- Van Stone Youngphillypolitics.com Blooger’s Message To Dan Idiot by Author Van Stone, (610) 931-8810 vspfoundation@yahoo.com
- Last Chance to Help Move Health Care Reform
- This site has had enough Media courthouse stories, without any real ability to know if they are true.
- The District's South Philly High story unravels
- Meehan tries hard to make lemonade from lemons
- Re-published: Special Investigator Probes Possible MEDIA COURTHOUSE- Jehovah's Witnesses, Abuse Scandal
- no snitchin
- Taxi Workers, Nurses and Jobs: Big day in Philadelphia tomorrow
- So, got any plans for this weekend?
- Representative Chris Carney: Keep standing up for us, not the insurance companies
Specter Backed Water? Wow! Clean Water Restoration Act is key to eco-health
Submitted by BradyDale on Thu, 06/18/2009 - 3:00pm.
###
-30-
Below is a press release from my organization today on the passage of the Clean Water Restoration Act through committee. We've been working on this legislation for 7 years and it's exciting to see it finally move, if only through one committee. The best part is that Sen. Specter voted for it. We put in a lot of work to convince him to, and he did. Notably, Sen. Casey has been silent on the bill. We hope this convinces him to come out in favor of it, as thousands of voters have already personally asked him to.
Clean Water Action Applauds Senate Move to Protect America’s Waters
Clean Water Restoration Act is key to safeguarding water resources for millions of Americans
Today, Clean Water Action applauds passage of the Clean Water Restoration Act in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee by a vote of 12 – 7.
“This vote is a strong rejection of the Bush Administration’s “No Protection Policy” that threatened the drinking water sources for at least 110 million people,” said Clean Water Action President John DeCock.”
Beginning in early 2003, special interests pressured the Bush Administration to put policies in place that confused and delayed permits under the Clean Water Act and limited enforcement of the Act’s programs. These policies, coupled with misinterpretations of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, brought enforcement of the Clean Water Act to a virtual halt and left America’s water supplies and public health safeguards at risk.
Click "Read more" for more on this issue!
Clarifying which bodies of water are protected by the Clean Water Act is critical to protecting drinking water sources and to limiting destruction of wetlands and other waters that play a role in flood control and provide wildlife habitat. Failure to protect these water resources could result in over $30 billion of annual flood damages in the continental United States and the loss of $122 billion of fish and wildlife-recreation expenditures.
“We were pleased to see that Senator Specter supported the bill moving to the Senate floor, and we hope to see Senator Casey join in supporting the Clean Water Restoration Act soon. Most Pennsylvanians strongly support the historic protections that the Clean Water Act has provided – its time for Congress to make sure those protections are there for the next generation, “ stated Myron Arnowitt, PA State Director for Clean Water Action.
There is wide support for Congressional action to fix the Clean Water Act and restore the protections that were in place just six short years ago. Earlier this year, more than 160 scientists sent a letter to President Obama urging him to support the Clean Water Restoration Act, which would reaffirm in law the interdependence of all our waters – a concept widely recognized by scientists for decades.
“37 years ago, Congress understood the importance of protecting small streams and wetlands and passed the Clean Water Act to protect all of America's waters," said DeCock. It has been one of the most successful environmental laws in history. "Under the Bush Administration, courts and government agencies muddied the issue. Only Congress can fix this problem and it is important President Obama make clear his support for the Clean Water Restoration Act."
Clean Water Action is the nation's leading grassroots environmental campaign organization, with more than 1 million members nationwide. For over thirty years, Clean Water Action has been a leader in protecting America's waters, the public health and empowering people to take charge of their environmental future. www.cleanwateraction.org
I was at a meeting recently
where Marc joked that it took a couple of weeks but that Specter seems to finally be getting used to looking over his left shoulder rather than his right one. Perhaps that effect is kicking in.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Specter is moving leftward on health care and other issues
He announced last week he supported Schumer's version of the public health insurance plan. And he agreed to speak at the PA Town Hall in Washington which is at 1:30 after our national rally at 11:00 on the 25th. (If we can work out the technological kinks it will be webcast back to PA.) Joe Sestak will be speaking as well as will a few other members of Congress.
If it has lead him to be more supportive of progressive ideas on health care (and EFCA), I'm glad that Senator Specter became a Democrat. I'm also glad he didn't do it much earlier because I might not have such a big Health Care For America staff in PA if he had switched a year ago ;).
I also just got a tweet from Specter that says he is for repeal of don't ask, don't tell.
This is going to be an interesting year.
The lesson is clear: keep
The lesson is clear: keep calling Specter's offices + putting on the pressure to vote like a Dem, not a DINO.
Philadelphia (215) 597-7200
Washington (202) 224-4254
-Z
for now
specter is doing this because he wants votes in 2010. do not trust a wolf in sheep's clothing.
regardless of specter's pandering to voters, and that is EXACTLY what this is, he has promised to be an unreliable vote for the democrats. indeed, i suspect the only reason he has said anything about DADT is to neutralize Sestak's stance, which has been longstanding and consistent.
One would be naive to think that if he wins re-election, Specter will continue to move leftward.
THIS is the real Specter: http://brendancalling.com/2009/06/19/a-reminder-arlen-specter-democrat/
while it is nice to see him supporting good things for once in his craven miserable career, no one should believe this is permanent or driven by conscience. Leopards do not change their spots.
Depends on how narrowly he wins the primary
If he comes out of it victorious but with a healthy sense of being vulnerable from the left that will continue to influence his decision making process going into the future. Its important for Specter to face a real primary, even if he wins, because its a reminder of a potnetial vulnerability. I think that is probably far more of reason to push for a real primary than the chance he might lose.
Incumbency is a terrible advantage in the Senate.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
i disagree 100%
"If he comes out of it victorious but with a healthy sense of being vulnerable from the left that will continue to influence his decision making process going into the future."
it absolutely will not influence his decision making. First of all, even if he wins, he's going to be way too old to consider another run in another 6 years: he'll be 86, and he's already in poor health. it;s his last gasp, and arlen;'s biggest constituency is arlen.
second, look at chris carney, who got a LOT of help from progressives to win the seat from Don "the strangler" sherwood.
and when he won that seat, he admitted he'd lied about a lot of his views: http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2008/08/chris-carney-boasts-that-hes...
lefties like me funded an anti-carney campaign in the aftermath, but he handily won re-election anyway.
So i disagree with your premise.
Well if you are right
the only reason to support another candidate is if you think they have a very strong opportunity to win and are dramatically different. I think a lot of us want a primary because a rigorous primary will hopefully improve Specter and, for that matter, improve Sestak. I think you are risking being the Debbie Downer here, Brendan, which is welcome relief from me being the anti-casino one.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Sestak's run purchases Specter's left swing thru the primary
Afterward, those wishing to predict Specter's voting are instructed to toss coins and purchase a copy of the I Ching.
Or stick a wet finger in the air.
Bet I know which one Brendan uses.
clarify sam
not sure if you're busting my chops or agreeing with me.
i'd like to clarify something myself: if a sestak run DOES force specter to start making some decent votes to win democratic voters, that is definitely a Good Thing (even if the senator himself is not).
as for predicting specter's votes, it's easy: it's almost always the opposite of what he says he's going to do.
You guys may be right
but I still think concrete campaign promises from either candidate are at least something to swing at them later on when they start to drift off course. Maybe I'm just thinking too much of those who say either "but Sestak is not Dennis Kucinich" on the one hand (and I've already met a few) or who fret perhaps too much about a "weakened" Specter losing to Satanic Pat Toomey in the general (ditto).
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Takes all kinds
1. Those who frown because Sestak can't wiggle his ears like Dennis Kucinich or walk on water like Chuck Pennacchio
(Don't worry: there's only 12 of them).
2. Those who point out that Pat Toomey smells of brimstone, casts no shadow, and is currently only 7 points behind Specter statewide
(They may be onto something. May.)
3. Those who doubt a victorious Specter (D-PA) will be much different from 28 years of Specter (R-PA)
(A lot of us.)
What's to do?
Back Sestak now, I say, even if he hides no pots of gold and can promise no eternal salvation.
No one said this is going to be easy. Or predictable. Or even fun.
No pots of gold
but I did for the sake of comparison recently skim Specter's various ratings by interest groups on Project Vote Smart:
NARAL - all over the map but mostly quite low ranging from 0% -to the low 20's but shooting dramatically up to 100% in 2008
from the ultra-con John Birch-er's he got 64% in 2004 and 40% in 2007
from American Conservative Union 42% in 2008
from the ACLU 43% 2007-2008
from the liberal ADA 60% in 2007, 30% in 2006
Sestak also on Project Vote Smart:
NARAL - consistantly 100%
John Birch-ers - 13% 2007-2008
Amercian Conservative Union 0% in 2008
from ACLU - 91% 2007-2008
from ADA - 95% 2007
I feel like Sestak is "better" than many people realize, even if he has no "pots of gold".
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
my main problem with sestak
let me be clear that I like sestak's record in general. I also know progressives in delaware county who say he is educable on issues and that he really listens to people, even those who strenuously disagree with him.
i also like that he has been consistent on DADT, on labor (EFCA), and if not perfect on health care, he's movable. My major gripe with sestak is his support for the FISA bill, which not only legalized the previously illegal wiretapping, but gave a get-outta-jail-free card to veriozn.
but as for specter?
first off, I don't trust or like NARAL. They exist primarily to self-perpetuate, and I stopped giving them money long ago. When ALito and Roberts came up for confirmation, NARAL (at least on the national level) did NOTHING. And then they later sent out emails telling everyone to send a TY to Rape Gurney Joe Lieberman for voting against confirmation (when he had voted for cloture, which is what sent the nomination to the floor where confirnmatuion was inevitable). So when they give specter a good rating I take NARAL's fecklessness into account. you can read more about NARAL here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/naral-and-planned-parenth_b_1...
and here: http://firedoglake.com/2007/04/18/dont-reward-failure-by-giving-money-to...
As for taking the Debbie Downer role... well, over the past few years (weeks in some cases), I've seen the democrats support and enact gross violations of my constitutional rights, I've watched them pass a war supplemental just this week, after promising no more funny business on war funding, they embedded a $100 billion loan to the IMF to bail out europe IN the supplemental (stifiling debate on yet another bailout), the president is betraying gay people on DOMA and DADT. Oh, and the Democrats in the senate are trying to kill health care. And EFCA is certainly in doubt too, if not already dead.
so no, i don't have much faith that either specter or sestak will live up to campaign promises, although specter is by far the worse actor in that respect. Sestak has actually been fairly consistent, and as you say sean, better than many people realize.
Sestak votes well on key votes
and is, as Brendan notes, better than many people realize. And educable. And smart.
As the highest ranking military officer in American history to serve in the House, he has the kind of bio that really helps in the elect-ability department too.
If the dude raises money, he could -- emphasis on could, not will -- win. I'd add that if he had a primary victory and a statewide tv campaign under his belt, I believe he'd make a very strong candidate against Toomey. Big if, though.
So while I don't share Brendan's problems with NARAL, I think we agree that imperfect as he may be, Sestak is a much better bet to vote with us after the primary than is Specter.
And is thus likely worth a vote -- let's get him with us on a few more issues, such as a public option in health care, before we commit -- if we can get him to the finish line.
The prospects for health care reform
A lot of your charm comes in overstatement, Brendan, but if you go too far, you can kill a progressive movement with pessimissm.
We are in a huge fight in the Senate. The Finance Committee is not where we want it to be and there some Ds--Lieberman, Hagen, Lincoln and a few others--who are waffling on or opposing the public option.
On the other hand, the HELP Committee is much closer to what we want.
And the draft House bill that came out yesterday was excellent.
Keep in mind that we need to get something out of the Senate with 60 vote and get it into conference with what is likely to be a good House bill.
And then, we can push for a strong conference committee bill since, after October 15, we only need 51 votes in the Senate.
It's a war and there are going to be good and bad days. But right now, I think we are way ahead and if we keep the pressure as the Insurance companies ramp up their counter attack on we are going to win.
Agreed.
Good summer poster over at donkeylicious:
http://www.donkeylicious.com/2009/06/my-thoughts-on-health-care-reform.h...
I'm more optimistic than that
Without revealing information given to me in confidence, I can say that a fair number of Blue Dogs will ultimately vote for a House bill with a strong public plan. And, for reasons I suggested, the final bill is likely to be closer to the House than the Seanate bill.
Provided, of course, that we keep the heat on.
So if you haven't joined the HCAN campaign yet, do so at http://www.healthcareforamericanow.org.
President + House = Stronger than the Senate?
Here's hoping a Democratic president and a Democratic House, both in favor of creating a real public plan, can twist enough arms to get the requisite number of Senators onboard.
Get ready for a long hot summer.
agreed on House, not on HELP
it's my understanding that the HELP draft didn't include any kidn fo public option, but I have also read a lot of good stuff about the House Bill.
I am, admittedly, deeply pessimistic about health care reform. And I honestly do not think we're getting anything. I would happy to be surprised, but I will believe it when I see it.
and frankly, a "public option" is not what i want anyway: i want single payer healthcare. and that was off the table before the fight even began.
I think we'll get something
Obama picks his fights. With more clout, he hits harder than Bill Clinton ever did.
The HELP draft had placeholders
for the public option and for shared responsibility, which is the new Washington jargon for pay or play for businesses.
The committee put forward a few options. In each case there is one we like and which Kennedy and Dodd support. But the Ds are not united yet. The big problem is that with Kennedy not there, we need every Democratic vote to get out of committee and Hagen of NC is a bit of a problem. We're working on that.
I don't want to get into a debate about single payer here but it's not on the table for two reasons:
1. It is a horrible idea from a strategic point of view. Putting it forward would doom health care reform. You notice how Obama has totally grabbed onto the HCAN language: if you like the private insurance you have, you can keep it? That's because that language innoculates us from the still potent message that killed the Clinton plan. We don't want to see adds that say Obama is going to take your insurance you have and like (94% of voters have insurance and 80% like it) and make you get health insurance from the government that did such a good job at Katrina relief.
2. And single payer isn't necessary to good health care reform. The single payer people say it can save $300 billion in administrative costs. But
a) we can save about 2/3rds without single payer.
And b) that'a a one time saving. At the rate health care costs have been going up, we would lose that much in a few years unless we make real changes in health care delivery, that is, : how we provide health care and the incentives we provide doctors and patients. That's where the real costs saving are and a hybrid public / private approach can get those savings as well or, arguably better than single payer.
And frankly, a lot of the ways in which single payer supporters defend their plans suggest that they dont' really understand or want those new delivery systems. When they say that under single payer you will be able to get the health your doctor orders for you with just your card and without any paper work or review by health insurance company, what are they talking about? Single payer is supported by a lot of doctors who want to go back to how medicine was practiced in 1955 when no one looked over their shoulder and they could do they want. That is the problem, not the solution.
PS Sometime you have to believe it
before you see it, if you want it happen.
"overstatement"???
and all along I thought my charm was my boyish good looks, my sunny disposition, and my steadfast refusal to engage in hyperbole.
FWIW, brendan, more of the IMF $ goes to the developing world
than Europe from what I have read and besides, and as much as IMF policy in the developing world is a both a blessing and a curse, generally those dollars do more to prevent future overseas military commitments a thousand multi-million dollar missle defense systems stacked on each other in perfect inverse pyramid formation. The IMF "fluff" made more sense connected to military spending than the "save my local car dealership" stuff did. I would say IMF money tagged onto the military suplemental actualy makes a lot of sense in a peversely honest kind of way.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
ya know..
ya know sean, you may be right.
but ya know what? I don't care. If we're gonna do another massive bailout like that, we should have considered it separately and had and honest discussion about it.
so whatever sense it might make (and I am doubtful about that anyway and too tired to do the research since it's fait accompli) is undermined by the bullsh!ttery surrounding it.
Agreeing with you, and yes
Specter's or any good vote in critical years when the Democrats may actually be CREATING something on their own, rather than trying to make some horrible thing that the Republicans created less horrible, is indeed a good thing.
Wondering why...
I am wondering why the Bush Administration allowed policies that would confuse and delay the Clean Water Act. It is fantastic to see that Congress may restore these water protections, which is completely necessary for the future generations in our country. Casino en Ligne