And They Get the Election Day Op-Ed Wrong Too
Ya know, it’s funny: the Daily News is the paper that’s always on the chopping block, but the Inquirer is just about as dumb as dumb can be. If yesterday’s last minute Hail Mary was high comedy, today’s bitter little editorial is a farce. So let’s fisk it.
The congressman from Delaware County was able to portray Specter as a Washington insider, even though Sestak himself is a two-term incumbent.
Sestak’s had two terms. Arlen Specter was elected DA in Philadelphia in 1965, ran for Mayor and lost in 1967, was re-elected DA in 1969, was defeated as DA in 1973, spent the 1970s running for senate and governor of the state, was elected to the US Senate in the 1980s, where he served for 30 years. He also ran for president. When he jumped to the Democratic party, he was IMMEDIATELY endorsed by the Governor, by Pennsylvania’s other senator, by the state party leadership, and by the US President himself, all of who told Sestak to bugger off.
Which one sounds like the insider to you?
Specter’s five terms of service have been distinguished and meaningful.
The Anita Hill hearings were distinguished? The Clinton impeachment was meaningful? Sending thousands of American troops to die in Iraq waged for no good reason: was that distinguished, or does that count as meaningful? Endorsing McCain/Palin was meaningful? Voting in favor of the Military Commissions act of 2006, which repealed habeas corpus and legitimized torture was distinguished? Cutting the president’s economic stimulus plan to the point that it hasn’t accomplished anywhere near what it was supposed to do, and putting PA’s most vulnerable citizens in peril was distinguished?
Seriously, I could go on like this all day.
The recession, combined with voter anger at soaring government spending and debt, evident in the rise of the tea-party movement, have spurred these results.
The tea party people aren’t a movement: it’s a right-wing GOP operation run by Dick Armey’s Freedomworks. They represent a tiny fraction of people, and do not represent the majority of Pennsylvanians who are angry because they are out of work. Nearly 650,000 Pennsylvanians are unemployed and probably won’t get an extension because the elites that run country think the recession is over. It wasn’t the Tea Party that elected Joe Sestak: the Tea Party would never vote for a Democrat, ever. DUH.
Specter, who always had an uneasy relationship with conservatives, set in motion his move to the Democratic Party in February 2009, when he voted for President Obama’s $787 billion economic recovery package. He was one of only three GOP lawmakers in Congress to vote for it; the reaction from the right against him was swift and forceful.
That reaction was already coming, and in fact arrived in 2004, when Bush and Santorum had to save Specter’s ass. After that, Specter obeyed his masters: his “uneasy” relationship with conservatives translated into an 84% reliability rating as he voted lockstep with his party on almost everything. Furthermore, the Inquirer again leaves out the important fact that Specter, as a Republican, cut the President’s recovery package by $100 billion dollars, and bragged he wanted to cut more. That robbed the state of $1.6 billion, which would have closed our budget gap. Funny how that never gets mentioned.
Specter’s internal polling told the five-term incumbent that he would likely lose the Republican primary to Toomey. So Specter announced in April 2009 he was switching parties.
It wasn’t because he disagreed with the Republicans, seeing as he spent 2008 campaigning for Grampa and the Crazy Lady, and openly hoped that PA voters were racists. It was because he couldn’t win with the Republicans, so he arrogantly assumed that the Democrats would accept him.
Specter’s entry into the Democratic Party was smoothed by Gov. Rendell and Obama, who endorsed him.
If it was “smoothed”, why did he lose to a two-term, relatively unknown backbencher in the House?
Sestak questioned why the party should simply hand the nomination to a lifelong Republican, and decided to challenge Specter’s candidacy without the support of the party establishment.
Sestak proved to be an aggressive fund-raiser. He aired TV ads questioning Specter’s liberal credentials, and highlighting his support for the policies of Republican President George W. Bush. Those ads also accused Specter, in his own words, of switching parties to get reelected.
This is called “burying the lede”, and it is the only accurate statement in the entire editorial.
The total cluelessness is not surprising from a newspaper that thinks Rick Santorum and John Yoo have anything worth reading. Big time FAIL.
