Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Morning Fix: Specter-Sestak Under the Microscope



Rep. Joe Sestak and Sen. Arlen Specter will battle for the Democratic nomination next year in Pennsylvania. Photos by George Widman and J. Scott Applewhite of the AP

Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak will formally announce his candidacy against Sen. Arlen Specter this morning, setting up what promises to be a bitter battle for the Democratic nomination between the party-switching incumbent and a member of Congress who has built his reputation on his party-bucking tendencies.

Although Sestak will make his candidacy official at 8:45 a.m. this morning in Folsom, Pennsylvania, he has made clear for months that he intended to challenge Specter following the incumbent's switch to the Democratic party in late April.

The battle lines are already drawn. Specter is the Goliath in the race -- enjoying the backing of nearly every major figure in the Democratic party including President Barack Obama and Gov. Ed Rendell (Pa.). Sestak is David, throwing his stones -- in this case attacks on Specter's Democratic bona fides -- at the giant.

That's not to say the primary won't be close -- it almost certainly will be as Democrats remain less than sold on Specter, and Sestak presents a credible alternative to those fence-sitters.

"Pennsylvania Democrats loved Arlen Specter the Republican," said Mark Nevins, a Philadelphia-based Democratic consultant not working for either candidate. "Arlen Specter the Democrat? They're not so sure."

Much will be written in this space -- and elsewhere -- about this race but, at the outset, we thought it would be helpful to lay out a few of the critical pieces of the campaign puzzle.

Here are five things to watch in the primary race to come:

* Black Vote: Roughly 11 percent of Pennsylvanians are African-Americans but blacks are a larger and more influential segment of the vote in a Democratic primary. With Philadelphia and its suburbs one of the crucial battleground between Specter and Sestak, whoever is able to make a more compelling case to black voters living in the city should have a leg up. Specter's past affiliation with the GOP won't be helpful to him but the prominent support of the nation's first black president should go along way to countering those negative effects. Sestak, as a Member of Congress, has spent little time courting the black community and must move quickly on that front.

* Establishment Support: Specter's support from Obama, Rendell and a slew of other Democratic heavyweights -- his campaign announced Monday that his advisory committee now has more than 100 Democratic officials on it -- is touted by his allies as determinative in a machine-heavy state like Pennsylvania. But, the weight of those collective endorsement also could crush Specter if Sestak is able to make the outsider case effectively. Specter will also have to defend past endorsements -- most notably from then Sen. Rick Santorum (R) during the 2004 Republican primary. (If you don't remember it, you will be the end of this race; expect Sestak to point to the clip relentlessly.)

* Labor: Specter's opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act when he was a Republican set him at daggers drawn with organized labor. Now that he is a Democrat, however, Specter is trying to find a way to get right with labor -- understanding that the grassroots power that unions bring could be just the sort of thing Sestak needs to build a statewide organization on the cheap. Most national labor operatives believe Sestak Specter will find a way to be for whatever the re-written version of EFCA looks like, cutting off Sestak's oxygen with labor. If Sestak can keep labor neutral -- not likely, according to incoming AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka -- it would amount to a major victory for the challenger.

*$$$: Money always matters in campaigns but it matters even more in this one. Specter is (and always has been) a fundraising dynamo and even Sestak's most loyal supporters acknowledge the incumbent will outraise their candidate. The real question then is by how much does Sestak get outraised? If Specter spends $10 million and Sestak spends $6 million, that disparity could be small enough to allow the Congressman to get his message to the primary voters he needs to reach. If Specter spend $15 million and Sestak spend $5 million, Sestak could find himself drowned out by a barrage of negative ads. As of June 30, Specter had $7.5 million on hand compared to Sestak's $4.3 million.

* The Misstep Factor: Both Specter and Sestak tend to speak their minds -- great for the Fix, not so great for their advisers. Each man is almost certain to make a misstep some time during what will be a very closely scrutinized campaign. The question is which slip-up (or slip-ups) turn into a major storyline and which don't. Don't underestimate the misstep factor in a contested race; we give you "Macaca".

Tuesday's Fix Picks: Today's the day -- get your copy of "The Battle for America 2008" by Dan Balz and Haynes Johnson.

1. The ever-present president
2. An argument for the Republican revival.
3. An analysis of who raised what in CA-Gov. race.
4. Stu Rothenberg on the shifting Senate sands.
5. Dobbs! Unplugged!

Obama Endorsement Ad in NJ: Hoping to change the direction of his flagging re-election bid, New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D) is going up with an ad touting the endorsement of President Barack Obama. The ad, using footage taken from Obama's July 16 appearance for Corzine, features the president praising the governor as a "leader who has been called to govern in some extraordinary times." Obama remains a very popular figure in the Garden State -- six in ten voters approved of the job he was doing in the most recent Quinnipiac poll -- but it remains to be seen whether Obama's backing will bolster Corzine's anemic poll numbers. That same Quinnipiac poll showed Corzine trailing former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie (R) by 12 points. Bill Stepjen, Christie's campaign manager, said that "after four misleading, attack ads in a row, Jon Corzine finally launches his first positive ad of the campaign and he doesn't say a word." (The only voice heard in the ad is Obama's.) Obama's political shop is in a tough spot in this race. As a sitting Democratic president, he is expected to do everything he can to save Corzine. On the other hand, if Obama is seen as having gone all out for Corzine and the incumbent still loses, the President's brand runs the risk of taking a hit.

Beauprez For Senate?: Former Rep. >Bob Beauprez will reportedly run for the Senate in 2010, joining a crowded Republican field fighting for the right to take on appointed Sen. Michael Bennet (D). Beauprez held the swing 7th district from 2002 to 2006, when he vacated the seat to run what turned out to be a disastrously bad race against Gov. Bill Ritter (D). Should he ultimately run, Beauprez would be competing against Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier and Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck -- neither of whom have impressed to date -- for the GOP nod. Beauprez would be considered a slight favorite, according to one well-informed Colorado Republican, but would not clear the field. As we have written in this space, Bennet is clearly vulnerable next November but Republicans have struggled to get organized so far -- focusing far more energy on beating Ritter.

Click It!: "Funny or Die" gets to the bottom of the Obama birth certificate controversy. (The Obama impersonator's name is Jordon Peele. Note to "Saturday Night Live" -- sign him up!)

Americans United Attacks Insurance Industry: In a sign that the well-crafted grand bargain between insurance companies and the White House may be cracking at the seams, a progressive outside group is going after the salaries of insurance executives in new ads. In the ad, which is being sponsored by Americans United, a narrator lambastes Ed Hanway, the outgoing CEO of Cigna, for his $12.2 million salary; "Ed makes more in one day than the average worker makes all year long," says the narrator. The ad goes on to hit Republicans as advocating a health care plan that protects the wealthy at the expense of every one else. Democrats -- and the White House -- have apparently settled on an August strategy that vilifies the insurance industry as roadblocks to reform while the GOP will seek to rally opposition by attacking the so-called "public option" being pushed by Obama.

Baucus Collects Cash For Tester: Montana Sen. Max Baucus, the chairman of the Finance Committee, will take time away from the ongoing debate over the shape of health care legislation to raise money this weekend for home state colleague Jon Tester. The "Sieben Ranch Barbecue and Hoedown", which will be held north of Helena, Montana on Saturday, promises "delicious barbecue, Montana brews and wine [and] live country music by Shodown"! A single ticket is $50 but kids under 12 get in free. Tester, narrowly elected in 2006 over then Sen. Conrad Burns (R), is almost certain to be a Republican target in 2012; he ended June with $297,000 in the bank.

Follow Me: If you don't already follow Republican money man Fred Malek on Twitter, you should. What you would have learned last night: Malek hosted a dinner with Republican Governors Association Chair Haley Barbour (Miss.) and vice chair Tim Pawlenty (Minn.) as well as Texas Gov. Rick Perry at his home in Aspen, Colorado.

Mike Henry Lands: Mike Henry, who managed former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe's unsuccessful bid for the Virginia gubernatorial nomination earlier this year, has signed on to manage state Del. Steve Shannon's campaign for attorney general in Virginia against state Sen. Ken Cuccinelli. The AG race is widely seen as a precursor to the 2013 gubernatorial race given that the last two Republican attorneys general in Virginia became the nominee for governor -- Jerry Kilgore in 2005 and Bob McDonnell this year. Henry is an old hand in Commonwealth politics, having managed Sen. Mark Warner's 2008 campaign and Gov. Tim Kaine's 2005 effort.

Say What?: "In the Senate, I'm going to stand up and fight for the people who eat barbecue with a fork not caviar with a silver spoon." -- Kentucky Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo attacks (we think) state Attorney General Jack Conway, his primary opponent in next year's Senate race, during the state's "Fancy Farm" get-together.

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 4, 2009; 6:24 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Christie Whitman's Centrist Plea
Next: Pat Toomey: Moderate?

Comments

Since the mentally retarded cannot stay on topic, I'll just join them.

Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

At least the alien abductees claim to have been present at their probings and, in that case, at least they are witnesses, which makes them (marginally) more credible than the birthers (still called the Ku Klux Klan here up north).

Posted by: matthewjblack | August 5, 2009 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Santorum was defeated 59% to 41% in the 2006 U.S. Senate election by Democratic candidate Bob Casey, Jr. This was the largest margin of defeat for an incumbent Senator since 1980.

==

And it couldn't happen to a more deserving prick. The guy who WROTE A BOOK about HAVING A FAMILY. Like it was something he invented.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 4, 2009 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Chrisfox8, you are so right about Toomey. All he does is look backwards, like the rest of his party-without-a-vision. All they can do is say No. Otehr than that they've got nothing.

Specter or Sestak -- they will both clean the floor with Toomey once he gets beyond the controlled public platforms of fund raisers and op-eds.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 4, 2009 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Also from wikipedia:

Santorum was defeated 59% to 41% in the 2006 U.S. Senate election by Democratic candidate Bob Casey, Jr. This was the largest margin of defeat for an incumbent Senator since 1980.

Easy come, easy go.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 4, 2009 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Incidentally, it seemed to be the gun issue that sunk Santorum's predecessor, at least according to wikipedia.

Secondly, 1994 was a good year for Republicans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_Wofford#Pennsylvania_political_career

Posted by: DDAWD | August 4, 2009 5:31 PM | Report abuse

I'm not from Pennsylvania, so I don't get a vote, but I concur with cf8. I kinda wish Specter would just retire, but at least until the primary, he will not piss off Obama too bad.

What about Sestak's seat? Is he running in both primaries? Is that allowed? I remember Lieberman ran for Senate and VP at the same time...

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 4, 2009 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Of the three I would much rather see Sestak win. Specter is at heart a showboat and I don't trust his conversion. He'll stake out his independence by showing he's not a doctrinaire Democrat, which means continuing to vote as a Republican. That's bad for the nation. Also, he's old, and in six more years he'll be frail and feeble.

Toomey's just another conservative, cut out of the same rotten dough with the same cookiet-cutter that produced cavemen like Santorum.

Sestak is the real deal.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 4, 2009 5:24 PM | Report abuse

"is the NRA now supporting drug dealer's right to bear even when not citizens?"

They opposed a bill preventing terrorists from getting firearms. I don't think there's a question that the NRA is nuts.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 4, 2009 5:24 PM | Report abuse


The NRA said, before the committee that they will be "tracking" this vote. I'm assuming that's why there's less GOP support for her than would have been predicted based on previous comments and the hearings.

Apparently the fact that Sotomayor's record is indistinguishable from Roberts on the 2nd Amendment is not important. They don't "trust her judgement."

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 4, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Why does the NRA even have a dog in the Sotomayor fight? She's never ruled against the Second Amendment in any discernible way. She once ruled that an illegal alien drug dealer didn't have a right to pack heat .. is the NRA now supporting drug dealer's right to bear even when not citizens?

That's just nuts.

But then, that's the Republicans for you. Yapping moon-baying lunatics.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 4, 2009 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Lou Dobbs on this issue and Click It!: "Funny or Die" gets to the bottom of the Obama birth certificate controversy IS a topic of this thread. You guys can't deny that (like you do every time I point out Obama is not really "President" if he was not born in Hawaii). It's not my fault that our gracious host saw fit to make it a TOPIC, but he did.

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 5:13 PM | Report abuse

"And he doesn't get to actually vote, so the NRA can't ding him for it."

Does the NRA have a position on Sotomayor? I thought she generally ruled in favor of 2nd Amendment rights.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 4, 2009 5:12 PM | Report abuse


I don't even necessarily think that Toomey's endorsement of Sotomayor is an attempt at moving to the center.

The Senate Republicans aren't blocking the nomination because they don't have the votes. They are making a virtue of necessity. Similarly, Toomey can appear "principled" by espousing the old conservative definition of "advise and consent." And he doesn't get to actually vote, so the NRA can't ding him for it.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 4, 2009 5:09 PM | Report abuse

"The comment was whether Lou Dobbs or John Roberts was a better authority on the US Constitution.

And the rest were my thoughts about having a productive discussion on this board."

We just had two posts in a row on the PA Senate race. I think that counts as back on topic. Let's stop indulging jaked, ok?

Posted by: DDAWD | August 4, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse


I don't think Toomey has a chance of beating either Sestak or Specter. But I do respect his statements today. Whether he is sincere or not, time will tell and the voters will decide.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 4, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

The comment was whether Lou Dobbs or John Roberts was a better authority on the US Constitution.

And the rest were my thoughts about having a productive discussion on this board.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 4, 2009 5:01 PM | Report abuse

"Toomey is a far-right neoconservative, and has way too many public utterances to run from with an eleventh-hour pander. We live in an age of YouTube, everything is recorded. PA went blue last year, and the GOP has lost ground there since. Toomey might be able to win in Wyoming or somewhere like that but Pennsylvania? Not in a million years."

I think the main issue might be the economy. If jobs don't come back, people might look for a party change. I certainly won't put the situation on Obama's shoulders in 2010, but that doesn't mean no one will, especially people who have been severely affected by the downturn (a group which I'm not in)

Posted by: DDAWD | August 4, 2009 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Toomey says Sotomayor is qualified and should be confirmed. Sestak and Specter will concur, I'm sure.

==

Toomey is a far-right neoconservative, and has way too many public utterances to run from with an eleventh-hour pander. We live in an age of YouTube, everything is recorded. PA went blue last year, and the GOP has lost ground there since. Toomey might be able to win in Wyoming or somewhere like that but Pennsylvania? Not in a million years.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 4, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Nothing in that statute changes the fact that the place of birth is plainly indicated on the certificate. That's not the parents' place of permanent residence or anything else--it's the place of birth.

It also doesn't change the fact that the Republican Governor of Hawaii has confirmed that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu. Perhaps the Governor should be impeached. Or maybe we should impeach Chief Justice Roberts for incompetence.

And that's absolutely the last I'm going to say about that. When someone states categorically that they're going to keep asking the same question until they get the answer they want, then there's no use in discussing it any further.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 4, 2009 1:00 PM

(Nonetheless, FIVE posts later)

1) Lou Dobbs made his reputation as a business commentator, so his education served him well. He should stick to something he understands.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 4, 2009 3:21 PM

2) I guess I'll stick with John Roberts instead of Lou Dobbs on that one.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 4, 2009 3:34 PM

3) It would be nice, however, if people are going to cut and paste talking points into this thread, that they actually know and understand the background of those points.

It is embarrassing to see someone post something official-looking, only to find that it has no basis in reality.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 4, 2009 4:41 PM

4) I like the Morning Fix, including Chris' links to hot topics of the day. Just because he links to something on another topic, however, does not make that the main topic (or even "a" topic) of this particular thread.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 4, 2009 4:37 PM

5) Posting nonsense doesn't help the discussion.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 4, 2009 4:51 PM

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

It would be nice if everyone would stay on the main topic, but oh, well. I would not ask CC to eliminate the links in order to minimize the off-topic remarks--it wouldn't be worth it.

==

Every time anyone uses the phrase "President Obama" that starts the whole thing all over again.

Message boards that don't ban troll always succumb to them. NetSlaves was an incredibly good board, discussions far superior to those here, then they let in a troll who managed to secure a gig for one of the administrators. It took over a year but they shut down. As long as they banned trolls, it was great.

It's like sculpture. Creating something worthy is a lot more work than destroying it.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 4, 2009 4:51 PM | Report abuse


Toomey says Sotomayor is qualified and should be confirmed. Sestak and Specter will concur, I'm sure. And they will be vying for Obama's endorsement. I'm not sure how racism is a factor here.

Posting nonsense doesn't help the discussion. Neither does name-calling.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 4, 2009 4:51 PM | Report abuse

"I've posted several thoughts about Sestak and Specter. Each of them were more than just "I hope he wins/loses." It would be nice if everyone would stay on the main topic, but oh, well. I would not ask CC to eliminate the links in order to minimize the off-topic remarks--it wouldn't be worth it."

And if no one would respond to jaked, it would be a lot easier to read your posts. I have to scroll through pages to find them.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 4, 2009 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, thinman1, that last post was for "mikeinmidland".

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

It is embarrassing to see someone post something official-looking, only to find that it has no basis in reality.

==

as if any of this birther crap has any basis in reality. It's just proxy racism, and its proponents are racists, to a man.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 4, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

You are welcome to not post here too, just like "chrisfox8".

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Jake, I don't answer questions about my personal life. I will not disclose whether I am married or how I treat my wife, partner, or whomever I may or may not be spending my life with.

Posted by: thinman1 | August 4, 2009 4:41 PM | Report abuse

It would be nice, however, if people are going to cut and paste talking points into this thread, that they actually know and understand the background of those points.

It is embarrassing to see someone post something official-looking, only to find that it has no basis in reality.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 4, 2009 4:41 PM | Report abuse

I never said that pResident Obama's birth certificate controversy was THE MAIN topic. It is "a" topic though.

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 4:40 PM | Report abuse


I like the Morning Fix, including Chris' links to hot topics of the day. Just because he links to something on another topic, however, does not make that the main topic (or even "a" topic) of this particular thread.

I've posted several thoughts about Sestak and Specter. Each of them were more than just "I hope he wins/loses." It would be nice if everyone would stay on the main topic, but oh, well. I would not ask CC to eliminate the links in order to minimize the off-topic remarks--it wouldn't be worth it.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 4, 2009 4:37 PM | Report abuse

thinman1:

Where did you go?

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Careful, DDAWD, with the personal insults. A third possibility is that "chrisfox8" and I are the same person.

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

"Hey, DDAWD, how much difference does it make if I don't object to this? It doesn't make any."

Because when no one responds to him, he posts like once every 20 minutes. And its only him. When you respond, then he'll respond within a minute and you respond and he'll respond.

You don't see how these two things are different?

Look, if it were the case that every time he posted, some random newcomer would start responding and the whole thing would ignite up due to different people who didn't know he's a racist troll, that's one thing.

But that's not what's happening here. It's almost exclusively you who is doing the responding. Sure, once in a while its someone else, but its almost always you. Sporadic posts by the guy are one thing. Pages of inane back-and-forth are another.

I suggested that we ignore him for a couple of weeks to see what happens, but you don't even seem to have that little bit of self-control.

It's ridiculous and I don't see how you get this. I'm not that smart and I can see the difference. Jaked certainly isn't that smart, but he sure knows how to manipulate you to ruin it for the rest of us.

So yeah, you're an idiot for continuing this or you're doing this intentionally because you want to be disruptive as well.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 4, 2009 4:31 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Hey, DDAWD, how much difference does it make if I don't object to this? It doesn't make any.

I've been dealing with Internet trolls as long as I've been online. They're indefatigable. I vanquished one once and it was a terrific victory but it was more exhausting than anything I want to undertake again.

I've ignored this idiot for days, it doesn't make any difference. He's ruining this forum singlehandedly, killing what could be interesting threads in their prime. And now sucking up to "our gracious host" which is making me feel like I'm in the third grade.

I'm open to suggestions, but people are already bailing out of here since it's all JakeD all the time. I'm getting tired of it too, regardless of what you may think.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 4, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Our governor, Ah-Norld, is a (NATURALIZED) American citizen too -- that's not the issue -- per the Constitution, the President must be a natural-born citizen.

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

"This guy is a real problem. ChrisC, is all this A-OK with you?

Posted by: chrisfox8"

You're an idiot for not seeing that you're contributing to the problem or an ass for doing so anyways.

And don't say you're sick of this. You're clearly not.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 4, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Gotta run back to the sessions, but I will verify that Jake's a San Diegan. Unfortunately with me being at a conference, finding a time to meet was difficult.

Anyway, have fun everyone. Me, I'm putting my money on Sestak to knock off Spectre. My prediction is a 55 - 45 result with a general election too close to call. I suppose it's too early for predictions, but what the heck.

Now, can't we all just get along? Heck, I'd stick with can't we talk about Sestak/Spectre for a few minutes?

Cheers!

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 4, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

That's not a question, thinman1. Here's a question:

Have you stopped beating your wife? Just answer with one word: a 'Yes' or a 'No.'

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 4:11 PM | Report abuse

It's a simple thing to do. What are you hiding? Whehter or not you are pursuing or holding office is irrelevant.

Jake, if you have nothing to hide and are indeed a US citizen just produce your birth certificate.

Posted by: thinman1 | August 4, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

thinman1:

The United States of America, and I've never run for office which requires one to be a natural-born citizen. Next question?

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Which country is that, JakeD?

I've never seen YOUR long-form birth certificate.

Posted by: thinman1 | August 4, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

I am simply answering questions (for instance, you asked "Your response?").

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Why are we talking about JakeD instead of about Sestak and Specter? Hasn't JakeD gotten enough special attention for one morning?

Does every single thread here have to be hijacked as a vehicle to satisfy this troll's unweaned needs?

This guy is a real problem. ChrisC, is all this A-OK with you?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 4, 2009 4:01 PM | Report abuse

I love my country.

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 4:00 PM | Report abuse

You cited: Federal Statute Chapter 35:16-3501


Which does not exist in any search of Google or Lexis.

Posted by: thinman1 | August 4, 2009 3:59 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,
if you are a patriot, please answer the following question:

On this, the 4th day of August, 2009, with Barak Obama in the White House, do you love your country?

Don't play games with me, don't parse the question. Just answer with one word: a 'Yes' or a 'No.'

Posted by: thinman1 | August 4, 2009 3:58 PM | Report abuse

I never said U.S. Code, did I?

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Jake, your Federal Code citation does not exist. It is actualy from USDC Code.

Posted by: thinman1 | August 4, 2009 3:55 PM | Report abuse

My response:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure."

THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 3:53 PM | Report abuse

We raise our individual and collective voices to demand the US Attorney Jeffrey Taylor initiate a Quo Warranto Proceeding on our behalf under Federal Statute Chapter 35:16-3501

==

He's not going to. There is no reason for him to do so. Your response?

==

"We will not go away. We will raise our voice everyday until we are heard."

Bloody pest.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 4, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Back on topic, it is unknown whether Channing D. Phillips, Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, will act on the request.

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Nice turn of phrase, JakeD that SCOTUS has not ruled on the merits. Your statement is specious, however, in that the Court has refused to hear any of the appeals, all of which ahve been rejected by the courts they were in ffront of. Ergo they will never rule on the merits.

Posted by: thinman1 | August 4, 2009 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Well we can't do anything about this pest until Chris Cillizza decides that it's disrupting conversation here, but we certainly can do something about people spreading this crap on the news.

Write to CNN and demand that Lou Dobbs be muzzled back to news reporting, or fired:

http://edition.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?76

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 4, 2009 3:46 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

The "nominal" topic includes Lou Dobbs specifically on this issue and Click It!: "Funny or Die" gets to the bottom of the Obama birth certificate controversy.

Please stop posting OFF-topic as well as your repeated insults.

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 3:45 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland:

CJ Roberts (or the Supreme Court as a whole) has not ruled on the merits -- I also am not ignoring any evidence -- there is "doubt" just from the statement of Obama's own relatives, including his paternal grandmother. There is circumstantial evidence, as well, in that pResident Obama does not simply authorize the release of his LONG FORM birth certificate.

If Barack Hussein Obama is a Usurper, our nation is at grave risk:

• All actions taken by a public official found to be a Usurper, results in instant nullifications of those actions. It is as if the elected official never took office.

• Federal Statute 3501, in the US District Court of DC is the place where a Usurper investigation has standing. This is called a Quo Warranto proceedings.

• US Attorney Jeffrey Taylor is one of two offices empowered to bring forth a Quo Warranto proceedings. The Attorney General, Eric Holder is the second empowered official.

• Considering Mr. Taylor's position and his past legal work, we believe he is uniquely positioned to initiate a Quo Warranto proceedings on our behalf.

• We raise our individual and collective voices to demand the US Attorney Jeffrey Taylor initiate a Quo Warranto Proceeding on our behalf under Federal Statute Chapter 35:16-3501

• This issue will not go away. We will not go away. We will raise our voice everyday until we are heard.

• We are Citizens exercising our RESPONSIBILITY to speak.

• We are informed, engaged and persistent; we demand a response, demonstrating that Mr. Taylor has heard our individual and collective voices!

• The future of our US Constitution and our nation is at risk!

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse

To wit, from the DSM IV on OCD:

The OCD person can have more information than the average person would need to make a decision, but can not, believing that they do not have enough information.

Posted by: thinman1 | August 4, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

As long as we're ignoring the nominal topic, Bill Clinton has successfully secured a pardon for the two American journalists who had been sentenced to twelve years of hard labor.

Bill Clinton is a Democrat.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 4, 2009 3:39 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,
That may be true, but I am beginning to suspect that a psychology degree may be needed to understand you. Your focus on the birther question borders on the obsessive/compulsive, at least according to the DSM IV.

Posted by: thinman1 | August 4, 2009 3:36 PM | Report abuse

The birthers are racists, every last one of them. Obama's origins have been proven well enough to satisfy Constitutional requirements;; to wit, he is the President. In response to this artificial controversy the state of his birth has issued an unusual statement establishing the fact of his birth there beyond all doubt.

Yet the birthers not only go on, they ignore the presented evidence, because they don't really care if their crazy claims are true or not.

Obama is still liberal, and still black, therefore he cannot possibly be legitimate in their eyes. But it's not really about where he was born, it's the fact that he isn't white. The birthers can't deal with that.

So every last thread is hijacked to the same stale discussion, and I don't see ChrisC doing anything about that. You really have to wonder why.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 4, 2009 3:35 PM | Report abuse

I guess I'll stick with John Roberts instead of Lou Dobbs on that one.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 4, 2009 3:34 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland:

A law degree is not necessary to understand that pResident Obama has failed to prove where he was born (it does help for knowing which party carries the burdon of proof in a quo warranto action though ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Too bad I was not able to meet up for lunch with FairlingtonBlade on Thursday, or I would have brought my diploma just so he could verify it for you. It doesn't stop your side from the "racist" slur either.

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Lou Dobbs made his reputation as a business commentator, so his education served him well. He should stick to something he understands.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 4, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

koolkat_1960:

Please don't include me in your "we" (as I know exactly which schools I graduated from ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

"Lou Dobbs has an undergraduate degree in Economics from Harvard University. Jerome Corsi has a Ph.D. in Political Science from Harvard University. John O'Neill graduated first in his class from the University of Texas, School of Law.

I guess we all "wasted" our educations."

Again, JokeD, we know those clowns actually attended those schools, so yes, we can say definitively that they wasted their educations if they consider themselves birthers. QED.

In your case, again, we have no idea where you went to school and really don't care. No one else on here has posted a claimed alma mater. Doing so made you look like a fool from the get go, and even more so now that you identify yourself as a birther.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | August 4, 2009 3:17 PM | Report abuse

dwb1:

You barely made it, just under two hours before the "racist" slur made it to his keyboard -- he was in "meetings" though for most of that time -- congrats!

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1:

I think you've got it about right. Sestak was discouraged from running and decided to anyway. The Democratic machine may sit this out a bit, so as to not tarnish itself before the general election.

I like the comparison to Hillary's campaign as well, in the sense that it was built on inevitability. Once that was gone, all bets were off.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 4, 2009 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Oh come on, the birther thing isn't actually a question of Obama's legitimacy .. people with whole minds know with certainty that Obama was vetted, as was every other presidential, Senatorial, and congressional candidate since the nation was founded.

But we live in a country where racist expression removes and qualification of being regarded a gentleman. Call a coworker a racist name and you will be escorted out of the building; talk racist trash at Christmas dinner and your own family might not invite you back next year.

And since racists need to hide their true feelings, we have these proxies. Flag pins, Rev. Wright, birth certificate. It's just a way to act like a bigoted swine and escape the judgment.

Obama is our first president not solidly white. That fact has deranged a lot of Republicans. They're doing what adolescents do in rebellion: acting out.

I'd rather not read about this crap anymore.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 4, 2009 2:59 PM | Report abuse

I'm beginning to think that the GOP is really the party of Malcolm X and is willing to win by any means necessary. Think about it:

Bush loses to Clinton in 1992 and 1996. What does the GOP do? Once Newt and his cronies had been exposed as frauds, they resorted to countless investigations and ultimately impeachment to derail the Clinton Presidency.

In 2000, Shrub coulnd't actaully win an election, so he had to get the Supreme Court to do it for him.

Now here we are in 2008 and the GOP has lost again. Their reaction? Birthers.

As a former political operative, there is a part of me that respects these tactics. But I left the business when I realized what the "by any means necessary" doctrine reveals: ideological bankruptcy.

Posted by: thinman1 | August 4, 2009 2:57 PM | Report abuse

I come back from ninety minutes of meetings, and it's still all about JakeD.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 4, 2009 2:54 PM | Report abuse

dbw1 writes
"What I mean is, if Obama throws his weight behind Corzine, and Corzine loses, as "the fix" says it will ding the "Obama brand" a bit."

Inside the beltway types overweight the impact on the brand by single races. If the GOP wins NJ, they will spin it as a ding on Obama specifically & the Dems generally, but 95% of America won't give a damn (allowing for quite a bit of 'care' bleedover in the NYC media market).

Its impossible to know what the deal was between Obama/Reid and Specter; my guess is that Reid & Obama fulfilled their end of the bargain by stating support for Specter & discouraging Sestak to run. Now that Sestak has decided to run anyway, I doubt Obama or Reid are obliged to continue their support.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 4, 2009 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Lou Dobbs has an undergraduate degree in Economics from Harvard University. Jerome Corsi has a Ph.D. in Political Science from Harvard University. John O'Neill graduated first in his class from the University of Texas, School of Law.

I guess we all "wasted" our educations.

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

The thing about the birthers is that they are cowards.

They can't just come out and say, "I don't like Obama or his positions on various policies." That I would respect.

If you want to disagree with PRESIDENT Obama, go ahead. But the bottom line is, he won. Get over it.

This is just chick sh-t cowardice.

Posted by: thinman1 | August 4, 2009 2:34 PM | Report abuse

koolkat_1960:

I couldn't care less what you believe.

sverigegrabb:

You are aware that it is pResident Obama's birthday today, right? One of the thread TOPICS (as posted by Mr. Cillizza himself) under Click It!: "Funny or Die" gets to the bottom of the Obama birth certificate controversy.

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"Ambassador Keyes graduated from Cornell and Harvard."

Another nutbar who appears to have wasted a first-class education. But of course, I believe he really went to those schools.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | August 4, 2009 2:20 PM | Report abuse

From FactCheck.org:

The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.

Posted by: thinman1 | August 4, 2009 2:18 PM | Report abuse

On-topic question: how much will Corzine's performance in NJ this year impact how involved Obama gets in the PA primary fight between Specter and Sestak?

What I mean is, if Obama throws his weight behind Corzine, and Corzine loses, as "the fix" says it will ding the "Obama brand" a bit.

You have to believe that Specter didn't make a final decision to switch parties until he had a promise from Reid and Obama of their full backing for the primary, but if Obama takes a ding from a Corzine loss will he change his mind and stay out of the PA primary so as not to risk another possible humiliation if he were to back Specter, and Sestek upsets him?

Posted by: dbw1 | August 4, 2009 2:10 PM | Report abuse

I, for one, am utterly disgusted by the way JakeD and K_o_Z hijack the comments section with non-sensical, off-topic, defamatory posts which don't move any particular topic under discussion one iota forwards.

My own patience is at an end--fortunately, CC is far more tolerant than I!

Posted by: sverigegrabb | August 4, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Toomey can win also. In 1994, Santorum was elected to the U.S. Senate, defeating the incumbent Democrat, Harris Wofford, who was 32 years his senior. The theme of Santorum's 1994 campaign was "Join the Fight!" Santorum was re-elected in 2000 defeating Congressman Ron Klink by a 52.4% to 45.5% margin.

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Looks like "chrisfox8" made his first appearance on this board around 1pm today.

What's the over/under on how long it will be until he resorts to calling someone a racist for disagreeing with him (and Obama) about something?

We are at 1 hour since his first post....maybe set the line at 2 hours?

I'm taking the 'under'....

Posted by: dbw1 | August 4, 2009 2:01 PM | Report abuse

koolkat_1960:

Ambassador Keyes graduated from Cornell and Harvard.

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 1:59 PM | Report abuse

The Nats beat Pittsburgh last night 8-4.

Posted by: molsonmich | August 4, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

As I said, I hope whichever Democrat wins the PA primary is weakened enough to lose the seat in November.

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

drindl:
"It was when the news section of our press began to be forced to be profitable rather than public service, that our discourse began to decline until it came to the pitiful state it's in today."

Then there is an obvious solution: taxpayers should fund news organizations, to be overseen by a government czar. Of course you have to give up that 'pesky' freedom of the press, but the world would be so much better if they didn't have to pursue evil profits...wouldn't it?

Isn't libera....errrr, "progressive policy" fun? Every problem comes back to one and only one answer: a government program.

Yours,
Cuba and North Korea

Posted by: dbw1 | August 4, 2009 1:55 PM | Report abuse

JokeD is surely the only person on the planet to identify himself as both a Stanford Law grad AND a birther.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | August 4, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

"Obama's support of Specter wasn't against Sestak. Now with Sestak in, Obama may say he doesn't want to "weigh in" on a primary"

Yeah, that's a really good point.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/07/since-primary-challenge-specter-voting.html

Incidentally, here is a look at Specter's voting patterns divided among four sections.
1) Before the poll showing him losing to Toomey
2) After the poll, still a Republican
3) After switching to Democrat
4) After Sestak started to consider running.

Pretty much what you'd expect. Unreliable Republican vote to reliable Republican vote to semi-reliable Democratic vote to very reliable Democratic vote.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 4, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

drindl:
"dbw, you wingies are sooo concerned about the well-being of CEOS, even while they pick your pockets. Amazing simplicity."

The only ones 'picking my pockets' right now are the politicians who are taking my taxes and handing them out to others. Liberals are so narrow-minded they think politicians promising to redistribute the wealth are saints.

If you need evidence for how well liberals are doing in their saintly public service, read about New Jersey....

Simplicity is something you can only aspire to, drindl....it's obvious logic has no place in your arguments.

Posted by: dbw1 | August 4, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

It's no surprise that Hillary Clinton is in Kenya today to reinforce the cover-up.

I don't trust ANY politician and almost no one in the media. I still want answers. Obummer, put up or get out!!!! All he has to do is make the following official public statement,

"I Barack Obama authorize the State of Hawaii to release and make public all of my records on file."

That's it. Issue over. But he won't because he's a fraud!! Obama knows that millions of citizens want to see it yet he continues to hide it. What/why is he hiding? and most disturbingly, why don't BHO's supporters want to know the whole truth, especially since there's a reward of $100,000 for proof that Obama is a "natural born" citizen of the United States.

OBAMA, STOP HIDING. SHOW US THE LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND YOUR OTHER RECORDS!!!!!

Posted by: steveb777 | August 4, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Yes, BG is totally off topic, but I figure I get an occasional thread jacking.

==

The first show had its moments. Patrick MacNee's richly resonant speaking voice doing the show intro was one of the best vocal moments of television.

"There are those who believe .. that life here .. began out there."

After a while though it turned into a soap opera.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 4, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, for you and drindl, our gracious host has seen fit to make pResident Obama's birth certificate "crap" an actual TOPIC today, on The One's birthday -- if you don't like it, leave -- I thought it was kinda poetic, myself.

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

How many threads now have been hijacked with birth certificate crap that nobody wants to read?

Can we have an end to this?

Nobody wants to read it. Got that?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 4, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse

"Troll ... idiot ... tinfoil hat crap is getting real old ... lunatics loose from the asylum ... a bunch of clowns ... This kind of statement, however, is a prime example of the fallacy-ridden, conspiratorial thought processes of the Conservative mind-set ... moron ... Are all these "Birthers" also members of the Flat Earth Society or what? I've not been reading this column for a while, but I imagine that the Prozac Brigade (Zouk, JakeD and others) have been frothing at the mouth like rabid wombats about this"

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 1:33 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

I expect that Specter won't alienate Obama with a direct vote. Since Sestak only just now officially "announced" Obama's support of Specter wasn't against Sestak. Now with Sestak in, Obama may say he doesn't want to "weigh in" on a primary.

I agree that Sestak would be a more reliable vote for Obama in 2011-2016. Maybe if Sestak is doing well, Specter will drop out "for health reasons."

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 4, 2009 1:33 PM | Report abuse

And on other off topic posts, regarding solid state lighting.

Basically, the idea is to use light emitting diodes as the light source for lighting. You can get efficiencies superior to fluorescent lighting with none of the problems (flicker and spectral mismatch; fluorescent lights don't look quite natural). The efficiencies are there, but it still costs too much right now. Hopefully, it's coming soon. DOE has a big push on this.

Gotta run to a panel discussion now on commercializing solar cells.

Cheers!

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 4, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Whoops! I screwed up the spelling. I still remember the Cylons from the original Battlestar Gallactica in the late 70s. I'll have to put the new DVDs on my Netflix list. Here's a very old joke on Cylons:

Q. Why can't Cylon Raider ever shoot down a Colonial Viper?

A. Would you shoot straight with you eyes bouncing across your face like a ping pong ball?

BB

Yes, BG is totally off topic, but I figure I get an occasional thread jacking.

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 4, 2009 1:29 PM | Report abuse

A malicious idiot at that. Diverting discussions to irrelevant mindless trivia to get attention. What a wasted life.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 4, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Keep up the name-calling, though, for all to see.

Please, Mr. Cillizza, ban the IP addresses of "drindl" and "chrisfox8".

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

P.P.S. I'm not exactly sure how a "birther troll" is even possible ON A THREAD ABOUT OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE CONTROVERSY?! If anything, "drindl" and "chrisfox8" are now the TROLLS, trying to get this discussion off of the actual topic and on to poor, little ol' "racist" me. I guess it's easier for them that way.

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 1:22 PM | Report abuse

"Good question about Obama's support. I think he has to give Specter the benefit of the doubt for now. He must have given some assurances to Specter when he switched parties, but if Specter obstructs anything substantive, all bets are off."

Yeah, there could have been some deal. Specter turn D and get Obama's support.

The point I was trying to make is that Obama ultimately doesn't have a say in who gets the seat. If Sestak wins, then Obama has a reliable vote no matter what. If Specter wins, that's a less reliable vote and might make for a stick situation if Obama backed the other guy.

But let's see how much Obama will do in terms of directing the cashflow.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 4, 2009 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Don't feed the troll. He's an idiot.

Posted by: drindl | August 4, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuse

P.S. there is at least ONE scintilla of truth, or at least a slight ambiguity, from Obama's own paternal grandmother stating that he was born in what is now Kenya. The SHORT FORM birth certificate everyone has seen could have been produced from an out-of-State birth registered in Honolulu. If it is such a slam-dunk case, WHY WON'T HE RELEASE HIS LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 1:14 PM | Report abuse


Good question about Obama's support. I think he has to give Specter the benefit of the doubt for now. He must have given some assurances to Specter when he switched parties, but if Specter obstructs anything substantive, all bets are off.

I don't know if Specter was playing to some audience in the Sotomayor hearings, or if he was just being his cranky self, but the optics weren't good. Both Sestak and Toomey can use that footage in ads, regardless of Specter's actual vote.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 4, 2009 1:12 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland:

The "Certification of Live Birth" for out-of-State births would, in fact, list the hospital where said birth was registered (in Obama's case, Honolulu) which is why all the questions are being asked -- you can ignore that all you want, I guess -- nice "discussing" the issue with you though (drindl: THAT was sarcasm ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 1:11 PM | Report abuse

I am curious about how much support Specter is going to get from Obama. I can't imagine a scenario where Specter will be more helpful to Obama's agenda than Sestak. Maybe I'm missing something? Perhaps Obama has more to gain by endearing himself to Specter than to lose by not doing the same with Sixpack.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 4, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

ANOTHER birth certificate discussion? Hasn't this been hashed to death? What more could there be to say about it?

This tinfoil hat crap is getting real old. Eugene Robinson has a column on it today:

"It has been definitively shown that there is not a scintilla of truth, or even the slightest ambiguity, in the whole "birther" idea. Officials in Hawaii have attested again and again that Obama was, in fact, born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961. When the "birthers" demanded to see his birth certificate, state officials produced it. Journalists have looked at this complete non-story from every angle and concluded that it is, in fact, a complete non-story. "

But hey, Jake needs his daily ration of special attention and this is how he gets it. Little kids fake being sick, Jake does birther trolls.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 4, 2009 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Nothing in that statute changes the fact that the place of birth is plainly indicated on the certificate. That's not the parents' place of permanent residence or anything else--it's the place of birth.

It also doesn't change the fact that the Republican Governor of Hawaii has confirmed that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu. Perhaps the Governor should be impeached. Or maybe we should impeach Chief Justice Roberts for incompetence.

And that's absolutely the last I'm going to say about that. When someone states categorically that they're going to keep asking the same question until they get the answer they want, then there's no use in discussing it any further.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 4, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

Do you agree that Obama's birth certificate is ON-topic for this thread?

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

I believe Specter-Sestak in PA will in some way mirror the dynamic of the Obama-Clinton primary clash on the national scene. Hillary had all the early endorsements, organization and money advantages, but couldn't overcome her high negatives and the Iraq vote. Specter's fortress -- within the Democratic Party -- is a house of cards built on a mountain of quicksand. Sestak is connecting with voters and is building an energized volunteer base at the grassroots. Like Obama, expect Sestak to raise lots of his cash through the Internet. In the end, I still expect Specter to put up a respectable showing, but it will be based on his tireless campaigning, not the paper advantages which Sestak will easily shred during the course of the campaign. Sestak will be the next senator from PA.

Posted by: optimyst | August 4, 2009 12:58 PM | Report abuse

I hope Sestak defeats Specter in the primary so Pennsylvania gets a real Democratic Senator instead of this second Joe Lieberman.

Toomey's not even worth talking about, he's a right-wing to0£ who waited way too long to try to rebrand himself as a moderate.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | August 4, 2009 12:58 PM | Report abuse

trep1:

Thanks (the last revision was 1982, but the law was in effect 48 years ago):

[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.HTM

FairlingtonBlade:

Have fun at your conference (I will hold down the fort here, and I sent you an e-mail too ; )

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 12:37 PM | Report abuse

You're right, shrink2, about Specter's demeanor. I remembered he came out in favor of her nomination, but what I quoted was a statement from his office. His staff are undoubtedly nicer than he is.

He's a gruff old bird, and I wouldn't mind if Sestak knocked him out of the Senate. But Toomey isn't getting elected.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 4, 2009 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Oh, Cylon! Yes they're robots who infiltrate the spaceship crew and look and act human.

Posted by: drindl | August 4, 2009 12:15 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 quotes The Fix
"[Sen Specter] was irritable and challenging of Sotomayor -- often spending five minutes asking his question before allowing the judge 30 seconds of response time before interrupting her."


I think that's fairly typical Specter: all bark and no bite.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 4, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Apparently its a Cylon. A reference to Battlestar Galactica. A bunch of robots that can be made to look like people.

I never get sci-fi references.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 4, 2009 11:58 AM | Report abuse

This is what I was referring to earlier:

"Arlen Specter: Specter apparently forgot he had switched to the Democratic party a few months ago. He was irritable and challenging of Sotomayor -- often spending five minutes asking his question before allowing the judge 30 seconds of response time before interrupting her. Rep. Joe Sestak, who is planning to challenge Specter in next year's Democratic primary, has to be thrilled with the tone and tenor of the incumbent's questioning."

From The Fix 7/15

Posted by: shrink2 | August 4, 2009 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Actually, a Certification of Live Birth, not "COnfirmation". I'm certain if the "President" requests, the State of Hawaii would be happy to copy the original for release to the press. Some news accounts claim no original exists anymore.

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 11:53 AM | Report abuse

"Sorry, drindl. My sarcasm detector must be on the fritz today."

It's because she makes the same claim in earnest so often.

But, if he says she was being sarcastic, he was being sarcastic.

Posted by: DDAWD | August 4, 2009 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

As I've indicated before, I have a weakness for David vs. Goliath-type races. This Sestak-Specter fight will be fascinating.

I'm sure that if Sestak gets good, seasoned advisers, he'll be able to land a number of hard punches. Specter seemed to forget himself during the Sotomayor hearings, but a lot of the PA dems, who'll be voting in the primary after all, won't forget so easily.

Although nothing is ever certain in politics--which is what makes it so enormously addictive--I can't see Toomey successfully reinventing himself as a moderate. A single political ad dredged up from his firebrand days should successfully put an end that myth.

Posted by: sverigegrabb | August 4, 2009 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Actually, the state of Hawaii does not issue a Lonf Form Birth Certificate, only a COnfirmation of Live Birth. Not that this will mollify the birthers or JakeD....

Posted by: thinman1 | August 4, 2009 11:45 AM | Report abuse

My apologies, I didn't see the video. Psylon I think h as something to do with software.

Posted by: drindl | August 4, 2009 11:42 AM | Report abuse

I get very tired of the way the press frames things is all. Why say there is a 'controversy' about something when there is so such thing?

Just because a bunch of people jointly renounce reality, that is not a 'controversy' -- it's just a symptom of their illness.

Posted by: drindl | August 4, 2009 11:40 AM | Report abuse

"For crying out loud, drindl, CC linked to a parody video. A very fun one, by the way (who knew Barack was a Psylon?) Exactly how does that "legitimize" the birthers. You might as well say the same of Gene Robinson, who spent today's column slamming the whole non-issue. For that matter, your own posts on the issue legitimize it by that definition.

BB"

Yeah, drindl uses the most specious evidence as an excuse to fly off the handle. It's pretty annoying.

What's a Psylon?

Posted by: DDAWD | August 4, 2009 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Sorry folks, I took the bait. I google Hawaii Statute 338-17.8. It tells us nothing. JakeD, when was this statute first issued? The only reference I have seen to is from the 1980s. If it was not on the books when the president was born, then it does not matter. Further, and will let the lawyers correct me on this if I am mistaken, the statute applies to out of state births, not out of country. I would be surprised if the states made no distinction. But keep trying. I admire your determination.

Posted by: trep1 | August 4, 2009 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Hey, BB -- tell us about solid state lighting. Sounds very cool. I thought it was 'solid state lightning' at first, which would perhaps have been cooler.

Posted by: drindl | August 4, 2009 11:22 AM | Report abuse

@bsimon - You caught that. I was having a little fun and tempted to toss in a few sports metaphors for good measure. Well, off for breakfast. I'm in the hunt for some chilaquiles before I go to the sessions.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 4, 2009 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Joked -- let me put this kindly. I don't engage in conversation with the mentally unsound. It's unproductive, they are incapable of reason and rationality.

Posted by: drindl | August 4, 2009 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, drindl. My sarcasm detector must be on the fritz today.

Have a good one!

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 4, 2009 11:19 AM | Report abuse

farlingtonblade writes
"the primary is going to be a three hanky barn burner."

Uh, mixing your metaphors there?

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 4, 2009 11:19 AM | Report abuse

@Jake - As I said, it's just not that interesting to me. In the absence of accepting official documents, it boils down to a classic fallacy: argument from ignorance. One is expected to prove that he wasn't born in Kenya (or that he didn't use a non-American passport or that he didn't renounce his U.S. citizenship). They're all unprovable and so a merry gift to conspiracy theorists. As far as I can tell, these topics have gone round and round on the boards and gotten nowhere. It's not interesting in comparison to some real issues. Sestak vs. Spectre. Hutchison vs. Perry. Get your popcorn!

Oh well, off to the conference. Some interesting talks on solid state lighting today, a very big deal in energy efficiency. There's some really cool alternatives to fluorescent lights out there that DOE has been funding.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 4, 2009 11:18 AM | Report abuse

I didn't mean that seriously, BB, although what I do mean is that the media, by calling this and every other crazy right meme a 'controversy' DOES in fact legitimize stuff that is so insane it has no place in our discourse, and the reason they do it is simple -ratings wh*ring.

It was when the news section of our press began to be forced to be profitable rather than public service, that our discourse began to decline until it came to the pitiful state it's in today.

Posted by: drindl | August 4, 2009 11:17 AM | Report abuse

drindl:

How about you answer my question to you?

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 11:05 AM | Report abuse

For crying out loud, drindl, CC linked to a parody video. A very fun one, by the way (who knew Barack was a Psylon?) Exactly how does that "legitimize" the birthers. You might as well say the same of Gene Robinson, who spent today's column slamming the whole non-issue. For that matter, your own posts on the issue legitimize it by that definition.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 4, 2009 11:03 AM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade:

No grand conspiracy is needed! It could have simply been his mother registering an out-of-State birth and newspaper ad from the local hospital. Obama himself may not even know (although, why wouldn't he release his LONG FORM unless he knows?). I'm not saying that I know he was born in Kenya, since I wasn't there. I'm just pointing out that you weren't there either.

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 11:02 AM | Report abuse

How about if we switch to Birther Beserkers? I thnk that is a more complete and fitting name -- catchy too.

Posted by: drindl | August 4, 2009 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Cilizza IS in fact acting as a rightwing toadie by legitimizing the illegitmate claims of the berserk birthers. It is the rightwing MSM that keeps this nonsense alive.

Posted by: drindl | August 4, 2009 10:58 AM | Report abuse

I think that Spectre would crush Toomey in a general election. However, the primary is going to be a three hanky barn burner. Spectre did not do himself any favors with his questioning of Sotomayor. It seemed like he was channeling Walter Mathau of Grumpy Old Men. I don't think that Sestak needs to match Spectre for funds, just be competitive. The irony is that Scrivener may have it right, a retirement for health reason.

I'm not going to comment further on the whole birther thing. It's just not that interesting. Either one believes in a grand conspiracy, complete with birth announcements strategically placed in the newspapers, or one doesn't.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | August 4, 2009 10:55 AM | Report abuse

drindl:

Please (re-)read the thread TOPIC above: "Obama birth certificate controversy". I'm surprised you haven't slammed Mr. Cillizza for being a GOP toadie daring ti bring it up on The One's birthday. Doesn't he know we celebrate by giving gifts and the choir of Heavenly Hosts singing?

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Specter on Sotomayor:

"I applaud the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Her confirmation would add needed diversity in two ways: the first Hispanic and the third woman to serve on the high court. While her record suggests excellent educational and professional qualifications, now it is up to the Senate to discharge its constitutional duty for a full and fair confirmation process."


Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 4, 2009 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Jex-- I think you have a very good point. Support for Specter among Dems will be weak because he's so wobbly in so many areas, whereas support for Sestak will be far more enthusiastic and that may well make the difference.

Posted by: drindl | August 4, 2009 10:48 AM | Report abuse

The primary voters of Pennsylvania will decide whether Specter is enough of a Democrat to be elected as one. I have some respect for Specter for his moderate voting record, and it is too bad that bipartisanship is a luxury most politicians can't afford. Switching parties was pure expediency, but I don't fault him for that. Still don't care for his personal style though.

He did the right thing, politically, to switch because he would not have beat Toomey in a GOP primary. Too bad for Sestak, because Toomey beating Specter would have made his victory in November all the easier.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 4, 2009 10:48 AM | Report abuse

taj,

"he's been mostly party-line besides Free Choice"

Wasn't he really hard on Sotomayor?

Posted by: shrink2 | August 4, 2009 10:48 AM | Report abuse

"There are two empty beds though."

Save them both for Joked.

Posted by: drindl | August 4, 2009 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Joked thinks he's Galileo. Figures.

There's no controversy. There are a bunch of shrieking nuts on one side and the facts on the other. That's not a controversy, it's the lunatics loose from the asylum.

Posted by: drindl | August 4, 2009 10:44 AM | Report abuse

While Specter has a polling advantage, I just can't imagine him having much strong support. It's wierd, but when he was a republican, I was thankful that he wasn't a hard right winger. Since the Sestak challenge has loomed, he's been mostly party-line besides Free Choice, but it still isn't enough to excite me. I think that democrats want fighters these days and Specter is trying to cultivate a more deliberate tone. All in all, I think that if the primary were held today, Specter would have such weak turnout that it would be a close thing, despite the lopsided polls. If Specter doesn't change this game before people learn the name Sestek, I think Sestek will develop a commanding possition in the democratic primary for sure.

Posted by: theamazingjex | August 4, 2009 10:42 AM | Report abuse

anyone but specter.prefer a republican only because PA dems are a disaster.tax and spend is the one thing they do well

Posted by: pofinpa | August 4, 2009 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Grandiose delusions are symptomtic.
Right now in our hospital we have a Jesus and a Jeremiah, but no astronomers. There are two empty beds though.

Posted by: shrink2 | August 4, 2009 10:41 AM | Report abuse

At least we all can agree this controversy is ON TOPIC right? How fitting, today, on pResident Obama's birthday.

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 10:40 AM | Report abuse

drindl:

It doesn't matter what you, Ann or Bill say -- Galileo and Capernicus weren't believed either -- I will continue to ask why won't he simply release the LONG FORM birth certificate?

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 10:36 AM | Report abuse

mikeinm, remember for months how we had do endure relentless troll spam blaming each drop in equity markets on whatever it was Obama did, said or did not do that morning?

Now the only thing mask they have left (to try to put back on) is their newly re-born concern for deficit spending and how that might hurt working people down the road.
What a bunch of clowns.

Posted by: shrink2 | August 4, 2009 10:35 AM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland:

I didn't see "Cash for Clunkers" as one of today's topics, but it is a Constitutional failure -- the Founding Fathers would have never granted that power to the federal government -- what's next: a free washer and dryer to every registered Democrat?

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 10:31 AM | Report abuse

"Happy birthday, Mr. President, happy birthday to you."

Channeling the most famous presidential serenade...

And from Eugene Robinson,

"If there's been a more clinically insane political phenomenon in my lifetime than the "birthers," I've missed it. Is this what our national discourse has come to? Sheer paranoid fantasy?

I'm talking about the people who have convinced themselves that Barack Obama was not really born in the United States, and thus is ineligible to be president. Even some commentators who usually are among Obama's most rabid critics have acknowledged that this idea is simply nuts. Yet it persists, out there on the farthest fringes of the right-wing blogosphere."

When even Ann Coulter calls you nuts, you know you are really out there. Seek medical attention.

Posted by: drindl | August 4, 2009 10:30 AM | Report abuse

koolkat:

Unlike with Cao, I am not predicting a Toomey win, just hoping and praying.

Grissom:

Google Hawaii Statute 338-17.8. No need to apologize.

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 10:25 AM | Report abuse


If the economy falters, then a lot of moderate/competitive seats like this one will be vulnerable.

The Dem will win in 2010 because the economy will continue to improve. I think the interventions and the stimulus had something to do with making the recession less severe and shorter than it would have been otherwise, but even if nothing substantive were done, there would be a recovery by 2010.

I saw a lot of blaming the administration for the Dow dropping back in Feb-March. But of course with the Dow at a high for the year, no one wants to credit the stimulus or the administration. Some anti-administration folks even tried to paint the cash-for-clunkers program as a failure, just because it was more successful than anticipated. You just can't please some people.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 4, 2009 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Hau'oli la hanau, Mr President.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 4, 2009 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Either Sestak or Specter will destroy Toomey. Not even a contest. Bsimon is correct that the race will hinge most on which Dems will dump Specter. He has angered a lot of them so far with his disloyalty, and Sestak would be much more effective in that seat.

Posted by: drindl | August 4, 2009 10:18 AM | Report abuse

"PS: Happy Birthday, Mr. President!"

I raise my glass in honor of 48 years of our President's natural-born citizenship.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 4, 2009 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Andy, that is the question for sure, some people see the flight of confidence from the dollar as a good sign right now, helps exports, keeps gas price low and so on.

So with no sign of inflation (too much money pursuing too few goods) yet, there is room for confidence - how does that sound after the last four years?

I completely agree the Republicans are in a lock box of their own design and this is why Rush was at least honest when he expressed his desire for Obama's failure.

Now...if it turns out that Obama made a good bet by handing the recovery over to Goldman et al, I will also eat crow.

Posted by: shrink2 | August 4, 2009 10:16 AM | Report abuse

dbw, you wingies are sooo concerned about the well-being of CEOS, even while they pick your pockets. Amazing simplicity.

Posted by: drindl | August 4, 2009 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Who votes in PA primaries in non-presidential years? Sestak v Specter seems to be a race for enthusing the base. If Sestak gets labor behind him, won't that be a big boon to his candidacy? I also wonder how extensively the big-name Dems are going to support Specter; most came on board before Sestak entered the race - will they stick with Specter, or just step back and see what happens?

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 4, 2009 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Q: "I wonder how many of the posters who keep bashing JakeD for asking questions about the birth certificate issue are the same ones who pondered whether Palin was the real mother of Trig?"

A: Zero. This kind of statement, however, is a prime example of the fallacy-ridden, conspiratorial thought processes of the Conservative mind-set. In this instance, the habit of linking to vastly, widely different issues together.

Posted by: molsonmich | August 4, 2009 10:11 AM | Report abuse

I think Specter has too much money and too much support for Sestak to beat him in the primary. That's too bad, really, because I have no love for pols like Specter. But either way, the Dem will win the seat in 2010.

PS: Happy Birthday, Mr. President!

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 4, 2009 10:11 AM | Report abuse

"Americans United Attacks Insurance Industry"

Every time I hear one of these Barney-Frankish attacks on the salaries of executives (be it in health insurance, banking, whatever), I want to ask the question: is it reasonable then to cut the salaries of Congress to be in line with the 'average working American' until Congress stops running deficits?

Oh, and since Obama thinks 'the rich have had it too good for too long', does he plan on setting an example by sending a check to the Treasury for a larger share of his multi-million dollar bonuses than what he was required to pay under Bush?

It's funny. Liberals always think you make too much money....if you make more than they do. But if a liberal makes more than I do, I have yet to see one raise their hand and volunteer to send me a check to help even out the 'unfairness'.

Posted by: dbw1 | August 4, 2009 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Shrink,
The loss in value of the dollar is due to the massive amounts of money we dumped into our economy since March. The thing is that if you go back two years or so the Dollar is actually stronger against currencies like the Euro or Pound then it was in 07.
That being said the risk of inflattion is very real and shouldn't be taken lightly, but I think that Bernanke and the Federal Reserve are going to make inflattion there number one concern over the next few years.

I do agree though that if we keep hearing good news about the economy then you will start hearing the GOP talk about how the recovery isn't happening fast enough. They made a bad bet by hammering the stimulus package and will pay for it dearly.

Posted by: AndyR3 | August 4, 2009 10:03 AM | Report abuse

From now on, only the economy matters.
Republicans need disaster and Democrats, well obviously.

Equity markets are back, home and car sales are up. Back to school is supposed to save retailers now that peoples' IRA envelopes can be opened without pre-medicating.

Lagging indicators are, of course, jobs and the value of the dollar/long term interest rates/price of oil. The dollar index (to all other world currencies) has lost 14% of its value since March. What no one knows, is whether this matters, but everything depends on whether or not it does. Kinda funny.

Posted by: shrink2 | August 4, 2009 9:53 AM | Report abuse

"Finally! I hope whichever Democrat wins the PA primary is weakened enough to lose the seat in November."

More poor analysis from JokeD. The Democrats will not lose this seat. But I guess someone with no life still has to have hopes and dreams. Rep. Cao winning again is another JokeD classic.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | August 4, 2009 9:43 AM | Report abuse

AndyR3:
"Toomey is just too red meat conservative for the majority of Pennsylvania."

To be fair, though, Pennsylvania elected Santorum not once, but twice. So I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that if there is some backlash against Democrats in 2010 (ala 1994), that Pennsylvania could tilt toward whoever the GOP nominee is...not matter how conservative they are.


Posted by: dbw1 | August 4, 2009 9:43 AM | Report abuse

"I wonder how many of the posters who keep bashing JakeD for asking questions about the birth certificate issue are the same ones who pondered whether Palin was the real mother of Trig?"

Very few. That nutty theory never went anywhere, unlike this nutty theory. So the analogy is weak.

"Funny how leftists will gleefully go along with any conspiracy theories about Republicans, but then get all out of sorts whenever someone dares to ask a question about one of their own left-wingers."

Again, very few "leftists" went along with the Trig insinuation. So the analogy, I repeat, is weak.

"And for the record, I'm not a 'birther'. Given Hillary's ruthless record of not letting anyone stand in her way, I have full confidence that if there were any truth to this birth certificate issue, the Clintons would have exposed it a long time ago."

Well duh. Only a moron (that is, all birthers) would fail to understand that Obama would have been exposed on this long ago if it were true.


Posted by: koolkat_1960 | August 4, 2009 9:41 AM | Report abuse

I wonder how many of the posters who keep bashing JakeD for asking questions about the birth certificate issue are the same ones who pondered whether Palin was the real mother of Trig?

Funny how leftists will gleefully go along with any conspiracy theories about Republicans, but then get all out of sorts whenever someone dares to ask a question about one of their own left-wingers.

And for the record, I'm not a 'birther'. Given Hillary's ruthless record of not letting anyone stand in her way, I have full confidence that if there were any truth to this birth certificate issue, the Clintons would have exposed it a long time ago.

Posted by: dbw1 | August 4, 2009 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Will the Specter/Sestak winner be the de facto favorite to cake-walk to the finish line in November? Or do they face a formidable challenge from the GOP?

I wasn't sure who the GOP may have lined up, and whether this seat is at-risk of switching parties....or if the main interest in this race is just whether Specter can hold on to office or whether another Democrat will take his seat away.

Posted by: dbw1 | August 4, 2009 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Ken,
Specter will crush Toomey in the general. Sestak would probably beat him too unless Specter beats him up bad. Toomey is just too red meat conservative for the majority of Pennsylvania.

Posted by: AndyR3 | August 4, 2009 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Specter either loses in the primary or gets beat in the general election. Senate seats aren't judge seats. They are not lifetime appointments.

Posted by: kenpasadena | August 4, 2009 9:17 AM | Report abuse

CC posted:

"Most national labor operatives believe Sestak will find a way to be for whatever the re-written version of EFCA looks like, cutting off Sestak's oxygen..."

It is surely Specter who is trying to cut off Sestak, not Sestak.

Margaret, I suspect that your sense that Sestak will carry the D vote near Philly is worth more than the pedestrian inferences of CC's post about endorsements, labor, and black voters. Perhaps Mnteng will give us his view from Happy Valley.

A side note: I can get a good feel for metro Austin, but Austin is so different from TX that I never can get a sense of TX without calling all my lawyer buddies everywhere in the state. I am assuming that metro Phila is really the key from what I have read, and Margaret's familiarity with that area coupled with her generally unheated view are what I think counts here.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | August 4, 2009 8:52 AM | Report abuse

Factors in the PA Democratic Senator Race - the Black vote, unions, dollars raised, etc...

Normally a fan here - but sheesh, talk about phoning it in. These are the constant factors in every political contest in America, whenever and where ever.

Posted by: molsonmich | August 4, 2009 8:09 AM | Report abuse

FOR REASONS OF POLITICS AND HEALTH, A SPECTER RUN IS PROBLEMATIC

Agree with posters below that here in PA, Sestak looks like a winner among Dems who can't quite buy Specter's political chameleon act and don't take their marching orders from the Governor or the PA Democratic machine.

Personal health issues also may factor into the decision. Recently Specter attributed his chronic teary eyes to chemotherapy. While his staff insisted the symptom was the result of past treatment, and denied that he was undergoing a new round of chemo, some remain skeptical.)

Specter stands to make a fortune on his political memoir, given his central role in some of the most momentous moments in political history -- notably, the assassination of JFK and the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas tempest. As mentioned here previously, a political defeat might reduce the appeal of any future Specter tell-all tome.

Gonig out a winner also would help Specter continue to champion human and civil rights causes

Bottom line prediction: Specter to retire gracefully.


***

WHAT GOOD IS HEALTH CARE REFORM WHEN A FEDERAL 'MULTI-AGENCY COORDINATED ACTION PROGRAM' IS DESTROYING THE LIVES AND LIVELIHOODS OF UNJUSTLY 'TARGETED' AMERICANS...

BY MEANS OF A GPS-ACTIVATED NATIONWIDE VIGILANTE ARMY;

CO-OPTED LOCAL POLICE;

COVERT PROGRAMS OF FINANCIAL SABOTAGE;

AND THE DEPLOYMENT OF SILENT, INJURY- AND ILLNESS-INDUCING, MOOD-ALTERING MICROWAVE/ LASER 'DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS.'


President Obama, AG Holder, SecHomeland Napolitano, SecDef Gates, DNI Blair must dismantle the nationwide, federal-local GPS-activated extrajudicial targeting and punishment matrix and remove from power the secretive executive branch officials who continue to oversee it.

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):

See "GESTAPO USA" at http://NowPublic.com/scrivener ("stream" or "stories" list).


Posted by: scrivener50 | August 4, 2009 8:02 AM | Report abuse

I think Sestak needs to basically make Specter run and run hard. He should try to have as many debates as he can and try to have townhall meetings all over the state. If he can make the 79 year old show his age then he may have a chance to make the argument that it is time for Specter to be put out to pasture.

That being said I also think Sestak is going to get a rude awakening when his big donors dry up after a quick call from Obama.

Posted by: AndyR3 | August 4, 2009 7:44 AM | Report abuse

Sestak will never be able to overcome the fact that Specter will be getting overwhelming support from the White House.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | August 4, 2009 7:43 AM | Report abuse

Some factors mentioned in the article as favorable to Specter are shaky. For one thing, Ed Rendell has managed to make himself the most hated governor of PA in recent memory. His endorsement could be the kiss of death with people of either party.

There is no way labor is going to forget his opposition to the employee choice act.

Sestak has a lot of positives--for one thing, he is actually a Democrat, with a long, successful career in the Navy to back it up. And he has a voting record showing he wants the kind of health care he and his family had in the Service to be extended to all citizens.

Specter's mealy-mouthed transformation into a Democrat would make him easy pickings for Pat Toomey in the general election. Better to run an actual Dem

Posted by: Howdeb | August 4, 2009 7:38 AM | Report abuse


These are not pebbles Sestak is throwing at Specter. Specter is not stepping quickly enough into line with his new party and he will lose the primary to Sestak if he continues to forget which party he is now aligned with. He needs to get his own program in order before he starts ridiculing Sestak.

Even beyond becoming a good Democrat, Specter has to figure out how to be an elegant elder stateman because this cranky-old-man and nit-picking-personal-attacks stuff will not wash with his electorate. It reminds us that he is old and frail and maybe his time has passed.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | August 4, 2009 7:35 AM | Report abuse

Facts Jake on Obama's birth? Your parents were apparently breeding for stupid. Thats a fact.
JAKED posted:
Because Hawaiian law at the time of Obama's birth allowed for out-of-State registrations, which would result in the SHORT FORM everyone has seen. The LONG FORM would indictate whether it was an out-of-State birth. Why won't he simply release it?

This is actually incorrect information. Hawaii NEVER allowed out of state registrations and he cannot show proof of it because there is none.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and their tin foil hats, but don't lie. These days? It's too easy to prove a lie.
Many states use short form. Indiana is one.
One would also have to suppose that the GOP is made up of total idiots since they did everything they could to bring Obama down before the election according to the tin hatters they missed his not being an American? and some uneducated tin hatters found proof? LOL I see today where the head tin hat attorney is in big trouble for submitting a fake birth certificate to the courts. Nice.

Posted by: Grissom1001 | August 4, 2009 7:20 AM | Report abuse

Actually Jake the AP checked the last 12 months of the election and the Repugs had more favorable stories regarding their candidates by 2 to 1 including the Obama stories.
Though one does have to discard Palins bad press. She brought that one herself whenever she opened her mouth.

Posted by: Grissom1001 | August 4, 2009 7:18 AM | Report abuse

As for pResident Obama's media ubiquity, maybe if Time magazine had showered GWB with 12 covers in 12 months, he would have attained 99% approval rating?

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 6:59 AM | Report abuse

al_jal:

No. Next question?

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 6:49 AM | Report abuse

Are all these "Birthers" also members of the Flat Earth Society or what? I've not been reading this column for a while, but I imagine that the Prozac Brigade (Zouk, JakeD and others) have been frothing at the mouth like rabid wombats about this. Imagine if all that energy went into actually making things better! How sad...how irretrievably sad!

Posted by: al_jal | August 4, 2009 6:45 AM | Report abuse

Finally! I hope whichever Democrat wins the PA primary is weakened enough to lose the seat in November.

Just to clarify, since Mr. Cillizza included TWO items on Obama's birth certificate controversy, is a discussion of the underlying facts ON topic now?

Posted by: JakeD | August 4, 2009 6:33 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company