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):

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.

Timetable for Withdrawal or for Joe?

The Democratic Leadership (and I'm using the term loosely this week) has made a fatal mistake in their efforts to end the War in Iraq and bring our troops home safely.

Many Democrats, including Joe Sestak, are considering voting for the current Iraq funding bill, without timetables, enforcible benchmarks or accountability from the White House.

From the Chicago Tribune:

When Joe Sestak, a Democrat and former vice admiral in the Navy, ran for Congress last year, he told the voters of suburban Philadelphia that the United States should withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2007.

Fueled in part by the anti-war sentiments of Pennsylvania voters, Sestak defeated a 10-term Republican.

Thursday, after months of struggle with the White House, Sestak and fellow members of the House are expected to vote to fund the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan through September. The legislation, however, will not include a timeline to withdraw from Iraq, which until recently was a key Democratic demand. Instead, the $120 billion measure will contain "benchmarks" that the Iraqi government should meet to show progress.

Despite intense pressure from anti-war organizations, Sestak said he would vote for the measure. "The fact of the matter is we have to fund the troops," he said, shrugging off the prospect of facing political consequences. "I've had my 31-year career. This is my passion."

Your passion? Spending taxpayer dollars to fund a war that you've always called a "tragic misadventure"? Prolonging a war that you know only gets worse the more we extend it without end? The REAL fact of the matter is that we do NOT "have to fund the troops" for anything other than a safe pullout. I'll detail the things we can fund later in this piece.

Joe, you need to vote against this bill!!!

Joe campaigned on timetables for withdrawal. From Joe's own campaign website...

I firmly believe in a planned end to our military engagement in Iraq within the next year as the primary catalyst for change in Iraq. This timeline should only be extended if our military experts deem that a few more months are necessary in order to safely execute a complete withdrawal. I understand the Vietnam-like arguments that military disengagement may mean dominoes will fall, resulting in more regional strife and the further waning of U.S. credibility and power. But I counter those assertions with the real likelihood of a prolonged occupation with rising death, injury and cost for an unknown number of years. It will be an occupation that will continue to have goals that are ever changing as they remain elusive. The result will be continued loss of U.S. military and diplomatic international credibility. Polls show a growing majority Arab opinion:

1. that Iraqis are worse off than before the war;
2. that the intervention has produced less democracy in the region;
3. that, in the words of the U.S. inspector general for Iraq, corruption is “pervasive and very serious,” with more than $1 billion missing in one case;
4. that, even in cities proclaimed to be models for rebuilding Iraq, militia fighters of different religious parties clash violently and conduct assassinations, and
5. that unemployment ranges from 25 to 40 percent, even in these cities.

We must use our prompt military disengagement from Iraq to force the three major parties to understand that America has achieved its ends: (1) no weapons of mass destruction threaten us; (2) we have provided a framework for democracy; (3) we have provided resources to begin to revive their economy; and (4) a torturous dictatorship has been removed.
.....
There is a prompt way out of Iraq, and I believe that failing to do so means significantly hurting our other, more important long term interests in the world.

Joe, it's time to cast the vote you were elected to cast. Make no mistake, you and other military veterans were elected to vote to end the war. Your military service should be an innoculation against false criticism that you don't support the troops. But, so what if there is criticism? This is a matter of principle and you REALLY need to honor your campaign promises regarding timetables, hold the line, and convince as many others as possible to do the same.

Democrats in Congress MUST NOT enable Bush to continue his failed policies without Congressional oversight and approval. If we didn't want Congressional oversight, we would have voted to keep Curt Weldon.

Joe, you and the other Democrats need to keep sending funding bills to the White House that demand timetables and benchmarks. Let Bush veto them. Build more support and send another bill. Let the country see who is really looking out for the troops.


Things you can fund or de-fund:
1) Pay the contractors the SAME wages as the troops. The contractors are there voluntarily and their high pay is an insult to the underpaid troops that are forced to be there through a backdoor draft. De-fund the contractors and lets see how patriotic they really are.

2) De-fund all extensions to troop combat tours and anything that supports such extensions.

3) Bring home the National Guard troops and outlaw the use of the Guard outside the United States without a more rigorous set of conditions.

4) Fund a study on how to bring the troops home safely, or at least to pull back to Iraq's borders, as you have previously suggested.


You are part of the majority party that was swept into office to execute the will of the majority, particularly in your district. What the hell heck hell are you afraid of? This vote is a total surrender of principle and leadership.

Joe, if you cannot fulfill the primary mission of your current term, those that oppose the war may impose their own timetable against prolonging your mission into a second term.

As you said, you put in your 31 years and are in Congress as "your passion". So, your vote should match the passion you expoused on the campaign trail, or the voters should find a congressman for 2008 that shares their passion.

Bullet Balloting: Shooting Your Vote in the Foot

This primary election season, many high profile offices have more candidates than slots available. Some of the candidates and their supporters have advocated the take-no-prisoners strategy known as "Bullet Balloting". This misguided philosophy encourages voters to vote for only one candidate even though they are permitted to select two or more.

For Example: You have a SIX-way race with Fred, Barney, Wilma, Betty, Pebbles and Bamm-Bamm but only the top THREE vote getters go on beyond the primary. The false reasoning goes like this: If you like both Fred and Barney, but really want Fred to win, then you should NOT vote for Barney because that's like a vote against Fred.

This argument is not only wrong, but it hurts your party whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. By under-voting and not picking Barney, you are NOT really helping Fred or your party. Instead you are risking weak and unqualified candidates (Pebbles and Bamm-Bamm) taking Barney's slot when you could have had both Fred and Barney and a stronger ticket.

When you go to the polls on Tuesday, May 15th, consider whether a candidate (or his representative) is asking you to vote for "him and next best others" or for "just him". The selfish candidate that asks you to give up your rights by under-voting is not worthy of your vote. This kind of candidate will not work to support your party and whoever else wins in the primary, but rather will run a me-only campaign come November as well once the going gets tough.

For this election there are three (3) Delaware County Council seats, two (2) PA Supreme Court slots, two (2) PA Superior Court slots and two (2) seats for the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas. Voters that don't make an effort to pick their favorite nine (9) candidates to fill these positions are are shooting their party, their vote, and their Democracy in the foot.


P.S. Feel free to make copies of this blog for your polling place or to send to your friends that vote.

The Power of Three

As a frequent blogger and commentator on Delco politics as well as a progressive Democrat, I'm no stranger to controversy nor am I deterred by it. Thus, I offer MY opinions and endorsements for the Democratic Primary (and ignite some debate).

Three is a key number this year. There are three seats available out of five for the County Council. This offers not only a long overdue Democratic seat but even the chance of a takeover to restore integrity and representation to Delaware County government.

John Innelli, Ann O'Keefe and Patricia Lewis-West have formed a team of three. This is very important. Given an open primary without official endorsement, at least one candidates tried to hoard his resources and gather endorsements while John, Ann and Patricia formed a team that shows Democrats can work together toward a common goal.

John is uniquely qualified for a leadership role on County Council. He has a well established background in investigating fraud. This is why he is the candidate the GOP fears the most. The Delco budget is around $500 million dollars, nearly double that of Montgomery or Chester Counties. We need John to recover those extra hundreds of millions of dollars and lower our taxes and invest in hospitals, schools and infrastructure.

Ann is from Haverford, which has been at the vanguard of a significant Democratic awakening. Haverford has increasingly voted for Democrats and recently made significant gains on the Board of Commissioners. Haverford is home to Greg Vitali, one of Delco's few Democrats in the State Legislature. This year, the Haverford Democrats under the energetic leadership of Bob Stump are also fielding Commissioner candidates in five wards. All of this strengthens Ann's ability to maximize voter turnout for herself and the other Democratic candidates

Patricia impressed me during her convention speech. I was encouraged by her hands-on approach to dealing with problems in her district. We need people that are not only unafraid of rolling up their sleeves but unafraid of actually facing the public and being accountable. The current council holds meeting when the public is unavailable and then only to project the image of open government as they rubberstamp backroom deals. Of all the candidates vowing to help the November ticket if she loses the primary, Patricia struck me as the most sincere.

Ann and John both ran for county-wide seats in 2005 and received over 40% of the vote, when the electorate wasn't nearly as hungry for change as it is now.

As for the other candidates, I feel I should weigh in on them as well.

Rocco Polidoro is a candidate that I genuinely like and makes me wish I could vote for four people. How can any Democrat not like a guy that has been a thorn in the side of Charlie Sexton? While Rocco paid his dues fighting the GOP machine in Springfield, I think a candidate with a longer track record as a Democrat has a better chance to excite the Party’s base. Rocco did get the top position in the ballot order and is expected to make a strong showing.

Bob Dimond has a solid history with the party. He's a solid party candidate stuck in a large field of louder, hungrier candidates, though none as witty.

David Landau presents a conundrum for me. Though I dislike speaking against a fellow Dem (particularly one that may wind up on the November ballot), I feel the need to voice my concerns. I'm unhappy with the lone wolf style, tactics and choices of associates in his campaign. I was put off by his early claim that he was a "senior" advisor on the Sestak campaign. I was involved helping the campaign back when you could count on one hand the number of workers at headquarters whose last name wasn't Sestak (and still have a thumb left over to hitch a ride). I also attended many fund-raisers, events, picnics and strategy sessions for various local candidates as well as for Casey and Rendell. I didn't notice Landau at any of them. Maybe he'll be endorsed in the final Harry Potter novel this summer and we'll find out he had borrowed Harry's cloak of invisibility the whole time.

From what I have seen, Landau's supporters represent a faction of the Delco Dems that have resisted supporting progressive candidates and initiatives. They also seem to do the most complaining about how the party is run, but yet are never around when we do mailings, have meetings or need people to man the doors and tables at events to sign people in or help set up. However, they do work hard when presented with an opportunity to undermine the current Party leaders who have brought us within striking distance of a Council victory.

The whispering campaign’s message is to vote for only Landau as though he is the only candidate and to under-vote by not picking two other candidates. This mistaken philosophy implies that a vote for another candidate is a vote against Landau. In truth, if Landau supporters do not select their second and third preferences they risk candidates they don't prefer being elected. Voting for only one candidate instead of all three is selfish, short-sighted and just plain foolish. It weakens the party and dilutes your vote.

I ask my fellow Democrats, would you buy a stool with one, two or three legs? Didn’t you teach your kids the moral of the Three Musketeers, “One for all, and all for one”? When you go to the polls on May 15th and are besieged by various supporters, look to see which campaigns encourage you to spoil the chances of a fellow Democrat by undervoting or instead to fill your ballot with your three favorites.

That being said… I will work very hard to elect whichever three Democrats emerge victorious from the Primary, with my only condition being that they all work together to take all three Council seats. All for one, and one for all (and no one for himself).


For Democrats interested in the full slate of candidates (with endorsements for the Judicial races), visit the Delco Dems website.

Blogging Without Spencer

The Delco Times recently changed the layout of their site.

Besides the facts that previous links no longer work and there is no longer a "search" feature, another casualty of the software change (I decline to call it an upgrade) is that the Blogging with the Editor (Phil Heron) and Blogging with Spencer no longer support replies by the readers. Without the reader feedback, it's no longer blogging, but rather online editorials. Also gone are the past blogs with comments by readers (half the ones on Spencer's blog were from me). This new situation leaves Spencer's Archie-Bunker rantings unchallenged; but fortunately, PA7Watch is here to inject some unwanted reality into Spencer's fantasies. (Phil Heron did reply to inform me that blogging improvements will eventually be installed, but until then....)

In his most recent column, about "stars" that need therapy, Spencer fantasized about Dr. Phil having conversations with Paris Hilton, David Hasselhoff (Knight Rider and Baywatch), Alec Baldwin and Venus Ramey (Miss America 1944). Most men would find Paris Hilton's imagined presence sufficient for a fantasy (conversation or otherwise). Why does Gil need to fantasize about Dr. Phil, Baldwin, Hasselhoff and an 82 year-old former beauty queen? I wonder if Gil was picturing Hasselhoff in swim trunks on the beach or running in slow motion? Seems to me that Spencer is the one needing some therapy.

In his recent opinion column Leaving Iraq now means whole world loses, Spencer misrepresented the desire of the majority to leave Iraq. He starts off with "Some people believe it is time to cut our losses and bring the troops home from Iraq." instead of "Most people believe.."
Spencer follows with "More than 3,000 U.S. soldiers have died. Thousands more have been maimed or seriously injured."
Notice how he leaves out the tens of thousands of Iraqis killed until later when he accuses Reid and the other Democrats of ignoring Iraqi deaths. Even worse, Spencer takes a sober appraisal by Reed that the continued failures by the Bush administration will cost the GOP Senate seats (because they have defied the voters) and misrepresents Reed as "Giddy" about a political windfall. I guess Gil forgot how Bush and the GOP politicized the war, or staged the Mission Accomplished speech with banner as a campaign photo-op. (First Bush claimed the banner was the idea of the ship's crew. Then it came out the banner was produced by Bush team and flown in.)

Spencer criticizes Nancy Pelosi for talking to Syria (as recommended by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group), but conveniently declines to criticize Condi Rice for her recent attempts to engage Syria.

Spencer then predicts that if the Dems succeed in pulling out the troops then millions will die in a chaos that he and the neocons claim will follow. What happened to the neocon predictions we would be greeted with flowers as liberators? Or the war paying for itself? Or those WMD's? Or "Bring it on"? Or things would settle down once we captured Saddam? Drafted a Constitution? Held elections? Put up walls? Sorry Spencer, the neocons haven't gotten a prediction right yet. However, they have promoted lots of fear mongering that things would go badly if the Democrats were in charge.

Spencer also ignores the opinion of the Democratic leaders (and the evidence of our own eyes) that our presence in Iraq has made things worse. The worsing situation in Iraq is the direct result of failed leadership and planning by the GOP and their failure has our troops and innocent Iraqis to pay the price.

Spencer even goes so far as to claim that al-Qaida will get stronger and that "Democratic-advocated retreat will prove Osama bin Laden quite right." Well, Bin Laden working out of a cave has made al-Qaida stronger. Bush with the highest technology ever invented and hundreds of billions of dollars has weakened our own military and reduced our readiness. Bin Laden made it quite clear his goal was to bankrupt the US by drawing us into an asymmetric conflict for which we were not prepared. Stubbornly staying in, when there is nothing left to win, just plays into Bin Laden's hands.

Incompetent leadership emboldens terrorists. The Bush administration, neocons and people like Spencer promoting fear embolden the terrorists because fear is their goal and Americans spreading fear are the ones aiding the enemies. The real enemies are ignorance and intolerance. They are used to recruit new terrorists and used to continue a war that never should have been fought.

The answer is to de-radicalize. Internationally, we must support voices of reason. Nationally and locally, we must become voices of reason and challenge people like Spencer when they implying that those opposed to the war are sympathizers, appeasers, cowards or traitors. It is un-American.

I don't regard Spencer with the same distain as the neocons running the show. Spencer just isn't bright enough to mastermind and craft talking points, he just repeats them. Spencer's not the problem, but he is not the solution either.