Rep. Bill Kortz endorses Senator Specter today

[PADEMJES12]

After extensive discussions with both candidates, Rep. Bill Kortz, a US Senate candidate who recently withdrew is announcing his support for Sen. Arlen Specter today. This is great news for the Specter camp heading into State Committee, and somewhat of a blow for the Sestak camp as it proves solidification of the Mon Valley for Senator Specter.

That said, as the State Committee approaches and with Pat Toomey and Pat Meehan fundraising alot of money, a choice is becoming clearer for the Democrats as the map "gets smaller" for Rep. Sestak in his Senate challenge. He could stay in the race and weaken the democrats in November, helping Toomey and Meehan, or he could withdraw and run for pa-7 and have a significant advantage over Meehan and be a hero. The Tea Party (teabaggers) as i call them have targeted PA-7 for the 2010 cycle.

Kortz said in his endorsement: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10030/1032344-100.stm

"I felt, at the end of the day , that after the November election, Arlen Specter was the person who was in the best position to help the working class in Western Pennsylvania,'' Mr. Kortz said. He has the experience and he has he ear of the president.

Sestak withdrawing from the race could aid the Democrats in beginning to identify Toomey for the public. Toomey is obviously praying Sestak stays in so this does not happen. This past week, PA Democratic Party Chairman, TJ Rooney suggested that Sestak withdraw. Doing so unquestionably puts the Democrats in a much better position in both races.

[blue neen]

1. Arlen Specter voted to confirm Justices Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Kennedy, and Thomas.

These are the same 5 justices who voted to clear the way for corporations to spend as much money as they want on political campaigns.

[PADEMJES12]

2. Sen. Specter's judiciary confirmation votes

show a broad bi-partisan support of judges.

supported the confirmation of

O'Connor (1981); Rehnquist (1986);
Scalia (1986); Kennedy (1987);
Souter (1990); Thomas (1991);
Ginsburg (1993); Breyer (1994);
Roberts (2005); Alito (2006);
Sotomayor (2009)

Opposed the nomination of Bork (1987)

The votes show that Sen. Specter approaches judicial integrity and judicial philosophy
in a very bi-partisan manner.

[blue neen]

3. Those yes votes are for 3 nominations by Democrats and 8 by Republicans.

Sorry, that does not sound bipartisan to me.

I would in particular question Specter's judgment of judicial integrity and philosophy in the cases of Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts.

[PADEMJES12]

4. bipartisan....Specter yes and your opinion no.....

Specter's outlook towards Judicial philosphy is bi-partisan. Sonia Sotomayor.... to John Roberts. We dont tally
numbers. Judges arent a statistic. Your logic is defeated, because if it were so Specter would
have denied confirmation to liberal judges. In fact, Ted Kennedy cites Specter's vote
on page 407 of True Compass, the Biography of Ted Kennedy... against Bork. Kennedy gave Specter alot of credit for
making a courageous and influential vote against Bork's nomination.

I understand you are going to the easy talking point in reaction to the case, but
you do realize, you are conversely then questioning the outlook towards judicial philosophy of Ted Kennedy, Russ
Feingold, Kerb Kohl, and others in addition to Specter because they approved some of those same justices.
They weren't there with a pen and pad counting numbers.

[blue neen]

5. You are correct about this: Judges are not a statistic. How prophetic Senator Kennedy was:

(in his final speech before Clarence Thomas was confirmed:

"The question before the Senate today is not a referendum on the credibility of Judge Clarence Thomas or of Professor Anita Hill. The issue before us is the fate of the Supreme Court and the Constitution now and for decades to come. It is no secret that I oppose Judge Thomas’ nomination. The extreme views he expressed before his confirmation hearings demonstrate that he lacks a deep commitment to the fundamental Constitutional values at the core of our democracy.

It is hypocritical in the extreme for supporters of Judge Thomas to bitterly criticize the conduct of certain advocacy groups in the controversy over the charges by Professor Hill when it is clear that Judge Thomas was nominated precisely to advance the agenda of the right wing. I oppose any effort by this administration to pack the Supreme Court with justices who will turn back the clock on issues of vital importance for the future of our nation and for the kind of country we want America to be."

Arlen Specter had a choice to vote no on Clarence Thomas. He didn't.



I am having serious reservations about Arlen Specter, and I am airing them on this board. This is an important primary, and making a choice is difficult. There is no need to snark about "defeating logic" or "easy talking points".

If your purpose in this forum is to deliberately drive people away from Arlen Specter, then you may well succeed at that...I don't know.

edited for typo

[PADEMJES12]

6. no snark intended....

Me pointing out your contention that specter is not bi-partisan is an important point... the list above shows that Sen. Specter has approved a broad array of judges with different judicial philosophies. That is bi-partisan.

I am having serious reservations about Rep. Sestak staying in the race, and am also airing them on this board.

Nonetheless, here is a video of Rep. Bill Kortz endorsing specter for you blue neen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_IKyzFmP-k

We'll leave it up to other members on the bi-partisan issue and enjoy the video together :)

[T Wolf]

7. Spectre has been a POS since aiding in the Kennedy assassination cover-up. His treason continues

to this day.

I didn't vote for him when he was "officially" a puke and I won't when he runs with a fake "D" after his name.

[PADEMJES12]

8. TWOLF just made a spectre of himself again....

while our Specter, Arlen has been racking up union endorsements. Recently he received
UMWA, United Transportation, Steamfitters, Plumbers, District Council.