Arlen Specter on The Huffington Post

Sestak Ties Specter To Palin In Latest Attack

2009-11-23T15:39:03Z

In her short time on the public stage, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has proven to be an enormously polarizing figure both in her own runs for office and other Republican campaigns.

Now, she's being pulled into a Democratic primary as well.

On Monday, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Penn) released a web advertisement tying his opponent, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Penn), to the provocative former vice presidential candidate. Titled "Going Rogue's Missing Chapter," the spot accuses Specter of campaigning "hard" for Palin during the 2008 election, appearing with her at rallies in Pennsylvania, donating to the McCain campaign and telling the national media she had the potential to be president herself.

"That kind of loyalty deserves a place in the former Alaska Republican Governor's new bestseller," reads the accompanying description of the ad.

Set during the height of Palin's book-tour buzz, the spot is a cost-effective way of reminding Pennsylvania voters just where Specter stood politically one year ago. It will also provide a test of sorts for two key 2010 election questions: how effective will Specter be at whitewashing his Republican past and what role will Palin play in the upcoming campaigns -- including, in this case, a Democratic primary?

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Sealed With A Kiss: Dems Unite To Beat GOP Filibuster

2009-11-21T22:25:42Z

Harry Reid sealed the biggest legislative victory of his career Saturday night with a kiss. And then a hug.

Emotionally reserved doesn't begin to describe the Senate majority leader, a Democrat facing reelection in Nevada. Yet the man was beaming as the members of his caucus left the Senate floor, each one of them having given him their support, leaving him with exactly the 60 votes he needed to overcome a filibuster and move to an official floor debate on landmark health care reform legislation.

Three of those votes had been uncertain up until the last two days. Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) waited until floor speeches on Saturday to announce that they'd back the motion to proceed, which allows the bill to move a major step forward. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) broke what little suspense there was about his vote on Friday.

Reid approached Landrieu after the vote, smiling ear to ear. He locked arms with her, gripping her right elbow as she locked his right arm in return. After the two spoke, he grasped her hand with both of his, leaned over and laid a kiss on it.

From there, he trod up the floor's risers to find Lincoln in the back row where she'd been sitting with Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.). Reid smiled broadly and put his two hands on her shoulders, which is typically what counts as a hug from Harry Reid. Then he went all in, wrapping her in a full embrace.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) followed Reid's lead, smothering Lincoln with both arms. Lincoln blushed as she emerged from his embrace.

Reid left the floor to speak on the phone to Ted Kennedy's widow Vicki in the Democratic cloak room; she was crying and deeply moved, he later said. As Reid returned to the floor and headed for the exit to speak to reporters, he spied Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who had shepherded the reform bill through the health committee in Kennedy's absence. Reid laid a hug on him, too.

Nelson was not gifted with such affection, though he had only himself to blame: as soon as the vote ended, he headed for the GOP side to chat up arch-conservative Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.).

Reid's effusive display of gratitude followed a unusually somber, silent vote. Normally, senators approach the front desk to cast their vote and chat amongst themselves. This night, each voted from his or her seat as the chamber sat in dead, eerie silence.

"I mean, it was sort of like a European parliamentary summit or something -- but it was worth it," remarked Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), who also suggested it felt like "somebody was getting impeached."

As the roll was called, senators stood and announced either "aye" or "nay." It was too much for John McCain.

"Ooooh, this is soooo tense," the Arizona Republican could be heard stage-whispering.

Nelson was seated as the roll was called and unceremoniously declared his yes vote. Landrieu and Lincoln, however, were absent at the start, as was Sen. Bob Byrd (D-W.Va.), the 92-year-old who this week became the longest-serving senator in the history of the upper chamber.

His presence is never assured at votes,so his absence added an element of real suspense, McCain's mocking notwithstanding. A few minutes into the vote, Byrd was wheeled in and pointed to the sky, signaling an "aye." He pulled in next to Reid. Reid grasped Byrd's hand with both of his.

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), whose vote would have made the bill bipartisan just a few months ago, rose to his feet and strode over to Byrd to shake the former majority leader's hand.

Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.), whose route to the Senate took him through an Illinois impeachment hearing and a Senate ethics panel, stood to vote aye and, after retaking his seat, backhand slapped Joe Lieberman on his arm and flashed a wide grin. Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut, had voted yes as well, but is still threatening not to join a GOP filibuster on the final bill if it includes a public health insurance option.

Lieberman smiled and the two shook hands heartily. Just moments later, however, he rose from his chair and fled, finding more comfortable ground next to Lincoln. The two holdouts batted each others' arms and exchanged chuckles.

When the vote tally was called in the House exactly two weeks ago, the Democratic caucus erupted in celebration. The Senate is not that sort of place. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), as presiding officer, announced the final 60-39 vote and scattered, muted "yay"s rose from the Democratic side, as the victors seemed unsure what to do. Only Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) could be seen clapping; a few tourists in the gallery booed at the chamber.

(The one absentee senator was Republican George Voinovich of Ohio. Brown told reporters that his fellow state lawmaker had decided to attend a celebration of the thirtieth anniversary of his Cleveland mayoral election instead.)

Outside the chamber, the volume was turned up.

"It's an historic vote, a terrific vote, and one of the better moments since I've been in the Senate," Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) told HuffPost.

"We're rounding third and we're heading home," said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who now chairs the health committee.

"We can see the finish line now, but we're not there," Reid told reporters after the vote.

Just one Democrat could yet derail the effort.

Before the vote, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell begged for such a Democratic defection.

"All it takes is one vote. Just one," said the Kentucky Republican, turning to the left side of the chamber with an outstretched palm. "The simple math is this: If there were one Democrat, just one of our friends on the other side of the aisle, just one, who would say 'no' tonight, the voices of the American people would be heard... And then we could start over with a common-sense, step by step approach."

Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) also begged for a do-over: "I still hope we can start over and get to work on a bipartisan bill."

Lieberman is among several in the caucus who have threatened to doom the effort, and he sounded like Eeyore again Saturday night, calling the public option "an eleventh-hour addition to a debate that's gone on for decades. Nobody's ever talked about a public option before, not even in the presidential campaign last year."

From the liberal end, Burris repeated a threat made earlier: That if the public option is taken out, he's gone. "I won't vote for it," he said.

"You'll lose people on the left," confirmed Brown.

Reid, aware of the fine line he's walking, told reporters that Landrieu, Schumer and Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) are working on a compromise public option, perhaps something that 60 folks could support and save face.

"Now," said Kerry, "we just have to go forward and really legislate."

Arthur Delaney contributed to this report

Michael Smerconish: KSM: Ready For His Closeup?

2009-11-19T17:56:26Z

United States Senator Arlen Specter -- former chairman and current member of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- would like to see Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's federal court trial be televised.

"I'd be for that. Absolutely," the senator told me one day after questioning Attorney General Eric Holder about the decision to bring KSM to the Southern District of New York. "I would let the world see exactly what went on -- how calculating, how ruthless, how brutal they were, how devoid of any humanity. Contrasted with the decorum of federal court, where they are accorded rights, where they are treated with dignity."

At the outset of our conversation, Specter said that the attacks of September 11, 2001, were perpetrated on American soil where legal tradition prescribes that those criminals be prosecuted here. A worldwide audience will be reminded of the horrific details of those events, Specter said, while those "who are not involved one way or another who are watching what we do with Guantanamo, watching what we do in our trials, will say, "You've got to hand it to the Americans. They're giving them all those rights and they're willing to use their values and not to be intimidated and I like them.'"

Pennsylvania's longest serving U.S. senator knows the implications of what he said. The man cut his political teeth more than four decades ago as Philadelphia's hard charging district attorney -- a Republican during a watershed Democratic era. As a young lawyer he was tapped to work on the Warren Commission. No doubt he was thinking of the Nuremberg trials when he invoked the "American values" and the "great many safeguards" the country will extend "to these blaggards."

He's also well aware of the arguments that support the current prohibition of cameras in federal criminal trials. Though the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have recently approved legislation that would allow cameras in federal courtrooms, neither was brought up for a full vote.

Specter said his support for broadcasting the proceedings stems from a prosecutorial belief that trying KSM in a federal civilian court is the right decision. The evidence is sufficient, he told me, as will be the security measures taken.

The "dominant factor" in his mind will be the contrast between America and the "bloody, ruthless, murderous terrorists" seated in a court that has never acquitted an alleged terrorist.

"The war against terrorism is going to be won in the minds and hearts of men. It is a battle of democracy versus fundamentalism, and by using our regular judicial system, we are showing the world the superiority of our democratic principles and our values," he said.

What about the men and women defending those principles in Afghanistan and Iraq? Senator Specter told me we're "fortifying them" by instilling a "confidence that they're defending a system of values that they can be proud of."

"When they're fighting terrorists wherever they might be, those terrorists are not totally stupid. I think that there are some who may well be ashamed and who may well be persuaded by the superiority of the way we're handling" terror trials in domestic courtrooms.

Not that Specter believes that every suspected terrorist needs to be flown to the U.S. to make that point. To the contrary, He called the objections of those who envision American soldiers reading Miranda rights to Osama bin Laden unfounded. "If you have battlefield conduct, that preeminently qualifies for the commission. And where you have the blowing up of the ship in Yemen -- our Naval ship in Yemen -- there's been a decision to move ahead with the commission. So there is a good distinction which justifies what we're doing here and doesn't tie us down in future matters," he said.

Nor does he tolerate any confusion between his desire for due process with a refusal to mete punishment. Lest his critics think he has gone soft on terrorism, consider his response to concerns that KSM's trial could turn into a circus. "If he turns it into a spectacle, he can be shackled." Or removed from the courtroom and forced to watch on closed circuit TV. "We've got answers to all of those issues as a result of centuries of judicial procedure," he said.

Arlen Specter: We Should Not Send More Troops To Afghanistan

2009-11-19T16:18:32Z

On a blogger conference call this afternoon, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) announced he can't support a potential addition of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. "We ought not to add troops in Afghanistan," Specter said, adding that he questioned "even staying" in Afghanistan unless the administration demonstrates that continuing the war is "indispensable to our fight against al-Qaeda."

Gary Shapiro: Dear FCC, Please Don't Let Hollywood Break My TV

2009-11-12T09:47:23Z

Four years ago, the motion picture industry convinced the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing to explore what Hollywood studios claimed was rampant piracy of movies occurring through the so-called "analog hole." (For non-engineers, the "analog hole" is the movie industry's term for any content-playing device connected to a TV through the red, blue and green multi-use port on the back of millions of TV sets.) The industry's trade group, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), argued that a great harm was devouring the motion picture industry: that consumers would export movies through the analog output, stealing content and sending it out over the Internet.

By the end of the hearing, Committee leaders did not appear convinced that such analog connections on TV sets were in fact leading to piracy. In fact, as the transcript of the hearing reveals, Committee Chairman Arlen Specter challenged the head of the MPAA, Dan Glickman, to provide evidence in support of the alleged problem:

Chairman Specter. Mr. Glickman, lots of information about piracy from you and from the Department of Justice, but can you quantify any direct connection between piracy and the analog hole?

Mr. Glickman. We have just completed a major study called the LE case study which estimates that our companies lose about $6.1 billion a year in piracy, and as part of that--

Chairman Specter. OK. I mean from analog--I have only got 5 minutes.

Mr. Glickman. OK, $1 to $1.5 billion in what we call noncommercial copying of movies for family and friends. We believe a big part of that is due to the analog hole.

Chairman Specter. How do you arrive at the figure of $1.5 billion?

Mr. Glickman. The firm did worldwide and national piracy study focus groups. The methodology we considered to be quite good.

Chairman Specter. Well, let me ask you to supplement your answer with the specifics as to how you come to that conclusion.

Mr. Glickman. Sure, be glad to.

Chairman Specter. We would like to see the methodology because before we really tackle the problem, we want to know--before we really look for a solution, we would like to have a specification of the problem.

Mr. Glickman. We will get you that, Senator.

And what of that methodology that MPAA's Glickman said was "quite good"? It turns out it wasn't quite so good. Rather than provide the evidence requested by Congress, the MPAA was forced to confess that due to "human error" they "got the math wrong" and were unable to properly quantify piracy "losses" from analog TV connections. Forced to admit the much-ballyhooed study exaggerated the losses due to piracy, the MPAA repudiated its own analysis.

Now, having failed to make its case to the Senate, the MPAA is back - this time, before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) - asking permission to disable lawfully purchased HDTV-capable TVs. Using an obscure procedural mechanism, MPAA is asking the FCC for authority to use "selectable output control" (SOC) to shut off TVs that do not use the motion-picture industry's preferred digital connections. (Again for the non-engineers, SOC allows content providers to shut off the video stream to any TV that is receiving content over a non-favored connection, such as analog.)

The procedural vehicle may be different, but one thing remains the same - MPAA is still unable to show any evidence of piracy through analog outputs. That is because this type of piracy largely does not exist. Most movie piracy occurs before the studios release the movies on home video, much of it through the motion picture studios and their contractors - a fact that studios hide.

Indeed, some movie studio officials concede publicly that the biggest source of movie piracy is the old-fashioned video camera concealed by a movie patron under a coat. By the time a movie is being shown on cable TV, the file-sharing horse has left the barn. And so some forward-thinking studios, proving they don't agree with the industry's piracy argument, have begun releasing some films to video-on-demand even before DVD.

Given that at least some in Hollywood acknowledge their piracy argument makes no sense, why is the MPAA focusing its vast lobbying resources on this issue and trying to get the FCC to give them the right to shut off millions of TVs? The reason is that this is not about piracy, but about control of your TV. With the ability to turn off your TV at will, the studios gain veto power over TV design and the viewer's TV experience. If they are successful, viewers will only be able to watch movies when, where and how Hollywood says.

If the MPAA gets its way and the FCC grants its wish, then 25 million lawful TV viewers who rely on analog interfaces would be subject to being shut off by Hollywood. Millions of Americans could no longer be sure the technology they purchased in good faith would continue to be fully functional.

If the FCC grants Hollywood the power to turn off analog inputs soon they will return asking for permission to unilaterally disable other features and functions. This is bad for anyone thinking of buying a new product, or who bought something in the past thinking it would work a certain way.

As flimsy as Hollywood's case appears, don't underestimate the power of the MPAA. They are a Washington powerhouse, and they have retained a fleet of DC's top lobbyists to walk the halls of the Commission on this very issue.

This approach has paid off for MPAA in the past, but things may be different this time. The new FCC Chair has declared that this Commission's decisions would be guided by data, not which pleading industry had the most political heft.

Indeed, the FCC's new leader vowed to make this the most data-driven FCC in history. Now he faces his first test: a powerful, politically connected industry is asking for permission to inconvenience millions of consumers, without offering a shred of evidence that the result will reduce piracy.

We will soon learn whether the "new FCC" is a reality. We hope they understand that to take away the consumer's ability to shift lawfully acquired content based on the speculation and whims of the MPAA is bad policy. That is why every major consumer group is on record opposing it. That is why we oppose it.

Gary Shapiro is the president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association.

Susan J. Demas: How Sarah Palin and Tea Partiers Are Blowing Up the GOP

2009-11-09T13:20:31Z

Wingnuts of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but election ... after election ... after election.

That's the lesson from the far right's stinging defeat in yet another Republican congressional district this week. Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman harangued GOP Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava into dropping out -- hailed as a huge victory for Real Republicans -- and then the clueless teabagger-cum-carpetbagger went on to lose the upstate New York seat to a little-known Democrat.

Brilliant strategy.

But it's one we've seen from Republicans over and over again, thanks to the shadowy anti-tax group Club for Growth. Its first scalp was in Michigan -- moderate former U.S. Rep. Joe Schwarz (R-Battle Creek), who was ousted by preacher Tim Walberg in the 2006 primary.

For the extreme right, victory was sweet. And short-lived.

Walberg managed to do two years later what Republicans thought impossible when they carved out the 57-percent GOP district -- relinquish it to a Democrat. And not some Blue Dog, Dem-come-lately, but Mark Schauer, the pro-choice minority leader of the state Senate with a penchant for voting for tax hikes.

But that was just the beginning. Obsessed with hunting RINOs (Republicans in Name Only), CFG has bagged an impressive list, including U.S. Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.), U.S. Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md.), U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) and now Scozzafava.

There's just one problem. All of these seats are now held by Democrats, who thank their lucky stars that there are 40,000 gullible conservative ideologues willing to bankroll a group that's done almost as much to help their cause as silver-tongued President Obama.

So what is Club for Growth, really? Think of it as the spiritual godfather of the Tea Party movement -- they were baggin' before baggin' was cool (and sponsored by Fox News).

Officials claim ad nauseum, as President Chris Chocola did recently to The Atlantic, that there's no litmus test on social issues, but that seems laughable. It's worth noting that both he and former CFG Chief Pat Toomey (whose greatest accomplishment is turning Sen. Arlen Specter into a Democrat) were religious right darlings in Congress.

Like Hoffman and Walberg, Club-endorsed candidates almost unfailingly are anti-abortion hard-liners who will rant about the evils of gay marriage all day long if you ask. Besides CFG, their biggest backers are Right to Life, the Minuteman groups and gun-rights organizations who (coincidentally, of course) all launch strikingly similar attacks.

Hoffman went into Tuesday the odds-on favorite. Pundits were already crowning him the Tea Party King and a sign of impending doom for the Dems next year. Club for Growth officials puffed up their chests let it be known that they were a-comin' for GOP Gov. Charlie Crist down in Florida.

But a funny thing happened. Hoffman lost, thanks in no small part to Scozzafava's endorsement of Democrat Bill Owens (just as Schauer can thank Schwarz for his seat).

But you'd never know it from the alternate-reality universe of the extreme right. Erick Erickson of Redstate.com immediately declared Owens' win a "huge victory for conservatives."

Yes, there's nothing like the convoluted wisdom of someone who fails to realize Orwell was being ironic in "1984" with the slogan, "Ignorance is strength."

But no one can top the scatological acrobatics of Rush Limbaugh, who accused Scozzafava of "widespread bestiality," adding that she's "screwed every RINO in the country." Now that's quality programming for the family values set.

Of course, it was the rabid, pitchfork-waving horde of Rush, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Dick Armey and the once-respectable Tim Pawlenty that screwed the party here. Blather all you want that Scozzafava and Owens are one and the same, but those of us in the real world know that the average member of Congress will vote with his or her party at least 80 percent of time.

Ronald Reagan knew that. But then again, he was interested in winning and governing, not leading a conservative circle jerk.

Club for Growth is uncowed, ready for jihad against Crist, Carly Fiorina in the California Senate race and a host of other Republicans whom leaders deem insufficiently batty. Being fundamentally nihilistic, CFG disciples don't care if they lose 10 races, so long as they eventually win one.

Their intimidation campaign is working. Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele quickly warned the anemic GOP minority in Congress to "walk a little bit carefully" on votes. Translation: Vote for ideology, not your districts' interests or feel the purge, baby.

Although centrist Illinois U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk knows he'll never get the Club's blessing for Obama's old Senate seat, he's scrambling to lock down an early Palin endorsement to inoculate himself against right-wing venom. It's a curious twist, since when the Chicago Tribune asked him in '08 if the sassy former Wasilla mayor (population 6,700) was qualified to be a heartbeat from the presidency, Kirk sagely replied, "Quite frankly, I don't know."

This is a game moderates are bound to lose. The deck is stacked against them in primaries dominated by pro-lifers and Tea Partiers. They exercise outsize influence, not just because their obnoxiousness makes for good tee-vee, but because centrists inexplicably don't vote in primaries.

But reality sets in come the general election, when extremists are a minority -- and typically a small one at that. Suddenly, reasonable Republicans and independents come out of the woodwork. And to the spoils go the Democrats, who look comparatively sane.

There is a way for moderates to fight back, but it's a nuclear option. Why not let CFG puppets take GOP primaries and then run well-known moderates as independents in the general? They might not win, but they'd at least guarantee the Kool-Aid drinkers would go down.

Bet that would grab the party poobahs' attention. Kind of hard to ignore folks with their finger on the button.

Inhofe Shows Up To Climate Hearing, Refuses To Discuss GOP Position, Walks Out

2009-11-04T11:26:05Z

Just like the day before, only one Republican showed up for the Senate's climate change hearing Wednesday morning -- but not to debate.

Republicans are boycotting the Environment and Public Works Committee hearings, blocking action by exploiting a committee rule that at least two members of the minority have to be present before opening markup.

On Wednesday, ranking Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma made a brief appearance at the hearing before the committee began its consideration of roughly 80 Democratic amendments and zero from Republicans, who offered none. In a rare move, Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) extended the deadline for amendments from Monday to Tuesday night on behalf of the committee Republicans, but once it became clear they wanted an extension of five weeks, she stopped waiting.

Inhofe provided a statement, but unlike Ohio Sen. George Voinovich, the lone Republican at Tuesday's hearing, he declined to further discuss his position -- or even read his statement into the record.

Pressed to expand on the GOP position by Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Penn.), Inhofe snapped, "You know, I say to my good friend Sen. Specter, with whom I've served for 20 years, I don't have to answer that question. I have it in writing. That's exactly what we want. And so I'd -- rather than deviate from, that way people might get confused, it's right in front of you."

"And what I would like to see us do is to try to be specific as to what it is you'd like to have," Specter said.

Inhofe would not be moved. "Yes, well, that's the reason that I did put this in writing, I say to my good friend Sen. Specter," he said. "Because I was afraid there would be some who weren't here at that time who didn't know the past history, and so I wanted to make sure we had it down specifically in writing, so there could be no question as to what we want and what has happened in the past."

Specter tried one more time. "Well, could the senator from Oklahoma describe it in a general way?" he asked.

"No, it's right in front of you, you could read it if you like, If you'd like me to -- I'm not going to read it you the letter, because I'm going to have to be going," Inhofe said. "But it's very specific, it's right in front of you, and the EPA staff has agreed to this."

Shortly thereafter, Inhofe took off, leaving the Democrats to debate their amendments. "We're ready to go," Boxer said after he left.

WATCH:

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Mark Miller: Why the Silence on Extending Jobless Health Care Benefits?

2009-10-26T10:22:58Z

What's more important: a cost-of-living increase in Social Security benefits for retired people, or health insurance subsidies for the unemployed? The answer depends on your clout in Washington.

With the economy still stuck in a ditch, lawmakers are debating extensions to the stimulus legislation passed earlier this year. One provision that appears well on its way to passage is a one-time $250 Social Security payment to seniors, intended as a substitute for the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) that won't be coming in 2010 due to flat consumer prices. Meanwhile, a proposal to extend the federal subsidy of health insurance for jobless Americans appears to be stalled.

Don't get me wrong on the Social Security boost: senior-bashers who argue the payment is unwarranted are wrong. Still, it's instructive to see lawmakers scrambling to respond to angry -- but well-organized -- seniors, while the health insurance subsidy extension languishes.

The health care subsidy was one of the most useful provisions of the stimulus bill, but it didn't go far enough. The bill provides a 65 percent subsidy of COBRA benefits for people who lost their jobs between Sept. 1, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2009. COBRA allows you to continue on your former employer's health insurance plan for up to 18 months, but it's expensive; under normal circumstances, you pay 100 percent of the premium. So the subsidy provided an important boost to people who really need it while we wait for broader health insurance reform to get passed.

The subsidy is now expiring for many people who have depended on it, and the Obama Administration says it supports an extension as part of a broader set of steps aimed at bolstering the safety net for unemployed workers.

The cost of the original subsidy was pegged at about $25 billion, but no estimates on an extension have surfaced. Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pennsylvania), who is running for Arlen Specter's Senate seat, introduced a bill this week that would extend the benefits.

The one-time Social Security payment is a different story. Federal law calls for an automatic COLA tied to an average of the Consumer Price Index in the third quarter each year, and there's no inflation to speak of in the economy right now. Therefore, no COLA in 2010--the first such instance since automatic adjustments were enacted in 1975.

AARP and others have jumped on the issue, pointing out that the COLA formula doesn't reflect costs that disproportionately impact seniors, such as health care, energy and transportation. They're also grappling with the bad timing of falling home values and investment losses at a time when many need to tap those assets.

President Obama endorsed the $250 one-time payment, which the White House says would cost $13 billion. The payments haven't been added formally to legislation yet, but appear to have plenty of momentum and support.

Let's hope Sestak is able to move the COBRA extension forward, too.

Arlen Specter: I Unequivocally Stand For A Public Option (VIDEO)

2009-10-22T20:35:03Z

With support for a public health care option gaining momentum in the Senate, it has a seemingly ardent supporter in Senator Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), who recently became a Democrat.

Asked by MSNBC's Ed Schultz if he could "tell our audience tonight that you unequivocally stand for a public option," Specter replied, "I do." He then went on to discuss his re-election campaign, which has become very close.

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Send us tips! Write us at tv@huffingtonpost.com if you see any newsworthy or notable TV moments. Read more about our media monitoring project here and click here to join the Media Monitors team.

Sen. Arlen Specter: The Government Needs to Take the Reins In Job Creation

2009-10-21T09:04:28Z

It is time for the government to take more direct action to stem the tide of joblessness that is hampering the recovery and demolishing the hopes of millions of unemployed workers.

A tax credit to encourage employers to create new jobs or extend hours worked is just the kind of direct subsidy that worked so well with the cash-for-clunkers program. That was about cars. This is about jobs and people, an unquestionable priority. The moral imperative to act aggressively is clear.

One proposal would provide companies with a $4,000 credit, paid out over two years, for every employee hired. Another proposal by the Economic Policy Institute, a research group, would provide a two-year credit worth twice the first-year payroll tax for each new hire. This could amount to several thousand dollars, depending on the salary of the new employee.

Tax credits would add another weapon to the government's arsenal in its battle against joblessness. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is providing billions of dollars in direct grants for shovel-ready jobs to rebuild America's highways and bridges and to jumpstart efforts in alternative energies like wind and solar power.

Tax credits could encourage job creation in industries that do not now receive money under the economic stimulus.

Recent signs of recovery and those who say the recession is over are cold comfort for the millions who are still searching for work or have stopped looking. For many, their world is bound by paying the bills and raising families.

As New York Times columnist Bob Herbert wrote recently, "America needs jobs now, and if the economy on its own is incapable of putting people back to work - which appears to be the case - then the government needs to step in with aggressive job-creation efforts. "

Franklin Roosevelt knew what was at stake. The man who helped launch a massive public works program told a Depression-burdened nation in his first inaugural that "Our greatest primary task is to put people to work," a job he compared to the "emergency of a war."

We could all take a lesson from FDR.

Arlen Specter Chased By The Yes Men In "SurvivaBalls"

2009-10-20T15:50:58Z

The streets surrounding Capitol Hill were home to a strange sight Tuesday morning as a group of people, costumed in round canvas outfits, waddled after Democratic Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, demanding that he support the climate bill or provide the ridiculous outfits to his constituents. Clad in "SurvivaBalls," the chase group was actually part of the culture jamming activist troupe known as The Yes Men.

When asked about the spectacle, Senator Specter said, "I think it's fun...interesting."

This newest stunt comes on the heels of a prank yesterday at the Chamber of Commerce, and is part of a larger media campaign involving the (fake) SurvivaBall product, which bills itself as "a self-contained living system--truly, a gated community for one." Click here for a hilarious infomercial parody for the product.

The Yes Men previously touted the Survivaball in Pittsburgh last month during the G-20 Summit.

Below is the video of Senator Specter fleeing the Survivaballs, shot by Geoff Holtzman of Talk Radio News Service.

WATCH:

Sources: SEC Gearing Up For Insider-Trading Crackdown

2009-10-19T02:46:35Z

Federal investigators are gearing up to file charges against a wider array of insider-trading networks, some linked to the criminal case against billionaire hedge-fund manager Raj Rajaratnam that shook Wall Street last week, people familiar with the matter said.

Specter: GOP Is "A Party Of Obstructionism" (VIDEO)

2009-10-18T11:20:40Z

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) went off on his former party on Fox News Sunday morning. A Republican until April of this year, Specter said there's no working with the GOP.

"On the Republican side, it is no, no, no. A party of obstructionism," he said. "You have responsible Republicans who had been in the Senate like Howard Baker, Bob Dole, and Bill Frist who say Republicans ought to cooperate. Well, they're not cooperating."

Watch, via ThinkProgress:

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Specter, Sestak Race Tightens: Senator Barely Leads In Poll

2009-10-15T11:03:38Z

A new poll from Rasmussen Reports shows Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) barley leading his Democratic primary challenger, Rep. Joe Sestak, in one of the most highly anticipated races of the election season.

Rasmussen's survey of likely voters finds that Specter currently leads Sestak 46% to 42%, with a ±3% margin of error. The four-point margin shows that the highly-watched race is tightening: polls showed Specter ahead Sestak by 13 points in August, and by 19 points in June.

Despite Specter's campaign support from both President Obama and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D), Sestak continues to inch up in polls.

In general election match-ups, Rasmussen finds Specter behind Republican candidate former Rep. Pat Toomey, 40% to 45%. After serving as a Republican for 30 years, Specter switched political parties in April after polls found the senior Senator trailing Toomey by 21 points. Surveys show Sestak narrowly ahead of former representative Toomey, 38% to 37%.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Arlen Specter 2010: Ominous Signs For Specter's Re-Election Bid

2009-10-14T19:24:58Z

Although Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter leads his Democratic primary opponent and is running neck-and-neck in a general election matchup against Republican Pat Toomey.

Sestak Attacks Specter's Financial Ties To GOP In New Web Ad

2009-10-12T13:31:26Z

In a sign that the Pennsylvania Democratic primary is heating up, Rep. Joe Sestak put out the first in a series of web videos on Monday, attacking Sen. Arlen Specter for his financial ties to his old Republican colleagues.

The video, which is part of a project the Sestak campaign is calling "Arlen InSpecter," focuses on a mid-September fundraiser that Specter held with President Obama, the timing of which persuaded Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to end voting several hours early on a Friday.

"Specter used the money from Democrats," the script goes, "so he could continue to pay back his Republican donors."

After switching political parties, Specter has returned $225,000 to GOP donors who have demanded their money back.

The Sestak spot advances the charge that he and his staff have been making since they announced their primary bid: mainly, that Specter changed parties out of political opportunism and remains tied (financially if not ideologically) to his former GOP brethren. Still, Specter probably has no regrets over hosting that fundraiser with Obama. The five-term Pennsylvania senator pulled in a cool $2.5 million from the mid-September event, according to his campaign manager.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Joe The Nerd Ferraro: Rubber Chickens in Reading...

2009-10-08T11:55:31Z

The aging Senator leaned in on the dais, his right hand starting to show what arthritis can do. His digits flare downward slightly. It made me think about how uncomfortable it must be for a guy in his 80’s to be glad handing a crowd of a couple of hundred people.

His voice is still there enough to remind one of a figure who ran for president a couple of decades ago. He is clear with the standard stump speech and the obligatory one-liners.

Polite applause greeted the fact that he has visited Berks County close to 70 times during his Senate tenure. He talked about a long career in the senate where he chaired different committees and stopped the likes of Robert Bork. There were cheers to the projects put in place using the monies he had secured on the Senate floor.

If you haven’t guessed by now, I am talking about Senator Arlen Specter. I attended the Berks County Annual Dinner outside Reading, Pa. last Friday night as a guest of the Joe Sestak Campaign.

When the Senator switched parties earlier this year I held some hope and held my breath. The man comes with 29 years seniority in the Senate. Our state can’t get that very easily. It is not as though we can trade two congressmen, a mayor, and three future draft picks to Vermont to get a decent senator with seniority who can hit a curve ball. I was hoping when he changed his jersey we would have someone who cut a decent deal for himself that would benefit Pennsylvania in the long run. I expected to see a senator who would be dogged in his support of President Obama. We have our 60^th Senator, why mess with that?

I wasn’t crazy about Joe Sestak getting into this race. He is my congressman. He could have the job for life if he wanted it. As far as I am concerned this candidate is manna from heaven. Normally, when I look at a candidate I ask what has the person done with their life? Would you talk to them in the grocery store about small talk? Do they run a successful business? Are they involved in their community in a special way? What do the kids look like? Do the people around them look sane? Getting a personable 3 star admiral who ran a carrier fleet who likes Philly sports with every member of his large family pulling for him, well, it is hard to go wrong.

As I start to exhale I am realizing, personally, that Specter is not right for Pennsylvania at this time. When he talked about stopping Bork, I thought about Specter allowing Clarence Thomas entry to the bench. If this were a Republican Dinner instead of a Democratic Dinner, would Specter have congratulated himself on allowing Clarence Thomas to the seated on the Supreme Court bench instead of stating he blocked Bork?

It is still not lost on me that Bush v. Gore was a 5-4 decision. I once silently stood with my back to Sandra Day O’Connor in protest as she spoke at a July 4th awards ceremony at Independence Hall a few years ago for the same reason.

When the movie JFK came out I had to be pulled off the ceiling of the theater when the Kevin Costner character revealed it was Arlen Specter that came up with the single bullet theory. I was blown away not only by the theory itself, but by how long Specter has been around. I don’t know the greater amount of time that has passed; when Specter became a Republican or when the Eagles (NFL’s version of the Cubs) last won a championship?

When Specter came over, he could not figure out how to put a Democratic uniform on. In front of the president, he stated that he would not go along with all of Obama’s policies. He was going to pick and choose. This guy is supposed to be a master politician. The Dems in the Senate, showing rare backbone, revoked his seniority status. No chairmanships, no clout for Pa.

Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is another spot where I scratched my head. If you read the law nowhere, I mean NO WHERE, does the law revoke a secret ballot. It appends methods to allow workers to organize.

Specter played games with this issue. I called his office in the spring and asked directly about EFCA and was told the Senator was towing the GOP line. I think he has since come over and is supporting EFCA, but he damaged the President by playing politics with this. He has allowed the president’s opponents space to work with to attempt to bring down this president.

Obama showed a great deal of class through this. He came to a fundraiser to help Specter in Philly. All the party mucky-mucks were there. I understand they got a solid seven figure take on the night. I get why the President has to do this. I get why the party hierarchy has to do this. The next time we get someone to switch parties; they can’t let them hang out to dry. They don’t want the prospective Democrat to say, “Well, look what happened to Specter.”

I sat in the room with the folks from Berks and listened as Specter talked about the 2009 local races and how the Democratic Ticket there would do well and how he would do whatever he could to help. It was met with a very nice, respectful applause.

I am feeling like I am not that far from the rank and file Dems with their feet in the trenches. We will respect the man and his office. When Specter’s remarks turned to 2010 and asked for help in his races next year.

SILENCE

Sen. Arlen Specter: Supporting a Robust Public Option

2009-10-08T09:13:43Z

As debate continues on much needed health care reform, I urge my Senate colleagues to support a robust public option plan. It's important that the President's ideas on the public option be implemented to maintain a level playing field.

The public option will create competition in the marketplace and will help to provide affordable choices for American families. It will also allow us to greatly expand the number of Americans with health insurance, and that is an imperative.

When President Obama's call for health care reform came under right wing attack this summer, as millions saw in my well-publicized Health Care Town Hall meetings, I pushed back at the critics in order to set the record straight about the direction of health care reform.

As competing bills come up for votes in the Senate, here's the type of bill I'm for:

I'm for a bill that provides for universal coverage.

I'm for a bill which is deficit neutral.

I'm for a bill which has specific savings, such as annual examinations to have early detection of diseases.

I'm for a bill that does not deny coverage on the basis of preexisting conditions and bans annual and lifetime caps on coverage.

I'm for a bill which will bring mandatory sentences for Medicare and Medicaid fraud because it will be a deterrent as opposed to fines.

I'm for a bill which will further increase funding for the National Institutes of Health to prevent a lot of illnesses.

I'm for a bill that does not erect a massive bureaucracy between the doctor and the patient.

The bottom line is that Americans have a right to be healthy and stay healthy. As I've done throughout my career, I will continue to push for better health care for all Americans.

David Sirota: Why Is Obama Trying to Crush Primaries That Would Help Him Overcome His Legislative Obstacles?

2009-09-25T10:20:27Z

When I began writing my newspaper column this week, I thought I was going to write a piece on the hypocrisy inherent in President Obama using his power to try to crush primary challenges to Democratic incumbents. I find national politicians trying to pulverize local democracy nauseating -- and I find the efforts of Obama, himself a product of contested primaries, particularly hideous considering his own personal history.

However, by the time I was done, the column (which is out today), I realized the most significant news about Obama's democracy-crushing efforts in Pennsylvania, Colorado and New York is not what this says about his integrity (or lack thereof), but what it says about his political priorities.

As I point out in the column, strong Democratic primaries -- and more generally, the threat of strong Democratic primaries -- makes Democratic legislators feel more nervous about defying the president's Democratic agenda, for fear of losing a nomination fight. This has been proven over and over again. Most recently, it was proven when Sens. Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Michael Bennet (D-CO) strengthened their position on the public option almost immediately after primary challenges were announced against them. And most famously, this same dynamic was affirmed when Ned Lamont's Democratic primary victory over Joe Lieberman so scared every other Democratic incumbent that it changed the entire Democratic Party posture toward the Iraq War.

Based on this history, it's obvious that contested Democratic primaries would help President Obama tackle what clearly is his most challenging legislative obstacle in a Democratic Congress: No, not converting legislatively irrelevant Republicans, but instead, corralling recalcitrant Democrats.

And yet, the president is doing exactly the opposite -- using his power to try to crush those primaries instead of, for instance, simply staying out. Why?

That's a good question. It's clearly not because of any history that suggests contested primaries weaken eventual general-election nominees. Obama himself proves exactly the opposite -- his tough 2008 presidential primary clearly made him a stronger general-election candidate and the Democratic Party a stronger general-election apparatus. Likewise, as Sen. Jon Tester (D) openly acknowledges in The Uprising, the contested 2006 Montana primary made him a stronger candidate -- and had the party deferred to the D.C.-backed candidate in that primary, Democrats would almost certainly have lost the general election.

So, again, why is the White House trying to crush primaries? I'm not expecting him to back primary challengers...but why is he trying to crush them, instead of simply staying out of the races entirely? I mean, I get why incumbent Senators or House members don't want to face primaries - they just want an easy ride. The vexing question is why the president would try to help them crush primaries, when those primaries would help it pass its legislative agenda?

Maybe you just believe the president is a liar -- in other words, maybe you believe that the agenda he publicly endorses isn't really his actual agenda, and so him backing incumbents who make it harder to pass his public agenda is actually part of his secret plan to not pass that public agenda. Maybe that's part of it -- maybe (despite his public rhetoric to the contrary) the president really doesn't want a public option and therefore doesn't want to support a primary process that would help pass a public option. But as my column explains, I also think there are some other forces at work.

So read it here.

The column relies on grassroots support -- and because of that support, it is getting wider and wider circulation (a big thank you to all who have helped with that). So if you'd like to see my column regularly in your local paper, use this directory to find the contact info for your local editorial page editors. Get get in touch with them and point them to my Creators Syndicate site. Thanks, as always, for your ongoing readership and help contacting local editors. This column couldn't be what it is without your help.

Santorum 2012 Run Against "Injurious" Obama Considered

2009-09-15T13:39:39Z

Rick Santorum affirmed on an RNC conference call -- aimed at attacking Arlen Specter -- that he's considering a run for president in 2012 -- because, he said, the Obama presidency is "injurious to America."

Specter Tells AFL-CIO He Backs Employees' Choice

2009-09-15T13:16:02Z

PITTSBURGH — Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter took another step in his political transformation on Tuesday, telling hundreds of labor activists that he will support legislation that would make it easier to form unions.

In a speech to the AFL-CIO convention, Specter also boldly predicted a compromise version of the bill would be passed in Congress this year. The bill has been stalled for months under withering attack from business groups and a lack of support from several moderate Democrats.

Democratic Senators Summoned To White House

2009-09-10T15:09:37Z

ABC News has learned that President Obama will be meeting with 16 Democratic senators (and one "Independent Democrat") this afternoon at the White House.

Hal Donahue: End of Life Counseling? Had That in My Twenties

2009-08-30T11:54:43Z

The soles of my feet were blackened. The technician directed me to: "Carefully stand with your feet centered on the papers and don't move." After stepping off the papers, I asked why we had this exercise. The response was: "When a jet crashes, often the boots are all we can find." Such was my not so subtle introduction to the need for end of life planning. Our flight training class was a bit smaller the next day as some folks objected to harsh reality. At the ripe old age of our twenties, we all had wills and arrangements for the folks at home.

Next time mortality hit home hard was when my biopsy returned positive for cancer. My civilian doctor handled the whole unwelcome process very well. This is life threatening if allowed to proceed untreated. He left the alternative of survival open, at least for sometime.

I always envisioned death coming as a surprise, with my last words being something along the immortal lines of "OH! #%€£!" With my active, less than sedate life, the thought of dying slowly from some terminal nastiness like cancer was seldom considered. Well, the good doctor certainly changed those considerations.

Following research and discussion, I selected Walter Reed and their prostate cancer and research program. The outstanding staff, from reception to medical personnel, astonished me with their professionalism; more important, their team approach presented none of the competition I often heard exists between, say, surgery and radiology specialties. All the facts and risks were presented matter of factually and discussed as much as we, the patients, or more often patient, could actually tolerate. My talisman for all things medical, my wife, simply had her eyes watered. With 40 years nursing experience, often on the very leading edge of medicine, that very seldom happens. This is military medicine at its finest, government health care. Now it is being attacked for this very excellence.

Potential, and often actual, death and destruction are part of the military environment. Every military person is briefed during normal deployment on wills, survivor briefings, advanced directives, etc. We know the value of life and the cost of loss. By definition, military, veterans and their families are survivors. Amazingly, the reactionaries of the right are now attempting to use those very traits to not only attack treatment for veterans and the military (with few having served, most conservatives fail to realize they are two different systems) but to mislead civilians.

Last Sunday on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace repeatedly cropped quotes from a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) document to falsely suggest that the Obama administration is pressuring veterans to end their lives prematurely and to accuse Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs Tammy Duckworth of lying about it. Also, Senator Arlen Specter was ambushed on the same show. Wallace's absurd allegations, presented as facts, goaded the senator into saying he might call for a Senate hearing on the subject. When I spoke with Senator Specter on Thursday, he said he did have a few qualms concerning some wording in the document. The VA is always open to discussing senatorial concerns and addressing the needs of their constituents. I hope the senator reconsiders the absurdity of the allegations and abandons hearings which would draw even further attention to these ridiculous claims.

Why the attacks from the extreme right? The health care debate is the short answer. VA and military health care are held up as government health care systems that work; their very success is being condemned. Now, the merchants of fear march out Mr. Jim Towey whose nonprofit markets the "Five Wishes" document, for a price, and lobbies the Veterans Administration to use its document at great cost. Mr. Towey conveniently labels a competing document as "pro death" while simultaneously implying that the Veterans Administration is urging veterans to make end of life choices based upon expenses. This is unconscionable and the appearance of impropriety reflects exactly why the religious right is now held with such disdain. Media Matters explains it well:

Fox News, NRO, Limbaugh run with "death book" smears. Following false accusations that the Democrats' health care reform legislation would institute "death panels" for the elderly, former Bush official Jim Towey claimed in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that the Obama administration revived a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) booklet on advanced planning directives that would "steer vulnerable individuals to conclude for themselves that life is not worth living," calling the booklet a "death book." As with the death panel smear, conservative media -- particularly Fox News -- promoted Towey's false "death book" claim, ignoring facts that undermine Towey's rhetoric.

Hardly Christian, Towey sought to sow animosity and division, offering neither honest discussion nor helpful disagreement. Towey, former head of Bush's faith-based office, "misspoke." The VA lists just a few "misspoke"s:

"For example, Towey stated "the VA panel of experts that sought to update "Your Life, Your Choices" between 2007-2008 did not include any representatives of faith groups or disability rights advocates. In fact, the panel included 5 VA representatives and12 nationally recognized experts from outside of VA, representing diverse perspectives. Members included a priest, a rabbi, a renowned disability rights advocate, and the President of the organization that produces "Five Wishes," the alternative advance care planning document that Mr. Towey created and is now actively promoting."

Mr. Towey also stated, "under President Obama, the VA has now resuscitated "Your Life, Your Choices." In fact, VA's current plans to update and release the document were developed under the Bush administration and have not changed. The document is currently under revision. The updated version is due to be released in 2010.

Mr. Towey also seems critical of VA's policy requiring primary care providers to raise the topic of advance care planning with all patients. This is puzzling, because outside of VA, Federal law has required health care organizations to educate all patients about advance care planning since 1991. ..."

Senator Specter tried to give Wallace, FOX and the rest of the reactionaries respect. This is an error. I listened to Wallace's mugging of both Tammy Duckworth and Arlen Specter. Wallace and Towey deserve zero respect. Wallace should be condemned for the absurdity of his "death book" claims. Mr. Towey should be laughed off the national stage.

Republicans, conservatives and FOX are blatantly using and abusing veterans and the military to discredit proposed health care legislation. Veterans are not buying any of it. We faced death before and when we face it again, it will be on our terms. The VA and the military understand this; too bad Towey, Wallace, FOX and the rest of the reactionaries remain ignorant.

DoD Photo

Richard Allen Smith: Arlen Specter and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad VA "Death Book" Circus

2009-08-26T11:55:22Z

Poor Arlen Specter just keeps eating it on this ridiculous VA "death book" media circus. Feigned outrage is the right's favorite tool, but what Arlen Specter's opportunistic party switch has taught us is that you can take the Senator out of the Republican Party, but you can't take the predilection towards manufactured offense out of the Senator.

I get that people all across America, and especially in Washington, are currently involved in a contentious debate about universal health care. I also get that one side of the argument is using smear tactics and making things up to try to kill a bill which their bank-rollers don't want to see passed. But, really, I'm still astonished to see that same side of the debate attacking the Department of Veterans Affairs.

It's pretty transparent what is happening here. Proponents of a public option can point to two successful implementations of government health care: MediCare, and the VHA. Rather than supporting their point of view on its own merits (assuming it has any), opponents are trying to tear down the reputations of those services, which consistently get high marks from those who use them.

That's why we saw this yesterday:

If President Obama wants to better understand why America's discomfort with end-of-life discussions threatens to derail his health-care reform, he might begin with his own Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He will quickly discover how government bureaucrats are greasing the slippery slope that can start with cost containment but quickly become a systematic denial of care.

Last year, bureaucrats at the VA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care advocated a 52-page end-of-life planning document, "Your Life, Your Choices." It was first published in 1997 and later promoted as the VA's preferred living will throughout its vast network of hospitals and nursing homes. After the Bush White House took a look at how this document was treating complex health and moral issues, the VA suspended its use. Unfortunately, under President Obama, the VA has now resuscitated "Your Life, Your Choices."

Of course, as we've been covering at VetVoice.com, and first reported at Huffington, this is a bunch of garbage from a guy who was trying to push his own document on the VHA:

In light of the absolutely ridiculous argument Towey makes in his op-ed, I'd like to point out something Towey isn't telling you. In 1996, Towey founded an organization known as "Aging with Dignity" which still exists today. The following year, Aging with Dignity released a document titled "Five Wishes". Five wishes is the same type of document as the VA's "Your Life, Your Choices", only 41 pages shorter and not legally sound as a living will in 10 states.

That's right. All you need, according to Jim Towey, to make your end of life decisions is five questions and twelve pages, because wrestling over end of life shouldn't take up more than two minutes of your time. That is, if you are lucky enough to live in one of the 40 states in which it is acceptable. Here is something else that Jim Towey isn't telling you: He wants to kill
the "Your Life, Your Choices" pamphlet because he has been trying to sell his own "Five Questions" document to the VA for use in VHA medical centers.

Which leads me to the point of this post. Senator Arlen Specter has personally questioned
why VoteVets.org PAC endorsed his opponent in the Democratic primary, Admiral (Ret.) and Congressman Joe Sestak. This illustrates exactly why the organization made their
endorsement:

Sen. Arlen Specter on Sunday called for hearings to scrutinize a guide for veterans' end-of-life care which one former Bush official says sends a "hurry-up-and-die" message to injured troops. The guide, called "Your Life, Your Choices," was suspended under the Bush administration but has been revived under the current Department of Veterans
Affairs.

Of course, the "death book" garbage has been thoroughly debunked. But here is review from Media Matters on what the facts are and the lies that are being pushed:

Arlen didn't make matters any better for himself when he said in an interview yesterday that, while feigning outrage, firing off a letter to Secretary Shinseki and running his mouth on Sunday talk, he hasn't actually even seen the document in question:

Specter said in an interview yesterday that he had not read the booklet but was disturbed by what he had gleaned thus far. "I heard an inference that people might be inappropriately influenced to withhold medical treatment," he said.

Someone should tell Specter that huffing, puffing and feigning outrage over debunked manufactured scandals may be a tactic that plays well to his former party, but it doesn't help America's Veterans.

Rather than seeing the argument for what it is, a reactionary attempt to make a partisan argument against the effectiveness of a government agency that consistently receives high approval ratings from those it serves, Specter instead called for tax payer dollars and the time of Congress to be spent on hearings over a pamphlet which is still being reviewed, is not mandatory for use by VHA physicians, and is no where near the "hurry-up-and-die" document which its slanderers have purported it to be.

Enjoy the primary, Arlen.

Joe Sestak, Senate Candidate, Starts Taking On Democratic Leadership

2009-08-25T15:47:29Z

Hoping to gain further ground in the nation's most hotly-contested Democratic primary, Rep. Joe Sestak, (D-Penn.) has begun criticizing his own party's leadership in Congress.

The one-time Navy admiral has, over the past week, increasingly expressed disapproval with Democrats in the Senate for their failure to ensure that a public option for insurance coverage end up in the final health care bill.

"I want to see every Democratic senator, I want to see [Majority Leader] Senator [Harry] Reid fighting for the public health care plan option, not just [Sen.] Arlen Specter, (D-Penn)," Sestak told the Huffington Post during an interview at the Netroots Nation convention earlier this month.

A few days later, in an interview with MSNBC, Sestak offered a similar refrain. "[Democratic] senators should be down there, being led by the Majority Leader, Senator Reid, fighting for public health care plan option," he said, "because it's good for the pocketbook, it's good for the economy, and overall access for all is good for Americans."

Advisers say the airing of dissatisfaction with his own party's leadership is driven by a principled belief that more could be done to get a health care bill passed through Congress without being watered down beyond recognition. But there is also a political calculation at work. The move frames the congressman as more than simply another Democrat pining for a Senate seat. While his opponent, the incumbent Specter, remains fundamentally a moderate, Sestak establishes himself as the progressive alternative to the status quo.

Moreover, in calling out the Democratic higher-ups, Sestak has surprisingly little to lose and much to gain. The Democratic Party's campaign apparatuses -- from the White House to the Democratic Party of Pennsylvania -- have already announced that they are in Specter's corner, an alliance that Sestak says is indicative of what's wrong with politics.

"I didn't like the sense of the Democratic Party anointing someone. It was like, wait a moment," he said. "It's not [personal] at all. To me it is strange that someone who voted consistently with President Bush and someone who never used his seniority and leadership to fight for the policies Democrats believe in, was now being told to be our leader. I couldn't understand why we reached over to the GOP side to someone who's been there 40 years, who in four days decided that because he was losing a race and couldn't win a poll he should become a Democrat, that he would be our leader."

Faced with the hurdles that come with running against a party's favored candidate -- and a decades-long incumbent at that -- Sestak has felt increasingly liberated to push back against his party colleagues. In talking with the Huffington Post, the congressman drew contrasts between himself and fellow Democrats on more than just health care. He urged the President to appoint a commission of retired judges to launch an independent investigation into the authorization and use of torture during the Bush administration. He demanded stronger restrictions on executive pay. He insisted that he would not be "beholden" to any agreement made between the White House and the pharmaceutical industry regarding the negotiation of prescription drug prices and support for health care reform. And he leveled harsh words at Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for being overly meek in the face of the economic crisis.

"I feel we haven't been bold and aggressive enough," Sestak said. "I think he's a good man. I think he understands the issues, but when he came out at that first press conference about three weeks into [his tenure] and said 'look we're going to get a lot of input and we're going to listen and we're going to come back and tell you how we're going to do the intervention and buy mortgage backed securities.'.. A captain in the middle of a storm doesn't come out to his crew and say 'look I'm going to get your input, listen to you, and a couple weeks from now we'll decide how we're going to address the issue.' My gosh, if there was a moment that leadership was needed to say this is what we're going to do and we're going to fine tune as we go forward, that was it."

In the end, however, Sestak's harshest words were saved for his actual opponent. As he sees it, Specter has done nothing to earn the trust of Democratic voters, and his ability to work across the party aisle is tempered by the resentment that many Republicans have to him for making his party-affiliation switch.

"I'm not sure that the Republican side is exactly enamored with listening to Arlen Specter right now," said Sestak. "I don't think that when somebody leaves somebody in the midst of a battle the other side is sitting down on the other side willing to listen. I kind of find that a disingenuous argument."

Recent public opinion polls show that Sestak is gaining ground. Once trailing Specter by 45 percentage points among likely primary voters, the congressman now stands just 15 percentage points behind, according to an August 14 survey by Rasmussen. Perhaps more importantly, he's found a niche that resonates with the Democratic base -- the role of political outsider even with his own party in power.

"I also honestly don't believe that you should ever sacrifice good policy at the altar of bipartisanship," he said of the health care reform debate. "I believe that you should try to have the congregation pray together at the beginning but ultimately we need to be bold and aggressive for the good of Americans."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!