Sestak's Victory Track

Arlen Specter is not Darth Vader

Rather than hurrying off to join the "Get Arlen Specter" parade, it may have been a wiser choice had you calmed yourself down and thought things through with less passion and more objectivity.
Unless your declared endorsement of Congressman Sestak is going to fetch him an extra 20,000 supporters (each one with a $100 check in hand), waiting a few months will be of little importance to Joe Sestak or anyone else save your own self-image.
I may very well support Sestak in next May's primary and will for certain should he make the general, but at this moment there are sufficient reasons to tarry on this.
The most recent polling available (Quinnipiac on 7/19/09) has matched the major U.S. Senate candidates for both the May 18 primary and November 2 general election:
General: Specter and Toomey tied at 45-44.
General: Toomey over Sestak (virtual tie) 39-35.
Primary: Specter over Sestak by 32 points 55-23.
Both Rasmussen and Franklin/Marshall, (polling in June) also showed Specter with a wide lead over Sestak in the 2010 primary:
Rasmussen on June 17...Specter over Sestak 51-32.
Franklin/Marshall on June 25...Specter over Sestak 33-13.
Arlen Specter's votes and positions on issues may be far from your own ideal of a politician but nevertheless, they remain one hell-of-a-lot better than some so-called Democrats.
If Senator Specter were truly as wanting as you apparently feel him to be, then whereupon came that mindless, hate-driven movement that virtually drove him from Pennsylvania's Republican Party...the very same people who now embrace a Pat Toomey?
Leaving aside this near obsession with taking out Arlen Specter, it should rather be of enormous importance to you that Democrats be both united and well-prepared to not only win this U.S. Senate seat next year, but to win it by a margin that will deliver a smashing blow to those mean-spirited right wing followers of Limbaugh, Hannity and Toomey who now control one of our two major political parties.
At this point in time, I am for whomever can get that job done.
Matt Thomas

---

by: Matt Thomas @ Wed Aug 05, 2009 at 12:42:09 PM CDT

OK, Specter voted with Bush 80%

of the time. He voted for the Iraq War, Justices Thomas, Roberts and Alito, and helped pass extreme legislation which curtailed many of our civil liberties while serving on the "Justice" Committee.  His record is abominable!

Follow me on Twitter:  JohnPMorgan

---

by: John Morgan @ Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 05:15:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

actually, in 2008...

Specter..that neo con...that evil hard core right winger...that righwing nutcase, that terrorist, that nazi...

had a 2008 voting record of...drumroll please...45% according to the liberal ADA site.  I guess that 80% all depends on what your definition of 80% is.  Maybe you meant 2007.  Ok, in 2007 his voting record was...60%...which means he voted with the dems more than his own party.  Hmmm. I am confused...i thought John said it was 80% voting with the hated GWBush...maybe he meant 2006...when his liberal voting record was 30% (closer, but not that 80 that John implied)...so lets look at 2005...nope, back to 45%.  man, this is hard trying to justify the claims of Snarlin Arlen's neocon leanings...maybe you meant 2004...ah, no, it was another 45% liberal voting record.  Wow, just a few years left...lets just sum them up shall we?  2003..25% (almost!)   2002..35%. 2001...40%.   Neocons Specters liberal voting record during the Bush years?  40.1%.  

I guess 80 just isnt what it used to be.

In addition, it would be easier to list who voted against the Iraq war (which we are still engaged in, not that you would notice by the lack of press coverage) rather than who voted for it, because names like Edwards, Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, and Clinton come up on THAT list.

John, I told you for years that Arlen was a RINO...good friggin riddance.  Take mccain with you. And Snowe. get it over with.

have a great day :)

p.s. you can feel free to peruse the ADACTION.ORG site if you dont believe me about Arlen's ratings...they are all there in glorious detail.

p.p.s. You get all twisted over Bush firing 9...but when a certain president who will remain pantless fired 91 (i think that was the number, but its close), you didnt seem to get too worked up.  But those 9 really got your dander up!  I guess 91, much like 80%, is all in the eye of the beholder.

---

by: tylerderbun @ Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 12:27:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Then there's the entire Gonzalesgate scandal

which Arlen Specter precipitated.  He inserted a clause in a conference bill enabling Bush to fire the nine U.S. Attorneys and reappoint them without Senate consent.  His spokeswoman told me it was because he saw it as a separation of powers issue.  I saw it as a checks and balances issue and we had a discussion.  Later he ran from responsibility by denying knowing about the clause, blaming it on a staffer.  He lied to cover his ass when the scandal blew up.  Is this who you want representing you in the Senate?

Follow me on Twitter:  JohnPMorgan

---

by: John Morgan @ Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 05:38:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Specter in the Senate?

I never once said I wanted Specter in the Senate....Joe Sestak would be fine with me.
What I do want is a candidate who has the best chance of taking down Mr. Toomey.
Ultimately, don't we surely want the same thing?
May one take for granted that in the event Joe Sestak loses next year's May primary, John Morgan will then support Arlen Specter in the general election?
Matt Thomas

---

by: Matt Thomas @ Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 13:22:12 PM CDT