The contrast between these two politicians could not be more clear here. In 2004 Specter rolled out the advertisements touting his endorsements from prominent right-wingers. Now he wants to pretend like none of that ever happened. This is the ad I’ve been waiting for, the one that makes it completely clear who the voters are choosing on May 18. Do you want a person who actually believes in Democratic principles in Joe Sestak, or someone who you actively campaigned against for 30 years in Arlen Specter? The choice is for the each of the voters, but to me, its a no-brainer…I’ll take the lamb over the wolf in sheep’s clothing…

That’s all? Kinda weak for what it could have been.

Dan-
Well, this was expected. At least it didn’t have the corny music like the web ads.

The one clip of Specter close up, looks like a cropped blow up of a further away shot, but it’s too hard to tell in this copy of the ad.

BTW, here are the general rules for telling whether an ad is positive or negative in the first few seconds:

1) If the “I’m XYZ and I approve this message” starts the ad, then it’s a negative ad.

2) If the ad is in black and white, it’s a negative ad.

FH-
If Sestak actually believed in Democratic principles, you might have a case. But he doesn’t, so you don’t.
With Arlen, you know what you are getting. His votes and campaigning don’t differ the way Sestak’s did on that Iraq vote, where Joe gave Bush a blank check.

You’ve been “waiting” for that ad? You could have seen several preliminary versions of it on Sestak’s web ads for months. How sad if that’s the kind of thing you wait for.

David:
At this point I can conclude that satan would be a prefereable cnadidate. Did Joe run over your cat whlie you were at the star treck convention?
Even with foxhole converson the images if he and his wife Joan living it up on the public payroll as republican stalwarts and cheerleaders.
I think the rank and file “fdr” democrats are gonna have trouble holding their nose and pulling his lever.
In a low level turnout- as I expect it to be- these are the voters. The haters- anti-joe or arlen will neutralize each other.
IMHO

I think it’s clear that Sestak has banked everything on people not tusting, liking, or wanting Specter around anymore. And, to my surprise, it just might be enough. We can only hope.

goodnaturedcynic – LOL

This is just the tip of the iceberg. The TV spots over the next two weeks will be fun to watch. The Admiral will sink the Bushie Republican Specter. All the angry haters will be crying soon.

GO JOE GO!!!

I hate to point out that Joe is a new Democrat who spent his life as an Independent in the service-he was certainly involved in Politics and cooperated with whomever was in power. Arlen was an “R” who often backed liberal votes and is a “moderate”. Joe does not live in Pa. Arlen travels the State all of the time. When you look at their records of a life time, Arlen is the MAN for the job. The best choice to beat Toomey.

Neil Oxman is a political genius.

Arlen Specter apologists are hilarious! About that Iraq vote – Sestak wasn’t in congress until 2007. It might be a good idea to educate yourself on the facts before election day. Just a thought.
There is no way Specter will beat Toomey in the general election. If Dems hope to retain a 2nd senate seat in PA they will elect Sestak on May 18th. Me? I’m voting Green in November, so whatever.

Arlen has NO chance of beating Toomey. And, I still have not forgiven him for his Anita Hill bashing.

David- “With Arlen, you know what you are getting. His votes and campaigning don’t differ…”

Wait, wait, wait… did you really just say that? His votes and campaigning don’t differ? He went from voting for core democratic principles on a few issues (stem cells, right to choice) and opposing everything else for 30 years, to supporting everything…How is that consistent? The only reason Specter voted with the Democrats so much this year is because he had a primary challenger in Sestak…or do you not remember what Specter said when he switched parties, “I will not be an automatic sixtieth vote.” And yet as soon as the prospect of a primary challenge from a real liberal comes up, Specter bolts as far left as possible. What happens if he wins in May? You really think hes gonna keep up his voting record? I think hes gonna pack up his liberal bag and move back to the right (and I dont mean correct) side of the centrist neighborhood.

I’ll give him one thing in which he is consistent: his swiftboat attacks on Sestak are certainly right in line with the campaign strategies he’s employed for 30 years!

Oh and one more thing, keep harping on Sestak’s funding of the troops while in Iraq…but how do you support specter when he makes comments like this:

BLITZER: What about that — let me let Senator Specter respond — this whole notion of preemptive strikes to remove these kinds of dictators, like Saddam Hussein? The president did it this time. Is that a precedent that we should be watching for?

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R), PENNSYLVANIA: With the experience of September 11th, I think we have to act when we know there is a danger. We knew that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in 1998, when Saddam kicked the United Nations out of Iraq, and I think it was appropriate to move ahead.

And I think that the decisive success that the United States has had is backing up what President Bush has done. -4/23/03 Inside Edition

“Saddam Hussein is venal and brutal, but not insane or suicidal. He now faces the decision to either step-aside or face destruction. . . . I think the President really laid it on the line when he said you don’t have to wait until you’re attacked before you respond. Saddam is a man who has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, the Kurds, used them also in the Iran/Iraq war, attacked Kuwait and is conclusively a menace. . . . I believe there is a clear threat. The World has changed dramatically since 9/11. To sit back and let a man with his proclivities and his force, do what he wants on his own timetable, I think is inviting attack. . . . Al Qaeda did not need any special motivation to deal us deadly blows on 9/11″ -3/18/03

Arlen SUPPORTED the war from even before day 1, and thought it was a good idea…How can you attack Sestak for funding the troops without deadlines (admittedly something he didnt want to do, but what was the alternative…hold out for deadlines and abandon the troops?) while glossing over Specter’s record of active cheer-leading for the war?

Can an Eric Massa fondle the male genitals advertisement be far on the horizon, one wonders? One should exercise caution when setting precedents in a primary campaign. If personal links and affiliations are to be a key determinant, Representative Sestak has much to fear.

Truth is that Arlen is a party unto himself that does and has not fit either party. His party status is a best a practical, albiet insincere, way to amximize his chance to be in an office he covets.
Basic ambition, oppportunism and situationaly flexable principals- a truly modern incumbent politican.

FH: Sestak was an ardent advocate of scaling back the U.S. military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2006. It was, in actuality, the cornerstone of his 2006 effort. But he subsequently voiced support for continuing these campaigns (and financing them). Yet you tout his suppposed consistency. Sestak also purported to be a champion of the labor movement – but apparently major labor unions in PA were unimpressed by his initiatives (virtually all these labor organizations enthusiastically endorsed Senator Specter). The reality is, Sestak has not met the expectations of any constituency he claimed to represent. This is one of the many reasons why Sestak did not receive any notable endorsements in the Commonwealth. He has not fulfilled many of the pledges he made in previous campaigns.

ARN: Senator Specter’s resources (upwards of $9 million) easily eclipse those of Mr. Toomey (roughly $4 million). These resources will be critical to the general election outcome. Toomey will not be able to surmount this obstacle (nor will Sestak). Sestak, by contrast, will likely close this primary with resources equivalent to Toomey’s. In other words, your argument is invalid.

I-PA: The empirical reality is that Sestak has close ties to some notable arms manufacturers (such as Delaware County-base Dragonfly Pictures) and is hardly a staunch advocate of peace. Sestak’s Senate bid is fueled by megalomania and vainglory (and, of course, a lingering fear of incarceration) not by a concern with the burning issues of our time.

NE Philly Union Guy: Astute observation. It was indeed “kinda weak” – but it will provoke a scathing response nonetheless. You see, Senator Specter can actually afford to invest sizable sums in TV advertising.

Cynic-
I’m not happy with any of the candidates. But, Specter is the least objectionable, and has a better shot at beating Toomey than Sestak.

BTW, when you describe “party unto himself”, you can substitute Sestak in there as well. If Sestak gets in, he’ll make Specter look like an amateur in the “selfish” department.

Lee-
Sestak won in 2006 because a lot of people wanted to get rid of Weldon. But, Specter still has about 60% approval rating among the Democrats and enjoys the support of the party and the unions.
Unfortunately, Sestak is forcing Specter to spend more money responding to attacks like this. This damages our chances against Toomey.

FH-
People do generally know what they are getting with Specter, which is why he’s been re-elected so many times and gets Dem votes because he stood up to the GOP on a lot of key social issues. The Quinnipiac polls showed that more people trust Specter to vote as he campaigns compared to Sestak. If you don’t like it, complain to Quinnipiac and ask for a list of the people they surveyed.

If (when) Specter wins in May, he’s still with the Dems. He’s not going to be more conservative than he was when the Republican party had his nuts in a vise. Arlen is about as welcome with the GOP as Charlie Crist.

As for Iraq War, I’m absolutely justified in going after Sestak for that vote. That vote was in 180-degree opposition to everything Sestak had been spouting for a year about what he stood for and how he viewed the Iraq War. As for Specter’s vote in 2003, you’d have to condemn Hillary Clinton and John Kerry and a host of other Democrats as well.
In 2006, Sestak portrayed himself as a warrior against war. Since then, we’ve seen that Joe is enamored with the “glory” of war and is a Hawk. There should be little doubt that Sestak would have voted for the Iraq War in 2003, had he been in office.

hahahaha, specter is a republican

hatespecter-
That would be news to the Republican party, which is quite sure Specter isn’t.

dd–when’s the next star trek convention…how’s your cat…beem me up scotty…lol

Sick-
When’s the next Toomey supporters for Sestak convention.

Oh, wait, it’s running from now until May 18th.

While CNN’s Jack Cafferty may be a bit too, uh, plain-spoken for some, I’ve always liked his rant from 2006, after Arlen Specter promised to hold hearings on government wiretapping and then renegged on his promise:

“In the end, Senator Specter has turned out to be yet another gutless Republican worm cowering in the face of pressure from the administration and fellow Republicans. There are not going to be any hearings. Americans won’t find out if their privacy is being illegally invaded.

“You know what the Senate Judiciary Committee settled for instead? Senator Orrin Hatch said he has won assurances from Vice President Dick Cheney that the White House will review proposed changes to the law that would restrict certain aspects of the NSA program.

“Dick Cheney is going to decide if it’s OK to spy on American citizens without a warrant. And this worthless bunch of senators has agreed to let him do it. It’s a disgrace.”

I cant wait for Diano to try and spin Specter’s support for Cheney’s office.

I also love his whole line of attack, ‘Sestak voted to fund Cheney’s office’. Just not sure it makes any sense, at least in terms of what Diano is trying to say. I doubt he knows what the hell he even means.

Dave, answer me this, aside from your personal hissy fit over Sestak booting you off his bandwagon, how is it that you can defend Specter from every single attack after he spent 30 years as a Republican (centrist, but still Republican) and voting sparingly for progressive issues? You say Sestak ‘lied’ in 2006, except that before, and since, Sestak has been in the House, Specter has been voting for EVERY thing you hold against Sestak. And all the votes you agree with Sestak on, Specter voted the other way.

Get over yourself.

Wait wait wait, your argument as to why you’re justified on the Iraq war because Sestak voted to fund the troops was against his campaign mantra to pull out of Iraq, but Specter’s ok because he supported it from the start?! You’ll just say anything now… Specter believed in this war from the start, his quotes and votes belie any assertions to the contrary. Kerry and Clinton aren’t asking for my vote as a Democrat in Pennsylvania, Specter is. If you want to hammer anyone on the Iraq war, hammer Specter. If he were truly a moderate (like you’d have us believe) he could have stood up and said, ‘you know what, no…the evidence is just not there and I dont want the loss of life…I cannot vote for the authorization of military force.’ He didn’t. Instead his remarks reveal that he championed the Bush Doctrine of foreign policy.

“I think the President really laid it on the line when he said you don’t have to wait until you’re attacked before you respond. Saddam is a man who has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, the Kurds, used them also in the Iran/Iraq war, attacked Kuwait and is conclusively a menace. . . . I believe there is a clear threat.”

How the hell can you defend that, (if youre really liberal at heart and knew this war was wrong), and not have to take four or five showers? I want to take a shower just looking at that…

Oh and Haverford Dem, I’d love to hear the story of David’s hissy fit…he’s been trying to hold himself out as campaigning against Sestak because of his Iraq war vote, but that didn’t really match up with any of his previous blogging around that time… Originally, it seemed like he was upset that Sestak didn’t go out of his way to help out a friend of his in an election…but if there’s more to the story, it would go a long way to evaluating exactly how little credit to lend anything he says…

1) It’s a pretty weak ad. 2) It should have been run weeks ago to have any real impact before the primary.

That was what we were discussing before Sestak’s underpaid cronies started throwing around their unsubstantiated allegations against the posters on this site.

FH-
Don’t start asking people about their stories…because you definitely won’t like what you hear. Sestak is a mean, vindictive @sshole who doesn’t deserve to be promoted to the Senate. Specter was right when he described Sestak has “tyrannical” during the debate.

I’d love to see a Specter ad about the subject and I know some people who would volunteer to participate.

Dem Voter- I’m asking…fish or cut bait, because all of your “stories” are complete BS… Nobody can question them because you use completely unverifiable facts…the people in your stories are always nameless and faceless and you always hear it from “a reliable source” or “it was told to me”… bull@#$%. You make it up as you go. Its crap and it has nothing to do with the issues facing Pennsylvanians. Debate the issues and not the stories.

Haverford Dem-
Did you like Joe Sestak’s June 28, 2007 vote against Rahm Emanual’s amendment to cut of funding of Dick Cheney’s office? It was House Amendment 480 to H.R. 2829.

BTW, when Specter threatened to hold hearings, the GOP told him flat out they were going to take him off the Judiciary committee. I agree Specter backed down, which is why he’s better in the Dems where he won’t get that kind of pressure.
Why are you okay with Sestak backing down to George Bush on “timetables” after Joe promised to stand up to Bush and hold the line on that specific issue. The point is we have two lying rotten weasels (Sestak’s worse), but only one of them can beat Toomey (that’s Specter). If it was up to me, I’d rather have NONE of them and forfeit the seat in the Senate. However, Specter is the only one with a chance at beating Toomey. I’m not so much defending Specter as declaring the Sestak is twice the weasel you all believe Specter is.

What “hissy” fit and when was I “booted” from anything? I was involved with the campaign right up to the election. On their campaign site they had a form to find your polling place that linked to my server, which I worked with them to set up that last week. I’ve got a Sept email from Joe himself telling that they altered their mailing strategy based upon my recommendations. I was there Day one unpacking laptops, installing office software, setting up a wireless network (with my own hub), fixing their copier, etc. So, I was there from the first day to the last day. I wasn’t an office monkey answering phones, and spent most of my time blogging.

FH-
There is no doubt in my mind that Sestak believe in the Iraq war from the start himself. I think he’s totally full of shit whenever claims that he opposed it. Basically, he and Specter are even on that point, though Sestak’s completely dishonest about it.
Specter is a very staunch supporter of Israel. The pro-Israel crowd believed Saddam was a threat to Israel after the Gulf War and the scud attacks. Based on the misinformation Bush/Cheney handed out, I can see how Specter was fooled (as were Clinton and Kerry), and also had a stronger pre-disposition to consider Iraq a threat. Bush/Cheney cooked the books, but how is it a slam against a moderate Republican if the liberal Dems were also taken in by it?

Hey, there are plenty of people that think Iran with an atomic bomb is a threat to Israel and want to preemptively strike Iran. BTW, I don’t believe Iran is a threat to Israel because Israel has dozens or hundreds of atomic bombs to wipe Iran off the map.

FH, you don’t seem to be able to follow a timeline very well. As late as April 2007, I was blogging in support of Sestak for his speech at the CAIR event. In May of 2007, I went after Sestak publicly in the blogs and a published letter to the editor of the Delco Times about Sestak’s Iraq vote. That timeline is ON THE RECORD and well established. The candidates didn’t start getting turned away from Sestak until after that, and I didn’t learn their storied until even later at various Dem events. So, the timeline is intact, and as I’ve stated. I defy you to find me publicly excoriating Sestak prior to his May 2007 vote.

To ALL- If you honestly believe that Sestak can beat Toomey, then you SHOULD vote for him. However, you will not only be handing the seat over to the Republicans, but if Sestak prevails, you will get a much worse Senator than Specter.

BTW, at the Delco Dems dinner tonight, I ran into a friend of mine who used to work for Sestak and now hates his guts. The first thing he said to me tonight was “Please tell me that f*cker isn’t going to win.”
I also ran into one of Sestak’s strongest public supporters in the party, who genuinely likes Sestak. He told me thought that loves logging on to read my stuff and finds it very entertaining. He doesn’t agree with my conclusions, but he’s wasn’t mad at me or anything, because he knows that I give a lot of support to the Delco Dems.
The FUNNIEST point was when I was talking with Ray Santarelli and Bob Stump and a Sestak worker came up and introduced himself to us. When he got to me and I said my name, he still politely said, “Pleased to meet you”. Ray, Bob and I all burst out laughing as it was the last thing we expected to hear. Usually I get an “Oh.” and the person walks away.

Well, David, you’re right, you were a Sestak supporter through April 2007…and yes, you were critical of his Iraq vote in May of that year as well…You’re absolutely correct on that matter…However, what is also on the record is you continuing to defend him far past that vote. That vote wasn’t your watershed moment, sure you were angry and told the campaign to not ask for money from you, but in fact you defended Sestak on some of the same issues you attack him with now through September of 07:

“To be fair, Sestak is tireless and does work harder than everyone else, but that’s his choice. If he also chooses to burn out his staff, he’ll have to work even harder replacing and training them.
[...]
The reason I mention this is that during the 2006 campaign, Sestak’s management style and “poor command climate” was frequently brought up by Weldon’s supporters. Their contention was it made Sestak unfit for Congress. My reply was basically: Who cares if he is a bad boss? It would matter only to his staff, and they can walk away if they don’t like it. In a free, competitive market, the problem would be self correcting.
[...]
Joe is 100 times better than Weldon as a Congressman. Despite my strong disagreement with a few votes, he represents me more than Weldon ever did.”(padelcowatch.blogspot.com on september 4, 2007)

However, the real vitriol started to come out after the november 2007 elections when you seemed to blame Sestak for losses the party suffered (specifically I believe you harped on Mike Farrel’s loss): “However, the REAL culprit, in my mind, is Sestak. He didn’t lift a finger to help the Delco Dems and completely abandoned the candidates beyond a few sporadic and hollow words of endorsement. He selfishly horded his volunteers and donors, and ignored all pleas to bring unity to the ticket by significantly funding the joint campaign.” (11/7/07)

Its not really Sestak’s job to run or support your campaigns for you. If he wants to, great, but hes not Boss Tweed of Delaware County, he doesnt pick and choose the candidates, and he can support or sit on the sidelines as he pleases. As much as you seem to love establishment party politics, I think having an establishment only hurts voters by promoting not those who are deserving, but those who are friends and/or donors to that particular establishment. Your argument and anger seemed to come from ‘well if Sestak did this, we could have won easily, so screw sestak for not doing that!’ Well I got news for you, if ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ were candy and nuts, wouldn’t it be a Merry Christmas for the Delco establishment that David Diano wants to make.

If you bloggers or any one else are far right wing conservatives, what you are about to read may not bother you much and you all will keep slamming Arlen Specter!

But if you are a true democrat that has been caught up in the SESTAK campaign for JOE AND ONLY FOR JOE, then what you are about to read MAY BE VERY HARMFUL TO YOUR HEALTH!

There is no telling what this MAX – DONOR below is really after if SESTAK gets elected, how will he joystick Sestak as a senator, or further down the road if he is elected to higher office!

I, as a TRUE BLUE DEMOCRAT, am very, very deeply concerned and if you are any type of democrat you should be equally concerned! Sestak clearly has motives beyond your belief!

Richard Mellon Scaife—once the Clintons’ archenemy and best-known as the man behind a “vast, right-wing conspiracy” that Hillary Clinton said was out to destroy them.

From Newsweek and Wikipedia:
In the 1990s, the heir to the Mellon banking fortune contributed millions to efforts to dig up dirt on President Clinton. HE BACKED THE CLINTON BACKING American Spectator magazine, whose muckrakers produced lurid stories about Clinton’s alleged financial improprieties and trysts. SCAIFE ALSO FINANCED A PROBE CALLED THE ARKANSAS PROJECT that tried, among other things, to show that Clinton, while Arkansas governor, protected drug runners.
SCAIFE IS PARTICULARLY WELL KNOWN FOR HIS FINANCIUAL SUPPORT OF CONSERVATIVE AND RIGHT WING PUBLIC POLICY ORGANIZATIONS OVER THE PAST TWO DECADES.

The Arkansas Project was a series of investigations (mostly funded by billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife) that were initiated with the intent of damaging and ending the presidency of Bill Clinton.[1] Scaife spent nearly $2 million on this anti-Clinton project.

The investigations included the reexamination of the death of White House aide, Vincent Foster (which had previously been ruled a suicide), the investigation of a 1970′s real estate investment that Bill and Hillary Clinton had made in a development known as Whitewater, the re-opening of allegations that Bill Clinton had sexually harassed an Arkansas state employee, and the creation of wide ranging conspiracy theories about the Clintons.
The investigations funded by Scaife money mostly concentrated on the Whitewater investments, which extended to a conspiracy theory surrounding the death of Vince Foster, a Clinton aide with connections to Whitewater. Christopher W. Ruddy (a freelance reporter for the Scaife-owned Pittsburgh Tribune-Review) published a series of articles claiming Clinton was behind Foster’s suicide.[11] Although Clinton was never found to have broken the law by Ken Starr, Ruddy published his book, The Strange Death of Vincent Foster, regardless.

IT IS YOUR CHOICE whose SIDE YOU ARE ON!

FH-
May 07 was the burning moment. I still had hopes that Sestak might be able to be brought back into the fold and realize he should be helping the Dems. Sestak had been promising a “big check” to the Delco Dem throughout the Summer and Fall. I had been asked by the Delco leadership to back off of Sestak, in hopes that he would step up to the plate with the “big check”.

It wasn’t until the 07 elections that I fully realized how it wasn’t just his bad votes, but his total disregard for the local party. The “big check” was $1,000. Which was an insult, especially considering all the time and money the Delco Dems had spent helping Sestak get off the ground when he arrived, and the promised he’d made to help.
In Sept 07, Joe’s brother made it clear that Joe wasn’t going to help anybody when he said, “Why should he? It’s not his contest. No one here did anything for him.”

So, after the Nov 07 elections I realized that Sestak was beyond redemption, and I made it clear to the leadership that I wasn’t going to try and appease Sestak for their behalf anymore, since it made no difference.

Also, in Dec 07, Sestak made his SECOND Iraq vote, for a blank check. That prompted a second editorial letter and public criticism of Sestak.

You are 100% wrong that Sestak was not morally and ethically obligated to help the local candidates, especially those that helped him get elected. Joe wants to run on honor and loyalty, but has demonstrated none of it. He failed to fulfill promises he made to build the party when he sought our support and resources and volunteer lists. If you really think that Sestak had no obligation to respond in kind, then you must think that being a selfish jackass is the model for Dem candidates.

And while Sestak is better than Weldon, so is a dead cat (which I have also posted).

I’ve also made it clear in other postings here that I was wrong about the turnover being self correcting. I assumed that Sestak might change his ways to avoid the bleeding of staff, and didn’t take into account he’d didn’t care about having a quality staff nor the damage from the loss of knowledge. I was wrong to give Sestak that much credit.

You seem to be doing a lot of research on me from your hiding place. You can throw out old postings (without the context of what was going on behind the scenes), but you continue to shield your own posting history.

Who knows if you’ve praised Specter or Toomey in the past?

I have enough confidence in myself to post under my real name. I could have deleted every one of those posts from years ago, but I haven’t. I’ve got nothing to hide. You can’t say the same. You can’t even beat me in an unfair fight, so it’s clear why you don’t want a fair one.

I have always praised Toomey!

95 South-
Sadly, that’s no surprise. There is a cure, but you’d have to go all the way back to 1st grade and learn everything right this time.

How can I know what was going on “behind the scenes”, all I can look at is the record that has been presented to me… that record shows you to be holding yourself out as something you are not. Just admit that you’re pissed off because Sestak didnt support your local Delco candidate and you feel that your support for him entitled you to that support. Sestak’s not beholden to you or anyone else, no matter what you say or think…just because you or someone else provided Sestak with help during his campaign does not ENTITLE you get something back in return. That’d be like giving someone a birthday present in the hopes that they give you one on your birthday! You can’t EXPECT something in return for your service, or another candidate’s service, there is no quid pro quo. If Sestak helped you out down the line, great, if not too bad… there’s no moral or ethical violation in him not helping your friends because you helped him. You try to paint yourself as this big dem supporter who is holding his nose voting for Specter to defend the seat from toomey, but you said it yourself, “However, if you guys want to commit political suicide with Sestak, you are on your own…” You don’t care about the seat, Specter or Toomey…you care about yourself and your vendetta against Sestak…

I’m not going to debate these crappy personal issues with you anymore David, I’m gonna debate the issues and the records. I made up my own mind on my vote based upon those records (and with a little help from your ranting), and now I’m gonna defend that vote. Should you want to change my, and other voters, minds with issues and policies, I’d encourage that! That would have a much better appeal amongst readers than your stories that have no basis in verifiable facts. If you want to let your own personal feelings weigh alongside which candidate better represents Democratic values, that’s your right. Heck its your right to say that on these blogs. But be up front about it when you say it and why you say it…if you don’t, people might actually believe you weren’t completely biased, at least at first.

David,
A negative ad is one that distorts a candidate’s words or records to give a negative impression.

An ad that provides truthful information about a candidate’s poor record or positions they have taken that do not represent the values of the opposing candidate are not negative. They simply point out the differences. It is up the to viewer to determine if they share those values.

Nothing in this ad is incorrect, untruthful,or deceptive. The facts are what they are. Specter supported Bush’s policies; he supported Palin’s candidacy; he admitted that he changed parties because he couldn’t win the Republican nomination. If you believe that the truth is negative, then you may be supporting the wrong candidate.

Dem Voter

It turns out that “Sestak’s underpaid cronies” are paid about the same as Specter’s underpaid cronies. WGAL researched Specter’s claims about Sestak’s staff being paid below minimum wage and qualifying for food stamps. The determined that Specter manipulated the numbers and that, using the same methods, 40% of Specter’s staff earn less than minimum wage as well.

None of Sestak’s staff are on food stamps, that’s a case of an intentionally misleading ad.

Sestak is mean? Good! We need someone mean in Washington. We need a Democrat in Washington who is tough enough to stand up for Democratic principles. I’m tired of wimpy Democrats who apologize for defending justice, civil rights, due process, equal protection, judicial review of evidence before invading our privacy – you know, that Constitutional stuff that was discarded by Bush/Cheney!

David –

THANK YOU for bringing light to the callous disregard that Sestak shows other Dems running lower on the ticket. Loyal true-bluers in the 7th district should be aware of how uninterested Sestak is in any cause that does not put his electoral interests first and foremost.

As for the rest of that family – let’s just say the Gottis were more charitable.