I wanted to take this opportunity to respond to some of the complaints about David Diano’s posting on this site. I understand that many of you are turned off by his rhetoric, and I don’t blame you. David is clearly the biggest critic that Congressman Sestak has; his attacks are never-ending, harsh and usually not without a high level of vitriol.

But let me make a couple points that I hope will explain my reticence to silence him. First of all, as a journalist I am, not surprisingly, always hesitant to censor anyone. I have always believed that the answer to speech you find offensive is simply more speech. And I think the other readers commenting on pa2010.com have been increasingly speaking out against David, as they have every right to do.

But there are a couple more important points to consider.

One, Congressman Sestak is a public figure, an elected official who is flirting with a run in the country’s most high-profile Senate race. He is on TV almost every day, and if there’s one thing pa2010.com has chronicled, it’s his recent penchant for publicity and attention. To say this doesn’t invite thorough scrutiny of one’s every word is disingenuous.

Two, and perhaps more important, David Diano posts every comment with his full, real name. I wonder if people have an appreciation for how rare this is in the world of online political commenting. He makes absolutely no effort to hide who he is, making him personally and fully accountable for his words. I called him when he first started heavily commenting to establish for sure that he is who he said he was. Other people speaking out against him have not provided the same level of accountability for their words. His willingness to put himself on the line also makes me extremely wary about silencing him.

Lastly, as to the criticism that David is now attacking Congressman Sestak’s parents, not public figures, here I must quibble. It is the Congressman who thrust his parents into the picture by using them as part of his fundraising efforts. There is nothing necessarily wrong with this on his part. But I am always amused when politicians use their family backgrounds as part of their credentials, but then say examination of those backgrounds are off-limits. The two simply don’t jibe.

Let me be abundantly clear. I neither endorse nor condemn anything David writes. I have told him in the past to try keeping his rhetoric civil, and will continue to try and keep the conversations on pa2010.com substantive and respectful. And for the record, I have deleted at least one of his comments from the site which I thought went too far.

But I believe censoring him would be an incredibly slippery slope. If I start there, where does it end?

I know this will satisfy few of you. But hope it provides some window into my thinking and my aspirations for pa2010.com.

Please don’t ever hesitate to contact me anytime at editor@pa2010.com if you want to discuss this more.

Let’s keep the conversation going.

Dan

As for card check, I was talking to a union rep at the Sestak/Specter event in Delco last week. He’s pissed at Joe because he claims that Joe was supporting the compromise version over the original version from the beginning. So, in this union rep’s mind, Joe had undercut the unions from the get go.
The political reality was that the original version of the EFCA wasn’t going to pass. Even some Dems began moving away from it when it looked like there might be a vote.
Ed Rendell said that Sestak and Specter are BOTH working on the compromise bill from their own houses of congress.
Once Specter votes for EFCA, this whole “lack of union support” issue will be revealed for canard it is. Specter will have the full-throated support of the unions.

As for Sestak, there are plenty of Delco Dems I’m friends with who publicly say “nice” things about him, but privately are disgusted with him. Some of them have criticized me for putting my thoughts in writing on this blog, but mostly because they are concerned that I may suffer some backlash from Sestak, NOT because they disagree with my assessment of Sestak.

While I may seem like a lone voice on these blogs, I know that I’m not alone in my opinions on this guy.

He has no wites to tal kabout his concern about the budget deficit or national debt if he can’t even find the time to vote on how our money is spent.

Yet in the midst of votes on Friday, he found the time to go on MSNBC to get his face on TV.

One of the msot important jobs of Congress is to decide how our money is spent. Sestak appears unwilling to do that.

Sen. Specter was first anointed by Republican Establishment Hacks and now by Democratic Establishment Hacks and I think “untrustworthy” is apt and accurate description of Sen. Specter’s lack of clarity, for example, EFCA “Card Check” Joe Sestak is clear and consistent in his position; Pat Toomey is clear and consistent in his position and Sen. Specter? Phila Steelworkers rank and file had good sense to pressure their ‘leadership’ to disinvite Sen. Specter http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/24/746273/-United-Steelworkers-DUMPED-Arlen-Specter-as-Speaker

The Toomey Network Team looks forward to a contest of ideas with Rep. Sestak. Opportunism and financial self-interest do not always trump ideas and ideals. Rep. Sestak may hope they don’t. I know I hope principles prevail.

Simon, YOU seem completely unconcerned that Joe’s the one trying to exploit his parents’ story for his own fundraising.

There’s no doubt they are a close knit family. Joe’s brother and two of his sisters work on his campaign and together pull in about $12,000 per month in “salary” for that effort (according to FEC filings).

Dan-
My entire post was a critique of Joe’s letter, the “facts” and “discrepancies” within the letter, and some counter-arguments regarding Joe’s own voting record with Bush.
My viewpoint is that Sestak may be the one who is a “flight risk”, because Joe does seem to have a lot of conservative tendencies. The Left seems blinded to this because of their anti-Specter focus. I also know that Joe’s commitment to the local Democratic party in his district has been disappointing at best.

This is certainly a fair line of criticism since Joe is engaging in similar criticism of Specter’s commitment to the Democratic party. There are plenty of us in the anti-war crowd that felt betrayed by Sestak’s Iraq votes in 2007 and 2008 and have since questioned his “Left” sincerity.

Lee-
Putting together all the Sestak said, promised and did during his 2006 campaign, and then how he has behaved and acted since being elected, I have concluded that I do not like having him as an elected official. I don’t want him to remain as my Congressman (I would much prefer Byran Lentz) and I don’t want him as my Senator (I feel he can’t be trusted with 6 years between voter decisions).
Also, I feel that a long drawn out primary challenge against Specter will drain the Democratic party of much needed resources for more important Senate battles.
There is NO QUESTION in MY mind that Sestak is running for himself, and not Pennsylvania nor Democrats and his rhetoric questioning Specter strikes me as a projection of his own motivations.
The bottom line is that I think Sestak is not good for the party. In the dealings that I and my friends have had with him and his campaign, he’s shown himself to have very little honor. Many of us that worked hard for him in 2006, did not even vote for him in 2008, and wish we had a Dem challenger that could unseat him from the 7th. Sestak’s got “Left” support outside the state, but many of us in the local “Left” have been suffering from buyer’s remorse.

Jack-
If you have an actual point on a story, express yourself. Don’t whine or get upset because I express myself.

I bet you would see a whole lot more people participating in the discussion here if Diano would tone down his rhetoric. By jumping the gun to comment first on everything, he attempts to keep other people from commenting by delivering hate filled rhetoric paired with misleading and sensationalized statements.

It’s really too bad, this would be a great forum for discussing an important next year and a half in our great state.

For someone who preaches that a Sestak candidacy (opposing Specter for U.S. Senate) will be harmful to the Democratic Party, you certainly spend a lot of time severely and personally criticizing a Democratic congressman who, next year, will be a Democratic candidate. Such level of discourse is a destructive influence on the party. It appears that you have a personal vendetta against Joe Setak. If not, then why do you not spend at least as much time praising Specter as you do criticizing Setak? A good healthy debate on the merits of the candidates and the issues is one thing. A constant negative diatribe against one of them serves to accomplish nothing but drive down (in this case Democratic) interest in the election and voter turnout. Perhaps you are the one who should have an (R) behind his name?

You need to do a better job in monitoring this web-site. Dave Diano has now sunk to new lows attacking Joe Sestak.

This web-site is filled with Dave Diano tirades against Joe Sestak. Dave Diano has now attacked Joe Sestak’s parents (see my comment above).

Isn’t there supposed to be a level of discourse on this web-site that comports with civilness and the issues and not “personal attacks” that Dave Diano continually posts?

Please do a better job monitoring this web-site. Dave Diano’s rants are turning alot of us away from your web-sites and going to others — it’s just not worth given the slime that Dave Diano posts.