Biden to Sestak: It’s not a Swiftboat attack is if it’s true.

Dan, the missing context here is that Biden is appearing at a Specter rally this week in Scranton. Biden was a key player in getting Specter to come over to the Democrats and help Obama. Besides, I’m pretty sure that Biden would have no trouble verifying from Mullen that it’s not a lie.

This is another Sestak “gimmick”, because there is no chance in Hell that Biden is going to undercut his friend Specter, over a little yapping dog who accused the White House of offering him a bribe.

This is truly laughable! We are mere weeks away from the primary. If Sestak is truly committed to victory, why doesn’t he invest his $5 million in some TV advertisements of his own to counter Specter’s claim?! That is how a candidate would ordinarily respond to a negative ad launched by an opponent. I’d like to hear some Sestak supporters (if any remain) address this question. If Sestak is a legitimate candidate, why doesn’t he simply take to the airwaves?

Sestak has to use Veterans to deliver his mail?

These poor Vets don’t realize that Sestak abused their brethren when he commanded them.

WTF DO YOU BASE THAT ON DAVE,YOUR VAST,NOEXISTANT,EXPERIENCE IN THE MILITARY? EVER SERVED THIS NATION FOR A SINGLE DAY YOU MUD SLINGING COWARD? EVER PUT YOUR LIFE ON THE LINE? EVER BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LIVES OF FELLOW AMERICANS YOU HAVE BEEN ENTRUSTED WITH? YOU ARE A REPREHENSIBLE,SKULKING,LIEING,COWARD.

I call on Sestak to disavow the lie hes trying to spread… that specters ad is a lie.

Sestak was fired. Specter didnt question sestaks patriotism… his medals or his service…. he mentioned sestak was relieved of command for poor command climate.

Nothing wrong with that. If its sestak’s goal to use his military service as a campaign prop… well then… that would be absolutely disgraceful.

Healy: My oh my. Becoming unhinged I see. Rather than put forward any empirical evidence to refute Specter’s claims, you make (incredibly) feeble attempts to browbeat and intimidate your fellow citizens. How noble of you. You may continue to deify Sestak if you wish. Others, however, recognize that Sestak is a mere mortal – and an incredibly flawed mortal at that.

Mr. Wiggles: Precisely. Sestak was relived of command. That is an empirical fact. And the (extraordinarily egomaniacal) Representative Sestak has yet to furnish ANY evidence to the contrary.

Healy: By the way, my acquiantance – you know, the person you THOUGHT I was – is deriving a good deal of satisfaction from these ads. And he looking forward to this campaign coming to a close. For so many reasons…

Bill-
I thank you for your service, both in the military and to Delaware County Democrats in the intervening years.
I am so sorry this is happening.

“A political attack on the service of a Veteran is a dishonor to every man and woman who has worn the cloth of this Nation,” Sestak wrote in the letter.

You know…I respect and value everyone who is in the military (something I have not done, but members of my family have). But raising every single one of the them to the level of sainthood is going a little…overboard. I love my family members but I wouldn’t want them in congress.

Besides, as I’ve read and learned here, wasn’t Specter in the service too?

I don’t think Sestak understands politics well. Democrats aren’t going to care if his military service gets slandered, because Democrats are anti-military as a whole. If anything, by highlighting his military service he is alienating tons of potential liberal voters. Instead of talking about his military credentials, he should be answering the question all Democrats are concerned about: How much welfare are they going to get?

Jim,

I think this might be the first time I’ve agreed with anything you’ve said! I am an ardently anti-military Democrat.

The FY2010 budget for DoD was $702 billion dollars. They are requesting a budget of $790 billion dollars for FY2011. Where does that money go? It goes to fight an unnecessary war in Iraq. It also pays the $200k+ salaries of retired military officers working as consultants to DoD contractors! These are the same people that complain about government waste. They are clearly speaking out of both sides of their mouths.

So lets get this straight. In the eyes of Republicans and the United States Military it is acceptable for the government to spend over $700 billion dollars a year to kill people abroad but wrong to spend $700 billion dollars to provide health insurance to uninsured American citizens with pre-existing conditions?

Here is a link to DoD’s FY2011 budget request: http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2011/FY2011_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf

Bill-
The history of the US military, especially recently, shows plenty of soldiers and officers covering up civilian deaths and various abuses like Abu Ghraib. Putting on a uniform doesn’t convey honor. The shooter at the Army base a few months ago was a “honorable” member of the service until he cracked.
A small percentage of the military (and EVERY large organization in the world) has dishonorable people. Are you claiming there are NO dishonorable men in the military? That would be ridiculous. Sestak did his job, but behaved dishonorably to his men, and was removed for it. he continues to behave dishonorably to his staff (no surprise).

I actually looked into joining the Navy after college, but failed to pass a physical endurance test in a training session set up by my recruiter. Instead, I spent 5 years working for the Navy as a civilian contractor on computer systems. I have a tremendous respect for the hard-working professionals I was proud to support, and great disdain for people like Sestak who use their service as a prop (or a shield to hide their misdeeds).

I’m proud of Admiral Mullen for doing the right thing and removing Sestak who seemed to be as much of a blight as he was a success. Captain Queeg was an “honorable” officer too (and clearly a role model for Sestak).

As for attacking a Veteran’s integrity, Sestak has done nothing but attack Specter’s integrity since Day One. Sestak got into this race “promising” a campaign that was about running “for” something, not “against” something. But, this fell by the wayside with his other broken promises.

Bill, someday you may discover who the real Sestak is.

David-your hate of sestak blinds you. it is a shame that you have such a weakness and character flaw that your personal hate of the man leads you to this…by the way…i understand that specter voted for all three of sestak’s stars while he was in the US Senate…purported anonymous complaints of command climate did not seem to bother him then.

To Sick…maybe that is another in the series of votes specter has sold over the years to maintain his own position and save himself, just like he has done over the span of four decades! Specter has no honor.

TB-
I agree with you whole heartedly about the military budget. We sped more on our military that a lot of other major countries combined. That budget should be drastically slashed. It is very inefficient and wasteful. Plus, I never agreed with either of these wars. Furthermore, we are BORROWING the funds for these wars from the Japanese and Chinese.

Those funds should be used to assist the uninsured, the unemployed, and underemployed.

Speaking of dishonorable veterans…did anyone mention Eric Massa yet?

How about Ollie North? The list can go on and on.

Here we go with Sestak attacking another prominent democrat! He obviously doesn’t play well with others. He also comes across as very VINDICTIVE towards those who don’t agree with him and as someone who has an axe to grind. Isn’t he (or someone close to him) aware of how he’s percieved?

He claims to be a democrat but all he does is attack our prominent party members as well as other party members while making “googley” eyes at Toomey and Santorum.

If he was elected Senator (and thank God he doesn’t stand a chance), he would be a pariah. No democratic leader in congress would have anything to do with him. Getting bills passed and helping your constituents has a lot to do with forging relationships and making deals with other politicians.

Sestak obviously mistreated those who served with him, doesn’t adequately pay those who work for him or campaign for him, and attacks other democratic officials. He would be a complete and utter failure has a Senator!

Me thinks Sestak should switch to the Republican party – it seems a MUCH better fit for him!

According to Morning Call’s article “Dem rivals agree on one thing: Opponent’s ad is out of line”

According to the piece…
“The Specter campaign was not fazed, saying that Sestak is the one who has explaining to do about his television ad, which may violate Defense Department regulations.

“‘Congressman Sestak needs to take his TV ad off the air until it complies with DOD regulations,” Nicholas said.

“Sestak’s first advertisement of his campaign includes a montage of photos and video footage of him in uniform and touts his Navy career.

According to the Specter campaign, a political ad using military images and references requires a disclaimer that it is not endorsed by the Department of Defense.”

A full text of the letter is below:

Dear Mr. Vice President,

You said it best — and in a way only you could — when you promised in 2008 that you would never permit the swiftboating of another Democrat:

“Swiftboating is not going to work this time, and the reason it’s not is, number one, I’m going to smack ‘em right square in the chops.” (Sept. 10, 2008)

Today, I am calling on you to fulfill that promise.

Rather than discuss his own record or the issues that are important to Pennsylvania, Senator Arlen Specter has decided to attack my 31-year career in the United States Navy — a career that the President, just last month, described as one of “outstanding service to our Nation.”

A political attack on the service of a Veteran is a dishonor to every man and woman who has worn the cloth of this Nation. Mr. Vice President, you’re a Pennsylvanian. You know how proud we are of our Veterans. We have the second-highest population of Vets in the country. You know our Commonwealth deserves better than this kind of politics.

After the shameful political attacks we saw carried out, with unfortunate effect, against Veterans Senator John Kerry and Senator Max Cleland, you know we cannot allow even tacit approval of these tactics — not in our party, not in our country.

I understand that Arlen Specter is your longtime colleague and close personal friend, but I call on you to disavow these lies and demand that they be stopped immediately.

Sincerely,
Joe Sestak

I’ll pose the question yet again: why doesn’t Representative Sestak simply launch a campaign advertisement to refute Specter’s accusations? If Sestak is truly committed to victory, and if the accusations are truly unfounded, why doesn’t he commit his $5 million to such an ad?! It is a logical question, but no one in Sestak’s camp appears prepared to address it. The primary is mere weeks away. If Sestak is a legitimate contender, he would devote considerable resources to refuting Specter’s accusations. He is not doing so. What, if anything, can we infer from this?

What: Once again, Sestak does not detail or identify these supposed “lies.” What precise falsehoods can he identify? If the ad is truly inaccurate, it is incumbent upon Sestak to explain why. But he has yet to do so.

Dem Voter: Keen observations on your part. Given Sestak’s unsubstantiated accusations against the incumbent President of the United States, it is highly unlikely that the White House would ever view Sestak as a viable partner. And the myriad controversies that have surrounded his campaign – minimum wage payments to staffers, Eric “grope the gentials” Massa, and now this – have forever tarnished Sestak in the eyes of many within his political party. A pariah indeed.

Let me clear this whole mess up about Joe Sestak being fired from the military. Joe Sestak is RETIRED from the military. If he had been fired, he would not be receiving a RETIREMENT pension. Get your facts straight. No one can refute this. The operative word is “fired”. I know you haters will use false words to get yourself out of this mess as you have tried to get out of other messes. I will not go back and forth on this. You are all guilty of slander. You wouldn’t know the truth about anything if it smacked you in the face. BTW, before you ask, yes, I have been a volunteer for Joe Sestak a long time. He is not perfect and neither am I. I will say this about him. He is one of the few honest, credible politicans in this county. My rose colored glasses are so off and all of the derogatory comments for a long time about Joe on PA2010.com are hearsay and downright lies. Also note that the military personnel are mostly being paid well below the minimum wage. They are on “duty” 24 hours a day, so divide that into their salaries with no overtime there. So what has Arlen Specter done about this in all his years in the Senate???????? If Joe is guilty of underpaying employees then so is Arlen. Mr. Specter lost my vote way back in the early 90′s and has done nothing to earn it back. Enough said for now.

It is Disgusting how Sestak is using his half dead Daughter as a Prop in his Campaign add You will notice he turns her slightly toward the Camera so you can see part of her head that was shaved for a Cancer treatment and The Right Front of her head that was shaved also he is Holding her up like a Lab Rat Like Look at where the Procedures are that were done on my poor Half dead Daughter . But I’m still gonna Vote for Sestak Cause Specter makes me Vomit Its time to give someone else a Turn Specter is gonna die in office from Cancer if he gets reelected we dont need to go through an expensive special election to fill a senate seat that we knew the Guy was going to die in Cancer will take Arlen sooner or later

It seems that the closer we get to election day, the farther away we get from civil discussion, issue debate, and being relevant to the original article. Perhaps that’s just human nature, or good old politics.

It really does get boring, though, to have a poster inundate the site will consecutive post after post and it doesn’t help when the posts are dripping with venom. As someone recently wrote here, it makes any attempt to have an intelligent debate very difficult.

As a political tactic, this hating stuff (as does most negative campaigning) tends to depress voter turnout and that will benefit Specter, who has most of the organizational support from the party and from labor. This, then, begs the question of whether the poster is working in conjunction with Specter or is merely an anti-democratic individual.

Disgrace-

Your comments are simply a discgrace to sestak and specter.

SoFedUp-
Sestak was fired (relieved of duty, administratively reassigned, etc.) from his DCNO (Deputy Chief of Naval Operations) for a “poor command climate”.

I never said he was fired from the Navy itself. But, this was a career ender for him, so he retired (aka quit) because he had nothing to look forward to. His past abuses had caught up to him.

As for Sestak’s letter to Biden..

Sestak is claiming that a Veteran’s service can’t be attacked in a political context.
Yet… Sestak is exploiting his own service for political gain, as the core of his candidacy.
And.. Sestak can’t afford to have any reality sprinkled on his carefully crafted image.

Was Sestak relieved of duty?
YES.

Was it reported by the Navy Times (almost 5 years ago) that the reason was for a “poor command climate”?
Yes.

Levan: You seem to digress with increasing frequency. While others touch on the political candidates, their agendas, etc., you continually make deprecating remarks about those posting in this forum. And it is your conduct which strikes me as undemocratic – attempting to suppress the opinions of others solely because you do not share their perspectives. You apparenly do not believe that others are entitled to their opinion. Neither Mr. Diano nor I have made any effort to silence you or anyone else. Why are you unwilling to accord others the same respect? Don’t bother with yet another disdainful, derisive remark – I think you’ve made your enmity, and your utter intolerance, quite evident.

Your behavior mirrors that of Sestak himself. Sestak had no misgivings about lodging unsubstantiated accusations against the incumbent Democratic President of the United States. But he cannot permit anyone to make any adverse criticisms of HIS actions, past or present. Sestak’s attitude is hypocritical, self-righteous and sanctimonious. And entirely unsurprising.

is it true that specter voted to confirm sestak’s third admiral star?

SoFedUp: And what, precisely, has Representative Sestak accomplished during his unremarkable, undistinguished political career? What significant legislation has he implemented? Nothing of any consequence, obviously. Are the denizens of the 7th District better off now than they were prior to his ascension to office? Clearly not. Rather than commit himself to public service, the self-important Sestak continually reminds the populace of the tremendous debt they supposedly owe him. Rather than address the mounting economic and social ills plaguing the state of PA, Sestak clumsily scrambles to salvage his tarnished reputation. The voters of this state demand solutions to pressing problems, and this self-admiring narcissist is not providing them with any.

Vice-President Biden is a pivotal decsion-maker, who advises President Obama on critical foreign policy issues (particularly with respect to the ongoing war in Afghanistan). But Sestak, obsessive as ever, had the audacity to occupy the Vice-President’s valuable time with this nonsense. Sestak apparently believes that the protection of his reputation takes priority over all else.

Quick review of all the unsubstantiated hyperbole and derogatory epithets thrown around in this thread so far.

“a little yapping dog…” -Diano. Nice description, but serves no purpose other than to alienate and discredit. Why not use facts instead of negative comparative imagery.

“These poor Vets don’t realize that Sestak abused their brethren when he commanded them.” -Diano Please provide a verifiable source that states that then Admiral Sestak abused other servicemen. Not demanded more from them or pushed them too hard, you used the word ‘abused’, please provide verifiable, properly sourced, proof of abuse.

“Sestak was fired.”-Mr. Wiggles. Nowhere have I seen that Mr. Sestak was fired from any job. Should you have proof to the contrary please provide it.

“Sestak was relived of command. That is an empirical fact.” This is factually correct, however the inference that you repeatedly place upon it is not based upon any verifiable fact. Should you have any verifiable proof stating, in black and white, that there was any misconduct or non-political reasoning behind this decision, please come forward with it. The burden of proof is not on the accused in this matter to have to prove their innocence, but rather on the accuser to be factually correct in their public statements.

“extraordinarily egomaniacal” -HateSestak (can you make any factual point or are you limited to spitting out more negative adjectives than a seventh grader on a grammar test?)

“but behaved dishonorably to his men, and was removed for it. he continues to behave dishonorably to his staff” -Diano. Please provide verifiable proof of Mr. Sestak’s dishonorable conduct to his men. Please provide verifiable proof that Mr. Sestak was removed for said conduct and not for political or other reasons. Please provide verifiable proof that Mr. Sestak continues to behave dishonorably to his staff.

“or a shield to hide their misdeeds” -Diano. Please clarify what misdeeds to which you are referring. Please provide proof that such misdeeds occurred.

“Sestak has done nothing but attack Specter’s integrity since Day One” -Diano. Please provide specifics of how Sestak has attacked Specter’s integrity. I have seen not one negative ad yet from Sestak’s campaign and if you are referring to the mailer that my neighbor received from the Sestak campaign, comparing voting records of the two men, I do not see how this is an attack. Should you be able to point to a specific, sustained attack against Specter personally or professionally, please provide it.

“Specter has no honor.” Suburban Dem. This is an epithet that serves to inflame. It would be hypocritical to criticize HateSestak for doing the same and not also call you out on it.

“Speaking of dishonorable veterans…did anyone mention Eric Massa yet?”-ChescoDem. Does this have anything to do with the topic at hand? Most every politician has supported and been supported by persons of disrepute, Joe Sestak, Arlen Specter and Pat Toomey are no exceptions. Your comment concerning Massa has zero relation to the topic at hand and serves no purpose other than to try and attack one candidate on grounds that have no bearing on the issues of this election.

“Sestak obviously mistreated those who served with him, doesn’t adequately pay those who work for him or campaign for him, and attacks other democratic officials. He would be a complete and utter failure has a Senator!” If it is so obvious, it should be exceedingly simple to provide verifiable proof to support your claims. As for your repetition of Specter talking points on pay, the issue of pay is one that comes between an employee and employer. Having interned many summers when younger, I often worked for little or no pay in order to gain valuable experience, contacts in my field, and recommendations should I have done a good job. Should my employers be attacked for providing me a job in which I chose non-monetary compensation over pure dollars and cents?

“If Sestak is a legitimate contender…” -HateSestak He is a legitimate contender by virtue of his position on the ballot in the democratic primary. Any inferences you make are your own and most likely not based in any facts whatsoever.

“According to Morning Call’s…” -ChescoDem. Your use of selective quoting here is quite… unique. You have pulled out every single disparaging quote provided by the Specter Campaign to the authors, however you have omitted any quote from the Sestak Campaign. Reading your comment, one would think the article you quote is highly supportive of Specter and negative towards Sestak. Yet the actual article has quotes from both campaigns and provides equal time for the praises and criticisms of both ads.

Disgrace’s comments deserve no comment other than I would ask that they be removed.

“Sestak was fired (relieved of duty, administratively reassigned, etc.) from his DCNO (Deputy Chief of Naval Operations) for a “poor command climate”.”-Diano. Please provide verifiable proof that this occured. Also your ex post facto rationalization between being fired and the others is not a fair use of interchangeable concepts. Mr. Sestak has never been Fired from any job in the Navy as far as I know. Please correct this in any future postings. This goes doubly for your use of the word abuse, as commented on earlier. You are factually correct in that those were the words used by a navy times article. However, you fail to consider the source in any way shape or form (as is impossible due to the anonymous nature of the quotes in the article.) Furthermore, how is anyone to know if the anonymous source in one article is different than another, being anonymous it is impossible to tell. Yet you trot it out, like a prize pig, and call it truth. Simply put, it is not.

“unremarkable, undistinguished political career” -HateSestak. These epithets are uncalled for. Please deal in concrete facts instead of hyperbole to the nth degree. If you want proof to the contrary, ask Steny Hoyer or consult Delco Times Article:”Democrat leader: Sestak was most productive freshman in U.S. House” Published: Wednesday, December 26, 2007. The rest of your post is filled with opinionated conjectures posing as facts. Facts are facts and your opinions are perfectly fine to express as such. Please differentiate between the two. Try using expressive statements like “I, HateSestak, think…” or “It is my opinion that…” That would make clear to everyone what is from you and what is fact, though something tells me that is not your intention.

So, hater, what is it that makes you believe that I was talking about you?

Why would he help you out Sestak? You have been so busy selling out the White House and spreading rumors about the administration for which he works???

FH-
I used facts AND humorous imagery. It’s called “style”.
Here is a definition of abuse I found on the web. It seems to fit.
“Abuse occurs when people mistreat or misuse other people, showing no concern for their integrity or innate worth as individuals, and in a manner that degrades their well being. Abusers frequently are interested in controlling their victims. They use abusive behaviors to manipulate their victims into submission or compliance with their will. Abusers control and compel their victims in a variety of ways. They may verbally abuse them by calling them names, tell them they are stupid, have no worth or will not amount to anything on their own.”

There is no verifiable proof that Sestak was fired for a political reason. The non-political reasons (unreasonable boss) match the complaints we have consistently heard about his treatment of both his congressional and campaign staff. The “political” firing is the stretch here.

Since Day One, Sestak has claimed that Specter is a “flight risk” who can’t be trusted. This is a direct attack on Specter’s integrity. Just last week, Tom Fitzgerald made the following summary of Joe’s campaign: “His core message: I’m a real Democrat; Specter is not. You can’t trust him.”

Your willingness to work for little pay, does not relieve Sestak of his obligation to pay the legally mandated minimum wage he voted for. The excuse you give it the same excuse all violators (and opposers) of minimum wage laws give: “They were willing to work for less.” That doesn’t cut it in the Democratic party. Also, there is a difference between interns and salaried staff. Sestak has stated in interviews that he expects his Congressional staff to work 12-hour days, six days a week. That’s 72-hours per week. Look up the salaries and divide the weekly amounts by 72. These aren’t interns.

You are complaining about Chesco Dem selectively quoting points that support his position. How shocking! Maybe you should sit down with some herbal tea and calm yourself down.

Yes. I quote the Navy Times article which appeared long before Sestak decided to run for office. “Fired” means to lose one’s job. Sestak lost his DCNO job when he was relieved of duty and forcibly reassigned. “Fired” is an appropriate description. You are really clutching at straws even to imply that every reporter who independently investigated this story happened to get the same source. It’s especially ridiculous in light of all the multiple-source reporting about how he has treated staffers since he left the Navy. “Poor command climate” would be a compliment.

Unremarkable and undistinguished aren’t epithets. S.O.B., b@stard, m*ther-f-ing liar, etc. are epithets.

How many freshmen were there in 2007? What’s the range of “production”? Sestak’s first term was two years. How productive was he over the entire two year stretch? (His votes on Iraq, Cheney’s office, warrantless wiretaps and telecom immunity strike me as counter-productive).
Seems to me that YOU should be asking these probing questions.

BTW, whenever Sestak is asked about his missed votes in interview, he immediately talks about how his office is open 7 days a week and the cases his staff handles to dodge the question. Nobody said that the “staff” was missing work, so it’s another non-responsive answer.

I have been a long time Sestak supporter for (4.5years)….
I and everyone else believed as Joe always put it, in his literature, commercials, ads and political signs, e-mails, you name it, that he was a Three Star Admiral!

Now I have confirmation from the Chris Mathews show that not only was he actually a Vice Admiral but a Two Star Vice Admiral at that!

This is not Swift Boating, this is the truth! I had checked and he was relieved of duty in the Navy for creating a poor command climate. Joe never answered that remark on the Chris Mathews Show and just danced all around the question of him being fired and talked about everything else!

Joe let me and the democrat party down the moment he decided to take on DEMOCRAT Arlen Specter in the US Senate race.

The only thing Joe will succeed at in this race is dent the armor of Democrat SENATOR Arlen Specter, the Democrat party and himself!

I was very upset knowing Joe Sestak, some time ago, had planned to run for President in 2016. He put the “political cart far ahead of the horse” and because his future plan was being delayed, he decided to run roughshod through this Senate race that will and already has harmed his future!

Joe Sestak is SCUTTLING the Democratic Party ship, the question is why?
I’ll let you know the next time and you will all understand why Joe must go!!!

FH-
“The burden of proof is not on the accused in this matter to have to prove their innocence, but rather on the accuser to be factually correct in their public statements.” WHY? Because you say so?!? I beg to differ – it is on Sestak to prove his innocence in this matter. The congressman is constantly touting his military record and wearing that green navy jacket as a prop. He has made his record fair game.

Sestak seems to make an awful lot of statements and accusations against other people, without providing any proof, and expects us to take them as fact. For example, accusing the White House of offering him a job, accusing Specter of making a deal with Santorum, saying he was relieved from his postas DCNO for “political” reasons, and his reasons for leaving his Clinton White House job, etc. Why doesn’t Sestak offer any proof or evidence for his comments? Yet he expects everyone else who utters a negative remark about him to substantiate it yet! What a double standard! What a hyprocrit! What a whiner!

Sestak could simply disprove the entire matter by releasing his COMPLETE military service record (honors, commendation, and complaints). By not doing so Sestak makes himself look incredibley guilty. What is he trying to hide?

The Navy Times in 2005 published a story that Sestak was removed from office for “poor command climate.” This is a factually correct public statement. If the story was false Sestak should have sued for defamation in 2005. It’s way to late for Sestak to be denying it now.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON SESTAK!

Sestak wants to use his Navy record as his ability to serve in the Senate. But the minute we question any portion or aspect of his record he cries foul. He can’t tout his navy credentials and then whine when their called into question.

Sestak is such a hyprocrit!

SW: Valid point indeed. Sestak has repeatedly made unsubstatiated accusations against the Obama White House – and now he calls upon the Obama White House to come to his aid!! Sestak’s megalomania knows no bounds.

FH: I have never used epithets. Representative Sestak’s Senate bid is such a fiasco, such an unprecedented political debacle, epithets are wholly unnecessary. The events of the past several months – an endorsement from an ex-congressman who gropes the genitals of innocent young men, unsubstantiated allegations against the Obama White House, dismal fundraising, abrupt staff departures, and now, whimpering about a campaign advertisement – have forever tarnished Sestak’s reputation and career. And he knows it, which is why has lost his composure this week. Unfortunately for Representative Sestak, his reputation will only be blackened further in the weeks to come.

Diano- “There is no verifiable proof that Sestak was fired for a political reason.” Great, we agree for once. There is no verifiable proof that you are correct, nor that am I correct. However if I were to go around repeatedly stating my claim, you wouldn’t like it very much! In the future, please refrain from posting rumors based on unverified, undocumented claims. As for your definition of abuse provided, I applaud your purchase of a dictionary, and would urge you to please use that definition of abuse when such incidents occur or have occurred. However, in order for you to use that definition, you would actually have to possess such proof as to show that abuse occurred. Repeatedly stating that abuses occurred does not in fact mean that they occurred. I could repeatedly state that David Diano is a jaded former Sestak staffer who was fired for his poor command climate and opposes him on these grounds and not on any political philosophy, until I am blue in the face, but without proof, it would serve nobody and you wouldn’t like it too much. Why should you get to do the same to Sestak? Because he is a public figure? Well no, so long as your statements are factually inaccurate and made with malice (I think your vitriolic opposition towards Sestak easily rises to the level of wanting to harm his reputation for no other reason than to see him suffer) you can’t say whatever you want. The point is, despite your declaration that you use things in a humorous manner, you do not distinguish between supposed humor and supposed facts in your diatribes. I call again on you to provide verifiable proof for any negative mudslinging that you may to against Sestak, since I can’t trust your opinions given your personal negative former relationship with one candidate. And before you start spouting them off like facts again; no, anecdotes that you heard second/third/twelfth-hand do not count. Actual stories from real people on the record which can be verified would be nice, but I have a feeling you dont really have any of those (not nearly as effective as conjecture and falsehoods).

Tell the truth- According to congressional records, Joe Sestak was indeed a Three Star Admiral. That he retired before reaching a point at which he could secure a service length requirement does not negate the fact that he was indeed awarded and served as a Three Star Admiral (btw a Vice admiral is a term synonymous with three star admiral, the term for a two star admiral (the rank at which he retired) is a rear admiral). I would just like to ask you one simple question, should Arlen Specter have stayed in the Republican Party, and Sestak was the Democrat who challenged him in the general election, would you vote for Specter over Sestak? Remove Arlen’s party switch and the establishment fawning over him and you still have the same Specter that so many Democrats detested and voted against repeatedly in Senate Election after Senate Election. Why should Joe Sestak have to be barred from doing something that he wants because Ed Rendell and other party establishment tell him to? It is still a free country, right?

ChescoDem- Actually the burden of proof falls to the one making the statement not because I say so, but because the LAW says so. Don’t believe me, do a little midnight reading on libel law. Whats defense #1 against a libel claim, well that the person was telling the truth. Who has to prove they were telling the truth, why that’s the person who said it! Should you want to get into a further discussion on the realities of libel law with public figures, we can do that as well (though it certainly would not be difficult to show the intention of malice with quite a few of these posters). Think logically for a moment, what did Sestak actually gain from saying from stating that the whitehouse offered him a job? Nothing. Did you stop and consider for one second that it might have been true, especially considering that the Whitehouse never denied offering Sestak something (I believe the exact phrase Gibbs used was “It wouldnt be a problem”). No, analysis based in fact is a concept not nearly as effective as hyperbole, rumor mongering, and attack ads. The fact that you cite and article that cites an anonymous source does not make it true, the anonymous source is unable to be verified on any level and future reports have all echoed this exact language and thus the same anonymous source. Anonymous sources could be anyone with any number of motivations, and how are you so sure that such a statement was made with truth, instead of with political gamesmanship as its primary goal?

HateSestak- Some examples of epithets and
hyperbole or word choice that are designed solely to elicit negative reactions rather than concentrate on facts and opinions, that you use in the post beginning with the phrase, “I have never used epithets.”
1. “fiasco”
2. “unprecedented political debacle” (technically political is not an epithet as it is descriptive of the type of campaign)
3. “dismal”
4. “whimpering”
5.”forever tarnished Sestaks reputation and career”

These are all in addition to your numerous others from countless other threads.

Now what would have been so hard about saying “I think representative Sestak’s campaign is not being managed in a fashion that I think would offer him the best chance at winning”? Could it possibly be that your repeated vague accusations are not designed to be opinions but instead are designed to illicit negative reactions against one candidate and nothing more. Oh and also, isnt it lovely that before sestak started running ads your standard line was “Why wont sestak run ads, what’s he saving his money for?” Now that he has started to air ads its “Why isnt he responding to Specters ads with other ads?” First you critique him for not posting ads, he does it and without a single word of praise for >snicker< following your advice, you immediately tell him hes not running the right ads? Is there anything, short of confirming all your conspiracy theories and Sestak voluntarily stating "Hatesestak, you were always right about me, how did you ever know. You are truly amazing!" To conclude a post in the style of HateSestak, in a comment to HateSestak, Your monomaniacal quixotic quest is derogatory, defamatory, and full of disdainful derision that exist solely in the depths of your meretricious, misleading, mind. (ooh, aren't thesaurus' fun?)

FH-
To pull the defense of a political firing is to create something that is not even on the record. You might as well claim he was fired for not bringing his commander a powdered donut. However, the “poor command” has not only been reported (and fair game to quote/reference), but is supported by Sestak’s behavior since with two other staffs (congressional and campaign). One day in 2006, Sestak ranted and raved to his campaign staff and threatened to fire anyone bringing him a “Google Map”. The reason: he spent $10 bucks on a book of maps of the area when he came back to Delaware county and he wasn’t going to let that money go to waste by not using his maps. Feel free to check out the “Google Maps” story with people that were in the 2006 campaign. You’ll discover he’s a f*cking lunatic.

Once again, you reason by false analogy. For you to make a claim that I’m a “jaded former staffer”, you’d first need a published news article indicating at a minimum that I was a staffer (which I never was in the first place). Second, I was never in “command” of anything, so no basis for any kind of “command climate”. Third, you’d need to reference an article that was contemporary to the time of any alleged incident.
Sestak, as a public figure and candidate, is actually held to a different standard. Were Specter to wage an attack ad against me, it would not be viewed the same as an attack against Joe. Again, your reasoning fails you.

It’s not my place to name people or candidates who have spoken to me against Sestak and jeopardize their positions. I’ve related the stories as best I can, and have shared the actual names with Dan (in reporter confidence) where necessary should he desire to challenge my assertions. Dan keeps sources confidential if he can back up what they are saying or confirm it with more than one individual.

Joe’s entitled to run. But, it’s foolish to think his campaign is helping the party or that Joe is a real Democrat or that he can beat Toomey.

As for comments to Chesco Dem regarding “burden of proof”. Specter accurately quoted the Navy Times article. In a libel case, the “burden of proof” falls on the plaintiff. There is no “proof” that Specter misquoted the Navy Times article.
The burden is on the plaintiff to prove the statement is false. Since, Specter is merely quoting a legitimate news source, and accurately, Sestak would have no case. And crying about it doesn’t make it into a case.

On the other hand, Sestak claiming that a White House official offered him a bribe, is a far more serious matter, especially since Sestak has made a potentially criminal charge, but then failed to report it to the proper authorities.

David- First of all, you are completely incorrect in your assessment of libel suits. The burden of proof is indeed on the person who makes the statement. If they wish to make a defense against a claim of libel, they must offer a valid defense. One such valid defense is that the statement made was not in fact false. If you’re not sure about this, why not consult Dan, or a legal textbook, heck even look in wikipedia, unfortunately, youre wrong. If you make a statement, youve gotta back it up in order to not be held liable. You have a right to free speech, but the courts have continuously held that such a right cannot be factually inaccurate if talking about a third party or it MAY be considered libelous speech. In this case, you are correct that the statement made quotes from a Navy Times article, however the Specter Campaign is required to do their due-diligence before using it as a reliable source. As for the claim against the white house, Joe Sestak has reported his first hand experience, as far as you know truthfully. Should the whitehouse refute this, they can, and bring a claim of defamation against Specter. Then Sestak would respond that the offer did in fact take place, name the person with which he had the conversation and a depositions and discovery could begin so that a jury or judge could make the findings of fact that would result in a verdict either way (one such finding of fact would be the veracity of the statement). So before you challenge someone on the law, it might be a good idea to at least research the topic.

As for your google maps story, as you have produced such a story, please produce someone in the campaign, or the name of someone that was there and can confirm it.

I would ask however that you hold yourself to the same standard that you have asked me to hold myself to. The only difference in standard that Mr. Sestak is held to in cases of defamation or libel and you is that an attack on Mr. Sestak, a public figure, must be made with a “malice of intent”. He is allowed to be attacked in matters of opinion, so long as they are clearly labeled as such.

Also, please clearly read what I said that caused you to get in such a tizzy, “I COULD repeatedly state that David Diano is a jaded former Sestak staffer who was fired for his poor command climate and opposes him on these grounds and not on any political philosophy, until I am blue in the face, but without proof, it would serve nobody and you wouldn’t like it too much.” (emphasis added). Did I ever effectively state any claims against you? I merely posed a hypothetical argument as to how you would feel if someone attacked your integrity with no verifiable proof. I would like to make this perfectly clear to any persons who did not read my statement (in perfectly clear english and with no ambiguities), the statement How would you feel indicates a thought experiement that Mr. Diano overlooked. However, I was right that you wouldnt like it too much. Perhaps you should consider this lesson in your future postings and stick to verified facts.

Also to claim that a claim is supported by a persons behavior, without providing any proof of said behavior doesnt really support it…If you know enough to make these claims, it should be more than easy enough to back them up with evidence and proof outside of whisper down the lane and other third-hand stories that you’ve heard.

PS- I think in the future, I’ll apply your standards that you would have wanted applied to you, to any postings that you make in the future. 1. a published news article dealing with the specific claim. Second, Proof as to the exact wording and phrasing of a particular claim. Third, you’d need to reference an article that was contemporary to the time of any alleged incident. (kinda the same as one, but ok, two articles, at least one contemporaneous). If its ok with you, I’ll also add a four rule, all claims must be in someway verifiable by an independent source. Deal? Or do you expect to be treated differently?

PPS- F*cking Lunatic is an epithet Dave, by your own definition of “S.O.B., b@stard, m*ther-f-ing liar, etc. are epithets.” Please issue an apology and retraction.

PPPS- I wanted to know if you Can you stand behind every comment you’ve made on this site as being 100% truthful and accurate? If everything you’ve said is truthful (and ill give you an opportunity to retract anything youve said in the past) please commit to that and commit to doing so with everything from here until the election (of course youre entitled to your opinion, just so long as it is clearly labeled as such). I will also make the same pledge. If either of us catch the other one in a lie, the one who lies has to make a full public apology to everyone on the site. I’m completely game if you are!

FH-
Please re-read my post. I didn’t say that you couldn’t make up stuff about me, but rather than it was an improper analogy to what is going on with Specter and Sestak.

I did look up about libel.

While the “truth” is a defense against libel, the plaintiff still has a burden to point to what they think is a lie. Since Specter is quoting the Navy Times article, Sestak would have to first win against the Navy Times and it’s reporter. If that story were debunked, then Specter would be a fault only if he quoted a story he knew to be discredited (which is still often done in politics and Fox News).

BTW, the law on blog postings is evolving, but they are generally treated as running discussions among the participants and not the same as published articles in newspapers, magazines or aired on television. Also, they are generally representing opinions.

Characterizing Sestak as ranting, raving and a f*cking lunatic would be considered opinions or hyperbole. I’ve seen Sestak rant and rave first hand, and he sure seemed like a f*cking lunatic to me. That’s clearly an opinion from my direct observation.
I can say he has a screw loose. But since people generally don’t have screws in them, I’m not going to be hauled into court for claiming Sestak was made of machine parts (or especially defective ones).
I can say that I think he should be examined by a mental health professional. (Always a good idea for someone under so much stress.)

BTW, I have no problem using epithets against Sestak. He deserves every kind I could think of, and I’d have to do additional research to find more (but Dan would ban me if I did). I objected to your classifying “unremarkable” and “undistinguished” as epithets. I didn’t say I was opposed to them. Please try to keep up.

How can you expect to extract a pledge from me, while you remain anonymous?
I post what I know to be true, and indicate what I believe to be true, and make predictions about what I think will come true.

I may declare that Sestak will lose to Specter by double-digits and that Sestak can’t beat Toomey. Clearly these are opinions and predictions. They don’t need qualifiers.
They might not be 100% true, nor do they require apology if they fail to materialize. The “penalty” would be how people weight any other predictions if I am wrong now. It’s not like I’m claiming to be time traveler from the future.

Post under your real name, or stop acting so high and mighty.

Dave- Please keep up with my posts. If Specter did not, in good faith, research the content of a particular article that they used in an advertisement, and those claims ended up being false, Specter would be liable. Sestak would not, as you put it, have to win against the Navy Times, but instead would have to prove that Specter’s campaign did not properly research a claim that was false and put it into the political ether with intent of malice. As for law on comments on a blog post, ultimately you would be responsible for your words just as if you had written and disseminated them in a durable form (making it libel and not slander), as well as possibly Dan being the proprietor of the site if he did not properly moderate such comments to make sure they were factually accurate and remaining within the guise of the law.

As for your observations of him being a f*cking lunatic, that would be an opinion if you said I saw him do this (at this time and place) and I thought he was a f*cking lunatic. As for your mental health concerns, I’d actually say you might be walking a tightrope there, where you’re technically right, but if you’re not qualified to assess whether or not someone needs a mental health checkup, you might not be able to say such a statement in good faith.

The problems with your posts come in the fact that you rarely, if ever, distinguish between what you purport to be fact and what you claim as opinion. There are few, if any, times in which you use any identifier such as “I think” “I cant see…” ect. Can you admit that there is a difference between the statements “Sestak cant win” and “I cant foresee a way sestak can win”, or to use your examples, “Sestak will lose by double didgets” and “I think Sestak will lose by double didgets”. You have held yourself out to be an expert in this and other elections, and therefore your comments carry different weight than others.

PS-I’ll post under my real name if you chastise every single other poster who uses a pseudonym with the same ferocity as you have me (Does lana count? Can I just post my first name? How about HateSestak, will you press him on it?). Also my pledge has nothing to do with my name, but instead our respective honor. It shouldn’t matter what my name is for both of us to honor these things. Dont hide behind something for which you have not criticized your fellow specter supporters for. Its not that hard to put I believe before a declarative statement to make sure everyone knows its solely your opinion. I pledge to be 100% factually accurate and truthful in all postings past and present and should I be untruthful I will issue a public apology to the entire site. Hopefully you can make the same pledge, since it doesnt seem to be a problem for you, other than my name. Unless there’s something on the record you wish to correct before making the pledge.

FH-
Actually, I’m pretty sure that Specter’s team not only has researched the assertions in the Navy Times article, but has tracked down former Sestak staffers and gotten stories and examples to roll out, if they need it. Why do I think that? Because Specter’s no dummy. Scratching the surface of Sestak’s image and finding it’s only gold leaf, and not solid gold, will expose Sestak and obliterate his campaign. Based on Sestak’s record since 2006, the chances of finding he was a good boss in the Navy are virtually nil.

So, I expect that Specter not only has a solid basis for bring this charge, but he’s forcing Sestak to commit to a story. (Back in 2006, Sestak led us to believe he’d been relieved for opposing the Iraq War. So, he’s already changed his story once.)

Sestak has been dodging the question in interviews. Rather than give a direct answer, he says stuff like “No one gets to that rank unless they are highly qualified, etc.” However, as in any organization, plenty of people achieve a higher rank than they merit. Usually by kissing the right asses.

If you aren’t intelligent to distinguish fact from opinion, without redundant qualifiers, go back to school and take some remedial reading classes.

BTW, Sestak is never going to go after anyone legally for dissing his behavior as a boss. Why? Because every former staffer would be subpoenaed to testify under oath about Sestak’s behavior on the record. Specter’s team probably has the subpoena requests pre-typed and ready to go. (hint: that’s humor, but with the kernel of truth that Specter is well prepared)

As for the f*cking lunatic rant I observed first hand, (not the Google maps rant, but a different one) Sestak included the assertion “You can’t possibly imagine the enormous stress I am under.” I wasn’t sure if that was meant as a justification for his outrageous behavior, or an acknowledgment he was near a mental break point (or both). What actually struck me the most was that Sestak seemed to really “get-off” on trying to berate someone with a dressing down. He seemed more sadistic than actually angry, though he was supposedly ranting out of anger. I was trying not to laugh at him, since he was acting like he was still a Admiral talking down to a sailor, rather than equal civilian who could tell him where to shove it. But, that was back in 2006, and the enemy was Weldon, so I held my tongue rather than antagonize Joe. But, I never forgot my glimpse of Sestak’s darker side and my dawning realization that Sestak wasn’t the person he pretended to be.

I’ve made blanket chastisements of anonymous posting, so I don’t feel the need to make a new one every time a another anonymous poster shows up.

As for posting under your own name, you are battling me under my own name. If you want to fight the others anonymously, that’s between you and them. But if you want to call me out, I’m already out in the open. You need to come out of hiding from under your blanky first.

I never say stuff that I don’t believe to be correct at the time (though I might occasionally have a typo and skip a “not” or write “are” when I meant ‘aren’t”). (April 1st should be excluded from that assertion.) Once in a while, I might misquote an article I read because I can’t find the original and have to go from memory. I often will paraphrase conversations, since I don’t walk around taping the exact words. Also, I might refer to an incident as from July, when it was actually late June or early August, if I don’t recall a specific date or have a reference point.
But none of these minor failings are critical to my overall points, though they might lead you to score me less than 100%.
Try not to let a foolish consistency be the hobgoblin of your little mind.

FH

Call them puppets or parrots, right is right!

• Military rank is a title, just as is Mister, Master, Madam, or Miss. An officer’s rank is in fact a commission given by the US Congress. Once a military person has retired, their rank is a permanent title. As anyone who a fifth grade education should know, the title comes first.
Ex: Dr. Physician B. Medicine, MD.
Or: ex. RAdmL. Phineas L. Richards, USN (ret.)
The affiliation comes last, MD for Medical Doctor or USN for United States Navy.

Rank Given Surname
Branch, Retired

Where:
*Rank = Last rank held
Given = First name
Surname = Last name
Branch = Branch of service (US Army, US Navy, US Marine Corps, US Air Force, US Coast Guard)
Retired = self-explanatory

For example:

RDML. Phineas L. Richards
United States Navy, Retired

The error lies in the abbreviated version which is only partly incorrect as it should be for the above example:

RAdmL. Phineas L. Richards, USN (ret.)

Abbreviation for Rear Admiral, in fact RADM or RAdm are both acceptable, as is RAdmL (indicating 2 star admiral lower half – the USN has no 1 star rank, but has two, 2 star ranks, upper and lower half of Rear Admiral. A one star Admiral is called a Commodore, and this is only used in time of war.)

However, in using the formal method, neither the rank, nor the service should be abbreviated. So the example is most correct for the formal method as example:

Rear Admiral Phineas L. Richards
United States Navy, Retired

Get it right, perhaps I’m not understanding your point. Here are the facts as I understand them:

1. Sestak was promoted and confirmed by congress as a Vice Admiral (three stars).
2. He served for some time at this rank without any court-martials or other reasons why his rank should be objectively lowered.
3. Because of the date on which he chose to retire was prior to a service time commitment, he retired at the pay and rank of a two-star rear admiral.
4. Your issue arises because he tells people he was a former three star admiral, and you believe his proper title is Rear Admiral Joseph Sestak, USN, Retired.

If these are your issues, I understand them, but I just cannot agree with your making an issue of this. He was confirmed and given his commission as a three-star admiral. He earned the rank. Furthermore he is not holding himself out to be anything other than he actually was, he was ‘a former three-star navy admiral’. There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling himself the rank at which he last obtained.

BTW- Great use of http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/646801 though next time you might wanna cite it before you post it as your own. Also the two answers you quote, the second one says the first one isnt completely correct.

FH: Mr. Diano has repeatedly called upon me to divulge my identity (more so than anyone else in fact), so kindly apologize to him for making that inaccurate assertion. And I reiterate that I have never employed epithets of any kind. As far as my adverse criticisms of the apparently hypersensitive Sestak, if HE CAN’T TAKE THE HEAT, HE SHOULD GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN.

Meanwhile, neither you nor any other Sestak apologists are addressing the questions I have continually posed. If Representative Sestak is genuinely committed to a primary victory, and if the Specter advertisement is wholly inaccurate, then why doesn’t the Admiral launch additional advertisements to refute Specter’s claims?! This, again, is how an office-seeker would ordinarily react to allegedly false allegations. Why has Sestak thus far failed to do so? Sestak reportedly has $5 million available to him. Why is he reluctant to put these resources to use? Why skimp at this critical juncture? Unless, of course, Representative Sestak has to conserve his resources for some reason. Perhaps for the establishment of a Legal Defense Fund, as I and others have specultated?

Oh, and FH: Thus far, Sestak has launched ONE ad. Just one, and it was little more than a shameless curriculum vitae. And as Senator Specter has observed, the ad may constitute a violation of campaign laws. One ad is hardly an indication of a steadfast commitment to a primary victory. And my characterization of Representative Sestak’s Senate bid – a “fiasco” – is quite apt. Sestak was abandoned by his Political Director, his Communications Director, and others many months before the primary. Sestak’s recent fundraising efforts have been frightfully poor. Sestak’s only notable endorsements have come from Barney Frank (who was chastised by the House Ethics Committee when it was revealed that his lover was operating a male prostitution ring in the congressman’s D.C. apartment), and Eric Massa (who stands accused of fondling the genitals of innocent young males, and was forced to relinquish his congressional seat). Sestak failed to command the support of any eminent figures in PA – with the exception, of course, of a nefarious labor racketeer. Sestak made unsubstantiated accusations against the incumbent Democratic President of the United States – at a time when the President was doing his utmost to implement vitally important health care reform! Hardly what one would expect from a supposedly progressive Democratic primary contender, is it? Unable to summon any grassroots support within the Democratic Party, Sestak has been bolstered by reactionaries like Rick Santorum and Pat Toomey!

If anything, “fiasco” is a gross understatement.