A Travesty of a Mockery of a Sham...
As Woody Allen so eloquently put it: "This trial vote is a travesty; it's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham. I move for a mistrial."
Before I get into how Joe's vote betrayed the voters and the troops, here is Joe's statement (from a cover-his-ass press release):
1) You HAVE deviated. You voted for date-certain for the April 25th bill to Bush that forced him to veto funding troops because he refused to be held accountable. It was a strong move by Democrats to force Bush to take a position and show the troops, the nation and the world that Congress would not hand Bush a blank check. Then, today you handed Bush a blank check. That is a deviation.
2) Just today, you restate: "that a date certain to redeploy from Iraq is the only viable strategy". What do you think the word "only" means? In this context, it means that any other strategy is NOT VIABLE.
You decided to vote for a non-viable strategy.
3) Then, you try to pretend this vote honors the troops: "that we, America, sent to Iraq to fight for us". WHAT!?!!! They are not there fighting for US because WE were never in any danger from Iraq in the first place. They are there following the orders they have been given (by a thoroughly incompentent President, enabled by a Congress that has abbrogated its duty). Many are there against their will as the result of a backdoor draft and dangerous extensions of their tours of duty.
4) Why would you expect the other side of the aisle to come together? The Democrats just pulled down their pants, bent over and said: "Thank you, Sir. May I have another?" (Have a staff member cue up the Kevin Bacon initiation scene from Animal House for you to explain the reference.) By September, even the Republicans will abandon Bush, but that will be their decision and not the result of leadership from the Democrats.
5) If you are SO concerned about the money running out and our troops suffering, then send Bush a bill taking away the tax-cuts for the rich to fund it. Why is it the troops are the only ones allowed to suffer?
6) BTW, Bush knows that timetables work. He used Memorial Day as a timetable to get 86 of you to cave under the false fear that you would have to explain not-funding the troops to Memorial Day crowds. Well, guess what? Now you have to spend all weekend explaining why you helped Bush hurt the troops.
Would you REALLY like to honor the troops?
1) Outlaw (or refuse to fund) combat tour extensions.
2) End the backdoor draft.
3) Fund the National Guard for US based operations only.
4) Recall the equipment needed to handle natural disasters here at home.
5) Hold the President and Vice President accountable for their actions by demanding realistic timetables and benchmarks.
6) Stop wearing your "31 years" of military service on your sleeve and using it as a talking point along with the self-rightous rhetoric and political speak. Just admit you back off of supporting the troops because you and the other 85 Democrats were too afraid to be labeled as not supporting the troops.
Joe, PLEASE, stop talking like a politician campaigning for reelection. In 2006, you started as a total unknown in February and unseated a popular, entrenched, well-funded 20-year incumbant. You don't need to be in campaign mode for yourself until 2008 actually starts, and quite frankly, I find it distasteful when you've failed to honor a key campaign promise.
There are a whole lot of issues that you have worked on and done a FANTASTIC job. However, Iraq was a key issue and you totally blew this vote and helped 85 other Democrats hand an undeserved victory to Bush and his failed policies that are hurting our troops and breaking our military.
Patrick Murphy voted against the bill as did Bill Brady and Chaka Fattah.
Before I get into how Joe's vote betrayed the voters and the troops, here is Joe's statement (from a cover-his-ass press release):
Following is Congressman Sestak's statement on the legislation:
I served this nation in combat, in Afghanistan and then Iraq. The first was a just war, the second, a tragic misadventure.
I have never deviated from what I said when I began running for this office after 31 years of military service - that a date certain to redeploy from Iraq is the only viable strategy that will change the incentives for Iraqis, and Iran and Syria, to change their behavior and work for stability and an unfailed Iraqi state.
But I've run the Navy's $67 billion annual warfare program, and I know that money is only so fungible....and we will run out of funding this summer for our service members in Iraq.
I also know that there is a greater good than me, this office, our caucus, and our Congress: those who still wear the cloth of our nation and that we, America, sent to Iraq to fight for us.
I cannot vote to have these service members' safety be caught between us and someone we hope will blink - for hope is not a strategy.
But I have great faith that serious, good Americans on both sides of the aisle will come together after this vote and work together for an end date of what can no longer be an open ended commitment in Iraq - not just for our service members' security, but for America's.
1) You HAVE deviated. You voted for date-certain for the April 25th bill to Bush that forced him to veto funding troops because he refused to be held accountable. It was a strong move by Democrats to force Bush to take a position and show the troops, the nation and the world that Congress would not hand Bush a blank check. Then, today you handed Bush a blank check. That is a deviation.
2) Just today, you restate: "that a date certain to redeploy from Iraq is the only viable strategy". What do you think the word "only" means? In this context, it means that any other strategy is NOT VIABLE.
You decided to vote for a non-viable strategy.
3) Then, you try to pretend this vote honors the troops: "that we, America, sent to Iraq to fight for us". WHAT!?!!! They are not there fighting for US because WE were never in any danger from Iraq in the first place. They are there following the orders they have been given (by a thoroughly incompentent President, enabled by a Congress that has abbrogated its duty). Many are there against their will as the result of a backdoor draft and dangerous extensions of their tours of duty.
4) Why would you expect the other side of the aisle to come together? The Democrats just pulled down their pants, bent over and said: "Thank you, Sir. May I have another?" (Have a staff member cue up the Kevin Bacon initiation scene from Animal House for you to explain the reference.) By September, even the Republicans will abandon Bush, but that will be their decision and not the result of leadership from the Democrats.
5) If you are SO concerned about the money running out and our troops suffering, then send Bush a bill taking away the tax-cuts for the rich to fund it. Why is it the troops are the only ones allowed to suffer?
6) BTW, Bush knows that timetables work. He used Memorial Day as a timetable to get 86 of you to cave under the false fear that you would have to explain not-funding the troops to Memorial Day crowds. Well, guess what? Now you have to spend all weekend explaining why you helped Bush hurt the troops.
Would you REALLY like to honor the troops?
1) Outlaw (or refuse to fund) combat tour extensions.
2) End the backdoor draft.
3) Fund the National Guard for US based operations only.
4) Recall the equipment needed to handle natural disasters here at home.
5) Hold the President and Vice President accountable for their actions by demanding realistic timetables and benchmarks.
6) Stop wearing your "31 years" of military service on your sleeve and using it as a talking point along with the self-rightous rhetoric and political speak. Just admit you back off of supporting the troops because you and the other 85 Democrats were too afraid to be labeled as not supporting the troops.
Joe, PLEASE, stop talking like a politician campaigning for reelection. In 2006, you started as a total unknown in February and unseated a popular, entrenched, well-funded 20-year incumbant. You don't need to be in campaign mode for yourself until 2008 actually starts, and quite frankly, I find it distasteful when you've failed to honor a key campaign promise.
There are a whole lot of issues that you have worked on and done a FANTASTIC job. However, Iraq was a key issue and you totally blew this vote and helped 85 other Democrats hand an undeserved victory to Bush and his failed policies that are hurting our troops and breaking our military.
Patrick Murphy voted against the bill as did Bill Brady and Chaka Fattah.
posted by David Diano at 9:03 PM
12 Comments:
DD -
Yes, it's me.
Let me say this: while I completely disagree with your position regarding the war in Iraq and, specifically, whether the Congress should continue to fund the war and the manner in which that funding should be provided, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that you stand by your convictions and have no problem criticizing those in your own party who have failed (and will likely continue to fail) to stand by their's.
While I believe Joe Sestak made the right choice by voting to fund the troops without a date certain for withdrawing from Iraq, Joe Sestak now has a very serious problem to deal with. He failed to deliver on his number one campaign promise. He has been in office for just over 5 months and he has already let you - and many other Delco Dems - down. For that, he deserves to be roundly criticized -- not because his vote was wrong -- but because he cannot be trusted to do what he says he will do. Score one for the R's in 2008.
DelcoGOP-
The other Philadelphia area Democrats as well as the majority of the House Democrats voted against this. I'm not ready to pin Joe's failure on the rest of my party.
Maybe it was hoping too much for a military guy to vote for anything other than more military funding.
On the flip-side, you and the other R's are in the position of praising Joe as "stand-up" guy for the troops for putting them ahead a campaign promise.
The key difference is whether one believes this vote helps the troops. Since you believe it does, and many R's voted to elect Joe as well, you should be praising Joe's vote and not trying to count your 2008 chickens (votes) before they are hatched (cast).
The fact that you are worried about keeping score for 2008 shows where your priorities really are.
I'm a Democratic Party member. Joe is better than any alternative the DELCO GOP can offer...Andy Reilly, please.
Listen, Joe has now shown that he will place his convictions about what is morally right ahead of his own political survival. Like it or not, that is the kind of man that we all elected, not one who will blindly follow polls or what his party leadership wants.
I understand it is good reading and writing, but the DELCO GOP should stop dreaming--it's not like Joe Sestak will ahve a primary fight. Game on November 2008.
Anonymous-
While I agree that Joe is better than the GOP alternatives, I do not believe that Joe's vote demonstrated "conviction" as it contradicted his previous "conviction" regarding timetables.
Furthermore, I don't believe that a vote to give Bush a blank check with no real accountability was "morally right".
Joe will still clean the clock of his would-be GOP challengers, but he's going to have to work a lot harder due to this vote.
I emailed his office, but never got anything beyond the automated "we'll get back to you asap!" message. That really annoys me. I'll have to find the time to call during the week.
themann1086-
Before the vote, I called the local and Washington office to ask that Joe vote against the bill.
After the vote, I emailed the staffer at the Washington office that issued Joe's press release. I complained about the disconnect between Joe's statements (during the campaign and even within his statement) and his vote.
I also emailed the campaign office and asked to be removed from future mailings and solicitations (and indicated that it was due to this vote).
I didn't even get the automated email (yet).
Anyway, I do believe in enforceable benchmarks. Joe failed to meet a critical campaign benchmark, thus he lost some funding for 2008.
On balance, Joe is still better than the GOP alternatives, but I feel that when he casts a vote so at odds with a core campaign promise, there must be a price to pay.
Please attend Friday, June 1 event with Joe at the Media (Providence) Friends Meeting at 6:30! I believe that Joe wants a chance to reach out to as many constiruents as possible... but that his office has been deluged with phone calls and emails. Joe his staff are hard working, and will do their best to get back to us.
I did get a response to my phone call, and I was very troubled before the vote. Let's give Joe a chance to discuss this with us.
Thanks for taking the time to be involved here in Delco.
Anonymous-
Deluged? Interesting. In a recent interview, Joe indicated he had gotten about 40 calls and doesn't reveal if they were for or against.
In the Patriot News
For all the outcry of groups angry about what they view as Democrats -- including U.S. Rep. Tim Holden of Schuylkill County, war critic U.S. Rep. John Murtha of Johnstown and freshman Rep. Chris Carney of Susquehanna County -- caving to Bush, Sestak says he's heard relatively few complaints.
He estimated 40 constituents have contacted his office. He's inviting war critics to a Friday night forum, where he plans to explain his vote.
In Today's Delco Times, I got quoted amidst Joe's evolving explanation for his vote.
Now we have: "I said I would always vote not to cut off support for the troops and I have never changed that position," Sestak said. "I must vote for the safety of the troops."
Yet, previously Joe bragged how he put submitted a bill to cut off funding by the end of Dec 2007.
Joe says that he will continue to explain the reasons for his vote as long as people continue to ask for it. Well, I've heard his "official" reasons and have found them dubious and unacceptable.
Joe claims that the vote was not a political calculation, but judging the reaction from Republicans, his vote was calculated and politically safe. Many people have bought into the false argument that the vote supported the troops (rather than left them hanging without oversight). Sestak knows that come September the GOP is going to abandon Bush in droves. With that as political cover, Joe can make the vote he should have this time; but, he'll be behind the curve, instead of ahead of it.
As for Joe's rhetorical question, "What am I going to do, vote politically for the rest of my life?".. my answer, based on what I've seen so far, is "probably".
Yesterday I got a call from an "angry" Sestak supporter. His beef was not so much that I disagreed with Joe, but that I had chosen to do so publicly, particularly in the Delco Times, where I was quoted.
The supporter felt I should have talked to Joe "privately". Well, Joe made a PUBLIC campaign promise and wrote a public explanation that was published in the same Delco Times. A public rebuttal IS the appropriate avenue, even though I got only a few sentences and Joe got in even more talking points.
I can only assume that my comments hit a nerve.
The supporter also tried the argument that Joe's 31-years means that he knows so much more about the military that I should defer to him. Well, that's not how it works. Joe's vote directly contradicted his previous arguments backed up by those same 31-years. Joe can't have it both ways.
Finally the supporter tried the "it's supporting the troops" argument. Well, if I bought into that argument, I'd be wearing a Sean Hannity or Dick Cheney t-shirt.
I just discovered the comments made by John Edwards at the time:
"Washington failed America today when Congress surrendered to the president's demand for another blank check that prolongs the war in Iraq. It is time for this war to end.
"Congress should immediately use its funding power to cap troop levels in Iraq at 100,000, stop the ongoing surge, and force an immediate drawdown of 40-50,000 troops, followed by a complete withdrawal in about a year.
"The American people's call for a new course in Iraq was not answered today, but Congress still has the power to end this war. Our security and democracy alike demand it."
Edwards also wrote:
Dear Friend,
About an hour ago, the Senate caved to President Bush and sent him another blank check to continue the war in Iraq.
This is a serious blow for all of us, but no one lost more today than the troops in the field who continue to sacrifice so nobly and their families still waiting back home.
...
After tonight, one thing is now perfectly clear: No one else is going to end this war for us. Bush will not listen. Congress will not fight.
Dave-
Did you listen to Joes responses at the Media Friends Meeting?
I am amazed to hear your criticism of Joe reverberating in today's Delco Times.
The man voted his conscience in the face if a tyrannical president.
Lets turn our attention to Casey and Spector, who have much more power to end this occupation.
Anonymous-
I was unable to attend the meeting, but I have read Joe's official press release as well as his own letter to the Delco Times and the coverage of the story. I as hoped to point out with the quote from John Edwards, the reverberations from this are nationwide. However, it was cool to get quoted in the paper. :-)
Personally, I do not believe that Joe made a "vote of conscience". To say that I find Joe's explanation on this particular point to be insincere and disingenuous is an understatement. What I do believe is that Joe caved to the political pressure that his vote would be portrayed as a vote against the troops. A true vote of conscience (and courage) would have been to honor the promises he made during the campaign to the people that voted for him on the strength of his (now abandoned) stand on timetables.
I don't buy into the false rhetoric that this vote "supported the troops" when Joe says it, anymore than I buy it when Bush and Cheney make the exact same argument. If I want that kind of "logic", I'll tune into Fox News Channel.
I would hardly call a lack of timetables and a vote supported by all but two Republican, an "in the face" vote against tyranny. What I would call it is capitulation and surrender to Bush on what many of Joe's supporters were duped into believing was a clear moral stand during the campaign.
Even among those that were against timetables and liked Joe's vote, they realize that Joe's vote did not match his campaigning.
From the Delco Times, Darts and Laurels:
LAUREL: To U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, for voting his conscience and not turning his back on the troops in supporting a bill that would fund the mission in Iraq, but not set a timetable for U.S. withdrawal.
DART: Also to Sestak. If that was truly the way he thought, he should have made that plain to voters and supporters on the campaign trail. That’s not the way it appeared.
As for the price Joe will pay for this recent vote, I can offer only a few guesses. I suspect that Joe will find it more difficult to find volunteers, funds and enthusiasm for his re-election than for his initial election. Many anti-war voters will likely turn their attentions and resources towards the Presidential campaign.
Joe Sestak is still my Congressman (though I say it with far less pride than two weeks ago). Despite this vote, Joe's been a good congressman on balance and has worked hard on issues like the FAA airport redesign.
When I agree with Joe on an issue, I will support him. However, when I disagree, I will exercise my freedom of speech and attempt to dissuade him with the best arguments I can.
I think that I have put to rest past and future claims by Joe's GOP rivals that I was, am or will ever be a Sestak lackey or puppet. I don't speak for Joe, or the party. My opinions are my own.
David,
I am embarrassed to write that I am only tonight finding the time to review the vote record from the vote on the 24th.
I am very disappointed by the votes cast by both Sestak and Casey. Clearly giving another 100 million dollars to Bush for use in Iraq is the worst thing that could be done if helping protect soldiers is the aim of our representatives in Congress. Looking at the voting record, it looks backward, with most of the PA Republicans voting against the bill and the democrats caving in to Bush. (Project Vote Smart: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=12940)
I agree with your position on this travesty and for my part, apologize for taking my eye off the ball. Now I have some emails to send.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home