What Fresh Hell Is This?

July 27, 2009

Sestak and Specter in interactive session at Netroots Nation

From Suburban Guerrilla:
The Netroots Nation Pennsylvania Leadership Forum, scheduled for Friday morning at 11 a.m., will give you and your fellow attendees an opportunity to engage both leaders in substantive discussion about issues of the day.

Rep. Sestak and Sen. Specter will each participate in an interactive session moderated by Pennsylvania blogger Susie Madrak and The Nation’s Ari Melber. Much like our Presidential Leadership Forum back in 2007 and our Ask the Speaker session last July, each participant will be asked questions solicited online in advance, as well as from the audience.

Suburban Guerrilla's Susie Madrak taking advance questions here.


I will be attending Netroots Nation and I believe that David will too. Who else is going?


David Diano said...

Why should Sestak get equal billing/treatment as Specter, if Sestak refuses to declare?
Sestak's been milking the press with anticipated announcements for months for free publicity.
I think Netroots should require an official filing or statement of candidacy before allowing Sestak to take the stage with Specter.
BTW, Bill Kortz of Allegheny IS an announced Senate candidate, and has been since before Specter switched.
I would hope that Netroots properly elevates him above Sestak.

Heir to the Throne said...

I would go. But if I wanted to waste +200 dollars, I would throw it off a bridge.
That and I am guessing that Nutroots Nation will ban unauthorized videotaping.

BTW how can you afford to go to Nutroots Nation?

Left this question for Rep. Sestak and Sen. Specter.
What are your views on reducing gun violence through more gun control laws?
Since you both were against Senate Amdt. 1618, Senator Thune (R-SD)'s amendment to provide for uniform reciprocity for concealed weapon possession across the country and believe that "Legislation to regulate the use of firearms is and should remain primarily a state issue."
Will you now work towards repealing the following Federal firearms laws:
• National Firearms Act of 1934
• Gun Control Act of 1968
• The Hughes Amendment
• The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
Thanks to Joe Huffman for the question.

Anonymous said...

How does that logic work, htt?

If I don't agree with an amendment that would allow Virginia to decide that its residents should be allowed to carry concealed in Pittsburgh,......Then I should disagree with all Federal firearms law?

Heir to the Throne said...

Here is Specter's argument against the Thune amendment.

I know states need to prescribe their own rules for carrying a concealed deadly weapon. This is the essence of federalism.

So they are saying that a State has the right to decide its own Gun Laws.
So if the reasoning is Gun laws are a State issue and the Federal government has no right to interfere then why do they support existing current Federal gun laws?

BTW from Specter's statement, PA already allows 24 states to decide which of its residents should be allowed to carry concealed in Pittsburgh.

Pennsylvania already recognizes concealed carry permits from 24 other states where their laws are similar.”

Does your "logic" about another state deciding a issue for another state include gay Marriage?

EdHeath said...

Joe Huffman's/your question, HTTT, has a sort of logical fallacy in it. With national gun control, we have elected federal representatives who vote on these laws. We may not agree with the laws, there may be evidence the laws are ineffective, our elected representatives may have voted against the laws. But the point is, they did get the chance to vote on the law.

Similarly with state and local gun control laws, we have elected representatives that vote for these laws or ordinances or whatever.

But Thune’s amendment would mean that the elected representatives in any other state would have the ability to veto legislation passed in my state or local governmental district, in that their laws on carrying concealed firearms would apply in my state/locality no matter how minimal they are. So if Alabama passes a law that anyone who may own a gun may carry it concealed anywhere, then that would be the law in all 50 States, even though only Alabama voters elected the representatives who passed such a law.

I think what you want is a federal law concerning carrying concealed firearms.

Anonymous said...


Specter is talking about concealed carry laws. Those have always been under the authority of the states. The acts that you mention deal with the sale and possession of firearms, and, since they deal in interstate commerce, are Federal law. If Specter's position is inconsistent, I don't see it, and you certainly haven't shown it to me.

In your post, you mention that PA already has reciprocity with many states. Whether they recognize permits issued in another state, or don't, is up to the legislatures of the states. It seems to me that would strengthen Specter's position. Wouldn't you say?

Heir to the Throne said...

The acts that you mention deal with the sale and possession of firearms, and, since they deal in interstate commerce, are Federal law.
So you are saying Federal government has overriding authority for those laws because of Commerce Clause in the US Constitution?
But the Federal government does not have overriding authority for concealed carry of Firearms, because that is not mentioned in the US Constitution?
Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Anonymous said...


I told you that Sen. Specter's position was consistent with established law and precedent.

If you think that it is not, make your case.

Anonymous said...

@ David Diano:

If Bill Kortz wants the A-grade treatment, then he should work on becoming a viable candidate. I've never heard of him and Sestak has built a relationship with the Netroots over the last two cycles, so it's no surprise that he gets better treatment. We know him, we like him, many of us endorse him and hopes he makes it official very soon. Maybe that doesn't sound fair, but welcome to politics.

@ Heir:

Typical winger delusions. When you're not spending you're time fantasizing about non-existent attempts to take away your guns, do you pass the hours crying about the non-existent effort to bring back the Fairness Doctrine? Probably.

I think you typify the winger mindset. With the country facing far more pressing issues, you're worried about your guns. That no one wants to take way. Good for you.

I feel fairly safe in saying that most Americans are not too upset that John "Pretty Boy" Thune's amendment went down in defeat.

But this is just lame, conservative deflection from you - knowing that your party and ideology have no ideas when it comes to health care, the economy(are you one of these "The stimulus has failed" types - I hope so, because that means you're acknowledge that tax cuts don't work to fix the economy, since most of the stimulus thus far has been tax cuts, rebates and incentives - most money has not been spent), environment, foreign policy (you guys did a great job finishing those two wars you started), education, etc.

So you go back to an old, reliable(or so you think) winger wedge issue, that is not on anyone's political radar accept for people like you.

Well done, sir. And so predictable.

Conservative Mountaineer said...

jaywillie.. you said "..since most of the stimulus thus far has been tax cuts, rebates and incentives.."

Bullsh*t. And you know it. Read the $787B bill. Have you? Didn't think so. Are you in the same universe? Doubtful.

A large portion of the spending is smoke and mirrors and/or transferring expenditures from pre-approved projects to "stimulus projects" so as to allow States to "save" government jobs and welfare.

Good example - The new Robinson Twp/Parkway exchange. This project was approved looooongg before the Stimulas Act. Yet, signs now tout it as being "funded" by the Stimulas Act. Bullsh*t. Now Fast Eddie (a/k/a Governor X) can use funds for other boondoggles without any oversight or question. Money is fungible, you know. (That means money cannot really be traced or attributable to a specific item when lumped all together. I realize yunz probably didn't learn this in your Piksburg publik educashon classes or whatever liberal arts college you attended.)

EdHeath said...

CM, I have not read the stimulus bill. Would you care to put a link up? I can’t guarantee when I would read it (there are some issues at home), but I would like to take a stab at it.

That said, it is my understanding that roughly 40 percent of the stimulus bill was tax cuts. Apparently part of Obama’s attempt to generate bipartisan support.

As for the particular project you mention, the Robinson Twp/Parkway exchange, I assume you heard the repeated phrase “shovel ready” during the stimulus debate and afterward. What did you think that meant? I think it is fairly obvious that meant already approved projects that states were going to have trouble funding.

Now, I am not going to defend Pennsylvania’s state spending. We clearly have a massively dysfunctional state legislature, and I am not inclined to defend Rendell at all either. All I am saying is that spending money on a previously approved project sounds like it fits exactly in the concept of how the stimulus was supposed to work. In fact, apparently we are not doing enough of that since people are saying the stimulus hasn’t worked.

Personally I am a big fan of expectations in economic analysis. I assume that some businesses have already factored the effect of the stimulus into their future plans. Maybe that’s why the market has rebounded somewhat. Hopefully the stimulus will have an effect on the unemployment rate later in the year. Even though it will likely be only temporary, it would be nice for currently unemployed people to have a good Christmas.