“It’s going to be hard for me to vote for a bill that doesn’t have the public health care plan option in it,”

Translation: I’ll vote for it, just like I voted to give Bush a blank check without timetables, even though in my floor speech I claimed that timetables were “the only viable option”.

Thank you, Joe!

Thank you, David, for your spin on Sestak’s statement. I’m sure such a rabid Sestak hater as you are got the “translation” correct. What would we do without you?

More importantly, I wish more Democrats would have the courage to say what Sestak did. Maybe then Obama would muster the courage to supprt the promised “change we can believe in” (i.e., the public option).

ohhhh, some anti-obama rhetoric from our agents of change???? Senator Specter has said that all options should be on the table, including the public option and single payer…. thats more than I can say for Joe.

His waffling statement is far more ambiguous than his promises to stand up to Bush on the war.

He clearly did not rule out voting for the bill (without public option). Where do you see ANY courage in the statement?

He said it will be “hard for me to vote”. This indicates that if push comes to shove, he will cave and vote for (but just not like it). Even though he acknowledges that it wouldn’t get insurance companies to lower premiums.

Sounds to me like “the cat’s on the roof” and Sestak is shifting his rhetoric to prepare people for his voting for a non-public option.

An actual statement of courage would be “I will not vote for a bill that does not include the public option or single payer”. Simple. Direct. Beyond Sestak.

AND Obama should refuse to sign any bill that passes without the Public Option (or single payer). However, that’s premature on Obama’s part to put out before we see what congress is going with this. But, at some point, Obama needs to draw that line in the sand.

Anonymous (aka likely Sestak staffer), I recommend you learn to read, parse and understand what Sestak says. None of his medals is for “political courage”.

I think that’s unfair, Diano (although not suprising)

Sestak is in a tough spot here. He’s been a pretty active, strong supporter of the public option (long before Specter was).

Specter will vote for whatever “reform” comes to a vote, just to say he was with Obama on HC and to look like a Dem.

If Sestak takes the pledge, he’s gotta follow through or go back on it so that Specter can’t slam him for not supporting Obama (which he would).

I thought Sestak’s post on Kos was pretty insightful and honest: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/18/769076/-Our-Senators-Must-Lead

Specter does say “single payer should be on the table” (whatever that means), but he also said on State of the Union this past weekend that he opposed the Clinton plan BECAUSE it was a single payer system.

Jack-
Sestak said he’s 150% behind having a public option. Well, if he’s over 100% (he either doesn’t know any math, exaggerating in an embarrassing way, and/or making a firm commitment to the Public Option as a line in the sand).

What’s the point of making a meaningless statement like 150% behind something? Where that extra 50% of courage come from?

From what I seen of Sestak’s brand of “leadership”, it mostly involves hanging back to see which way the wind is blowing and the crowd is moving, and then pushing his way to the front and claim he’s leading the charge.

SESTAK FALSEHOOD IN HIS KOS POSTING:
Sestak brags “Upon returning to my District, I held the first “town hall” on health care during the Congressional recess.”
and he links to an article from the Delco Times.

However, it WAS NOT a health care town hall, as he claims, but rather a “Working Families Resources Summit” that was “geared to help working families steer through the difficult economic time”.

The meeting was interrupted (disrupted) by health care protesters and Sestak took some questions (and attacks) on health care.

That was Saturday August 1st. On Sunday Aug 2nd, Specter and Kathleen Sebelius held an actual town hall at the National Constitution Center.

Sestak’s quite the expert at twisting the facts to promote himself.

Sestak got good marks for dealing with the unruly crowd. However, it’s a completely wrong for him to act like he “scheduled” a health care town hall, when Specter actually did schedule and advertise his own forum in advance.

For Sestak to act like Specter hasn’t rolled up his sleeves and shown leadership to make this happen is ridiculous. Specter’s been on the front lines, doing more town halls and taking on hostile crowds (which seem to be a lot of rabid Republicans looking to punish him). Specter’s been working hard to find a Senate compromise that can pass, but it’s the Blue Dogs Dems that have derailed the process.

Rather than Sestak supporting Specter (his fellow Pennsylvania legislator), he tried to undermine and belittle Specter’s efforts on behalf of a plan that Sestak claims to support.

This is just one more example of Sestak putting his own ambitions and desires ahead of party, principle and the voters. This is why Sestak finds himself without endorsements within the party. Word spreads, and Dems on the inside have figured out that Sestak can’t be trusted to be a team player.

Sestak doesn’t “pledge”. He weasels.

David –
I’m leaning Specter too, but on health care Sestak and Specter are on the same team. Ease up.

John-
I’m not convinced of that. Sestak is consistently opposed to single-payer. By Specter declaring his is at least open to it, it gives single payer a bit of weight, or at minimum, tips the scales slightly in the right direction to reinforce public-option.
With the Blue Dog Dems making concessions in the wrong direction, Specter upping the ante in the single-payer direction is a counter-balance.

Sestak is still weaseling. If he’s behind the public-option, all he has to do is declare firmly that he WILL NOT vote for a plan that doesn’t include it. Forget: “it would be difficult”, “might”, etc.

Strap on a pair and make a decision. For all the research, understanding and years of thought Sestak claims to have on this issue, he should already have a line-in-the-sand position.

Senator Reid has proven to be a total p*ssy on votes. Reid needs to put together the correct bill and let the filibuster begin and have Americans see the party-of-NO in action (or rather in inaction).

Just once in this debate, it would be nice if Sestak actually dropped anchor and declared his intention, without worrying about the way the wind was blowing.

A tough vote for Joe? Say it ain’t so Joe?

David Diano,

Didn’t I read on these very pages that previously you were a staffer for Sestak? Due to this, all your posts fall into the sour grapes category. You cannot write about Sestak without bias or rancor, so why not stop writing about him so you don’t show your true colors? Enough is enough!

Anonymous-
I was NEVER a staffer for Sestak. So, either you have a low reading comprehension, or you are just making stuff up.

I did assist the Sestak campaign in 2006 as part of my efforts as a Delco Dem to help all the candidates. When Sestak arrived on the scene, I helped set up the computers, printers, copiers, networking in his office. I had my own regular full-time job, and only helped out in the beginning to provide some tech support to get them up and running. Once they were going, I made them get a full time tech person so they wouldn’t call me at work every time someone kicked the power cord out of the wall for the wireless router.
I would hardly be considered a “staffer”. I was a supporter, but never an official member of the campaign. My biggest problem with them was their refusal to work with the St. Leg candidates in a meaningful way and reciprocate in sharing data and volunteers and doing joint lit-drops.

However, I certainly supported Sestak over Weldon (and I would have supported a dead cat as better than Weldon). Sestak was the “third choice” because Scoles and Lentz dropped out.
My “break” with Sestak occurred in May 2007 when he voted for Iraq War funding WITHOUT timetables. I publicly denounced him in a Delco Times editorial and sent the campaign a letter to remove me from all future mailings. That’s the demarcation point.
Just a month earlier, in April 2007, I was publicly supporting him for speaking at the CAIR event.
Had I known Sestak was going to make the same Iraq War vote as Weldon would have, I wouldn’t have lifted a finger to help him or his campaign.
Since then, I’ve kept my eyes and ears open for other duplicitous actions, and shared what I’ve learned.

BTW, Anonymous2-
Try showing your “true colors” by posting under your real name.