith:

I am unsatisfied with Attorney General Blumenthal’s comments. While I’m not surprised that he ‘regrets’ that his misstatements have been called to the public’s attention, what he owes is an apology to the veterans, who served and sacrificed in Vietnam.

The Swiftboat Veterans for Truth can’t be far behind. This Senate seat is now in play, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, something Democrats sure didn’t need.

As for election results, now we wait.

 
Read full story · Comments { 28 }

Clarence Thomas’s Patron Tries to Swiftboat Joe Sestak

By on 10 July 2009

“”We’ve learned today that Arlen Specter can abandon his party, but he just cant quit making Republican swift-boat attacks on the integrity of Democrats who served in our military,” Sestak also said in the statement. He added, “My question to Arlen Specter is this: do you regret voting for George Bush and John McCain? Why should Democrats support someone like you who actively campaigned as recently as last year for politicians with values like George W. Bush?” – CNN… “Specter: Sestak a ‘flagrant hypocrite’”

As a woman, every time I see Arlen Specter, all I can remember is his reprehensible double standard and flagrant character assassination against Anita Hill. That Hill was recently vindicated after Thomas weighed in that strip searching little girls is constitutional, you’d think Specter would be at least a little humble. But, no. It seems now that he’s got a real challenger for his Senate seat, he’s turned his vitriol from attacking women to attacking a military veteran.

Yeah, that’s my kind of Democrat.

SPECTER: I sure do. There’s still time for the Minnesota courts to do justice and declare Norm Coleman the winner.

But seriously, what is it about Republicans… er, I mean… Oh, right, Specter is now a “Democrat.” But it seems he just can’t quit opining like Rush Limbaugh, as he attacks a 35-year dedicated military man trying to find something with which to ding Joe Sestak’s resume.

Good luck with that.

I guess Specter learned well from Kurt Weldon, the guy Sestak demolished, especially once I published the piece that Weldon couldn’t figure out why he ducked the military.

This time it’s Specter, trying to make a story out of Sestak’s years as a Democrat, when as a leading military officer, party affiliation isn’t exactly something people in the U.S. Armed Forces parade around on their sleeve.

No doubt Arlen Specter would channel Rush and Dick Cheney in insulting Colin Powell too.

…and the weird part of it is, why in the world would Specter attack on political party loyalty? Considering he just became a Democrat in order to keep his job, I guess he thinks Pennsylvanians are stupid.

It seems Clarence Thomas’s patron can’t wait to put a veteran’s scalp next to Anita Hill’s.

Knowing quite a bit about Joe Sestak, I’d say Specter better gear up. He’s not a woman who you can basically call a liar, while acting as a beard for Clarence Thomas. The only Supreme Court justice who thinks strip searching little girls is constitutional.

Read full story · Comments are closed

It’s Sestak v. Specter

By on 01 July 2009

Rep. Joe Sestak is in:

“I am going to get into the race against Arlen Specter … for senator,” said Sestak in his first media interview as part of a three-week tour through all of the Commonwealth’s 67 counties.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Specter Hearts Coleman

By on 05 May 2009

Hey, Harry. Nice deal you made with Mr. Specter. We obviously need a vaccine for the Lieberman virus. Since Pres. Obama has stated he’ll campaign for Specter, it’s reach is alarming.

From a short interview with Specter to appear on Sunday:

NY TIMES: With your departure from the Republican Party, there are no more Jewish Republicans in the Senate. Do you care about that?

SPECTER: I sure do. There’s still time for the Minnesota courts to do justice and declare Norm Coleman the winner.

Two words: Joe Sestak.

From TPMDC:

“I can’t figure out…why the deal was done,” Sestak told me, saying he’s concerned that the party was so quick to embrace Specter for reasons of “expediency,” and without regard to the needs of Pennsylvania voters. “It isn’t Washington’s prerogative to tell us what to do,” Sestak insisted.

That goes double for me, because it will be all out war on this one. I campaigned hard for Sestak, as some of you might remember, when he was running against Weldon. That’s nothing compared to what’s likely to unfold this time around.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Joe Sestak Speaks Out on FISA

By on 09 August 2007

Besides
being a distinguished intelligence officer and former admiral, Joe Sestak is the real deal. He’s also right on the issues. I’ve quoted
him many times,
most recently on Iraq, which
everyone should read and digest. But his latest speech for CAP is what the entire
leadership should have been saying, instead of going the way of the recent FISA
cave in.


How could we have not have stood up for rights of civil liberties while ensuring
the proper ability to go and listen, and just stayed during the recess if
necessary. And I understand that our leadership in the caucus has to worry
about how the public will perceive it, but I also know this, that ultimately,
we have to, as Benjamin Franklin said, be concerned that those who give up…liberty
in the name security, deserve neither liberty or security. This is
a time that I strongly believe, we should have stood up and said no. Attorney
General Gonzales, we’re not going to let you decide the guidelines upon
which you’ll listen in on Americans.

(snip)

FISA’s not broken except for some minor changes, like as I mentioned,
two individuals out there across the ocean, foreigners, not U.S, listening
to one another, and because of today’s technologies it gets routed through
a server or something here in the United States. We made those changes. We
made the three major changes that he wanted. The issue here is they just don’t
want to come to the FISA court. That’s enough to tell me we need them
to. I spent 31 years of my military career protecting the Constitution. Do
I believe in security? Every moment, I wouldn’t have stayed those 31
years. But what I learned during that period of time is that while we’re
respected for the power of our military, we’re respected for the power
of our economy. We’re admired for the power of our ideals. There’s
the right balance ensuring the protections of those ideals and the protection
of our day to day lifes of our citizens. We struck that with the point man
of the administration. We should have stayed with that and fought hard to
do that because ultimately it is the Constitution we protect and to ensure
the furtherance of the type of society we want while protecting our overall
security.”

Rep. Sestak
On FISA: ‘We Should Have Stood Up And Said No’

Senator Reid failed miserably in the Senate, not leading Democrats to unite in this cause.
Speaker Pelosi has already asked that the bill be amended when Congress is back
in September. Every single Democrat should have voted no on this bill, but the leadership should have made that happen. That they didn’t shows just
how much work we’ve left to do. Because progressives know instinctively what’s
been done on Bush’s watch, especially where our rights under the Constitution
are concerned, as well as the image and hope our great nation represents to the world. The old Democratic guard missed it. After all our work they
missed it. It leaves you almost speechless.


All in all, this is an ugly loss of control of House procedure by Hoyer,
Clyburn, Emanuel, and Pelosi, and a poor showing by Harry Reid and many Senate
Democrats. We know that Republicans think of the Constitution as toilet paper,
but it’s frustrating when Democrats don’t use every tool in our arsenal to
defend it.

Follow-up on ACLU
and FISA

Then you look at someone like Joe Sestak. A military man who states plainly
what’s required to keep our Constitution in force while honoring the tenets
of this country. We need more leaders like Sestak. We also need the Democrats
who failed us to feel the heat.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Curt Weldon’s Visit to Bangladesh

By on 03 June 2007

guest post by Mash

Former Congressman Curt Weldon visited Bangladesh earlier this year as part of a “US security delegation.” His trip was widely reported in the Bangladeshi press. The fact that he was a former congressman was conveniently left out giving the impression to the average Bangladeshi reader that he represented official US government positions.

Yesterday the Bangladeshi English language newspaper New Age published an op-ed coauthored by Tazreena Sajjad and me about Curt Weldon’s visit. Our op-ed was based in large part on the excellent research done by mrs panstreppon at TPMCafe.

The op-ed is reprinted below.

Weldon’s visit to Bangladesh
by Mashuqur Rahman and Tazreena Sajjad

It was recently reported in the Bangladeshi press that a US security delegation that visited Bangladesh in March had asked President George W Bush to give Bangladesh ‘high priority’ as a strategic partner in US foreign and national security policies. Naturally, it raised some alarm bells among the concerned citizens. However, upon further investigations some interesting facts about Weldon and his interests have emerged and questions remain concerning his recent visit.

The US security delegation, it was reported, included ‘US Congressman Curt Weldon’. Weldon, however, is no longer a United States congressman. He was defeated in the November 2006 US congressional elections by the Democratic Party candidate Joe Sestak. According to press reports in the US, Weldon is currently under investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for alleged corruption.

Weldon is currently the chief strategic officer of Defence Solutions Incorporated, a small privately-owned company headquartered in Pennsylvania that does defence-related contracting. Weldon began working for Defence Solutions in February 2007. Other members of the delegation that visited Bangladesh in March 2007 included Timothy Ringgold, chief executive officer of Defence Solutions, and Michael Kearney, a programme manager at Defence Solutions.

Defence Solutions is one of many small businesses that vie for contracts from the US government. Although the company was established in 2001, public federal procurement records show that it started to generate revenue from federal contracts in 2005. In the past two years, Defence Solutions has generated less than $1.9 million from US federal government contracts, mostly from the defence department. Defence Solutions also has offices in Israel and Hungary. According to the company’s website, from its Israeli office, Defence Solutions aims to introduce Israeli technologies and solutions to the US defence market. From its Hungary office, the company supports contracts related to the Iraq War. In 2005 Defence Solutions refurbished and delivered to the Iraqi Army seventy seven Soviet-made T-72 main battle tanks donated by Hungary. The Washington Times newspaper has referred to Defence Solutions as an international arms dealer.

Weldon did not visit Bangladesh as a US government official, but rather as a private citizen apparently lobbying to acquire business for his company. It was also reported in the Bangladeshi press that Weldon and his delegation belonged to the Global Alliance for Homeland Security. Information on GAHS is difficult to come by in the United States. What is known is that GAHS is a private organisation with ties to Bangladesh. While researching Weldon’s visit to Bangladesh, a writer at the American political blog TPMCafe.com located the company registration information for the organisation. It was registered as a non-profit organisation with New York State in late September of 2006.

GAHS gives as its mailing address an apartment in Woodside, Queens, New York. The same apartment is the mailing address for two other non-profit organizations called the American Bangladesh Friendship Society Incorporated and the American Bangladesh Friendship Club Incorporated. This apartment is also the mailing address of the Bangladeshi businessman listed in US government records as the president of the American Bangladesh Friendship Society. This Bangladeshi businessman, using the Woodside apartment as a mailing address, is also listed as the president of an organisation called World Human Rights and Development Incorporated which is registered in New York State. This last organisation, which boasts three members on its website, lists Weldon as a co-chairman.

Weldon is a controversial figure in the US. While he hailed Bangladesh government’s anti-corruption drive at Jatiya Press Club in March, Weldon himself remains under investigation in the US for alleged corruption. In October 2006 the Washington Post reported that a federal grand jury had been impanelled in Washington DC to determine whether Weldon had illegally used his political influence when he was Congressman to win lucrative contracts and favours for his family members. Weldon is under investigation for allegedly steering a lucrative contract from a Serbian businessman to his daughter. The Serbian businessman is barred from visiting or doing business with the United States because of his ties to former Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic. Weldon was allegedly trying to get the Serbian businessman off the US blacklist in the same year Weldon’s daughter received the lucrative business from the Serbian businessman’s family. Weldon is also under investigation for a consulting contract his daughter received from a Russian company, Itera, worth $170,000 in start up fee and $300,000 more in monthly retainer fees. Weldon has taken trips paid for by Itera and has advocated for Itera’s interests. As part of the investigation into alleged corruption by Weldon, FBI agents raided the homes of his daughter and one of his closest political supporters.

It is unclear how much influence Weldon still carries in Washington, given the ongoing investigation. He is also barred by ethics rules from directly lobbying the US Congress for one year after leaving office. It is also unclear who Weldon is lobbying for when, in his letter to President Bush, he calls for ‘enhanced military-to-military’ and ‘civilian-to-military’ programmes and visits. In his current capacity as the chief strategic officer of Defence Solutions Incorporated his primary responsibility is to lobby for and acquire business for his company.

Questions remain about the timing of Weldon’s visit, the motives of Defence Solutions and the nature of its relationship with the Global Alliance for Homeland Security. However, it should be clear that the delegation that visited Bangladesh in March did not represent the US government. Rather, it consisted primarily of senior management of the private company called Defence Solutions. The company, it seems, is interested in securing contracts from Bangladesh as well as the US. Defence Solutions does not represent the US government — it is one of thousands of companies that seek to do business with the government. Similarly, Weldon does not represent the US Congress. He is a former congressman who is now a private citizen working for a private company. Any other representation would be a misrepresentation of the facts.

Mashuqur Rahman is a Virginia-based blogger. Tazreena Sajjad is a PhD candidate at American University, Washington D.C. They are both members of the Drishtipat Writers’ Collective.

———-

 

Read full story · Comments are closed