Tweet
While most here have no love for Snarlin’ Arlen, aka Scrapple, it’s hard to get revved up for Joe because of FISA. We here at FDL love a good fight against the evil doers, but will find it hard to get really stoked on this one—I think.
Here’s the problem. Scrapple’s death bed conversion to the donkey party is about as crass as they get. We all know it. He knows it. Scrapple is only out for himself. Always was and will be. He became a dem because he knew he’d lose a primary to whomever ran against him, whether it was Toomey or someone else. So he decided he’d rather switch than fight.
That leaves us—those of us living in PA and those of us activists on the intertubes—to deal with a conundrum. Do we come out for Sestak and put some energy and money into it? OR do we let the chips fall where they may and sit it out? (as you can see I didn’t even entertain the idea of actually supporting Scrapple)
I’ve got very mixed emotions about it. Mr. Rev. is ready to work for Joe in a heartbeat. But after having dinner a couple of weeks ago with our Queen Jane, the cold hard facts hit.
1. Specter will find a way to vote for EFCA. He has to. He needs labor.
2. When he does, he’s got Labor and the people and money they bring.
3. Rendell, Biden, the PA Dems are all lining up behind Scrapple.
4. Joe voted for FISA.
That last one is important. We called, we faxed, we cajoled, we did everything possible to get him to not do it. We lost. I, for one, spent 40 minutes with him expressing my "disappointment" in that vote. As Jane pointed out to me, FISA was a bottom line issue. We can’t now turn around and pretend it didn’t happen and support him full bore or we no longer have any credibility. That’s the way it is.
Joe has made several votes that I strongly disagree with. He has disappointed. And yet, he gave me that 40 minutes to yell at him even while his staffer was trying to rescue him repeatedly starting at the 15 minute mark. His votes on the whole are more in line with the dems than Specter’s will be with some big disappointments.
On the other hand, this IS PA. We don’t have no librul democrats and won’t outside of deep Philly (and those could never get elected state wide anyway). As so many have said, PA is Philly and Pittsburgh surrounded by Alabama. If we’re looking for a real progressive senator, we’d better move to a different state.
All in all Joe has got to be better than Arlen ever will be. He is not Chris Carney, thank the goddess. The question is whether we can feel good about jumping in and fighting the good fight.
So I’m opening it up for discussion. It’s a tough call. We all want to find more Alan Graysons and Steve Cohens, I know. But they are hard to come by and almost never make it to the Senate. And surely not from PA.
What say you all?
Update: Duncan is in for $100 once it is announced. It’s a start.
48 Comments
Honest Questions: Didn’t Donna Edwards also cave on FISA ? Does she still have the support of FDL ?
Was she seated before the middle of last June?
found it. She was seated right before the vote and voted ney.
Rev Deb, thanks for vindicating Donna.
GREAT THREAD!
Recommended.
no. donna edwards voted against the fisa bill last june (hr 6304) and even better campaigned against it. gold stars by her name on that one (she did however cave on tarp, the $700 billion bankster bailout).
all the house fisa votes are listed here (scroll down for the table)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/…..351/549864
edit to add: i see revdeb beat me to it.
Wouldn’t Joe be less bad than Haggis?
Wouldn’t it be worth it to tell the national party — and President Obama — that they don’t get to automatically pick nominees? They appear to be shouldering out challengers in New York, and probably Illinois, as well. Do we want these new Chicago rules in our Democratic Party? I don’t.
Will Joe be less bad than Haggis? And is he forever barred from getting our support because of FISA?
all good questions.
Of course he’d be less bad than Arlen. For one thing, he tells you where he’s at and then votes that way.
as for being barred from our support—I think what that will mean is that individuals who want to support him are, of course, free to do so. But you must remember how “all in” FDL went for Ned. That was support. Because of the FISA vote, Jane will never put that kind of effort into the race. And I don’t blame her for that. The netroots will have no credibility if there are no standards. For us, we care about credibility. Not like our counterparts on the other side.
Does that make any sense to you?
What Teddy said.
Haggis is clever and unprincipled. Under KISS rules, his absence would serve us well.
So does that mean we put our money and our effort into getting rid of Haggis? I’m sincerely asking.
My gut says yes, but that’s subject to open.
Not thought it through (competing resources, etc) yet.
Great comment, thanks.
Because Obama has thrown his support behind Arlen, I think the closed Pennsylvania primary is an important place for liberals/progressives and the Black Caucus to consider throwing our weight behind organized labor. I always see our leverage against the blue dogs in tandem with those two. Right now, I don’t see any other races which offer us as clear a chance to flex our electoral muscle against the blue dogs.
Something that hasn’t been explicitly mentioned, Obama and Rahm are recruiting Republicans into the Democratic party. I’m all for it when they truly adopt liberal/progressive policies. It’s pretty obvious that BO and Rahm want to dilute our impact in primaries.
organized labor will back Scrapple if he votes for EFCA or whatever spawn of it comes to the floor. So what then?
Feingold could need help in the 2010 general.
Sestak is also about as pro continued war in Af Pak as it gets.
I won’t be supporting any of these folks, financially or in spirit. We are a small but feisty force.. especially if we focus on races where we can make a difference. This race/ Sestak, imo, does not qualify.
When he got elected it was primarily to end the war. In our conversations, he is insistent on a sane withdrawal plan. I really don’t think he’s pro-war. I think he’s pro-troops. Sadly, those have been conflated too much of late.
sestak voted for continued occupation in 2007. it was a very big deal and we gave him a lot of grief here over it. to his credit he did come to fdl to talk about it:
http://firedoglake.com/2007/06…..e-america/
for comparison, here’s a thread from before the election:
http://firedoglake.com/2006/10…..and-safer/
yes, I get that. I also get that there are no pure candidates out there. Life is full of compromises. And I do give Joe credit for continuing the dialogue rather than saying “screw you” like so many of the others seem to do.
And this is PA. We ain’t gonna get no Donna Edwards outside of Philly. Chester and Delaware Counties, where Joe represents are predominantly rethug territory. No pockets of liberalism here. As you can tell, I’m torn. Yet I like Joe having met him and talked with him and kept in contact with him even when he screws up (especially when he screws up.)
please don’t make this an issue of a “pure” candidate. that is NOT the problem. the issue is whether sestak is good enough. that is all.
if you choose to support him, i’ll cheer you on. but that’s not my choice.
the post is obviously not about a pure candidate. There isn’t one. The questions posed are on the basis of that premise. It’s about whether or not there is enough support of the impure candidate to mount a challenge to the establishment’s newly crowned golden boy.
And thank you, Rev Deb, for the diary and opening up the discussion.
I certainly did not get a hint of anything but support of continued action in Af Pak during his last FDL visit. wish I had asked about Iraq, since each day seems to point out how unlikely it is we will leave Iraq as well.
During his visit, he was not at all interested in single payer. Seemed to like the Massachusetts approach.
correct.
He seems to like the MA plan—he says it’s Obama’s preferred plan (that merits a whole ‘nother discussion) . Though he supported Hillary, he’s honed pretty tightly to the Obama line since Obama clinched. Kind of pathetic that Obama so quickly jumped on the Specter bandwagon.
imo sestak needs some education on health care reform – this thread has his discussion on single payer:
http://firedoglake.com/2009/05…..oe-sestak/
I’ll be happy to get a solid public option out of him. There is no way this congress is going to go single payer.
that’s no excuse for his lack of support. right now, especially given the results here in ma, i’m not supporting anyone in congress who won’t sign on for single payer. that doesn’t mean they can’t support a compromise, but they have express support for single payer too.
for me, health care is a fundamental human rights issue, and single payer is the only policy i’ve seen that can do the job.
(it doesn’t help that i don’t think there is any such thing as a solid public option – at least no one can tell me exactly, and with some detail, what qualifies as a solid public option plan)
He also seemed to be rather flakey on pursuing war criminals to the point of prosecutions, where warranted.
Just wanted some sort of toothless commission, iirc.
I’ve pushed him continually about accountability. Again, he’s parroting Obama “gotta move forward . . .”
Not to make excuses for him as I’m pushing the stuff we all care about, but he’s been behind just about everything Obama wants.
A few other goodies about Scrapple:
single bullet
Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas
“If I Only Had a Spine”
Hmm. There are benefits to working on a campaign or for a candidate that go beyond getting ‘your’ candidate elected. One of the problems getting ‘more and better Dems’ elected is where do you start? Where is the grassroots org, the networks, the informed and interested voters and most of all, progressives who are ready to become candidates. A losing campaign will help you identify allies and perhaps even find a real progressive to run next time.
I was not crazy about Obama (FISA, Afghanistan, gay marriage), but McC/S was *unthinkable*. I have been sorely disappointed in Obama’s failure to do what he said he was going to do (Iraq, Gitmo, DADT, EFCA, DOJ, etc.) and now torture and continuing Bush’s executive power grab. But I wrote emails and made phone calls urging friends, relatives and total strangers to vote for him, and gave some $$ to him. The result is that McCain didn’t get elected and I now know lots of people to commiserate with and maybe the next Pres will be better still.
We can’t just sit on our hands. As Granny D said in her essay Preparing for a Post-Carbon Age, “We need to fold ourselves back into the Democratic Party and thoroughly invigorate it.” Failing to so, she says, leaves the party “to the selfish elites, and they don’t know how to serve the people or the truth, and that means they do not know how to win.”
That said, I doubt that Joe Sestak could beat the very well-connected and well-financed Arlen, and I don’t think Joe will actually buck the Party and run. But if he does, I’ll chip in come cash and some phone time, if only to blow a raspberry at Harry Reid.
So the difference between Arlen and Joe.
Joe is a nicer guy.
Joe supports ending DADT.
Joe supports EFCA from the get go.
The similarities between the two
WAR
No war crimes
FISA
Health Care for insurance companies first
Ultimately, both will vote for EFCA
So it’s down to DADT as the single defining difference?
IMHO, the elephant in the room is that Sestak is taking on Obama. Obama supports Arlen.
That’s why imho this primary is important. What 2010 primary offers a better chance to send a message to Obama, Rahm, and the blue dogs?
something else to think about:
Arlen is 79 and has been dealing with cancer on and off for several years;
Rendell’s term is up in 2010. Should Arlen win and have to leave office, no guarantee that there will be a dem governor to pick a replacement; Hard to see who might be lining up for the Gov. job after Rendell.
This is an important point. It’s been a trend in Pennsylvania for almost 4 decades that a two-term governor is succeeded by a member of the opposite party.
In 1971 Republican Raymond Shafer was succeeded by Democrat Milton Shapp.
In 1979 Shapp was succeeded by Republican Richard Thornburgh
In 1987, Thornburgh was succeeded by Democrat Bob Casey (the father of the state’s junior Senator)
In 1995, Casey was succeeded by Republican Tom Ridge. (Ridge resigned in 2001 to become the Homeland Security Director and was replaced by Lt Gov Mark Schweiker.)
In 2003, Schweiker was succeeded by Democrat Ed Rendell.
The most likely Republican nominee is PA Attorney General Tom Corbett who has high name recognition across the State. It’s important to note that Corbett was one of the few Republicans to win in the 2006 election–the same election in which Rendell clobbered former Steeler Lynn Swann.
actually it looks like Gerlach is gearing up for a run for the gov. office. Don’t know who on the D. side. So you are quite right about that.
There’s still six months or so for someone else to enter the picture. Are there any good candidates who could be recruited? I realize the party is making it clear competition against Scrapple is discouraged, but if Joe can jump in, surely one more can…
no. Originally it was thought that Allyson Schwartz would be the one to run against and replace Arlen keeping AIPAC’s representation intact. Chaka Fatah is about the only real hard core liberal the state has AFAIK.
Boo Radley,
That’s all fine and dandy.. if you like theatre for the sake of entertainment or want to feel better about sitting and spinning with nicer guy who votes far to much like Arlen when all is said and done.
Clinton and now Obama have taught me more than I want to know about getting triangulated out of my own best interests / screwed with my pants on.
We’ve seen this play too many times.
IMHO, Ted Olson and David Boise didn’t just wake up today and decide they were against institutionalized homophobia. They want to represent/advise/bill-like-crazy Wall Street’s wealthiest white-collar thugs. They figured out that the most efficient way to inoculate themselves against the left was to file against prop 8.
I think Jane’s, Glenn’s and the left’s work had a lot to do with their decision/triangulation.
I see Sotomeyer has a huge victory for the left. I think if this were January 2009, Obama’s pick would have been much further to the right. I don’t see Sonia as an accident, but a consequence of the points we’ve scored against the banksters and torture.
IMHO, everyone triangulates. Some do it more intelligently with an eye towards long-range outcomes, and with more of an eye on the public good.
I love Donna Edwards and praise her for her stand on FISA. But, she wouldn’t get elected dog catcher in Pennsylvania. In her MD district, her FISA votes cost her a lot less. The plus for liberals/progressives was that she was a huge improvement over her blue dog predecessor.
Donna Edwards would not get elected in AR either… which is why I take my support as far as Alaska rather than participate in races which have no meaningful candidates.
Sure.. I sometimes vote for leeser of two .. or vote for a third party candidate because I support them in spite of the odds.
But I don’t go out and support known mediocre (at best) candidates.
And I say all of this as a person who supported Sestaks first run for the House.
It’s (fear/greater evils) beginning from and remaining in decision making posture in a fear based stance. All while trying to convince oneself that differences between candidates/parties are greater than facts demonstrate.
These fear positions are not where activists / progressive support of a candidate should begin, imo. If it’s all we can muster then clearly the answer of whether or not one should ardently support a bad choice, is no, imo.
for me it isn’t fear, it’s loathing. I loathe Arlen. He and Joe LIEberman are cut from the same cloth. The liberal base in PA shares that feeling. But there’s still that indie middle that probably isn’t as stoked one way or the other. Actually I think that Arlen’s obviously opportunistic switch has turned him off to lots of middle of the road voters.
I like Joe personally. I don’t know that my district could have elected anyone more liberal than he is. It is clear that I’m not living in MA any more. There had been a more liberal candidate, the head of the Constitution Center. But he pulled out a couple of weeks ago seeing the writing on the wall.
I’d love to be looking forward to a reprise of the Lamont campaign. It was an exciting invigorating time. This isn’t the same kind of race. Facing the idea of Arlen getting actually elected as a democrat does not work for me. At one point we were all excited by Joe. Not so much any more. But with him, what you see is what you get. With Arlen, it’s all smoke and mirrors.
I know, and I share so many of your views and frustrations. We both dropped our active support of Obama about the same time last year… for the same reasons.
So far, though.. I see only one issue (DADT) which makes Sestak a little better. Where he’s (just like Arlen) wrong just dwarfs this good (very good) point.
What were his votes like on the bailouts?
Or energy/environment? Is he a big coal enabler?
He voted for the bailout. Mr. Rev wanted me to thank him for that—I could/would not. He did vote for the stimulus and we talked about that. Joe and I actually were on the same side saying that the stimulus wasn’t nearly big enough. That part he got. Haven’t seen anything about coal. Ours is one of the few districts in the state where it is not a part of the economy. His web site says “only PA Congressman to have 100 % rating from the League of Conservation Voters.” Arlen and Casey have both been coal enablers.
He’d be a much more reliable vote backing Obama’s policies which is both good and bad. Though Arlen is more likely to back the bad stuff Obama does and less likely to back the good stuff—just because he likes to be ornery.
Specter is an unprincipled, opportunistic, arrogant ass. And he wants to retain years of seniority, with Reid/Obama blessing. This is a no-brainer for scarecrows. You work to defeat him, but just because he deserves it but because Harry Reid and Obama deserve to be shown they don’t coopt the democratic process or take us for granted.
The Admiral is not nearly as unprincipled, and on balance, we get more good votes than the alternative.
I’ll come down to help you.
Hello to Mr. Rev.
as you know we have extra room in the house for you and whomever else wants to come. If it really gets that far. Time will tell.
If you do not hold out for a real candidate now, when will you? Surely there is at least one just man in my old home state? Surely he/she could run a grass-roots primary challenge to both of them?
Sometimes the best thing to do when faced with a fight that you cannot win is to make it clear that you are not expecting to win. You are just expecting to hurt the other guy. At the very least, this gives the next bad guy something to think about. At best, the scare you give him may be enough to make you a contender.
I all say go for he more progressive, then hold either’s feet to the fire
for comparison, a republican dressed as democrat, snarlin is only slightly better then liarman, though he is in it for snarlin and I expect some gratuitous votes, unlike liarman who is in it for cheney to which we can count on nothing gratuitous
Thanks for the discussion RevDeb. I’d work for Joe. Arlen has to go and in PA you’re not going to get anyone more progressive then Joe.