What a difference a day makes!
Toomey's chances of beating Specter in a head-to-head match-up just went from 100% to ZERO. All because Specter changed parties.
There was no way for Specter to beat Toomey among the increasingly conservative base, and no way for Toomey to win in a general election.
There was little hope among the Dems to defeat Specter (R) in the General. The only Big Name that could defeat him was Rendell himself. Most of the likely Dem candidates didn't want in unless they were sure to face Toomey. Sestak waited too long (see below). Now, the Dems aren't likely to challenge Specter (D) because he has the backing of Rendell and Obama (if he stops filibusters).
Sestak's the funniest and saddest story. Ever since he violated his campaign promises and voted to give Bush a blank check in Iraq, he lost the support of the hard-core liberals that worked the hardest for his 2006 campaign. He chaffed at the constant criticism (Admirals aren't used to being questioned) and even threatened not to run again. Being accountable to the people, and not having his ego stroked, seemed too much to bear. Plan A of being a US Congressman wasn't going to cut it.
Plan B emerged almost immediately: Hillary.
Sestak worked his ass off traveling around for Hillary in 2007. The obvious reason was to get an appointment and not have to earn our votes every two years.
In 2007, he COMPLETELY ABANDONED the people that got him elected when he refused to lift a finger to help our county council race. Election day 2007 found him NOT at the PA polls promoting his local ticket, but rather in New Hampshire campaigning for Hillary.
(Clinton Launches Assault on Obama's Foreign Policy Experience)
Sestak raised his Hillary profile when on March 6th, 2008 he (in)famously sat with Hillary and other former military as Hillary declared herself and McCain ready, and Obama not ready. Slamming your own party candidate while elevating the opposing party is the kind of classless move that cost Hillary the election, and Joe was right by her side.
Plan C: Kiss Obama's ass
As soon as Hillary lost, Joe immediately jumped on the Obama wagon faster than you can switch from war with Eastasia to Eurasia. Obama won. Joe kept his seat and was stuck with us another term.
Plan D: Run for Senate
Joe's been raising tons of cash and being very coy in his denials of a Senate run. He spent hardly anything to crush Craig Williams, all the while sending out desperate donation requests. I don't recall seeing a single TV ad for Sestak in 2008. For what did he need all that money? His next ambition: Senate.
The problem was that Specter was running, not retiring. Enter Toomey and conservative anger to unseat Specter. Sestak hopes increased with his bank account ($3.5 million) equally the total of the likely Dem candidates.
Joe's a hard worker, part bulldozer part bulldog when it comes to totally dominating a campaign. However, that's part of his problem. He's a piss-poor strategist. His first victory was born more of circumstance and forcefulness (and a desire to boot Weldon) overcoming his many missteps, rather than any actual political skill. His 2006 win would have been slightly easier if he hadn't ignored months of sound advice.
Now that Specter is in the Dem column, Sestak is completely screwed, yet he can't fully comprehend it. On MSNBC he was still playing coy like he might run. He didn't have enough balls to run against the lesser unknown and lesser funded Dem primary field. Why should anyone expect him to challenge a Rendell/Obama backed Specter (with $6 million in the bank)? After he screwed Obama for Hillary last year, Obama's not going to back him. Besides, Sestak is irrelevant in a big Dem Congress and Specter is essential to a 60-Dem Senate.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Gil Week of Tortured Logic
On Gil's ever weakening, redundant and irrelevant blog, he's had an interesting assortment of topics in the past week. He's made over 45 different posted topics, with little variety and fewer comments. He got only 19 comments total. His biggest hit rate came on the topic of ME with 13 comments.
By far his biggest bugaboo this week was Torture. He had 11 different postings defending it, all filled with lies, half-truths and misrepresentations.
Cheney's calling for the declassification of two cherry picked memos claiming torture was a success. Yea, human rights violations!
This flies in the face of recent reports and conclusions that the most fruitful information came BEFORE the torture and that the information obtained through torture wasn't worth it.
Gil falls to "shock our conscience" with his attempts to defend and redefine torture. Gil tries to equate the "training" we give our soldiers with the experiences of a captured prisoner undergoing 183 waterboarding sessions in one month.
Gil defends the Bush lawyers that clearly violated the ethical standards of their profession in rubber stamping legally unsupported justifications for torture and violations of the Geneva Conventions and our own laws and Constitution. These ARE war crimes. We've prosecuted, convicted and executed for far less.
Gil even goes so far as to compare torture with abortion. If you aborted the same baby 183 times in one month, then Gil might have a point (besides the one on top of his head).
About having a reasonable definition of torture, "shock the conscious" is too vague, since Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, ... and Gil, haven't shown they have a shred of conscious.
First of all, some techniques have not only been designated as torture for centuries, but are frequently used as examples in the definition. Waterboarding is already defined as torture. Second, these actions violate our own Constitutional prohibitions against inflicting cruel or unusual punishments. Third, the United States has prosecuted or gone after foreign governments for using these techniques on US soldiers, or their own dissidents. Finally, is it acceptable to Gil if these techniques are applied to our captured soldiers without punishment to their captors? I would hope not (but Gil and the other armchair warriors were eager to sent them into harm's way without body armor and keep them there after their tour of duty).
The rest of Gil's postings covered his continuing denials of global warming and his misguided faith that nuclear power plants will solve everything (except if Iran has any). He got his panties in a bunch about the Tea Parties, but had me choking with laughter when he claimed: "Dems Scared of Tea Parties". Those weak-ass parties are the gift that keeps on giving by showing how the GOP idea machine threw a rod, just as it ran out of gas.
Gil's seems awfully defensive about Miss California and anyone else against gay marriage being portrayed as bigots. Gee, I wonder why. :-)
The rest was the usual rotation of anti-Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, Murtha and Sean Penn with a little anti-Sebelius and Napolitano thrown in for seasoning.
Most of Gil's posts are links to some far right-wing blog or opinion piece. No surprise there. Gil's intellectually lazy, seems incapable of genuine research, and treats opinion pieces as actual news.
It's no wonder Gil's site is such a deserted wasteland.
By far his biggest bugaboo this week was Torture. He had 11 different postings defending it, all filled with lies, half-truths and misrepresentations.
Cheney's calling for the declassification of two cherry picked memos claiming torture was a success. Yea, human rights violations!
This flies in the face of recent reports and conclusions that the most fruitful information came BEFORE the torture and that the information obtained through torture wasn't worth it.
Gil falls to "shock our conscience" with his attempts to defend and redefine torture. Gil tries to equate the "training" we give our soldiers with the experiences of a captured prisoner undergoing 183 waterboarding sessions in one month.
Gil defends the Bush lawyers that clearly violated the ethical standards of their profession in rubber stamping legally unsupported justifications for torture and violations of the Geneva Conventions and our own laws and Constitution. These ARE war crimes. We've prosecuted, convicted and executed for far less.
Gil even goes so far as to compare torture with abortion. If you aborted the same baby 183 times in one month, then Gil might have a point (besides the one on top of his head).
About having a reasonable definition of torture, "shock the conscious" is too vague, since Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, ... and Gil, haven't shown they have a shred of conscious.
First of all, some techniques have not only been designated as torture for centuries, but are frequently used as examples in the definition. Waterboarding is already defined as torture. Second, these actions violate our own Constitutional prohibitions against inflicting cruel or unusual punishments. Third, the United States has prosecuted or gone after foreign governments for using these techniques on US soldiers, or their own dissidents. Finally, is it acceptable to Gil if these techniques are applied to our captured soldiers without punishment to their captors? I would hope not (but Gil and the other armchair warriors were eager to sent them into harm's way without body armor and keep them there after their tour of duty).
The rest of Gil's postings covered his continuing denials of global warming and his misguided faith that nuclear power plants will solve everything (except if Iran has any). He got his panties in a bunch about the Tea Parties, but had me choking with laughter when he claimed: "Dems Scared of Tea Parties". Those weak-ass parties are the gift that keeps on giving by showing how the GOP idea machine threw a rod, just as it ran out of gas.
Gil's seems awfully defensive about Miss California and anyone else against gay marriage being portrayed as bigots. Gee, I wonder why. :-)
The rest was the usual rotation of anti-Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, Murtha and Sean Penn with a little anti-Sebelius and Napolitano thrown in for seasoning.
Most of Gil's posts are links to some far right-wing blog or opinion piece. No surprise there. Gil's intellectually lazy, seems incapable of genuine research, and treats opinion pieces as actual news.
It's no wonder Gil's site is such a deserted wasteland.
Diano Battles the UNGODs
I've been having fun on the Delco Times site debating the merits of my letter to the editor as I skewered the "Unknown Names: Gil's Obnoxious Defenders" (aka the UNGODs).
The UNGODs attacked me for calling Gil a bigot (completely missing the point that Gil is merely indistinguishable from a bigot). I had one person actually make the ridiculous "argument" that he was against gay marriage for purely selfish reasons: the gay spousal Social Security benefits would raise his taxes. He didn't seem to recognize the hypocrisy that he was okay with gays paying for his getting spousal benefits.
Away, as of this writing (less than one week from my letter), the Delco Times comment thread is over 40 posts (including 1/3 of them mine in rebuttal). This is more comments than Gil's blog has gotten all month, with dozens of posted topics (and a big link on the Delco Times online page and his own weekly column).
The UNGODs attacked me for calling Gil a bigot (completely missing the point that Gil is merely indistinguishable from a bigot). I had one person actually make the ridiculous "argument" that he was against gay marriage for purely selfish reasons: the gay spousal Social Security benefits would raise his taxes. He didn't seem to recognize the hypocrisy that he was okay with gays paying for his getting spousal benefits.
Away, as of this writing (less than one week from my letter), the Delco Times comment thread is over 40 posts (including 1/3 of them mine in rebuttal). This is more comments than Gil's blog has gotten all month, with dozens of posted topics (and a big link on the Delco Times online page and his own weekly column).
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Gil Spencer Promotes Gay Discrimination over Tolerance
On Friday, April 10th, The Delco Times resident blowhard (Gil Spencer) published a piece of political and social tripe. His argument boils down to advocating that anti-gay bigotry taught in the home should not be undermined with tolerance taught in the schools.
Here is his article: Gil Gets a Failing Grade on Tolerance
This was a follow-up to his equally outrageous blog article that actually declared teaching tolerance to be liberal tyranny.
The Delco Times finally decided to print my letter to the editor: Is Gil Spencer a Bigot?
Editor-
I was quite surprised to see Gil Spencer's spirited defense of gay discrimination appearing in the print edition of the paper. Gil uses classic straw man arguments to divert from the real issues.
First, he pretends that gay rights are some left-wing social agenda, rather than a Constitutional equal protection issue.
Second, he falsely claims that the left is accusing everyone opposed to gay marriage of being a bigot and a homophobe. This is completely untrue. Gil's goal here is to mask the fact that large numbers of bigots and homophobes ARE opposed to all sorts of gay rights, including marriage. Bigotry has its heart in ignorance. Judge for yourself in which camp Gil can be found.
Third, when Gil was in school, gays were considered to be sexual deviates and pedophiles preying on children, and they were barred from jobs like teaching. Our military still classifies homosexuality as a mental disorder. Maybe Gil would prefer to live in Iran, where they claim there are no gays and homosexuality is the result of our Western culture. Or maybe Gil agrees with his blogger friends that you can "pray away the gay".
Fourth, Gil actually equates the question of a gay baby-sitter with a baby-sitter with HIV. This is Gil's not so subtle way to push the idea in people's minds that being gay is somehow the same as a disease.
Our children should be receiving a solid education based upon real medical science and facts, and not illusions, perceptions, out-dated myths, ideology and propaganda.
Finally, Gil PRAISES a private Catholic prep school teacher for believing there was nothing he could do to admonish a student that verbally expressed hatred for gays. What if the kid had said he hated Jesus instead?
Gil may go around proclaiming that people can't prove he is an anti-gay bigot, but actions speak louder than words. Gil is giving the bigots aid, comfort and material support with his columns. Therefore, even if Gil is not a card-carrying bigot, it's a distinction without a difference.
Feel free to contact editor@delcotimes.com and ask him why the Delco Times has someone like Gil Spencer in such a prominent opinion role.
Here is his article: Gil Gets a Failing Grade on Tolerance
This was a follow-up to his equally outrageous blog article that actually declared teaching tolerance to be liberal tyranny.
The Delco Times finally decided to print my letter to the editor: Is Gil Spencer a Bigot?
Editor-
I was quite surprised to see Gil Spencer's spirited defense of gay discrimination appearing in the print edition of the paper. Gil uses classic straw man arguments to divert from the real issues.
First, he pretends that gay rights are some left-wing social agenda, rather than a Constitutional equal protection issue.
Second, he falsely claims that the left is accusing everyone opposed to gay marriage of being a bigot and a homophobe. This is completely untrue. Gil's goal here is to mask the fact that large numbers of bigots and homophobes ARE opposed to all sorts of gay rights, including marriage. Bigotry has its heart in ignorance. Judge for yourself in which camp Gil can be found.
Third, when Gil was in school, gays were considered to be sexual deviates and pedophiles preying on children, and they were barred from jobs like teaching. Our military still classifies homosexuality as a mental disorder. Maybe Gil would prefer to live in Iran, where they claim there are no gays and homosexuality is the result of our Western culture. Or maybe Gil agrees with his blogger friends that you can "pray away the gay".
Fourth, Gil actually equates the question of a gay baby-sitter with a baby-sitter with HIV. This is Gil's not so subtle way to push the idea in people's minds that being gay is somehow the same as a disease.
Our children should be receiving a solid education based upon real medical science and facts, and not illusions, perceptions, out-dated myths, ideology and propaganda.
Finally, Gil PRAISES a private Catholic prep school teacher for believing there was nothing he could do to admonish a student that verbally expressed hatred for gays. What if the kid had said he hated Jesus instead?
Gil may go around proclaiming that people can't prove he is an anti-gay bigot, but actions speak louder than words. Gil is giving the bigots aid, comfort and material support with his columns. Therefore, even if Gil is not a card-carrying bigot, it's a distinction without a difference.
Feel free to contact editor@delcotimes.com and ask him why the Delco Times has someone like Gil Spencer in such a prominent opinion role.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)