MyDD :: On Sestak

On Sestak

by Matt Stoller, Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 06:13:45 PM EST

So I've kept Joe Sestak on my list of possible saboteurs of the supplemental, which has frustrated many Sestak partisans. As far as I'm concerned, passing this legislation is an important part of disengaging the Democratic party from the pro-war brand, so a vote against it is a problem. That said, I'm more charitable to progressives who vote against it as a mechanism for creating left-wing pressure, though I have serious reservations about the progressive caucus as an (dis) organized group.

Sestak appears like he's in the liberal camp. Here's his statement about the legislation.

"Although I am dissapointed there is not one fixed date certain by the end of the year to redeploy out of Iraq, as my legislation proposes, in order to permit a change in strategy to where the Iraqis as well as Iranians and Syrians have an incentive to work for stablity, I am pleased we are moving in the right direction for an end date to this War, so we can enhance our security around the world."

He has also proposed his own legislation which would fix a withdrawal date. Still, here's why I'm keeping Sestak on the list. In late February, he stabbed Murtha in the back in the Washington Post with a right-wing frame.

Freshman Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a retired Navy admiral who was propelled into politics by the Iraq war, said Murtha could still salvage elements of his strategy, but Sestak, an outspoken war opponent, is "a bit wary" of a proposal that would influence military operations.

"I was recently in the military, and I have to speak from that experience," Sestak said.

Ratifying the idea that Congress has no place in military affairs and that the Murtha legislation meddles in military strategy is not appropriate for a progressive, so he's not really in that camp. I don't think his legislation on withdrawal is particularly useful as anything but a communications strategy, and while communications is not unimportant, undercutting the Murtha plan the way he did destroys any PR credibility his plan might have had.

Sestak is currently undecided on the supplemental, but like many of us, he's moving to embrace the progressive parts of the current bill. Still, because of his earlier right-wing foul, I'm going to judge him on his vote, because that's where the rubber now meets the road. I'm sure this won't satisfy the ardent Sestak partisans, but hopefully it is an explanation of this somewhat unique case.

UPDATE: As I somewhat expected, there are a whole bunch of people accusing me of making up an accusation of Sestak, despite it being pretty cut-and-dried in an important newspaper article that Sestak actually undermined Murtha's plan from the right. I still haven't heard anyone actually address that problem, which is the source of my criticism of Sestak. Also, I'm not against Sestak, I think he's great. He just screwed this one up, and has a chance to remedy his error. It's good he has his own plan, but that's not remotely an issue, because everyone including Sestak knows that no one is voting on his plan.

Tags: Joe Sestak, Blue Dogs (all tags)

Permalink :: 77 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: On Sestak (3.00 / 2)

This strikes me as a little dogmatic on your part. Sestak can't simply ignore his recent military background. I think we, as progressives, shouldn't alienate someone with his credentials. Sestak could bolster the progressives' bona fides with regard to the military situation.

by Ghost of McGovern on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 06:29:02 PM EST

Re: On Sestak (3.00 / 1)

I'm not condemning him or anything, just waiting for the vote. He hurt Murtha's plan, and that's bad. He's learning, and he needs to know when he went afoul of progressive political strategy.

by Matt Stoller on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 06:36:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So, this is payback? (3.00 / 1)

You didn't like what he said on one thing, so you spread inaccuracies about him regarding something else?

Got it.

(and did he really hurt Murtha's plan? It seems to me that others shot it down first, and Sestak said there was some hope for parts of it. But, whatever. That's irrelevant to the point here.)

by MH in PA on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:18:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Aren't you jumping the gun? (none / 0)

What is up with smear accusations? I hope you are not taking the House Appropriations as a slam dunk?!

With the vote at the slimmest of margins in the House, we must throw caution in the wind and keep the pressure til every vote is casted on the supplemental bill.

Matt had a valid reason for his original post. Lets look at the facts. Sestak's comments on Murtha's legislation, Sestak seals his lips and makes no public comments adding more doubts and raises questions whether warranted or not.

by optimusprime on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:07:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fair enough. (3.00 / 2)

If the margin is so slim in the House, then why isn't Stoller attacking the 9 liberal Democrats who aren't voting for the bill because it isn't strong enough? Why aren't we pressuring them too?
I don't know why we are focusing on this one Sestak comment, when all of his other comments give voice to progressive ideas.

Jim Oberweis

by cilerder86 on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:19:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Apples and Oranges (none / 0)

The liberal democrats of the 'Out of Iraq' caucus have been waiting for measure to end the war, but not this. The appropriations bill does not end funding the war nor does you hold the President fully accountable with strict oversight measures such as Murtha's Plan

The bill in its present form is toothless, watered down, and is a severe slap in their face. Why add more insult to injury and have a blogoswarm against true blue progressive democrats? I personally won't mind if a few liberal democrats lay their cards and vote No on the measure. If conservative democrats get a free pass by Peolosi, leadership and whips... why can't Lee, Woolsey, and Waters as well???

by optimusprime on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:35:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Apples and Oranges (3.00 / 1)

"The bill in its present form is toothless, watered down, and is a severe slap in their face. Why add more insult to injury and have a blogoswarm against true blue progressive democrats."

You mean, like Joe Sestak? He also has a plan to end the war. Joe Sestak's own quote about the bill was that he was disappointed it wasn't going far enough, but that he was pleased it was a start.

Jim Oberweis

by cilerder86 on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:40:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Classic, (none / 0)

isn't it?

I'd be laughing if this didn't potentially have real consequences.

by MH in PA on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:48:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sestak sunked Murtha's Battleship (none / 0)

Plain and simple. Why don't you accept that fact?

by optimusprime on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 09:35:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You bypassed the router on that one (none / 0)

You don't see Joe's plan on the House floor do you? What matters now is the Appropriations Bill and whether your idol Sestak is onboard. The jury is still out. We will have to wait and hear Sestak's remarks on Meet the Press to learn more.

by optimusprime on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 09:39:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No I don't. (3.00 / 1)

But I don't see the plan of the "Out of the Iraq" Caucus on the floor either. Why aren't we lobbying the 9 liberal Democrats (e.g. Lee and Serrano) because they are failing to support the bill? Why aren't THEY on board? They're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Jim Oberweis

by cilerder86 on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:41:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Because it simply isn't good enough. (3.00 / 1)

Big Tent Democrat is all over this.

by andgarden on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:58:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What is up? (3.00 / 1)

Matt posted inaccurately about Sestak regarding Sestak's position, and his post here attempts to make excuses for that inaccuracy by dredging up an unrelated comment.

Even if you agree with Matt's take on the Murtha situation, I don't see how that justifies posting that Sestak is against a date certain for getting out of Iraq, when that has NEVER been his position.

Now he says he is keeping Sestak on a list of "potential saboteurs" of the bill? That's just bullshit.

Being mistaken in the first place, could be an honest mistake. Continuing one's error because one is too bullheaded to admit the mistake, becomes a smear.

Sorry if you don't like it, but I'm calling it as I see it.

by MH in PA on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:28:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is up? (none / 0)

I did not post inaccurately. Read the post article - it's pretty obvious that Sestak screwed him over.

by Matt Stoller on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 09:03:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is up? (none / 0)

By him I mean Murtha.

by Matt Stoller on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 09:03:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sestak against a date certain??? (3.00 / 1)

You posted that. It is inaccurate. You seem to be claiming that you will CONTINUE to post it, even though it's been pointed out to you that it is inaccurate.

That has NOTHING to do with the WaPo article about the Murtha plan - in which, when I just looked again, I could find nothing relevant to Sestak's role other than what you posted in your original post here; which certainly does not show that Sestak "screwed him over" - that is only your interpretation.

But I did find this nugget:

From the beginning, Murtha acted on his own to craft a complicated legislative strategy on the war, without consulting fellow Democrats. When he chose to roll out the details on a liberal, antiwar Web site on Feb. 15, he caught even Pelosi by surprise while infuriating Democrats from conservative districts.

Sounds like Murtha screwed up, and you are blaming other Democrats.

by MH in PA on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 09:17:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sestak against a date certain??? (none / 0)

Sestak is one of very few Democrats quoted in that article expressing discomfort with the idea that Democrats should restrict military operations in Iraq, and using that rationale to conclude that the Murtha plan didn't really work for him. That article came out at a key moment.

Sestak might have a withdrawal plan, but it doesn't really matter that he has a withdrawal plan when he undermines the only withdrawal plan that had a genuine shot at passing.

That's politics, and now we have a plan on the table that is worse than the Iraq Study Group.

by Matt Stoller on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 09:23:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sestak against a date certain??? (none / 0)

I have to agree with Matt here. One of the Sestak apologists should explain why Sestak's own bill isn't just another example a cynical politician manipulating his constituents.

For the naieve.. here's how it works: A cynical politician, ruled by self-interest wants to be everything to everyone, so when pressed on a difficult issue, he writes his own little bill, designed to be ignored. He rejects the hard vote, to the applause of half of his constituents, and he explains to the boo-ing half.. he wanted to make the hard vote, but it wasnt good enough.. "so I wrote my own bill."

It was like back in the 90's when everyone had to vote for term limits, but noone wanted them, so everyone voted for a version of term limits, guaranteeing that all the little versions would fail.

Does anyone think that a netroots candidate is gonna get away with this shit on the blogs? Come on, we're not cable news.

My question is will Sestak be willing to work productively with the caucus, or is he gonna be a douchbag? So far I dont like the answer.

And Joe's friends, not that it matters to an "incumbent" congressman, I will understand if all this bill-writing means that the admiral wont have time to send me any more fucking fundraising letters.

John McCain loves war.

by Winston Smith on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 09:03:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Douchebag? (3.00 / 2)

Douchebag?
Please - the man served 31 years in the military and could have easily retired. Instead, he threw his hat in the ring, and PA-07 chose him over crazy Curt Weldon (remember him?)
I am sorry if you prefer the old regime - but I think we have a better chance of success with Joe than Curt. Can't we cut him some slack as he decides how to move forward?
Or maybe we should keep on attacking him so a repug has a better shot at the seat. (snark - if it's not too obvious)

by quadmom on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 04:49:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Douchebag? (none / 0)

Who you calling a douchebag? Madam, that is simply rude.

I never sent money to Weldon, or expected anything from him. And yes, it was worth it to help toss him.

John McCain loves war.

by Winston Smith on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 01:52:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Douchebag? (none / 0)

Winston, Sir-
I thought you were referring to the Admiral with the Douche-term. So sorry if I misunderstood your quote from previous post.
I am glad that we are agreed that PA-07 is much better off with Weldon in retirement from the public sector.

by quadmom on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 10:42:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

FROM THE WAPO ARTICLE: (3.00 / 1)

with emphasis added:

From the beginning, Murtha acted on his own to craft a complicated legislative strategy on the war, without consulting fellow Democrats. When he chose to roll out the details on a liberal, antiwar Web site on Feb. 15, he caught even Pelosi by surprise while infuriating Democrats from conservative districts.

That is from the reporter - NOT a quote from Sestak or any other Democrat.

THAT is a quote from the reporter that Stoller is using to attempt to justify his error.

And yet you ask if Sestak "will be willing to work productively with the caucus"???

Seems like you're putting the shoe on the wrong foot here.

by MH in PA on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 10:17:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: FROM THE WAPO ARTICLE: (none / 0)

I still have the same question. Is Sestak's bill a legitimate effort with a reasonable chance of success or is it political cover? Who are his co-sponsors? What kind of coalition has he built to pass it? What has he done to advance it in the caucus and in the media? When it comes to vote, will he refuse to side with the anti-war Democrats because his bill is better?

I guess the jury is out, but so far, it could be political cover. What made me suspect this are your own comments, speaking as a personal friend. To paraphrase.. he wrote his own better bill, so of course he cant be undermining anti-war Democrats. Bullshit. Maybe, maybe not, but it raised every red flag for me.

I am not judging yet, we will see in time. He may be sincere and he may step up when needed.

Now, if some Democrats choose to vote against our efforts, ok, well that wont suprise me. They can follow their consciences or their constituents, and that is what democracy is about. If Joe does this, I will be pissed off as a contributor, but whatever, no suprise. It was worth it to can Weldon.

But let me tell you what is unacceptable to me: for someone who enjoys our support, and took our money, to both undermine efforts to legislate against the war, and then attempt to placate us with the "I had my own better bill" trick.

When the time comes, he has to step up and make his choice, no excuses sailor, and no fucking cynical political tricks.

I may be a little nobody, and certainly not a congressman or an admiral, but I am clever and I am watching.

One more thing, I have never been a huge Murtha fan, but let me tell you something about Murtha. His bold leadership in declaring Iraq over, and advocating "redeployment" changed the debate in this country. Since that time he has been a leader on this issue. Also, he was the Speaker's own choice for Majority Leader, and these two facts mean that Murtha does have the gravitas on the war to write, or effect the writing of a Democratic bill. He earned the right to take the initiative in crafting legislation on the war. Still, I expect him, and the rest of the Democrats to come together when it comes time to vote.

John McCain loves war.

by Winston Smith on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 01:49:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Murtha's proposal came after Sestak's (none / 0)

Sestak's was introduced in Congress on Feb. 8. (H.R.960 - you can find it on thomas.loc.gov)

According to the WaPo article, Murtha rolled his "proposal" out on a blog on Feb. 15. (As far as I can tell, Murtha never introduced that proposal in Congress).

There is nothing in the WaPo article that Matt cites, that indicates Sestak sought to undermine Murtha's effort. On the contrary, Sestak is quoted as saying some parts can be used. It looks like he is trying to find middle ground between Murtha and those who rejected Murtha's proposal completely. Some would call that an attempt at bridge-building.

by MH in PA on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 04:37:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Welcome Sestak Supporters (none / 0)

You do understand that Sestak is a newly minted freshman. This is all part of the hazing process!

by optimusprime on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 06:30:33 PM EST

Re: Welcome Sestak Supporters (3.00 / 2)

So, are you saying it would be okay to spread falsehoods about someone as part of this "hazing process"? Even if it cost that person needed support in an upcoming election? Even if it cost that person enough support to throw the race to the republicans?

I'm just trying to understand the moral and practical calculations here...

by MH in PA on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:20:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Spread falsehoods (none / 0)

I think you are the one who jumped the shark and spreading unwarranted smears. I am sure Sestak is a good congressman, but lets not take his vote for granted.

by optimusprime on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:09:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Link please (3.00 / 1)

to what I have said that is untrue.

by MH in PA on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:29:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not the untruths... (none / 0)

I am talking about your accusations of a smear hit job.

by optimusprime on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:36:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Okay, I'll provide the link (3.00 / 1)

to my comment, and the words you seem to be referring to:

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2007/3/17/1 81345/604/5#5

I will say it more plainly here, since you didn't get it from my previous posts: if you think Joe Sestak is a "possible saboteur" of any bill that gets us closer to getting out of Iraq, then you don't know what you are talking about.

And if you continue to post that, after the correcting info I've posted, then it's a smear.

Perhaps you should read my other posts and note the facts that I have provided, over and over again.

Do you really think it's NOT a smear to continue posting an untruth about someone, after you've received the correcting information?

What would YOU call it?

by MH in PA on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:46:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Okay, I'll provide the link (none / 0)

Disagreements are one thing, but you need to get a grip and read the post article. Sestak screwed up our shot at getting the Murtha plan out there.

by Matt Stoller on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 09:05:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I read it. (none / 0)

I do not see where it says what you claim.

The excerpt you already posted does not say that it was Sestak who shot down Murtha's bill. Considering Sestak is a freshman, that seems pretty unlikely anyway. I'd guess it had a lot more to do with Nancy Pelosi.

Do you have another source that states it more clearly?

by MH in PA on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 04:55:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And the others? (3.00 / 1)

What about the 9 other liberal Democrats who aren't voting for the measure? They're great congresscritters too. Why are we taking their no-votes for granted?

Jim Oberweis

by cilerder86 on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:32:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And the others? (none / 0)

See my response upstream

by optimusprime on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:37:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Sestak (3.00 / 2)

It's really tiring to hear military people or ex-military people never miss an opportunity to mention that they have a more credible perspective on military matters because they served. While admirable, the country's principle of civilian leadership of the military requires that we don't automatically defer to military "opinion".

McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.

by jgarcia on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 06:36:00 PM EST

not just tiring... (none / 0)

...dangerous too. not to mention authoritarian/conservative.

by corn dog on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:28:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

To some degree, they do (3.00 / 2)

To imply that Sestak doesn't know a great deal more about the intricacies of military operations and issues than we do is frankly the height of delusion. The man went through decades of training and actual service, while the opinions of the vast majority of posters here are formed only by ideology and news clippings. Sorry, but reading 5 newspapers a day doesn't qualify one as an armchair general.

by OfficeOfLife on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 09:26:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Readers should judge for themselves. (3.00 / 1)

Sestak will be on Meet the Press. There is other info in my post:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/17/1132 13/332

I will say it more plainly here, since you didn't get it from my previous posts: if you think Joe Sestak is a "possible saboteur" of any bill that gets us closer to getting out of Iraq, then you don't know what you are talking about.

And if you continue to post that, after the correcting info I've posted, then it's a smear.

I respect your concern about Sestak's comment re Murtha's bill, although I disagree, but since when does that give you license to perpetuate inaccuracies about Sestak?

by MH in PA on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 06:50:18 PM EST

Re: On Sestak (3.00 / 2)

This is a major improvement on your previous post Matt. At least you're now making it clear that you're punishing Sestak for a PR infraction rather than lumping him in with the Blue Dog caucus based on one unnamed (and dubious) source.
Keep holding his feet to the fire but don't burn your credibility with it.
Kudos on the Fox News/Nevada debate campaign btw. That was some kickass hell-raising.

by Texas Nate on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 06:52:05 PM EST

Problem: not just Sestak is punished. (3.00 / 1)

PA-7 constituents will be punished also, if these kind of inaccuracies cost Joe enough support that we can't keep this seat in 2008.

The problem with the initial post wasn't just lumping Joe in with the Blue Dogs, but saying that Joe opposed the supplemental because it set a "date certain." That's ridiculous.

I don't think Matt has even yet fairly characterized Joe's position.

Joe's bill:

"To enhance the national security interests of the United States both at home and abroad by setting a deliberate timetable for the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq by December 31, 2007, and for other purposes,"

What Joe has said about the supplemental:

"This is acceptable because it has a date certain," said Sestak, who called the bill a "good step toward an exit strategy."

by MH in PA on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:06:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Problem: not just Sestak is punished. (3.00 / 1)

I agree Matt was way out on a thin ice, if not thin air, with his previous list and the motivations he was ascribing to the congresspeople.
He's already retracted on Gillibrand.
But Matt's an agitator, not a reporter. You're doing a great job of counter agitating. Keep it up. He's giving Sestak a raw deal.
Kind of lame that the first post was during prime time and the followup is in the saturday dead zone. Kinda like a corporate media outlet retracting a front page story with a note on page B9.

by Texas Nate on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:05:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Problem: not just Sestak is punished. (3.00 / 1)

I agree Matt was way out on a thin ice, if not thin air, with his previous list and the motivations he was ascribing to the congresspeople.
He's already retracted on Gillibrand.

Your first claim is wrong - Sestak stabbed Murtha in the back and not from a progressive perspective, and I have that on good authority. Read the article.

Your second claim is simply false. Gillibrand came out with a statement, possibly in response to pressure.

by Matt Stoller on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 09:02:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Problem: not just Sestak is punished. (3.00 / 1)

Your first post said nothing about Murtha. That's the one I objected to, the one that said Sestak wasn't voting for the bill because of the certain date. It also incorrectly id'd him as a Blue Dog.

I agree that Gillibrand may have responded to pressure and think that's a net win for you and the vote.

But nevertheless I think you had no factual basis for including Gillibrand in that group in the first place.

by Texas Nate on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:25:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Sestak (3.00 / 3)

"Ratifying the idea that Congress has no place in military affairs and that the Murtha legislation meddles in military strategy is not appropriate for a progressive, so he's not really in that camp."

Excuse me?

First of all, a person familiar with the way military command decisions are made like Sestak acknowledging that he is "a bit wary" of some elements of Murtha's strategy is hardly the same thing as his "ratifying the idea that Congress has no place in military affairs."

And second, which imperial monarch appointed you head arbiter of what is and "is not appropriate for a progressive," anyway?

To us mere mortals out here in the rest of the blogosphere, it sure seems like there's a bit too much hubris lurking around the edges when people make self-defined blanket policy pronouncements like that.

It might behoove you to step back a few feet for a personal perspective check before you continue passing judgment on those "ardent Sestak partisans" you seem to be condescendingly pooh-poohing in this post, Matt.

by Otter on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:07:47 PM EST

Re: On Sestak (none / 0)

i would say the imperial monarch was you (and all of us) when you and we came here to read his opinion.

and given that "the idea that Congress has no place in military affairs and that the Murtha legislation meddles in military strategy" is the argument the GOP is using to fight agains withdrawl, i would say - my opinion appointed by no imperial monarch - that it is pretty safe to describe that as "not appropriat for a progressive."

not to mention that that argument is just absurd and really is not appropriate for anyone, let alone a Democrat, to be making.

by corn dog on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:26:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please. (3.00 / 1)

Sestak slipped up once. Are we go to sew a scarlet letter on to his back? He's been all over the media advocating for withdrawal from Iraq, and for a political solution to this catastrophe. I don't hear Arcuri and Gillibrand saying that. It's a good thing Matt Stoller dug up that quote from the Post, otherwise he would have no argument at all.

Jim Oberweis

by cilerder86 on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:32:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How does "a bit wary" (3.00 / 2)

become equivalent to "the idea that Congress has no place in military affairs"?

It seemed to me, when I first heard this, that Sestak was trying to ameliorate the damage from other Democrats who had already said Murtha's bill was DOA. By saying he was "wary" he is acknowledging the other Dems' concerns, but saying those concerns might be gotten around (you are not "wary" of something if you've already decided to get out of Dodge), and he did say there were parts that could be salvaged.

I think Sestak's statement here is being twisted to provide an excuse for mischaracterizing his stance on a date certain to get out of Iraq.

And in fact the two have no bearing on each other.

by MH in PA on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:37:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Leap. (3.00 / 2)

I don't understand that leap either. (Does that make me a Sestak partisan?) If Sestak really thought that Congress has no place in military affairs would he be the tirelss advocate for withdrawal that he is today?
Watch this segment of Sestak (recently upgraded from "saboteur" to merely "possible saboteur") on "This Week" as he destroys a whole host of right wing talking points: "This is not a military issue, this a political issue."

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex? id=2732581

Jim Oberweis

by cilerder86 on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:59:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Sestak (3.00 / 5)

Sounds like you were just plain wrong Matt and instead of admitting it, apologizing, and moving on, you're looking to try to save face. When you're in this deep of a hole, it's time to stop digging.

As far as Sestak being or not being a "progressive," I'm not sure anyone should care. It sounds like progressives have far too many litmus tests. It seems to me that "progressives" chose to start using that word rather than "liberal" because the definition of liberal is "open-minded."

Joe Sestak believes that constitutionally, the Congress does not have the right to direct the military. Hmm... I think he's right. I'm sure he felt Murtha's plan, like Weldon's, crossed over the line. He mentioned that many many times during the campaign. I for one am thrilled to have a Congressman who holds the Constitution in that high of a regard. I liken it to Russ Feingold's having voted to confirm Roberts no matter how much it made the Senator want to puke.

Those of us in Joe's district know how lucky we are to have him in Congress fighting for us. Honestly, I didn't think for one second that I'd like Joe Sestak when I first heard he was running. But then I met him. And I watched him. This guy is as liberal as they come. He's open-minded, tolerant, caring, and dedicated to the principles upon which this country was founded. I can't tell you how excited I was when I checked off his name on my absentee ballot; I grinned the whole way home from the court house.

by ICantBelieve on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:28:22 PM EST

(Comment Deleted) (none / 0)

This comment has been deleted by an administrator.

by MH in PA on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:28:27 PM EST

Re: On Sestak (3.00 / 3)

My point, corn dog, is that it's a helluva cognitive leap on Matt's part to go from Sestak's words to his blanket progressive political policy pronouncement as quoted above.

The fact that Matt's choice of phrasing so closely echoes the stock GOP talking points is hardly a good argument for his remarks being fair, balanced, or for that matter even approximately accurate.

Is that an appropriate argument for a progressive to be making? I'd say it's not, too. But I didn't hear Sestak making it, only Matt.

by Otter on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:33:22 PM EST

Re: On Sestak (none / 0)

I am not making this up. Why can none of you read the post article?

You are such apologists.

by Matt Stoller on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 09:06:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I read the post article. (none / 0)

And I agree with Otter. As I posted elsewhere, I also don't see how you got from Sestak's words to the interpretation you post. Apparently, a lot of other people have the same vision problems that Otter and I do.

I am not an "apologist" - I am a constituent of Sestak's who reads the local papers and has seen TONS of press on Sestak's own efforts to bring the troops home. I don't think it was only in the local papers, either. And yesterday was not Sestak's first stint on the Sunday political shows.

Do you know why the Occupation Project isn't targeting Sestak? (if it is, I haven't heard about it)

I'm guessing it's because he has MET WITH the local peace groups. (And maybe that bill to bring troops home and cut off funding after Dec 31 2007 has something to do with it too) Along with just about every other constituent group in the district - including some (gasp!) on the right. The man works his ass off. You apparently have no idea who Joe Sestak is or what he is about - or how much of a breath of fresh air he is in PA-7.

Do you have ANY other information to cite, besides the WaPo article, that supports your claim that Sestak set out to undermine Murtha? Anything? Because frankly, I don't know yet. I am looking for more info on what happened. I'm not wholly enamored of Murtha or his bill anyway, so it's not going to hurt my feelings about Sestak if you're right - but your WaPo article does not support your interpretation. And it still has zero to do with your claim that Sestak was against a "date certain" - because by the time Murtha announced his proposal (Feb 15, according to your article), Sestak had already submitted his bill (Feb. 8).

by MH in PA on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 04:50:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

NDC List (none / 0)

Someone might have already posted this, but I don't feel like digging around to see. The NDC membership list has moved 3 times in the last 3 months, but it's currently at: http://www.house.gov/tauscher/ndc/Member ship_textrich.shtml

For the record, Sestak's not on it. He was on an earlier version, but the earlier version had a number of problems. I'm gonna xpost this comment to the other Sestak thread.

Dennis Kucinich, Progressive Democrat for President in 2008

by hoose on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:53:21 PM EST

Re: On Sestak (3.00 / 4)

Matt, this logic is really thin. First you think he's a blue dog, so you have him on a "list."

Then you and find out he's not a blue dog; but your source tells you something that means something special to you, so he stays on your list.

Then you admit that he's probably even further to the left than even the proposal, but he stays on your list.

So you pull something out from the past (which doesn't even seem to be substantial in the least as to your interpretation of the matter), and say... but anyway, I'm keeping him on the list.

The "list" has become meaningless-- nothing above a grudge-list from some anonymous source that deserves ridicule.

At this point, the only way this is interesting, and worth your continued posting on the matter, is if you out your faulty source here for some public crow.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:18:38 PM EST

Re: On Sestak (3.00 / 1)

Read the Washington Post article, Jerome, and please explain to me how it is that Sestak did not screw over Murtha.

Look, I'm pleased as punch that Sestak has a withdrawal plan, but the fact is that when it mattered he undercut the only plan that had a chance of real teeth. Maybe he didn't realize that. Maybe he was playing politics. Maybe he's come around. Or maybe he let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Regardless, I am sick of sycophants playing apologist to Democrats who make mistakes. They are people. They make mistakes. There is no problem pointing that out, there is a problem staying silent.

by Matt Stoller on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 09:09:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're moving the goal posts Matt (3.00 / 3)

Your original post said nothing about the Murtha plan. It said Sestak was opposing the bill because it included a "date certain" provision.

Now're you're saying he's on the list because he screwed Murtha's plan.

If you wanted to remove him from the first list and then bash him for damaging Murtha's plan that would be one thing.

Why don't you change the list to "Democrats needing extra pressure on the war" or something?

And why are the "idiot liberals" who are not voting for the plan exempt? I don't really give a shit what someone's motivation for not voting for it is. We need the votes for the best plan we've got now.

I preferred the Murtha plan and agree with you that Sestak's nuking of it was weak == if indeed he did.

But retroactively adding this beef against Sestak to justify your bad reporting on the first list is some wack shite.

by Texas Nate on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:32:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're moving the goal posts Matt (none / 0)

I preferred the Murtha plan and agree with you that Sestak's nuking of it was weak == if indeed he did.

You're just not discussing this in good faith, Nate. Acknowledge the article I linked to.

by Matt Stoller on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 11:38:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're moving the goal posts Matt (3.00 / 3)

You're getting more Rove-ian by the post Matt.

I don't care about the Post article Matt. I want you to admit your first post was bull.

If this had been the only post you'd written about Sestak, fine. It's a worthy point.

But using it to retroactively justify your previous post is the definition of bad faith argument.

by Texas Nate on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 12:50:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're moving the goal posts Matt (none / 0)

I got Sestak right, Nate. You don't believe that I actually did reporting on this. Fine. I get it.

But please, get a grip. Rove-ian. Come on.

by Matt Stoller on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 07:27:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're moving the goal posts Matt (3.00 / 4)

But retroactively adding this beef against Sestak to justify your bad reporting on the first list is some wack shite.

Bingo, but who the hell gave Matt such shitty info in the first place seems the only thing interesting at this point?

by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 01:39:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Sestak (3.00 / 2)

If you make a mistake, then own up to it. We've got enough baseless equivocation coming fromn D.C. without you adding to it.

by donjo on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:21:54 PM EST

Re: On Sestak (none / 0)

Read the post article.

by Matt Stoller on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 09:09:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Sestak (3.00 / 2)

There is no question that Sestak is one of the good one's working to get us out of Iraq- one way or the other. There are real warmongers and profiteers out there. So what is the point spreading smak about good reps like Joe Sestak?

by phthalo on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:25:55 PM EST

Re: On Sestak (none / 0)

I am not spreading smak, I am pointing out something that a source told me last week and that the Washington Post article verifies. Sestak messed this up. He didn't have to, he may not have even meant to. But he did.

Or am I the only one who actually cares when a Democrat stupidly steps on a credible antiwar message and damages our chances of ending the war (which weren't great to begin with)?

by Matt Stoller on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 09:11:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sestak having reservations about the Murtha bill (3.00 / 2)

is not a "right wing frame". Objectivity and ideology are not kind bedfellows and rarely overlap entirely. From a military management perspective is entirely possible, even likely, given the strict limitations set forth in the Murtha plan, that it would indeed impede the usual military command or operations process in some way unforeseen to the civilian blogger eye.

The "we're always perfect" mantle has been claimed by the Bush administration and frankly I'd hope we don't choose to adopt it. Joe Sestak should serve his constituents by offering what he believes to be a truly effective plan, not be browbeaten into paying lipservice to the activist bill du jour that he has real reservations about. We need to get out of Iraq, but doing it RIGHT is more important than rushing the process and creating a whole new slew of problems.

by OfficeOfLife on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 09:43:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Joe knows how to apologize (3.00 / 3)

Watching Joe's campaign, and volunteering frequently, afforded me several opportunities to see human frailty.
Joe and his team made a nmuber of mistakes- some bigger than others. He and staff never hid or disavowed errors. They were always the first to apologize. I saw this in the local press, and when my volunteer schedule was mixed up by a staff person.
Joe works harder than anyone I know, but I've never known him to claim perfection.

by quadmom on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 05:03:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Sestak (3.00 / 2)

The Post Article doesnt offer anything but a selected brief quotes probably taken out of a whole conversation. Saboteur is a strong charge to make based on innuendo from a Post reporter. There is no way to know from the Post article what he was actually saying. For all we know Sestak was saying that the Iraq War itself was the result of politicians interferring in military affairs.

by phthalo on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:50:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Sestak (3.00 / 2)

He didn't have to, he may not have even meant to. But he did.

A serious irony floats by...

by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 01:41:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I gave him some coin, just recieved a letter (3.00 / 1)

I am forever indebted for your support of me last year on an incredible journey. [...]

Therefore, I am asking if you would: (1) remain a part of my team that won my first election, and (2) consider maximizing now to win this second election early - whether $50 or the maiximum amount (for your information, in this new election, an individual may contribute a maximum of $4600 for the primary and general election combined).

Thank you - very much. I am honored by your support of me, and know what must be achieved.

Does he really know what must be achieved? His torpedoing of the Murtha plan was crappy, but we'll see if he redeems himself.

Bob Brigham Blog

by Bob Brigham on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:56:40 PM EST

Re: On Sestak (none / 0)

I'm much more upset at Hoyer, who seems to be the one who's insisting on this toothless resolution. Democrats who vote for the bill will be on my shit list.

by andgarden on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 09:29:41 PM EST

One Point (3.00 / 3)

My biggest problem with this post is the idea that if you don't support Murtha's particular plan you are somehow "against THE progressive policy position regarding Iraq." I personally thought Murtha's plan was a decent idea, but it's not the only way of approaching the issue. If Sestak didn't like that plan, for whatever reason, and instead preferred his own -- how exactly have you established that he's against "progressives?"

Really, all you've shown is that he apparently didn't support the plan YOU preferred. Now, if you want ot criticize him for that I think that's fair. But disagreeing with Matt Stoller does not = being a bad progressive the last time I checked.

by HSTruman on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 11:05:15 AM EST

Re: On Sestak (3.00 / 2)

ROFLMAO with this bit of projection: ...Also, I'm not against Sestak, I think he's great. He just screwed this one up, and has a chance to remedy his error.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 01:35:59 PM EST

Re: On Sestak (none / 0)

I was pretty clear in my first post that Sestak's position saddened me. I hope he votes correctly. And I still don't see any kind of rebuttal of the Washington Post article.

by Matt Stoller on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 05:02:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wapo article (3.00 / 2)

The article states that Murtha botched his legislative launch. Joe had problems with some aspects of his bill, and felt others could be slavaged.

Lots of other Congresspeople also had problems with details of Murtha's proposal.

So, perhaps Joe's great crime was to be quoted?

I read the article, Matt. I still don't see Joe as a saboueur. He did not kill Murtha's proposal singlehandedly.

by quadmom on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 05:14:03 PM EST

Re: On Sestak (none / 0)

sorry - salvaged, not slavaged...
at least I didn't say savaged....!

by quadmom on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 05:14:52 PM EST

Re: On Sestak (none / 0)

A bit wary does not mean ratify, and military operations are not the same thing as strategy.

What have we come to? Some Back to the 1984 future where a shade of difference of opinion turns you into a saboteur?

by Pace on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 06:46:44 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.