I would amplify on this iteration by focusing upon defining-moments:

My contribution-to-the-cause was, as questioner #4, to request that Joe foreswear support for the upcoming V.A.T. After he restated his preferred talking-points, it was necessary for me to remind him of my focused-query; he then asserted he opposed this level of superimposed taxation.

I also reminded him and his staff of the contents of the appended handout [which I also supplied to the La Salle “Political Science” professor]; included therein is the still-pending request for documentation to support his claim [uttered a fortnight ago @ the Frankford-neighborhood (in lower NE-Philly) Baptist Church] that “Three of Four Medical Malpractice Suits have been found to be fraudulent.” That these quotations document empowerment of Sibelius to impose rationing, this is a concern that remains under-reported.

Many of Joe’s sound-bites were appealing, such as his intent to engage in “principled compromise, and never to compromise on principles.” He invited those in the year-old Tea Party Movement and the weeks-old Coffee-Klatch Groupings to meet together.

The claims/counter-claims regarding Pay-Go and Medicare-D cry for clarification. Regarding the former, it appeared that Pat elucidated a clear distinction between the postures of the candidates: when confronted with the prospect of approving a new program, Pat would mandate cuts elsewhere…while Joe would either cut OR raise taxes to ensure budget-neutrality. Regarding the latter, it appeared that Joe retreated a bit from his initial claim that Joe had supported expansion of Medicare Rx-benefits; apparently (if I heard this clearly), he claimed Pat had supported holding a vote on this bill and then had absented himself from the actual voting, only two hours hence.

Pat, of course, was perceivable (by me) as far more lucid. This was dramatized when he noted [without any refutation from Joe] that the current deficit was unsustainable [as corroborated last week by the CBO]. He noted that Greece (which was just bailed-out by the E.U.) has a deficit of 12% of GDP…as that in America has risen to 11% of GDP; he then cited the warning from Moody’s that the “AAA”-Rating (enjoyed by America since WW-II) has become jeopardized…yielding the risk that future borrowing-power would become crimped.

One source of enjoyment was that both eschewed invoking the “waste/fraud/abuse” garbage-can; they know this is a rhetorical-evasion. It is totally unrealistic to think that one can “raise revenue” of any magnitude by “finding savings” within the nooks/crannies of the budget.

In my view, the “scoring” would have to accommodate the lack of any “concession” by Pat (within any realm of argument), while Joe appeared to have lost debating-points when he constantly linked Pat to Bush-’43 (after Pat had meticulously disclaimed such fealty). Indeed, in his Opening Statement, Pat cited his leadership of the Club for Growth as both a metaphor for his entire economic philosophy and a methodology for achieving realistic derivative policies.

These observations harken-back to my first conversation with him—held a year ago—after Guzzardi had invited me to a high-roller fund-raiser in Center City Philly I will provide the vignette, and the reader is invited to draw independent conclusions therefrom:

I carefully invoked perhaps a minute of face-time with the candidate. I introduced myself (he knows Guzzardi’s commitments that started two years prior to his first senate race) and muttered that I had served as the President of the PA Society of Internal Medicine in the mid-1990’s…and that I had some independent experience/knowledge/training in healthcare-related policies that he might wish to invoke. His reply was, simply to cite John Goodman [National Center for Policy Analysis] as a reference for his overall HealthCare program. [He has also, subsequently, noted the utility of The National Center for Public Policy Research.] It is important to appreciate the candor of the exchange we held in this regard, for it illustrates his no-nonsense approach to his effort to rescue America from the morass (and, not incidentally, to lead internal GOP reform). He said, essentially, “Thank you very much but we have that covered” without being glib; he matter-of-factly cited Goodman, and that was that. No, he didn’t try to cajole me, covertly seeking maximal-$$$; he simply stated it “as it is.” Not egocentric, merely pragmatic. This was not symptomatic of a close-minded individual, for his staff continues to accommodate input such as the appended-digest of ObamaCare; rather, this was reflective of the tenor of a goal-oriented intensity which permeates all of his strategizing.

One more point-of-interest that characterizes my observation of his character, citing his book Road to Prosperity as a foundational-document:

When he was endorsed by Romney @ a Press Conference @ Loew’s a few months ago [note photo*, appended], I asked two somewhat-pointed questions, one of each individual. RomneyCare was portrayed as a state-level experiment, enhanced over gubernatorial objections by the Massachusetts Legislature. Pat restated opposition to governmental support of industries that might otherwise function at a competitive disadvantage internationally (e.g., Kvaerner), an issue that continues to be debated…in today’s WSJ. Again, he demonstrated having already thought-through the issue on multiple-planes…and the ability to distill his personal analysis of the forces at-play. [To me, both issues remain problematic, but I’m neither familiar with the blow-by-blow in Boston, nor am I a well-trained economist.]

{*-As I posed, I looked-up to Romney and inquired as to whether I was amidst the 2012 POTUS-Ticket. His reflex-response: “Oh really? I didn’t know you were running!”}

For an opposing perspective, note the superficial/accusatory/sound-bitten output of the DNC. In any case, I continue to relate with the staffs of both candidates, to whatever degree I can remain unobtrusive. [My problem with Joe includes his support for the Goldstone Report and his opposition to a nonbinding letter that emphasized the importance of maintaining a high-quality US-Israel relationship. But no one can doubt his energies, as illustrated in a puff-piece in Sunday’s Inqy.] If this extended-discussion has provoked queries from the ~300 people who are now receiving it, I will work to convey them to whomever…and then to provide a detailed response.

The Sunday Inky article about Sestak was a “puff piece”? Are you kidding?

My favorite quote: “He’s trying so hard, and yet his Democratic primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter so far has all the traction of a car with four bald tires traversing an icy mountain road.”

Fitzgerald also reveals what we’ve know about the biggest weakness in Joe’s campaign:
“His core message: I’m a real Democrat; Specter is not. You can’t trust him.”

Joe entered the race claiming it was “about running FOR something, not AGAINST something”, yet that’s all Sestak has managed to do.

As for Toomey, his “Club for Growth” needs the subtitle “of the wealth at the expense of the poor”. Toomey was still calling for more cuts in capital gains taxes.

In a rare bit of engagement, Sestak actually went after Toomey on that. He rightly pointed out the unfairness of a rich executive paying 15% in taxes, while a secretary pays close to 30%.

Unsurprisingly, Sestak didn’t deliver any knockout blows.

It was a puff-piece; your excerpt merely dramatized his yeoman’s efforts…which are exhaustively illustrated and which were manifest last night.

He is, indeed, not a ” candidate of ‘no’ ” in this context; other than using Specter’s absence as a foil, he was endorsing ObamaCare constantly, even pointing-out where he would go further (this, indirect response to a questioner).

There was plenty of engagement, as I attempted to summarize; others discerned it, as well.

The above tax-bill excerpt is a far cry from what most of the discussion entailed.

The take-home message was that both candidates spoke on a high-plane, and it wasn’t just because of Specter’s absence; they truly believe in their statements (although, from my perspective, Joe lapsed into sound-biting…particularly after I inquired about the V.A.T….when I had to re-ask the question).

Let’s see if PCN posts the entire video….

DR. the VAT is a Republican’s dream come true, finally shifting the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class and poor.

Toomey is one of the main proponets of trickle down economics, if cutting taxes on the wealthy creates jobs,then where are they? All trickle down,supply side economics has done is made the rich richer and left the rest of us holding the debt bomb. R. Reagan increased the National debt by 189% and called it prosperity, Bush the elder doubled the Debt again and doubled the Social Security tax on workers to paper over the debt,His moron son Doubled the Debt again. Seems odd that the only time we have seen a decrease in deficits and the start of paying off that huge Republican Debt,was when that “tax and spend” liberal Clinton was President. Republicans=”borrow and spend”

Bill, you mischaracterize the GOP; there is no desire for taxation, even predicated on consumption.

Bill, your historical musings obscure what Obama is now promulgating; for example, Glenn Beck just noted that 70% of Americans draw more $$$ from the US-Government than they contribute.

Character aspersions aside, you must confront the fact that spending must be cut drastically/ASAP.

This was Toomey’s theme which…somewhat amazingly, Sestak consistently avoided confronting.

Can the ideology, and grapple with the facts.

Dr. the GOP is only concerned with the taxes of the very wealthy, that is why they have consistantly cut them, they may through a bone to the middle class occasionaly,but there is little meat on it. Follow the money and find out who is the winner when the US has a huge debt. In every finacial transaction there is a winner and a loser and the middle class has been the constant loser,while the rich get richer.
P.S. Glenn Beck makes things up,he is a kook.

your dismissive attitude towards Glenn Beck impugns your credibility; he documents everything he says.

either provide a specific refutation, or retract your attack.

your generic attack on the GOP is tangential.

Robert-
If you think that Glenn Beck documents everything he says, then you are beyond clueless.

Glenn Beck rails against tax dollars going for free services, and quotes supposed research showing how bad it is for society. Where did Glenn get his research?: The Library (because it’s free)

That’s how ridiculous he is. He’s making $32 million a year off of chumps that lap up his unfounded nonsense.

I am hardly clueless–nor should you be–when he plays video-clips of Obama’s Czars spouting-forth Marxist-Leninist ideology; perhaps you should view the show (available via the Internet) before rejecting it in-toto.

Yes, he rails against unlimited social-$$$ and, indeed, this week, he is presenting an alternative-budget that would slash expenditures by 50%; he notes the deficit will, indeed, risk sinking America…quoting the CBO (“because it’s free”).

Do you consider worriment about the yawning-deficit/debt to be “unfounded nonsense”?