We could talk about the Supreme Court and health care. Nah, instead let's talk about sex -- at least sex Village-style. Plus: Al Ross (1911-2012)

A New Yorker sendoff for cartoonist Al Ross

"Winning is crucial to my retirement plans."

In his newsletter-blogpost tribute, New Yorker cartoon editor Bob Mankoff offers this cartoon and two more (one reproduced below) to back up his claim: "[W]hile Al is the record holder for age among New Yorker cartoonists, it’s not his longevity we admire so much as the spontaneity of his art, achieved by drawing directly in ink with no preliminary sketching in pencil." See below for more.

AND NOW, BACK TO SEX . . .

"[Governor Palin] was a total charmer, very friendly. The few things she said were intelligent."

-- former Sen. Arlen Specter (without citing any of the "intelligent"
things she said), quoted in Al Kamen's WaPo "In the Loop" column

by Ken

I had it in mind to write about today's final round of Supreme Court health-care oral hearings. After all, from those hearings -- or rather from the attitudes displayed by the soon-to-be-majority deciders of the Roberts Court 5 (the traditional Crackpot 4 plus frequent ally "Slow Anthony" Kennedy, who seems squarely in lockstep with the CP4 -- it should be possible to foresee at least in outline the immediate future of federal health care law, since today's subject was what happens to the rest of the so-called Affordable Care Act (ACA) when if the individual mandate is struck down, as we learned from yesterday's jesting and japing by the RC5 (with Slow Anthony emphatically onboard with the CP4) it will be.

Naturally the actual merits and demerits -- constitutional, legal, and health-care-delivery-wise -- will hardly figure in the outcome. Which is perhaps fitting, considering that the ACA was intended to do hardly anything for actual affordable health care, and its opponents have shown no interest whatsoever in it. For the reasons Howie outlined yesterday, I'm certainly not here to defend the dreadful ACA. At the same time, there's something special about knowing that to the extent that the ACA is dismantled, it will be done by the wrong people for the wrong reasons with likely disastrously wrong results. And any congressional "fixes" in the foreseeable future are likely to be down the line wronger still.

SO INSTEAD, LET'S TALK ABOUT SEX

Okay, not sex exactly. More like Sex in the Village. And not so much actual sex, which as practiced among the Village privileged seems to be unimaginably tiresome and yet lurid.

Va-va-voom! We have new insight into what may have been going on in the mind of then-Sen. Arlen Specter, seen here on Princess Sarah's left. (Sorry, I don't know who the old coot on the princess's right is. Perhaps a homeless crank who wandered onto the platform unmolested by normally crackerjack Republican security? For what it's worth, to the extent that his clearly limited faculties permit he seems to be enjoying the little "clapping game" they're playing.)

I'm thinking that Village Sex exists in three dimensions: (1) what Villagers claim to believe; (2) what they actually believe; and (3) what they actually do.

I don't think we dare venture into the miasma of (3), which in any case is likely to prove as tedious as it is disgusting. And goodness knows we're all sick of hearing (1). Which leaves (2), what Villagers actually believe about sex, into which we get occasional moments of insight like this one drawn from Al Kamen's Washington Post "In the Loop" column. (WARNING: Although there's no actual sex in the following report, the nausea-inducing quotient may be dangerous for the queasy of stomach.)

Take a knee, senator

Former senator Arlen Specter’s new memoir, “Life Among the Cannibals,” recounts his party switch and his votes for President Obama’s stimulus package and the health-care plan.

But it’s not just about politics.

For example, in one steamy passage on Page 156, he recalls riding on the campaign bus of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in 2008 with then-Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska.

"She was a total charmer, very friendly,” Specter writes. “The few things she said were intelligent." He doesn’t mention what they were, maybe because he was distracted.

"We were sitting virtually knee to knee in the cramped bus," he writes. "She radiated sensuality. Her skirt rode above her knees -- not exactly short, but close."

The excitement builds . . .

(The "excitement" referred to here would correspond to the "nausea-inducing quotient" I alluded to above.)

By the way, I have intentionally not included a link for Senator Specter's book. If you really want it, I expect you can find it easily enough on your own.


A NEW YORKER SENDOFF FOR AL ROSS (1911-2012)

"Here is the way it works: We take from the rich and give
to the poor -- keeping only enough for salaries, travel,
equipment, depreciation, and so on, and so on."

This is the second cartoon cited by Bob Mankoff in his newsletter-blogpost remembrance of Al Ross (there's one more onsite) as evidence of "the spontaneity of his art, achieved by drawing directly in ink with no preliminary sketching in pencil."

Bob's post has pictures from Al's 100th-birthday party, about which he writes: "I'm sure there was a lot of nostalgia at that party, but probably not too much from Al, who was always more interested in what he was going to do tomorrow than in what he did yesterday. We published this cartoon of his in 2000, when Al was nine-tenths of the way through his century, just as a new one was beginning."

"Stroll down it alone -- I'll wait here."

#

Say, Bill Clinton, is there anything that embarrasses a "centrist" Democrat?

Bill 'n' Blanche: You mean being a 

corporate whore is, like, a bad thing?

by Ken

Over the weekend I found myself in extended conversation of the sort I usually try to avoid -- with a fellow citizen of strongly held opinions backed by broad but in many areas exceedingly sketchy knowledge. It was a social occasion, and for once I didn't want to appear antisocial, or at least not excessively antisocial, and the citizen was the husband of someone whose feelings I truly didn't want to bruise. And of course once I got into it, the old need . . . well, not to be right, but not to be steamrolled by blatant sophistry, kicked in.

The citizen wasn't so much conservative as contrarian, although it struck me as interesting that his contrariness rarely seemed to apply to areas of the conventional wisdom that I find most deserving of contradicting. And so, for example, he offered up the Obama administration's difficulty in closing the prison at Guantanamo as a demonstration of its awakening to the reality that governing is more difficult than the campaign's attacks on the Bush administration suggested.

Now of course as a DWT reader you probably know that my response was, "What attacks?" And I pointed out what a wasted opportunity both the campaign and the administration-to-date had been in the matter of frontally attacking the criminally misguided ideology and policies of the Right. In the matter of Guantanamo, I agreed that yes, closing the prison involves difficulties, but difficulties are what you surmount if you want to get something done, and in this administration's case, on a whole range of Bush regime policies it's hard to find much trace of a wish to seriously change course. It's not only difficult but pretty much impossible to, say, shut down the Guantanamo internment camp if you're not really trying.

We see it all over the place, as Obama's people wage even more relentless campaigns against immigrants and whistle-blowers and any other would-be disturbers of the conventional right-wing order. (As many commentators have pointed out, the president's famous desire to look forward rather than backward applies only to the organized-crime wave that was the Bush regime.

Just the other day, for example, Glenn Greenwald, who's been doing a bang-up job tracking the continuity between Bush and Obama administration policies, in writing about the shocking and fundamentally un-American proviso that popped out of the Defense Department budget bill opening lawyers who defend terror detainees to possible recriminations just for doing their job, noted:

This is yet another example of repellent, fear-based policies that could not be (or at least were not) enacted during the Bush years yet are finding new life under Democratic Party rule.  Recall that Bush Pentagon official Cully Stimson was actually forced to apologize for suggesting that lawyers who represented Guantanamo detainees were engaged in disloyal and improper acts.  Yet with the Democrats in control of Washington, a provision grounded in exactly that rotted premise has now been unanimously reported out of a major House Committee.

When you can get the attention of someone in the administration or the congressional leadership to address such points, what you usually get, mixed in with fibbing about the facts, is excuses -- we don't have the votes, we have to be careful, the country isn't with us, etc. Rarely do they have the honesty to say, Well, we just don't wanna.

It is, of course, the standard excuse for all those Republican-style candidates the Democratic leaders in both houses of Congress have been trying so hard to stuff their caucuses with. For a while you can accept the excuse that they need people who are "electable" in those districts and states. But as Howie has had such frequent occasion to point out, their right-wing "centrists" aren't necessarily more electable than authentic Democrats they routinely muscle out of the nominating process, candidates who might actually give troubled voters something to vote for.

In this election cycle even the pretense of an "electability" factor has more and more been dropped, as the official party organs increasingly find themselves stumping for candidates who (probably fortunately) couldn't beat any candidate unencumbered by a sex scandal. It becomes increasingly clear that the party hacks support right-wing "Democrats" because they're the people they're most comfortable with -- people who will fit right into the Beltway's kabuki politics, where "order" requires giving highest consideration to the people who pay for it.

Which brings me to Bill Clinton. Now I don't imagine there are many progressives who still nurture illusions about our Bill's politics, though I think there are still a lot of people who haven't yet figured out that Hillary isn't much more progressive. But it's Bill who's suddenly in the news, and you have to wonder if he has the sense to be embarrassed.

I still say that, as a matter of law, the story of what inducement the White House may have offered Joe Sestak to clear Arlen Specter's path to reelection is a nonstory. It was a legitimate political issue in the Democratic primary, because Pennsylvania Democratic voters have a right to know and consider how their elected officials are attempting to manipulate the selection of candidates. But there's no issue of a crime here; that's just a demented fabrication of right-wing doodybrains who haven't told their day's quotient of lies.

If this were the worst thing that had been done by the Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, or Bush II administrations, that would represent an ethical standard about a trillion times higher than reality. In American politics, and I suspect everybody else's, finding a nice job for somebody you want out of the way of your preferred candidate is a more or less daily occurrence.

As an issue of governance, however, it is an issue. And by gosh, now that the actual story has come out, there's Bill Clinton "carrying the water" (as Fat Rush would say) for none other than his old attack dog Master Rahm Emanuel.

Meanwhile where was our Bill today? In Arkansas, addressing the question, "Can Bill Clinton Save Blanche Lincoln?" I'm assuming he said something like: "Now a lot of people are saying our Blanche is just a corporate whore. But they say it like that's a bad thing."

Say good night, Bill.


SPEAKING OF THE GREAT PA. SENATE "SCANDAL"

Digby had a great post, "The Scandal Monster's Deadly Toxin," taking off from the earnest proffers from hither and yon as to what Joe Sestak and the White House may have to do "in order to put a stop to this non-scandal once and for all." She acknowledges that "they may be right" --

But here's the thing. None of that will do any good. There is no winning with these noise machine pseudo-scandals. They have an alternate media structure that is designed to stoke scandal fever . . .

There's a wonderfully Digbyesque description of the process of issuing outraged demands that can't ever be met, leading to the next set of outraged demands, and the next.

With every impossible requirement that isn't met, the press will become more convinced that the person must be hiding something, is too hot to handle and will eventually agree that he has to step down or quit the race because "the scandal" is devouring him.

Although eventually "an article or a book will be written explaining that there was never anything to the charges, that the whole thing turned into a feeding frenzy," it will still be the pol's fault for not getting "out front," or simply "for failing to be a stronger, better politician." It takes the impenetrable hide of a Bill Clinton, Digby suggests, "to recognize that they are not going to leave you alone, give yourself up to it and greet each day with the knowledge that this is going to dominate until it either passes or kills you."

#

Happy Primary Day!

Obama taped a very effective spot for reactionary Blue Dog and anti-healthcare fanatic John Barrow in 2008-- a tape that is believed to have been decisive in the conservative Georgian's win over progressive state Senator Regina Thomas-- so why should anyone be surprised that Obama taped a similar message for conservative Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln in a last minute push to help her overcome a surging Bill Halter. Ironically, Halter can stop Republican bailout supporter John Boozman in November; Lincoln wouldn't have a chance.

This call illustrates the degree to which this race has put Obama in direct confrontation with the big unions, who are among his most powerful backers. After all, despite Obama's praise of Lincoln's healthcare record, this is one key reason why labor is working so hard to defeat her. She voted against the reconciliation package and opposed the public option. (She did support the final bill, which did bar discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions.)

Lincoln, of course, also came out against the Employee Free Choice Act, labor's top priority.

And finally, Obama is declaring her to be on the side of workers, even though Lincoln has sought to paint Halter's labor backing as a negative, suggesting that his support from "Washington D.C. unions" is a sign that he's a tool of national liberal groups.

I'm more surprised that the White House abandoned the equally unattractive pseudo-Democrat from Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter, who Obama has been helping until this past weekend when it became clear that Sestak had all the momentum going into today's vote and that Specter can no longer even make a pretense of hiding his advanced and debilitating senility. Even Specter's biggest advocates, Joe Biden and Ed Rendell, are ready to accept the inevitable. Here again is the clip Ken showed last night of Specter in Erie yesterday unable to figure out who he's running against:



One final indignity for Specter yesterday. All weekend he was telling people that the vote would be close and that it will come down to who does best in the African-American community in Philly. Despite desperate pleas from Specter, Obama is refusing to come campaign for him. And yesterday it became even clearer that he wouldn't be the big winner in the African-American precincts.

To calls of "amen" from one of Tuesday's most critical voting blocs, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) accepted the endorsement of a dozen African-American clergy members and officials as he barnstormed the state in the campaign's heated final hours.

"Hope's not enough," Sestak said Monday outside New Hope Baptist Church in South Philadelphia. While the city's largest black clergy group has aligned itself with Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) in Tuesday's down-to-the-wire primary, Sestak has targeted Specter's positions from the 28 years the senator was a Republican to try to peel away voters worried about violent crime and jobs programs in the inner city.

Sestak brings with him to every stop in Philadelphia a Specter campaign flier criticizing Sestak for getting an "F" grade from the NRA. Distributed in gun-friendly western Pennsylvania, Sestak is using it as a wedge against Specter in Philadelphia, citing the five-term incumbent's past opposition to the assault weapons ban.

Some African-American clergy cited Specter's role supporting Republican nominees to the Supreme Court-- including Justice Clarence Thomas-- as reasons for opposing him.
Clarence Pemberton Jr., New Hope's pastor, pointed to Specter's 1991 cross-examination of Anita Hill, the law professor who accused Thomas of sexual harassment. "I don't understand how a black woman can vote for him," Pemberton told reporters.

...Sestak made an argument from electability, pointing to polls showing he currently would perform better than Specter against Toomey. "Politically, he will take down the whole ticket," Sestak said in an interview.

State Rep. Tony Payton Jr., 29, a second-term lawmaker, said Sestak's key will be reminding voters, particularly African-Americans, of the contrast between the two candidates' voting records on key domestic policy issues.

"There's a stark comparison there," Payton, who represents North Philadelphia, said.

And grassroots Democrats-- unlike the careerist shills Inside the Beltway-- know that wearing a blue shirt doesn't make someone a Democrat. Your beliefs do or-- in the case of Snarlin' Arlen-- don't.



The differences between Arlen Specter and Joe Sestak are like a chasm. We're counting on Bill Halter being significantly different from Blanche Lincoln as well. And the differences between conservative bigot Dan Mongiardo and Jack Conway... let's face it: Mongiardo has way more in common with Mitch McConnell than he does with Democrats. DWT readers should know by this time we're alreaddy urging our friends in Kentucky to reject conservative Dan Mongiardo and vote for Jack Conway. A little reminder why:

Does Old Arlen know who he's running against?

Toomey? Sestak? It must be one of those guys. Maybe he's confused, or maybe just like always, the only thing he's sure of is who he's for: Arlen.

by Ken

This isn't fun. This is sad.

I was musing last night on the odd strategy, for a Democratic primary, of playing to the gun-nut crowd, as Arlen Specter has been doing in the closing days of his race against Rep. Joe Sestak. Sure, there are presumably conservative Democrats who might be impressed by the senator's trumpeting of his opponent's support for controls on ownership of assault weapons, but you wouldn't think there would be enough such votes out there to make this a winning strategy -- among Pennsylvania Democrats, aren't there likely to be more voters energized to support Sestak's principled and sane position?

I found myself half-jokingly (which is to say half-seriously) wondering whether the senator hasn't jumped the primary and set about trying to defeat him in the general election, when Sestak -- assuming he wins the Democratic nomination tomorrow for the Senate seat currently held by Senator Specter -- will be running against ultra-right-wing anti-tax loon Pat Toomey, the man who drove Old Arlen out of the GOP and into the waiting arms of high-flying Dems who were happy to have his Senate vote, like the president and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, who have remained all too faithful to whatever promise of support they gave old Arlen when he defected.

I'm sure you've seen those clips of Old Arlen, since his official R-to-D switch -- which has been sometimes represented and sometimes not represented in his voting record -- seeming unclear as to which party he belongs to. They seemed pretty funny. The above clip doesn't seem so funny. It appears that the poor old guy really can't keep straight in his head who exactly he's running against now. From his attack on his opponent's "voting record," by which he means the record of votes missed, he clearly does seem to have his actual opponent, Representative Sestak, in mind, though of course he would also know, you'd think, that the congressman has been engaged in an extremely demanding Senate campaign, and if there have been any important votes missed, again you'd think, then the senator would cite them.

Because you'd have to figure, if there's one thing Old Arlen doesn't want to have Pennsylvania Democratic voters thinking about as they go to the polls tomorrow, it's his voting record -- and I mean his actual voting record. I don't think he really thinks it's Pat Toomey he's running against. Probably he's just got Toomey's name lodged in his head from the time when he was his opponent.

I'm far from saying that I'll be able to do much better if I make it to 80. But then, if I do, I won't be running for the U.S. Senate.

#

Will Democratic Voters Dump Conservative Hacks Blanche And Arlen Tomorrow?

Tomorrow's primary election day in a 4 states: Arkansas, Kentucky, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. If you haven't made up your mind yet, allow us to make some suggestions in the 3 Democratic Senate primaries pitting conservatives against... more progressive alternatives. We urge you to vote for:

* Bill Halter in Arkansas
* Jack Conway in Kentucky
* Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania

Barney Frank once said he never agreed with anyone running for office on 100% of the issues until he ran himself. "And after a few years," he quipped, "I didn't even agree with myself 100% of the time!" Now, it isn't easy for an insurgent to beat an incumbent of his or her own party in a primary. A few weeks ago I was at an event with Barney Frank who told the assembled progressives that the way to turn Congress around and make it more responsive to ordinary Americans-- as opposed to special interests-- would be to support primaries against shady Members of Congress. He refused to comment on my question about Blue Dog John Barrow... although I could swear I saw a twinkle in his eyes. John Barrow has his moment of truth before Georgia voters on July 20 and, like most incumbents, he done enough special favors for special interests to have a very special campaign war chest. Likewise, the 3 conservatives running in tomorrow's primaries are all loaded with special interests corporate cash.

By the way, as far as I know, the only one of these races Barney has endorsed in is the one in Pennsylvania and I'm guessing that having served along side Joe Sestak and having gotten to know him over the last few years, he felt comfortable endorsing him against a sitting Democratic incumbent, something that is, alas, rarer than snow on the 4th of July on Penn's Landing. Sestak was also the easiest of the 3 for us to endorse-- and, like in Barney's case, primarily because we know him best. We don't agree with Joe Sestak on every single issue-- and in one case, disengaging from Afghanistan, its a serious disagreement-- but we trust Joe's integrity and goodwill. I couldn't say the same for Arlen Specter, who will change positions based on political tides and special interests donations. Joe is a straight-shooter with America's best interests first and foremost in his mind. Arlen is a sleazy, corrupt hack with Arlen Specter first and foremost in his mind... always and forever. Voting out a worthless shill like Specter and replacing him with an earnest, honest, hardworking public servant like Joe Sestak is exactly what primaries are all about. Disgust with incumbents in general and today's trendlines are Joe's friends going into tomorrow.

On a personal note, I want to say one other thing about Joe Sestak. Blue America endorsed him in 2006 and he turned out to be exactly how he campaigned, a mainstream leader with a decided progressive bent, willing to go out on a limb the way he has on ending DADT. But what marks Joe as unique among members of Congress is that when we've disagreed with a vote he's taken he never once-- not one time since being elected-- shirked from coming forward to publicly explain his position and listen to our criticism. This is almost as rare as that 4th of July snow on Penn's Landing.

When I first met Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, I admit, I didn't have high hopes. I knew how reactionary and steeped in corruption Dan Mongiardo was-- and I was certainly aware how he had campaigned against women's choice and against equality for gay people-- but I assumed Conway would better the best of two evils. Scratch the "two evils" meme. If he wins tomorrow-- and, like the two other races, this is polling neck-and-neck-- he is likely to be a solid advocate for working families in Kentucky. I don't expect to agree with every single vote he makes over the next six years but, having gotten to know him, I expect he will approach each vote with the best interests of ordinary American families in mind, not personal political ambitions and not corporate special interests. Jack has displayed good sense and political courageousness in his career. Mongiardo should be running as a Republican since he agrees with virtually their entire conservative agenda. Senator Wendell Ford's endorsement of Conway shocked everyone; he had never endorsed anyone in a primary before. This one, however, is crystal clear.

Anyone a Democratic candidate would care to be endorsed by in Kentucky politics has come out for Conway. Here are some of the more prominent endorsements:

Senator Wendell Ford: "Jack Conway is the best candidate for Kentucky, and that's why I'm supporting him."

State Auditor Crit Luallen: "I know that Jack Conway is a man of character and a man of integrity. He represents all that is best about a new generation of leadership for Kentucky."

House Speaker Greg Stumbo: "Jack has spent a career working on behalf of Kentucky's families and will be a champion for them in the Senate."

Congressman Ben Chandler: "Jack Conway will work tirelessly to bring economic opportunity to all parts of Kentucky."

Congressman John Yarmuth: "…I can't mention one person I can think of in this great Commonwealth who could serve us better than Jack Conway will in the United States Senate…"

Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson: "We need somebody that brings this Commonwealth together, that reflects our values, that speaks on behalf of the citizens he has an opportunity to represent and that candidate is Jack Conway."

The Arkansas race is the most difficult for us. We know-- better than most-- how awful Blanche Lincoln has been, first as a conservative House member and then as a conservative senator. She's a posterchild for congressional corruption and if selling your vote was a serious crime, as it should be, she'd be serving life without parole. OK, but what do we know about Bill Halter? He's taken some popular populist positions but he's the only candidate in the history of Blue America who we were unable to get to come on and talk with us. We know he's busy-- and we know he's going to be better than Blanche Lincoln. Last week the Arkansas Leader endorsed Halter, with similar reservations:

Halter is a harder choice because we don’t care for his single achievement as a public official in Arkansas, the state lottery.

The lieutenant governor does not have a chance to do great deeds, but Halter went out of his way to do harm when he engineered a ballot position and a resounding vote for the lottery in 2008.

How differently he will perform as a senator from Lincoln we cannot be sure, but he indicated that he would have voted the opposite on all those initiatives of the Bush administration that turned federal budget surpluses into the mammoth deficits and converted the most buoyant economy in the nation’s history into the worst in 70 years. Neither do we believe that he will be at the service of people of great wealth and the petroleum and coal industries, which have pumped fortunes into the campaign of Lincoln.

Arkansas' top political columnist John Brummett informed his readers-- you might say apologetically-- he had already voted... for Halter. He's impressed by Halter "who is smarter, supremely competent, superbly qualified by academic and work experience and perhaps more progressive" but is completely repulsed by Blanche. How could anyone not be?

Outside of the three big Senate primaries, there are a number of other races worth looking at. Underdog Manan Trivedi seems on the verge of catching up with Doug Pike, the establishment fave for Jim Gerlach's shaky seat northwest of Philly. Due north of there, in a district I was lived in, Corey O'Brien doesn't seem to have closed the deal with Democratic voters to replace corrupt relic Paul Kanjorski. A bolder and more progressive Democrat would have been able to have done in with ease. In the conservative-trending 12th CD on the other end of the state, there's a special election between two conservatives, Democrat Mark Critz and some cookie-cutter GOP asshat, vying for Jack Murtha's old seat. Both are anti-choice, homophobic and completely corporate-centric. There's nothing under any circumstances that would ever get me to vote for either. Interestingly, though, at the same time Democrats may hold their noses and vote for Critz, just to keep the seat ostensibly blue, they can oppose him in the simultaneous primary by voting for Ryan Bucchianeri.

Sheila Dow Ford, a progressive, is opposing Blue Dog Tim Holden in the 17th CD, which stretches out from Harrisburg through Pennsylvania Dutch Country almost to Reading and north to Pottsville. Sheila is by far the better candidate in a race that hasn't been polled. If she wins it will probably because Democratic voters there are sick of Holden's conservatism and angry at his vote against healthcare reform.

In Arkansas crooked Blue Dog Mike Ross has no primary challenger but there are lively races for the seats of two retiring less conservative Democratic congressmen, Marion Berry in the first and Vic Snyder in the second. The last time any Democratic presidential nominee broke 50% in any of Arkansas' congressional districts was in 2000 when Gore eked out a narrow victory over Bush, 50-48% in the first CD. It's been all downhill, statewide, since then. Obama's best showing was in the second (Little Rock) where he managed to get 44% against McCain's 54%. Pretty dismal. The race for the Democratic nomination to take Snyder's seat pits four moderates against one conservative-- and the conservative, former House Speaker Robbie Wills, is well-known and well-financed. Willis is an anti-healthcare type of candidate who will, no doubt, join the Blue Dog caucus and vote with the Republicans on substantive issues. The best way of beating him is by voting for state Senator Joyce Elliott, the most progressive among the others.

There are 6 Democrats running to replace Berry in the eastern part of the state-- state Senator Steve Bryles, conservative former Berry chief of staff Chad Causey (who has been endorsed by Berry), moderate state Rep. David Cook, orthopedic surgeon Terry Green, businessman Ben Ponder, and very conservative former state Senator Tim Wooldridge. The big money seems to be mostly flowing to the two conservatives, Causey ($356,024) and Woolridge $315,780), with Bryles having brought in $131,380, Cook $54,173, and Green and Ponder just over $25,000 each. In all likelihood there will be a June 8th runoff between the two worst candidates, Causely and Woolridge, neither of whom will be worth supporting.

When you corner rats like Young Johnny McCranky and Old Arlen Specter, it's astonishing what comes out of their mouths

Could Old Arlen (right) be conceding the primary and

trying to sabotage Sestak (left) in the general election?

by Ken

If Young Johnny McCranky hadn't long ago made such a degraded spectacle of himself, one might almost have the tiniest grain of sympathy for him, having to run for reelection in the climate of poison that Arizona has become. (See, most recently, Howie's Thursday post "Will Arizona Secede? Have Arizona Republicans Already Done So?" and the guest post by Fred Johnson.) But from the outset of this contest Young Johnny has made it clear that he will say or do absolutely anything" to save his maggot-infested political hide.

It's hard for anyone who's really looked at Young Johnny's sordid political past, especially with the help of our friend Cliff Schecter's indispensable book The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don't Trust Him and Why Independents Shouldn't),to believe that the yutz ever actually had any serious political principles. But he used to have enough personal pride to at least pretend to have a certain core of principle, if only in the form of a modicum of self-respect. Clearly all that is out the window now, and as Young Johnny sensed the climate in which he would have to withstand an assault from his right, he made it unmistakably clear that no act of political degradation is off the table.

Same deal with Pennsylvania's endangered Republican senatorial rat, Arlen Specter. Oh wait, I guess technically he would now be "Pennsylvania's endangered Democratic senatorial rat." (Or perhaps out of old Republican linguistic habit he refers to himself as an endangered "Democrat" senatorial rat?) Astonishingly, in a Democratic primary, the rat appears to be tying his fate to an attack on Rep. Joe Sestak's eminently sane support for reinstituting the assault-weapons ban that should never have been allowed to lapse.

Of course the political environment in Pennsylvania isn't anywhere near as toxic as in Arizona. Still, Old Arlen seems to have reached the level of political desperation where he too will say or do anything, and seems to think his last best hope lies with the gun nuts. You might say that he's trying to make the political environment in Pennsylvania more toxic.

As it happens, Howie wrote just this morning ("Raise Your Hand If You Think Gun Nuts Aren't . . . Nuts") about the jaw-dropping extremes to which the National Rifle Association has accompanied the nuttiest of its gun-nut membership. As I've written ("Is it time yet for sane gun advocates to separate from the total crazies?"), I believe there is such a thing as responsible gun ownership, though I doubt that my views would impress many NRA members, since I consider responsible gun ownership unambiguously compatible with sensible gun registration. I can't see any reason why a responsible gun owner would oppose it, any more than a responsible automobile owner would question the need for automobile registration (as I've known my old friend and political guru Milt Shook to argue).

Even within the NRA, though, the gun loons have now far outstripped the good sense of many of the members. As I wrote in that last post, many of the members of Mayors Against Illegal Guns (whose membership is now well over 500), which advocates basic commonsensical, nonpartisan positions like enforcing existing laws and closing the infamous gun-show loopholes through which so many illegal guns are pouring, are themselves NRA members.

However, when Old Arlen panders, he really panders. Apparently at a certain level of desperation, common sense goes out the window. Latest word out of Pennsylvania is that the Man for All Parties senses an opening in the bosom of the gun nuts, and is not only touting his unequivocal NRA support but taunting his opponent for his outspokenly sensible view on assault weapons.

The Specter campaign even has an ad on various in-state newspaper websites which in animated form interlaces on-screen crosshairs and the head of Representative Sestak. Greg Sargent reported on The Plum Line:

Specter hits Sestak for favoring ... gun control

So it's come to this: In a bid for conservative and rural Pennsylvania Dems, Arlen Specter is now using targeted ads to attack Joe Sestak for getting an "F" rating from the National Rifle Association.

In a targeted way, Specter also seems to be touting his vote against the assault weapons ban -- a vote he took as a Republican. One wonders how this ad would play among urban Dems in Philadelphia -- if they ever were to hear about it.

Specter's assault on Sestak can be viewed in a Web ad on the site of the Washington Observer-Reporter, a paper in western Pennsylvania that presumably isn't widely read in Philly.

The same ad is also running on the site of the Scranton Times-Tribune. If you click through the ad, you're taken to this page on Specter's campaign Web site. It blasts Sestak as bad for Pennsylvania gun-owners and features audio of Sestak saying this at a recent debate:

"I also support the assault weapons ban which Arlen Specter opposed and voted against."

Specter voted against the assaut weapons ban in the 1990s and opposed extending the ban in 2004. And Specter wants conservative and rural Dems to know that Sestak attacked him for this. That's presumably meant as a negative for Sestak -- and a positive for Specter. Sestak plans to make an issue of this today in Philly.

It's another mark of what the Dem establishment's party-switching deal with Specter has wrought.

In Specter's favor, at least he can't be accused of switching his position on the assault-weapons ban to curry right-wing favor. He's always believed that average citizens should have access to assault weapons, presumably to counteract the, uh, furry-animal menace.

Local observers point out that the new Specter armed-assault campaign appears to be ripped out of the political playbook of former nutjob Sen. Rick Santorum. Presumably it's those famously conservative western Pennsylvania Dem voters the campaign is targeted at, though even so this sounds like a pretty screwy way to run a Democratic primary race.

Let me throw out a theory. It's kind of nutty, but then, so is the Specter campaign. Maybe, although the polls are showing Sestak and Specter running neck and neck, Old Arlen sees the handwriting on the wall and is now campaigning not so much for the primary as for the general election, helping Republicrackpot Pat Toomey -- the loon who drove him out of the GOP -- to beat Sestak in the general election, either as revenge or as proof that the state's Dems should have given him their nomination, or both.

At this point, though, Arlen isn't giving his sort-of-adoptive party's primary voters much of a choice. He seems to be trying to make clear that there's only one actual Democrat in the race: Joe Sestak.


CLARIFICATION: ABOUT NUTJOB RICK SANTORUM

I myself stumbled over my reference to "former nutjob Sen. Rick Santorum," which suggests that our Rick has somehow gotten over being a nutjob. There's no evidence of that, and I don't expect any. It's only his Senate tenure that was thankfully terminated by Pennsylvania voters, and this might better have been worded "nutjob former Sen. Rick Santorum." 

I think what I had in my head was that Rick really seemed to be performing the job of a "nutjob senator." I was thinking of it as a sort of compound title, the way one might have said, "Ohmygosh, it's that damned Nutjob Sen. Rick Santorum flapping his gums again. Can't something be done about that fool?"

#

Is the Sestak campaign (and reality) finally catching up with poor old Arlen Specter?

The congressman finally has some news to smile about.

"U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak is within striking distance of U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, trailing the long-time incumbent 47 - 39 percent among likely primary voters, compared to his 53 - 32 percent gap April 7, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today."

-- from a Quinnipiac University release today

by Ken

I'm not normally a poll-obsessive kind of guy, but I took notice of two polls whose results were released today, the Quinnipiac one referenced above (one of the most respected of the polling concerns), done among likely Pennsylvania Democratic primary voters from April 28 to May 2, which has Specter leading 47 percent to 39 percent, down from 53-32 on April 7, and a Muhlenberg/Morning Call tracking poll, which accords well with the Quinnipiac result for May 2 and for two days later shows the Specter-Sestak race rightening to 46-42. In other words, at the very least these results show the race narrowed to single digits.

Regular readers will recall the fascination and admiration I've voiced for the powerfully issues-based campaign the former admiral, now U.S. representative, has waged. I described it as the campaign you'd design from your Civics 101 class. The only thing missing, I kept thinking, was any indication that Pennsylvania primary voters were getting it.

Which is why I'm passing on poll results, which suggest that Pennsylvania primary voters are starting to get it. As Quinnipiac University Pollling Institute's assistant director, Peter A. Brown, says, "The Senate race is closing and could be headed for a close finish."

In part that's changed because the cash-conscious Sestak campaign has only recently begun spending significantly on TV. In part it's changed because, well, at this stage in his career Specter is too exposed a target to be able to withstand attacks on his attack-worthy career indefinitely. If there were a month more to the campaign than there is, and the Sestak campaign had enough financial resources, I think he'd be a dead duck.

Here's a comment from Quinnipiac's Peter Brown:

Sen. Specter switched parties because he was worried about losing in the Republican primary. His big lead among likely Democratic primary voters has disappeared and although he remains ahead, momentum is clearly on Sestak's side at this point. As a Republican, Specter did well among Democrats, but large majorities of Democrats have been voting against him for 30 years and that might be a tough habit for many of them to break. In addition, Specter's big lead in name identification has begun to erode as Sestak television commercials introduce him to the voters outside his suburban Philadelphia base.

I guess what still flabbergasts me is that Quinnipiac still finds voters giving the abominable Arlen a 57-31 percent favorability rating, though even that's down from 60-26. But still, what are those 57 percent thinking? Can they really be oblivious to Senator Specter's autocratic high-handedness (perhaps he's so accustomed to thinking of himself as a citadel of principle that even he doesn't notice that his line-in-the-sand stands rarely have anything to do with principle), the almost invariable craven retreat that follows any of his self-importantly trumpeted stands that actually do reflect principle of some sort (you always want to be sure to check how he finally votes, paying no attention to the stern speeches that preceded), the double dealing and willingness to be bought by anyone who's buying.

Maybe voters are finally tuning in to the strong, principled stands the Sestak campaign has been staking out on scores of real-world issues, and maybe not so much liking what they're hearing from the guy they thought they knew so well, like his shocking attempt to smear his opponent's military record.

If we go back to the Muhlenberg/Morning Call tracking polls, its May 2 result actually gibes well with the Quinnipiac result, showing Specter ahead 48-42. But the tracking poll also has numbers for May 3 and May 4: 49-40 and (are you ready for this?) 46-42 (okay, I know I already revealed this above, but still, are you ready for it?), with undecideds up from 11 to 12!

You can contribute to Joe's campaign directly through ActBlue.

MEANWHILE IN THE PA GOVERNOR'S RACE

What PA governor's race, you say? You and me both, and perhaps the voters of Pennsylvania as well.

In what Quinnipiac describes as "a field of unknowns" to replace term-limited Gov. Ed Rendell, Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato, who has done the most serious TV spending, has jumped out to what looks like a commanding lead, polling at 36 percent, as against 9 percent for Montgomery County Commissioner Joe Hoeffel and 8 percent each for Auditor General Jack Wagner and State Sen. Tony Williams. Quinnipiac notes that in April, Onorato was at 20 percent, Hoeffel 15 percent, Wagner 13 percent and Williams 5 percent. Even though "37 percent are undecided and 60 percent of likely primary voters who express a choice say they might change their mind," the Onorato margin looks awfully hard to beat.

Says Quinnipiac's Peter Brown:

Onorato has outspent his opponents on the campaign trail, especially on television, and it shows in the results. Although only slightly more than half of likely voters know enough about him to have an opinion, 46 - 5 percent favorable, 73 to 77 percent of Democrats don't know enough about any of the other three to have an opinion about them. At this point, less than 20 percent of likely voters have a favorable opinion of Wagner, Hoeffel or Williams. That is a big advantage for Onorato entering the home stretch of the campaign.

Brown's overall reading of the results announced today: ""With only two weeks until the May 18 primary, Onorato can feel somewhat confident, while Sen. Specter should be more concerned."

On the Republican side, Attorney General Tom Corbett appears to have a lock on the gubernatorial nomination, and at present is polling well ahead of Onorato. But of course Onorato remains largely unknown to state voters, a condition that could change between now and November.

#

What do you have to do to get a slug like Arlen Specter out of the Senate?

Rick Santorum knows: Arlen's no liberal.

"The voters didn't send us to Washington to duck the tough issues -- they sent us here to take them head-on. We must enact the right policies for America's working families and let the politics take care of itself. This is the right thing to do. I'm proud of our work, and I look forward to standing accountable for it before the American people."

-- PA Rep. Joe Sestak, from a March 16 statement urging

House Democrats to support health care reform

by Ken

The last time I wrote about the Sestak campaign, it was to indulge the fantasy of a Senate that had places for both Delaware's temporary senator, Ted Kaufman (who had just made a defiantly tough floor speech on real financial-regulation reform), and the man who should be sending Arlen Specter into retirement, Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak. And in the process of stitching the two parts of the post together, I managed to misattribute the above quote to Senator Kaufman rather than Representative Sestak -- a silly mistake, because Senator Kaufman hadn't been sent to Washington by voters at all, but was appointed to fill Vice President Biden's former seat until a special election can be held.

I've written a number of times now about what seems to me a remarkable campaign on the issues which Joe Sestak has been waging for the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate nomination. What I don't believe I've stressed enough is how extraordinary it is that I of all people should be paying attention to campaign position papers. Usually I'm the one who pays as little attention as possible to campaign rhetoric, on the ground that it's just consultant or handler hooey designed to tell people what they want to hear.

But the Sestak campaign has seemed to me something else. It hasn't been the usual cynically poll-tested statements on a handful of hot-button issues. Instead there has been this incredible abundance of thoughtfully reasoned and forcefully argued positions on a whole array of issues, most of which no one is talking about, least of all incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter. Now I don't doubt that the issues the Sestak campaign has chosen to take stands on are hoped to be popular ones -- they're all issues that affect citizens directly and ought to be of considerable concern -- for example, the plight of homeless kids zapped by the economic meltdown.

I'm sure the campaign thought there was the possibility that such an obviously sensible concern about the welfare of our children might attract media attention. And of course it should have. But regardless, it was a position worth taking, and from this and a host of other positions that we hardly ever hear from politicians about, I've had the feeling that we're getting the real voice of exactly the kind of person we need more of in government -- and, to put it bluntly, the U.S. Senate desperately needs more of. From what I know about the congressman, he's not big on being told by political professionals what to think or say -- or do.

Which is why it's so frustrating that the campaign seems to have made so little headway among Pennsylvania Democratic primary voters. I mean, it looks to me like the campaign you would dream of based on your Civics 101 curriculum -- a man of demonstrated character and principle bringing to the attention of voters a vast array of issues that need attention, for which there are legislative fixes, or at least ameliorations, at hand.

Clearly a lot of the blame lies with President Obama and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, who allowed the wretched Arlen, that cynically self-promoting opportunist, to con them into taking him unconditionally into the Democratic fold when he had virtually no bargaining power -- he was facing up to the grim fact that the rising tide of Republican know-nothingism had made him unrenominatable in a Republican primary. And it's understandable that establishment Dems would have coveted his Senate vote. Why, that brought them one vote closer to being able to do, well, nothing much, but maybe someday . . .

I suppose it would have been unthinkable for the president and the governor to say, "Sure, you can come aboard the Democratic ship, but we're not making any commitments, or any promises, about the 2010 nomination." And when you get right down to it, why would they have said such a thing? Arlen is, after all, one of them: a man who is wholly owned by a cynical, corrupt system in which the first question is always, "What's in it for me?" Ironically, what's in it for Arlen the Democrat has often been as inconvenient for the establishment Dems as was Arlen the Republican, because Arlen is always for Arlen. Still, I'll bet the president and the governor are prepared to forgive even that, since again, they understand and identify with what makes him tick politically: the big-money system. When the chips are down, they all know who'll buy them more chips.

Nor is there any reason to go soft on the Infotainment News Media. They all know what Arlen is, and don't seem to see any reason to make sure Pennsylvania Democratic primary voters know. Is he more like a Democrat than, say, Miss Mitch McConnell or Tiny Jim DeMint? Sure, but is that the standard Pennsylvania Democrats really want to enforce? But to the media sluggards too, Arlen is one of them. A hack and an opportunist? Sure, but aren't they all hacks and opportunists? They don't think of it as a bad thing.

There are lots of reasons why the Senate has become unworkable. But one, clearly, is that it contains way too many people, in both parties, who think like Arlen. The reality is that the Senate needs Joe Sestak a lot more than Joe Sestak needs the Senate. What a waste of an opportunity, though, to upgrade the club membership.

#

Imagine a Senate where Ted Kaufman's no-nonsense fin-services speech is the norm, and where Joe Sestak could take his stands

The temporary senator from Delaware

by Ken

Tomorrow night I'm going to toss in my two cents' worth of lamentations about the pathetic state of the U.S. Senate, from what I think is a slightly different angle. Maybe I should leave the outcome in suspense, but I don't want to mislead anyone into thinking I'm going to arrive at a conclusion any less hopeless than everybody else.

However, for tonight I want us to indulge in the luxury of a harmless little fantasy.


(1) A TEMPORARY SENATOR TAKES ON THE MEGABANKS

Ted Kaufman, of course, is only a temporary U.S. senator, having been appointed to fill the Delaware seat vacated by Vice President Joe Biden until a new senator is elected this November. (The general speculation, you'll recall, was that Kaufman, Biden's Senate chief of staff for almost a decade, would be a place-holder for the veep's son, state AG Beau Biden. But Beau took a good look at this year's election climate and decided to sit the race out.)

Yesterday the senator delivered a speech, Ending Too Big to Fail, whose text left a lot of people gasping in disbelief, going beyond the question of where a new consumer regulatory commission should be placed to the proposition that no regulatory commission could deal effectively with the megabanks that fall into the "too big to fail" category, and that bringing them under some basic regulatory control is crucial to our economic well-being.

Here's just the start of the speech:

[T]here is little in the current legislation that would change the behavior or reduce the size of the nation's six mega-banks. Instead, this bill invests its hopes in two ideas: First, that chastened regulators (who failed miserably in preventing the crisis) will this time control these mega-banks more effectively – today, tomorrow and decades into the future. And, second, that a resolution authority designed to shield the taxpayers from yet another bail-out will be able successfully to unwind incredibly complex mega-banks engaged across the globe.

In the midst of the Great Depression, Congress built laws that maintained financial stability for nearly 60 years. Through the Glass-Steagall Act, which included the establishment of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Congress separated investment banks, which were free to engage in risky behavior, and commercial banks, whose deposits were federally insured. As I described in a previous speech, during the last 30 years, that division was methodically disassembled by a deregulatory mindset, leading to the reckless Wall Street behavior that caused the greatest financial crisis and economic downturn since the 1930s.

What walls will this bill erect? None. On what bedrock does this bill rest if the nation is to hope for another 60 years of financial stability? Better and smarter regulators, plain and simple. No great statutory walls, no hard divisions or limits on regulatory discretion, only a reshuffled set of regulatory powers that already exist. Remember, it was the regulators who abdicated their responsibilities and helped cause the crisis.

Thus far, on the central aspect of “too big to fail,” financial reform consists of giving regulators the authority to supervise institutions that are too big, and then the ability to resolve those banks when they are about to fail. Upon closer examination, however, the former is virtually the same authority regulators currently possess, while the latter – an orderly resolution of a failing mega-bank – is an illusion. Unless Congress breaks up the mega-banks that are "too big to fail," the American taxpayer will remain the ultimate guarantor in an almost certain-to-repeat-itself cycle of boom-bust-and-bailout.

The senator went on to discuss in detail the problem of the "too big to fail" banks and the kind of congressionally mandated control he thinks needs to be included in serious financial reform legislation to deal with it, with no pussyfooting around the issues or trying to make nice to institutions that have a lot of political clout -- and throw around a lot of political cash.

Chris Dodd has many outstanding personal and political qualities. But among his liabilities is a worrying closeness to the financial-services industry which made a lot of people uneasy about his role as the Senate's point man on any reform legislation, especially when the Republicans have made it clear that they will fight tooth and nail against any kind of regulatory reform, not just as part of their "Just Say No" strategy but as a matter of faith. As Howie put it earlier this week, "For Conservatives The Best Bank Regulation Is No Regulation."

There seemed some possible grounds for hope when Dodd announced that he won't run for reelection this year. Maybe now he would feel free to legislate free of electoral "pragmatism." Maybe now he would want this bill to be his congressional "legacy."

Sadly, it doesn't seem to have worked out that way, and in retrospect it's not hard to see why. After all, the senator will still have a family and a lifestyle to support after he leaves the Senate. It appears that retirement is not a time when you suddenly begin biting hands that have been feeding you for a long, long time.

Still, just for tonight, close your eyes and imagine that the speech Ted Kaufman gave yesterday wasn't given by someone who was just passing through the Senate. No, no, imagine harder. I know we here live in that dreary "reality-based" world, but just for this brief moment, let it go.


(2) A SENATE CANDIDATE ESTABLISHES HIS VOICE

As I've mentioned before, Rep. Joe Sestak's insurgent campaign to wrest the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate nomination away from Dem-for-a-day Arlen Specter is on fire with no-nonsense, serious discussion of a vast array of crucial issues, staking out forceful positions that I'd be only too happy to have held by my senator. Of course he has staff to work on these position papers, but they certainly bear the candidate's stamp, and they certainly represent a commitment to run the kind of no-holds-barred campaign-on-the-issues we enlightened folk always claim we're so eager to see.

Yesterday I plucked out three Sestak campaign e-mails from my e-mailbox, and I've added a fourth from this morning. I'm just going to reprint them, so you can read as much or as little as you like. I'm as impressed by how they say what they say as I am by what they say. I get a real sense of a voice emerging here.

Subject: SUNDAY 1:15: Sestak to hold Health Care Town Hall in Philadelphia

SUNDAY 1:15 PM: Joe Sestak to Hold Health Care Town Hall Following Historic Vote in Congress
Continues Dialogue With Voters On Vital Issue for Working Families

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Congressman Joe Sestak will hold a town hall meeting this Sunday at 1:15 at the Baptist Worship Center in Philadelphia to have an open discussion about health care reform.

Just as Joe was the first member of Congress to hold a health care town hall during last year's August congressional recess, he plans to be the first member to convene a town hall after the historic votes in the House and the expected vote this week in the Senate. Joe believes it is part of an elected official's duty as a public servant to explain his positions and provide people the opportunity to have their questions answered.

"The voters didn't send us to Washington to duck the tough issues -- they sent us to take them head-on, both before and after the votes are cast. We must enact the right policies for America's working families and stand accountable for our votes before the American people. Americans deserve transparency in their public servants, and I will continue to explain why I support this health care reform effort and how it will benefit Pennsylvania's working families. This is the right thing to do. I'm proud of our work, and I look forward to standing accountable for it before the people of Pennsylvania."

WHO: Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Joe Sestak
WHAT: Town Hall on Health Care Reform
WHEN: Sunday, March 28, 2010 at 1:15 PM
WHERE: Baptist Worship Center, 4790 James Street, Philadelphia, PA 19137

Subject: Sestak: Time to End Workplace Discrimination

Sestak: Time to End Workplace Discrimination
Urges Committee to Move on Legislation to Protect LGBT Employees

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Congressman Joe Sestak wrote today to House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller urging him to bring the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) to a vote during the remaining months of this session of Congress. ENDA -- of which Joe is an original co-sponsor -- would protect Americans from being fired or discriminated against in the workplace because of real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. Currently, it is legal in 29 states to fire workers simply because of who they are. A committee vote on ENDA was set for last November, but was unexpectedly postponed and has not been rescheduled.

"This fundamental piece of civil rights legislation is long overdue. We should not delay this markup any further," Joe wrote. "My position on this issue and my support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is borne out of my experience in the military. While commanding men and women in harm's way during my 31 years in the Navy, we knew, because of public surveys, that a certain percentage were lesbian and gay service members. Having seen their dedication, their allegiance, and their sacrifices, how can I -- or anyone -- not say that these individuals deserve equal rights when they return home."

Subject: Sestak Supports START Follow-On Treaty

Joe Sestak Supports START Follow-On Treaty
Former Admiral Calls on Senate to Move Swiftly Towards Ratification of Historic Nuclear Weapons Agreement

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Congressman Joe Sestak responded to today's announcement that the United States has reached an agreement with Russia on a new nuclear arms treaty which will be signed next month in Prague.

"President Obama should be commended for his willingness to engage with other nations who have interests that at times are adverse to ours. His efforts to 'push the reset button' on U.S.-Russian ties after eight years of tension under President Bush, particularly over missile defense, have led directly to today's monumental achievement," said Joe.

On December 5, 2009, the historic Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) expired. START was the largest arms control agreement in history and was ratified after a decade of negotiations with the Soviet Union. This landmark agreement was instrumental to reducing Cold War nuclear tensions and establishing precedents for inspection and verification measures that provide both sides with confidence about the other's arsenal.

Under the terms of the treaty announced today, the United States and Russia will cut by one third their numbers of deployed strategic weapons. The agreement contains stringent verification regimes which, according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, provide our intelligence community the tools they need to assess Russian compliance with the treaty's terms.

"The goodwill that these arms control measures generate has historically provided both sides with the confidence and political capital to cooperate in a number of other areas. There are a multitude of challenges that require collaboration with our Russian counterparts, such as the pursuit of multilateral sanctions against Iran in the U.N. Security Council. Today's remarkable diplomatic breakthrough demonstrates that we have the ability to reach agreement with Russia on divisive issues and can continue to pursue their cooperation on future initiatives," Joe continued.

The future of this landmark agreement is by no means certain, as it must be ratified by both the United States Senate and Russian Duma. Senator John McCain, a key Republican voice on foreign policy, said this week that there would be no GOP cooperation on anything in Congress because the Obama White House had 'poisoned the well' with its health care effort.

"Although Senator McCain has since walked this statement back, I remain concerned that some may play partisan politics with our national security. Similar recalcitrance prevented ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty during the 1990s, which has continued to provide other nations with justification to operate outside the international mainstream on nuclear issues," said Joe.

"Signals from the Senate on this issue in coming weeks may have a direct impact on Russian ratification. Additionally, they will also weigh on the appearance of our commitment to nuclear non-proliferation at this spring's nuclear security summit in Washington, where President Obama will host more than 40 heads of state, and at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in New York which will follow," said Joe. "This may have a direct bearing on the willingness of non-nuclear states to continue to operate within the tenets of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and with this in mind, I urge the Senate to move quickly towards ratification of today's treaty."

Joe also supports the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and President Obama's stated goal of the eventual eradication of nuclear weapons. In September 2008, he voted against the U.S.-India nuclear deal, which would allow trade of nuclear materials with India, because of his concern that the agreement would exacerbate India's nuclear arms race with Pakistan.

Subject: Sestak Backs Administration's Effort to Prevent Foreclosures

Sestak Backs Administration's Effort to Help Americans Avoid Foreclosure
2.25 Million Could Lose their Homes this Year Without Aggressive Action

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Congressman Joe Sestak released the following statement today following the Obama Administration's plan to implement incentives for principal reduction as a means to decrease the number of foreclosures across the country:



"Since the outset of this housing crisis, I have called for a broad program to help the most vulnerable homeowners - those with homes valued at less than their mortgage," said Joe. "Over a year ago, I introduced H.R. 1356, the Homeownership Vesting Plan, to take similar steps to those the Administration proposed. Similarly, the Homeownership Vesting Plan would have reduced the principal for these 'underwater' homeowners through a new Federal Housing Administration-backed mortgage. It also included incentives for lenders to forgive portions of a mortgage to prevent more foreclosures, which would harm the overall economy.

"

Although I hoped that the Administration would have taken this action sooner, this marks an important step forward. Initial estimates suggest that anywhere between 1 million and 1.5 million homeowners could be helped by this program. The program also provides incentives to support lenders who temporarily reduce mortgage payments for unemployed homeowners. Moody's Chief Economist Mark Zandi-- with whom I worked closely to craft the Homeownership Vesting Plan -- projects that approximately 2.25 million homeowners could lose their homes this year in foreclosures or short sales. We must take aggressive actions, such as those outlined by the Administration today, not only to help those Americans with underwater mortgages, but also to prevent the decrease in property values of surrounding homes that result from foreclosure.

"

I have repeatedly called for this action because the housing market's stability is the key to our overall economic stability. February's housing numbers have rightly given pause to many policy makers. Without action to incentivize premium reduction, we risk a further decline in the housing market which could pull our economy into a 'double-dip' recession and force even more families into foreclosure. This announcement will bring us a step closer to rebuilding the economic security of Pennsylvania's working families."

And yet, even though there's hardly any sort of case to be made for Senator Specter, unless you measure him against the unimaginably debased standard represented by the likely Republican nominee, Club for Growth quack Pat Toomey, whose surging support in this Year of the Teabaggers caused our Arlen to bolt the GOP in the first place, knowing that he had virtually no chance to win a Republican primary.

So Arlen, self-involved opportunist that he is, isn't as benighted as the politically demented Toomey. Is this really a standard we want to apply to candidates? Whereas Sestak, the onetime admiral, who seems to me to be doing all the things we say we want in a serious candidate, can't seem to be making any headway in the polls.

But once again, this is our night for making believe. Let's pretend that the media covering the Pennsylvania Senate primary suddenly woke up and decided to, you know, cover the news, as opposed to merely reporting the latest political race-track odds. And/or that the Sestak campaign found a way to really make Pennsylvania Democratic primary voters hear what the candidate is saying.

Go on and pamper yourself. Doesn't that feel just a little bit good? Like when you get a massage, you don't expect to feel better permanently. You know that by a day later, maybe even an hour later, you're going to feel crummy again. But you do it anyway (well, no, I don't, but a lot of people seem to), for that brief blessed relief.

It's the weekend. There's plenty of time for reality afterward. I'm prepared to offer you a whole day. (That's the best deal I've got.)

#

Are You Frustrated With President Obama's Tepid Leadership?

Palin isn't right about much but she was right about Democrats and independents being terribly angry about that "hopey-changey thing." That's why Blue America is dedicating itself to Sending Democrats A Message They Can Understand and it's why these Pennsylvania grassroots Democrats who worked their asses off the elect Obama in 2008 are sending him a strong and clear message today. It's less than 90 seconds; give it a look:

Did Ed Rendell Just Make Dangerous Wingnut Pat Toomey A U.S. Senator?

I really don't want to sound as paranoid as a tea partier but sometimes I almost wonder if largely conservative Democratic insiders want Republicans, more reliably conservative than Democrats, to be able to hold an effective veto over... well, everything. Yesterday, as Mike Stark illustrated so poignantly, the Pennsylvania Democratic Party just about handed a far worse Republican than Scott Brown a Senate seat.

Arlen Specter is a Republican who changed the color of his team jersey from red to blue after polls showed that radical right extremist Pat Toomey would kick his ass in the closed Republican primary. Now it looks just as likely that Toomey will kick his ass in the general election as well. Joe Sestak offered the Democrats a way out-- which plenty of grassroots Democrats are taking him up on-- in the form of a primary. Specter is senile, incredibly corrupt, well known as the most mean-spirited and personally vicious member of the Senate, and conservative. Why should thinking grassroots Democrats even consider voting for him? Especially when they have someone like Joe Sestak as an alternative-- who isn't senile, isn't corrupt or vicious, and isn't conservative. Here's what Sestak's campaign had to say about the Pennsylvania Democratic State Committee, firmly controlled by Gov. Ed Rendell, endorsing Specter:

"The establishment has long made it known that it struck a deal to anoint the long-time Republican Senator. But as we have visited 26 counties with more than 230 events in a month-plus, we have found that Pennsylvanians are tired of business as usual and are ready to turn the page on a generation of deal-making done to maintain the status quo. This is another event in the hundreds more we will have in the campaign and we do want to gain the votes of those in attendance for the primary and the general election.

"At the debate last night, Senator Specter said he supports the 'basic values of the Democratic Party' after he spent the last 30 years voting against them. Joe Sestak actually believes in our Democratic principles because he believes in our working families. We look forward to continuing to spread a message of accountability for the working family and integrity as a public servant while campaigning across the state in the months to come."

Who Can Actually Count On Arlen Specter In A Pinch?

Last night Ken talked about Rep. Joe Sestak's insistence on facing up to the dilemma of a homelessness epidemic for hundreds of thousands of children in danger of slipping through the cracks of the current foreclosure crisis and economic meltdown. Joe, a former admiral, is the congressman from a district west of Philly that takes in almost all of Delaware County and parts of Montgomery and Chester counties. In 2006 Blue America helped him defeat corrupt GOP hack Curt Weldon (56-44%) in this traditionally Republican Party stronghold, and two years later voters in the 7th liked Joe so much that he was re-elected 60-40%, helping Obama rack up a 56-43% win over McCain.

This past weekend Harrisburg hosted the Pennsylvania Progressive Summit, and despite his best efforts, Joe was unable to coax his primary adversary, ex-Republican Arlen Specter, into a debate at the event (although Specter later flipped out and rushed the stage while Joe was speaking). Because of Specter's fear to face his younger and more vital opponent, each man answered questions in seperate appearances on Saturday evening. This way Specter was able to lie with impunity about his overwhelmingly conservative record without being challenged. As The Real Arlen Specter, a truth tracker site Sestak's campaign publishes, pointed out, "When you've been in Washington for more than a quarter-century, you learn to do or say whatever it takes to get elected." They did a good job of comparing Specter's misleading statements on Saturday night to progressive activists with his actual public record as a U.S. Senator.

WHAT SPECTER SAID:

"In my career I've voted with Democrats more often than with Republicans."

THE REAL ARLEN SPECTER:

• Has voted with Republican presidents 85% of the time.

• Cast more than 2,000 votes with President George W. Bush [Washington Post Votes Database]. In the years Bush was in office, Arlen Specter voted with the Republican Party over 70% of the time in the 110th Congress, over 77% of the time in the 109th Congress, over 85% of the time in the 108th Congress, and over 76% of the time in the 107th Congress.

• Raised money for Republicans nationally and throughout the state, campaigning for George Bush, Dick Cheney, Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin.

• Said John McCain and Sarah Palin were "the better choice."


WHAT SPECTER SAID:

I supported a "robust public option" on health care.

THE REAL ARLEN SPECTER:

Was dead-set against a public option before Joe Sestak entered the race:

NBC's Meet the Press, May 3, 2009:

David Gregory: Would you support health care reform that puts up a government-run public plan to complete with a private plan issued by a private insurance company?

SEN. SPECTER: No. ...

David Gregory: Let me -- I just want to turn, then, to the issue of health care. You would not support a public plan?

SEN. SPECTER: That's what I said … and that's what I meant.


WHAT SPECTER SAID:

"My labor record is pure as ivory snow … I have a 99.4 rating."

THE REAL ARLEN SPECTER:

• Has poor lifetime union ratings: AFL-CIO 61%, AFSCME 54%, IBEW 65%.

• Voted to deny collective bargaining rights to federal employees. [HR 5005, 9/26/02]

• Voted to restrict unions' access to the workplace, voting for a bill that would have made it harder for unions to distribute materials and solicit contributions from employees. [HR 3061, 11/1/01]


WHAT SPECTER SAID:

"I believe there ought to be labor law reform."

THE REAL ARLEN SPECTER:

• Totally opposed the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) before Joe Sestak got in the race:
"I think [EFCA] is a bad bill, and I am opposed to it." -- April 28, 2009
"I'm still against [EFCA]. Democrats are all for it, Republicans are all against it, and I'm the critical vote." -- May 3, 2009


WHAT SPECTER SAID:

"I believe that the status of people of the same sex to marry ought to be the same as for men and women."

THE REAL ARLEN SPECTER:

Voted with Rick Santorum for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). [HR 3396, 9/10/96, Record Vote 280].

In a letter to a constituent this September, Specter defended his support of DOMA and went on to say, "I appreciate the goal of the proposed amendment (to ban gay marriage)" and "I support traditional marriage as defined in DOMA."


WHAT SPECTER SAID:

Voted for Economic Stimulus Bill after Gov. Rendell said, "I'm in deep trouble."

THE REAL ARLEN SPECTER:

Cut approximately $1.5 billion in state aid to Pennsylvania -- enough to cut the state budget deficit in half.

Preferred John McCain's plan of mostly corporate tax breaks and NO stimulus investments or aid for Pennsylvania.


WHAT SPECTER SAID:

"I opposed the Bush administration on warrantless wiretapping."

THE REAL ARLEN SPECTER:

Worked with the Bush administration to write a bill that the Washington Post said was a "green light for domestic spying."


WHAT SPECTER SAID:

"The Clean Air Act is vital, and I support it."

THE REAL ARLEN SPECTER:

Supports George W. Bush's "Clean Air" Act -- the largest rollback of environmental protections in history. [HJRes2, 01/23/03, #28]


WHAT SPECTER SAID:

"Abstinence-only education has not worked. … I believe all the information ought to be available."

THE REAL ARLEN SPECTER:

Has earmarked nearly $10 million for abstinence-only education -- the only Member of Congress to do so -- in order to solidify his conservative base.


WHAT SPECTER SAID:

"Look how far out of touch Santorum was with the Pennsylvania electorate."

THE REAL ARLEN SPECTER:

Is proud of the strong support he's received from Rick Santorum:
"If I'm a good enough Republican for [President Bush], and I'm a good enough Republican for Rick Santorum, then I think I'm a good enough Republican for a majority of Pennsylvanians."

Specter hasn't been a dependable vote for progressive solutions to America's problems. According to the Progressive Punch crucial vote score since Obama became president, on close substantive roll calls when Democrats needed Specter most, he was down at the bottom of the pack-- 57th out of 60, worse than Blanche Lincoln, worse than Lieberman, worse than Mary Landrieu, worse than Max Baucus. Is being a better voter than Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh proof he should be re-elected? If you think Arlen Specter is the right man to face far right fringe Republican Pat Toomey in November-- offering progressive Pennsylvania voters no incentive to even bother going to the polls-- this ActBlue page is probably something you should just skip.