Mr. Diano: Indeed. Antagonizing senior citizens -who participate in large numbers – clearly is ill-advised. More importantly, however, it is unconscionable to suggest that the aged are utterly incapable of serving the public. No honorable or upstanding office-seeker or office-holder would ever make such an argument. Voicing opposition to Senator Specter’s policy positions, party switch, etc., is a right his opponents enjoy. Maligning Specter because he is a senior citizen is immoral and only encourages discrimination against the elderly. No legitimate Democrat (or Republican, for that matter) would sanction such behavior.

Current state of the Sestak campaign w Sestak giving orders… enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtqf0CCVUek&NR=1

“We must demonstrate respect for ALL citizens”…Except if they’re named Joe Sestak, then we get to make insinuations towards him and unfounded attacks against him.

Mr. Diano, I have seen not one response from you that is based on anything but conjectures and anecdotes. Read your response to me, heck read all your comments. You revel in generalities (such as “generally not complimentary”, “other dems”, “frequently weasels out”), while never actually stating a single concrete fact or instance. You selectively pick and choose when to look at Specter’s history, stating, “Specter can point to tons of jobs and projects over his career for people and industries all over the state.” and yet in another thread you point only to his rejection of Bork as proof of his competency on the judiciary committee. The true picture of Specter comes when looking at his career as a whole, not selectively choosing bits and pieces of his resume.

David, if I ask a direct question on a vote that Specter gave, will you give a direct answer. How do you reconcile Specter’s original support for DOMA, with his new stance that it should be repealed? What changed between 1995 and 2009, other than his party affiliation? What about his 2006 remarks on the senate record where he stated, in black and white, “I do believe marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. I believe the Congress of the United States has acted responsibly on the Defense of Marriage Act.” How about his support for Alito and Roberts?

If we can discuss real issues, and concrete facts, maybe that would serve everyone else better rather than mudslinging (oh and to answer the question you posed in an earlier thread as to who would go negative first, it was Specter.) Hopefully we can have some actual discourse instead of hinding behind a thesaurus and hot air like some other posters.

PS-, I think everyone on here should really be ashamed that a poster was allowed to say, “Just proves to most people that he never had a real job as most people did all their lives.” when talking about someone that served their country in the armed forces. Its understandable that Specter supporters would try and find chinks in Sestak’s military history (not that I agree with it), but to suggest that he “…never had a real job…” is abhorrent. The man gave up a chunk of his life to defend his country, thats more of a job than Lana will ever have.

Oh and in case anyone actually cares to talk about the ad, it was a nice biographical ad for people who maybe dont know him as well. A little long, but I guess being complete was better than being succinct.

“Specter’s too damn old and weak willed to do this job another six years (especially when he’s failed to do it properly the past six).”

“Specter is famous for shelving any shred of conscience when his political career hits a speed bump and he needs to pander to either side.
It will be a great 2010 Thanksgiving if we can get rid of this turkey.”

Wanna guess who these quotes are from? I’ll give you a hint, his initials are D.D. and he loves Arlen now. Dont believe me? Theyre from this very site, on April 28, 2009, BEFORE ARLEN’S SWITCH. HateSestak, should we demand an apology from Mr. Diano for his ageism? I really hate that Mr. Diano has placed a personal vendetta against Mr. Sestak above principles and scruples. If you support Specter because you don’t like Sestak, come out and say it. Don’t hide behind phony rhetoric and regurgitation of Specter camp talking points.

Lana: The FBI, you observe, “is about to nail him any day.” Precisely why Representative Sestak is unlikely to invest large sums of money in an all-out advertising effort. The empirical reality is that Sestak and his staunch ally, Wendell Young IV, have far, far more pressing concerns at present. A Legal Defense Fund must take priority. They recognize that when the primary comes to a close, the…aforementioned law enforcement authorities will no longer hesistate to act. Specter (who is fully aware of Sestak’s grave legal predicament), by launching his own media offensive, has given Sestak no alternative but to squander much-needed funds on TV ads. Sestak is on the horns of a dilemma. Pity.

FH: Denunciations of candidate’s policy positions actions, alleged wrongdoing, etc., as I conceded, are to be expected in a primary campaign. Suggesting that all the members of an entire segment of the population – in this instance, the elderly – are feeble and unfit, however, is disgraceful and dishonorable. Those who do so are guilty of prejudice and bias, and should abandon their preconceived notions about senior citizens. Decry Senator Specter’s policy positions and actions all you wish – but ageism is objectionable and offensive. I cannot believe that even Sestak is unscrupulous enough to condone it. Then again, he has continually exploited his own DAUGHTER for political gain, so who knows?

@HateSestak- I have zero notions about the elderly, if they can do the job, great! I was actually quoting Mr. Diano, so you can direct your criticisms towards him. If you can call him out on his words (“too damn old” I believe was the phrase he used) maybe you can also answer a few other questions I have put forth in this thread.

Chief amongst my many concerns about your post is your continued lack of specifics regarding your accusations towards Mr. Sestak. You (and others, who I suspect are just parroting earlier comments made by you) are convinced at the coming FBI arrest of Mr. Sestak. Yet when pressed for any specifics, you retreat behind your thesaurus and multiple generalities. The truth of the matter is that were you to post under your real name, and post specifics, the allegations would sound less ominous and more like the ramblings that they are. Unless and until you are willing to show your cards, I (and others) will continue to see you as nothing more than the deluded cyber-presence of the Specter campaign. Oooh, its fun to talk in generalities and self-inflating language! Now I know why you do it so often!

FH-
Bill Clinton (who signed it) and many others changed their position on DOMA since 1995. In 2006, I asked Sestak about gay marriage and at the time he said marriage was for one man and one woman. So, he’s changed his stance too.
Is that direct enough for you?

As for Specter’s support of Roberts and Alito, Specter has voted for every nominee except Bork. He voted for Ginsburg, which was hardly a “conservative” vote. Supreme court nominees used to be approved with large bipartisan majorities. The straight-party votes are a more recent trend, due to the polarization of the parties and the breakdown of bipartisanship. Specter’s from the “old school” where he defers to the President’s pick unless it’s someone like Bork.
Scalia was approved 98-0
Ginsburg 96-3
Stevens 98-0
Kennedy 97-0
Breyer 87-9
O’Connor 99-0
Souter 90-9

The more recent trend deviates from the past:
Roberts 78-22
Alito 58–42
Sotomayor 68–31

So, Specter’s vote for Roberts and Alito is no different than his vote for Ginsburg and Sotomayor.

BTW, I do disagree with the characterization that Sestak “didn’t have a real job”. He did and worked very hard at it. However, he did a very poor job at commanding and managing his staff and was sacked for it. Here is the Navy Times article from July 2005 explaining why Sestak was relieved of duty. This article pre-dates any political campaign by Sestak, so you can’t claim it’s some swift-boat attack:
http://www.navytimes.com/legacy/new/1-292925-995180.php

Sestak was sacked by Clinton too. Ask him about how Clinton chewed him out in the Oval office before he kicked him out and sent him back to the fleet.

As for my quotes about Specter, I do think he’s a turkey and an opportunist, and I’d love to get rid of him. However, he’s still better than Sestak and Toomey. If a real Democrat like Josh Shapiro was running, I’d be supporting Josh on the principle of wanting a “real Dem”.

Sestak fails to meet that criteria, and his supporters who are backing him on the “real Dem” mantra are simply wrong and misguided about Sestak. Sestak has repeated demonstrated he has no principles or scruples and makes Specter look like an amateur in that department.

There is no contradiction. Specter is merely the least objectionable of three terrible choices. Satisfied?

I have been a long time Sestak supporter for (4.5years)….
I and everyone else believed as Joe always put it, in his literature, commercials, ads and political signs, e-mails, you name it, that he was a Three Star Admiral!

Now I have confirmation from the Chris Mathews show that not only was he actually a Vice Admiral but a Two Star Vice Admiral at that!

This is not Swift Boating, this is the truth! I had checked and he was relieved of duty in the Navy for creating a poor command climate. Joe never answered that remark on the Chris Mathews Show and just danced all around the question of him being fired and talked about everything else!

Joe let me and the democrat party down the moment he decided to take on DEMOCRAT Arlen Specter in the US Senate race.

The only thing Joe will succeed at in this race is dent the armor of Democrat SENATOR Arlen Specter, the Democrat party and himself!

I was very upset knowing Joe Sestak, some time ago, had planned to run for President in 2016. He put the “political cart far ahead of the horse” and because his future plan was being delayed, he decided to run roughshod through this Senate race that will and already has harmed his future!

Joe Sestak is SCUTTLING the Democratic Party ship, the question is why?
I’ll let you know the next time and you will all understand why Joe must go!!!

They call them puppets or parrots, but right is still right!
• Military rank is a title, just as is Mister, Master, Madam, or Miss. An officer’s rank is in fact a commission given by the US Congress. Once a military person has retired, their rank is a permanent title. As anyone who a fifth grade education should know, the title comes first.
Ex: Dr. Physician B. Medicine, MD.
Or: ex. RAdmL. Phineas L. Richards, USN (ret.)
The affiliation comes last, MD for Medical Doctor or USN for United States Navy.
Rank Given Surname
Branch, Retired
Where:
*******Rank = Last rank held********
Given = First name
Surname = Last name
Branch = Branch of service (US Army, US Navy, US Marine Corps, US Air Force, US Coast Guard)
Retired = self-explanatory
For example:
RDML. Phineas L. Richards
United States Navy, Retired
The error lies in the abbreviated version which is only partly incorrect as it should be for the above example:
RAdmL. Phineas L. Richards, USN (ret.)
Abbreviation for Rear Admiral, in fact RADM or RAdm are both acceptable, as is RAdmL (indicating 2 star admiral lower half – the USN has no 1 star rank, but has two, 2 star ranks, upper and lower half of Rear Admiral. A one star Admiral is called a Commodore, and this is only used in time of war.)
However, in using the formal method, neither the rank, nor the service should be abbreviated. So the example is most correct for the formal method as example:
Rear Admiral Phineas L. Richards
United States Navy, Retired