Talk:Joe Sestak/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Initial section

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm am not responsible for the links below... 68.39.174.238 06:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Stuff moved from article pending citation

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Where did the following stuff come from? It can't go back into the article without sources. Hornblende 16:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sestak is reportedly a moderate on domestic issues.

"I feel that the security of our nation and of our children is being eroded," Sestak said. "I'm not talking just about our defense security...the tragic misadventure in Iraq... but also about our economy, our tax...and spending policies, our policies on health and education... I feel Curt Weldon has been voting the wrong way on all." National Defense and Homeland Security

The United States is to be second to none in its ability to wage and win our nation’s wars…and therefore deter them. But we are in a new era, one where terrorism can strike suddenly from a lone individual here at home, or at our interests abroad. We can no longer look at our security as “wanting our wars fought overseas”…we must view this entire globe, including our homeland, as one security area. We must “know” what the adversary/terrorist will do – not what he has done – and this means a shift of resources into intelligence, as well as space satellites and capabilities on the world-wide network, that legally can give us advance indications of a terrorist or other attack in order to prevent it;

Forging a true “national security union” among the balkanized federal agencies that fail to work together in concert because authority is diluted and there is limited recognition that the first threat are terrorist individuals not nations.

Environment We are stewards of this earth for our children and children’s children… but we are not protecting this gift for them. Above all, we must address the global threat that human-generated climate change poses; it is a major disaster for the world, where ecological subsystems’ damage may already be irreversible. I therefore support greenhouse limits. I also want the federal government to champion higher standards for clean air and clean water; this should not be left to individual states which would result in less comprehensive standards.

Choice Regardless of my religious beliefs, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe vs. Wade that – as a nation – the United States should offer every woman the right to have a legal and safe abortion, if that is her choice. I support that decision. Stem Cell Research Stem cell research may mean that there is a potential cure for over 3,000 U.S. citizens who die each day from diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, heart disease, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, and stroke, as well as serving as replacements for cells or tissues obliterated by radiation and chemotherapy in cancer patients. I support federal government promotion and funding of this research.

Healthcare Our collective responsibility is to ensure a health care system which covers all of us, uses competition and performance standards to discipline costs, shares responsibility for paying health insurance between individuals and society, and which rewards care givers for the quality, not quantity, of care. Our nation’s health security is critical for the productivity, cost avoidance, and strength of citizenship needed to ensure America’s future national security.

The Medicare Drug Benefit recently enacted by Congress is exactly the wrong approach to this issue. It is complex and its execution is unprepared and unfair. It caps benefits at $2,250 and does not allow senior supplemental insurance to count toward “out-of-pocket” expenses until a “catastrophic” drug level of $5,100 is reached. This provides firms a legitimate reason to stop the insurance of their former retirees since it cannot be used to pay expenses! This must be changed. Above all, we need a more comprehensive approach to health security to address our health erosion exemplified above.

National Defense and Homeland Security

The United States is to be second to none in its ability to wage and win our nation’s wars…and therefore deter them. But we are in a new era, one where terrorism can strike suddenly from a lone individual here at home, or at our interests abroad. We can no longer look at our security as “wanting our wars fought overseas”…we must view this entire globe, including our homeland, as one security area – and our policies and resources must change to address this new security situation. Such wars will not be won simply by more ships, planes and tanks that dominate the seas, land or sky.

Environment

We are stewards of this earth for our children and children’s children… but we are not protecting this gift for them. Above all, we must address the global threat that human-generated climate change poses; it is a major disaster for the world, where ecological subsystems’ damage may already be irreversible. I therefore support greenhouse limits. I also want the federal government to champion higher standards for clean air and clean water; this should not be left to individual states which would result in less comprehensive standards. Choice

Regardless of my religious beliefs, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe vs. Wade that – as a nation – the United States should offer every woman the right to have a legal and safe abortion, if that is her choice. I support that decision. Stem Cell Research

Stem cell research may mean that there is a potential cure for over 3,000 U.S. citizens who die each day from diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, heart disease, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, and stroke, as well as serving as replacements for cells or tissues obliterated by radiation and chemotherapy in cancer patients. I support federal government promotion and funding of this research.

More stuff that ought to be moved

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks to whoever moved all the above PR stuff from the article. But we still have a bunch of negative PR stuff in there. There are almost zero citations in the article, which is a must when there are sentences like: "According to an anonymous former U.S. Navy officer...." Almost half the article needs to be moved into the talk page here, unless there are reputable sources, etc. -- Sholom 17:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

References

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I fact checked his basic Navy biography with the one held by the U.S. Naval Historical Center and added references. The issue about command climate is not dealt with in the official bio. In my opinion, it is all hearsay coming from journalistic sources and should be removed.Johnfmh 22:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but some of the unquoted parts of the article are cut-and-pasted from at least one news article, and probably more. This article sounds either like an expert who had done her research on him wrote it, or it was cut and pasted, and sad to say it seems like the latter. The offensive parts as such should also be removed, I think. Rhetth 12:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

First, cut-and-paste of one or two individual sentences from a news article is considered fair use. Second, I compared the news article you mentioned to the Wikipedia article; the styles seem completely different and it wasn't at all obvious to me, without laboriously working through both articles, that anything more than a phrase or two has been cut-and-pasted. Please be more specific, here. Third, Wikipedia has no policy that forbids "offensive" information. Negative, unsourced information, on the other hand, can be removed immediately per WP:BLP. Given the intensive scrutiny this article got during the campaign last year, I'm skeptical that in fact there is negative, unsourced information; I encourage you to (again) be specific, here, about what you think might violate Wikipedia policy. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Battenberg Cup

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

According to Battenberg Cup, USS John Roberts never won the award. Is this true? Pedrora 18:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

First off, note that Sestak's former ship is the USS Samuel B. Roberts. But nevertheless, it's an interesting question. The Sestak article (which is echoed by this National Defense University bio of Sestak, and Sestak's own campaign website) says that the Roberts was named the best surface ship in the 1993 contest. This is not necessarily inconsistent with the Battenberg Cup article, which says the aircraft carrier Roosevelt won in 1993. This is because the Navy excludes carriers from its usual definition of surface ships, which include frigates, destroyers, cruisers, and the like. But that suggests that the Navy designated the Roberts a runner-up in the Battenberg contest, not an out-and-out winner. Therefore, the sentence as stands would be easily misinterpreted, as by Pedrora, as saying that Roberts won the 1993 Cup. So we should fix it -- if anyone can prove my hypothesis correct with evidence... PRRfan 19:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

CAIR controversy

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I added a section on the congressman's truly ill-advised speech before the Islamic extremist group CAIR -- it's is a really nasty group, a spinoff of Hamas (the one with the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" in its charter). I didn't overplay it, but I couldn't find a response from him. 68.5.64.178 17:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason you couldn't find a response from Sestak to this "controversy" is because Joe Kaufman is a fringe extremist, not a mainstream political figure. His McCarthy-esque rants don't merit a response. Dozens of congressmen and government officials, Republican and Democrat, have spoken at or attended CAIR events. 11 November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.23.184 (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

CAIR "controversy"

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I do not believe its fair to have a controversy and criticism section when the criticism comes from a fringe republican Jewish organization. Precisely when dozens of other congressmen/women attend CAIR's annual functions. If any inbred yokel is able to impunge a member of congress for merely making a speech at one of the largest and mainstream Muslim lobby grous in the country, then its a sad state for Wikipedia. This genius even made mention that the congressman has an Arab American staffer - Scandal! Unsigned, 18 May 2007

Agreed. "Americans Against Hate" is a small, fringe group whose leader Joe Kaufman has ties to extremists. If Kaufman is the source of this "criticism", this section should be permanently deleted. 11 November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.23.184 (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the appropriate way to deal with a fact that was once true but is no longer? Ms. Zaimann did at the time the cited article was written work for the Congressman, however, she no longer does. I cannot find an internet source to cite online.Rfmatthews 17:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

you can just remove it. you dont need a source to remove something or delete something. WIkipedia should be purged of lies Smith Jones 21:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Rank

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Rep. Sestak retired as a Rear Admiral and his rank in the infobox should only include rear admiral. The body of the article can explain that he was once a vice admiral but had his rank stripped upon force retirement. JWithing (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can go to the U.S. Navy Bureau of Naval Personnel Official Registry here: http://buperscd.technology.navy.mil/bup_updt/upd_cd/bupers/register/naval_register.html, and see that Sestak retired as a two star. He routinely lets others incorrectly identify himself as a retired Vice Admiral - NOT SO. Unless others can provide more definative proof that he is a retired 3-star, let's stick with the facts. Appreciate if anyone can help make the citation better.E2a2j (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Percentage of Votes Missed

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

According to http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/vote-missers/ , the previous claim that Sestak had missed fifteen percent of all votes was factually inaccurate, so I removed it, as he had missed 15% of the vote during the 111th congress, not during the 110th, as was claimed. 98.235.19.177 (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Endorsement

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

His campaign has been endorsed by a former National Security Advisor, a former National Security expert, and a 9/11 Commissioner/former US Deputy Attorney General.

Other endorsers include:
IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS OF AMERICA PAC
FORMER SENATOR MAX CLELAND
SENATOR JOHN KERRY
USW LOCAL 10-1

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornblende (talk • contribs) 16:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Contributions

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright donated $500.

Former White House chief of staff John Podesta gave $300.

Former CIA director John Deutch gave $500.

Former Navy secretary John Dalton gave $500.

Former national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger gave $1,000.

Former national security adviser Anthony Lake gave $500.

U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D., N.Y.) gave the legal maximum of $2,500.

Richard A. Clarke, who was a top counterterrorism adviser to several presidents, gave $2,100.

Jimmy Buffett, the singer who made "Margaritaville" famous, donated $2,100 from his base of operations in Los Angeles.

In total, Sestak raised $427,264 from Jan. 1 to March 31.
As of May 2006, contribuations surpassed $500,000

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornblende (talk • contribs) 16:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Powerpoint

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I can't find anything elsewhere that references the Powerpoint mentioned in this article. Can anybody confirm this is true, or know where that came from? For now, I just added a "citation-needed" tag. If nothing appears in the next few days, I'll delete the claim. Pseudonym214 (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Democrats Elected from PA's 7th Congressional District

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The statement that Sestak is only the second Democrat to represent the 7th Congressional District in Pennsylvania since the Civil War is incorrect, according to Wikipedia's own list of elected representatives from this district. On this list, there are two Democrats who each served only one term prior to Robert Edgar's more recent 12-year Congressional career. Apace361 (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Claim that the White House offered Sestak a job

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

"Pa. Rep. Sestak stands by claim that White House offered him job to drop challenge of Specter" is the headline in the LA Times on February 20, 2010. The Philadelphia Inquirer mentions a White House denial. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

[1] [2]

Can another editor follow up on this and add it to the article? --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:38 , 20 February 2010 (UTC)

–No. It will not be added to the article because it makes a liberal look bad. 72.213.204.109 (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It has been expanded on a bit, saying that Sestak now refuses to give any details of the exchange. More information would be better. Non-Dairy Creamer (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Edited main page to make it clear that the conclusion that the alleged job offer is illegal or unethical is in doubt. The citation given in support of the original statement is an interview with Republican Congressman Darrell Issa, not exactly an unbiased source. Provided referal to blog post by former Bush Ethics Lawyer, Richard Painter. While I am not generally impressed by the ethical standards of the Bush Administration, Mr. Painter could hardly be described as an Obama partisan.Tanstaafl63 (talk) 04:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sestak just broke his silence on the subject. It's a pretty far reaching subject, and I recommend watching the edits to the page carefully. I put it in my watchlist. KirkCliff2 (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

To clarify: Rahm Emanuel had Bill Clinton call Sestak up and ask him to withdraw from the race, in exchange for an unpaid, but purportedly "prominent advisory position" with the Obama Administration. All this, because the Adminstration had pledged to support Specter. Here's a link KirkCliff2 (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this eventually going to become a separate article?--Gniniv (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Cabinet Job

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I would like to add that if it becomes clear that Obama and his administration did offer him a job, it would be a violation of 18 US Code Section 210, 211, and 600, and that's only a few sections. If Obama or Sestak was found guilty, they would have to pay a fine, or serve one year in federal prison. 67eldorado (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Back to rank

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Yes, but the photograph of Sestak in uniform displays that he was a vice admiral. At least he was wearing three stars. Yet the article maintains that he was a rear admiral (no more than two stars). It's confusing. I'm fully aware of the difference between highest rank held and retirement rank, but the matter needs to be straightened out and harmonized in the article. Rammer (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why Sestak's rank is described as rear admiral but links to vice admiral... this should be reconciled. nshumeyko (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.70.106 (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, we need to be careful with the claim that Sestak is the "highest-ranking military officer EVER elected to Congress." This is arguably true if his highest rank was in fact Vice Admiral (three stars), but it is, strictly speaking, not true if his highest rank was two-star rear admiral. Pres. William Henry Harrison and Rutherford B. Hayes were both major generals (two stars), who then became congressmen prior to becoming president. If Sestak was only a two-star admiral, then he would be TIED with these two men, who came before him, and thus would not be THE highest-ranking military officer EVER elected to Congress. Moreover, by virtue of his office, Pres. John Quincy Adams was Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military, and thus outranked everyone. After his presidency, Pres. Adams went on to a distinguished career in Congress. Moreover, several presidents, served as Secretaries of War --- also superior to any career military officer --- and also served in Congress.

In sum, if Sestak is confirmed to have retired as a three-star admiral, then I would say that he could fairly be described as the highest-ranking CAREER military officer ever (to distinguish him from Pres. Adams). If he was only a two-star admiral, then the simplest thing would be to describe him as the highest-ranking former military officer currently serving in Congress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bronx Knight (talk • contribs) 16:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Why the continuing edit skirmish over whether Sestak is the highest-ranking former military officer ever to serve in Congress or just the highest-ranking member of Congress currently serving? His highest rank was vice admiral (VADM, O-9). If that is not the highest former military rank held by any member of Congress, please come forward with the name of the member of Congress who held higher rank. Rammer (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of proof that he is not the highest ranking officer to ever serve we should state as fact that he is? Not doing it. Non-Dairy Creamer (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Rammer, did you notice my post above from May 5, 2010? I pointed out that Pres. John Quincy Adams, ex officio Commander-in-Chief of all U.S. armed forces, went on after his presidency to serve in Congress. Since the Commander-in-Chief by definition outranks all other officers, Pres. Adams holds the distinction of being the highest-ranking former military officer ever to serve in Congress. You can check out the wikipedia article on "Commander-in-Chief" for further information.

Creamer, for what it's worth, I am satisfied that, since Sestak did hold the rank of Vice Admiral, he qualifies as the highest ranking CAREER military officer ever to serve in Congress, since Pres. Adams was not a professional military man. 12:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Changed the Right bar summary to reflect his actual rank of Vice Admiral (Three Stars) which IS his correct rank. 76.117.197.205 (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)MM

I agree with that change, and I hope it sticks, but the above discussion shows that there is some disagreement among editors. He held the commissioned rank of Vice Admiral (three stars) while on active duty. Presidents outrank all commissioned military officers, but they are not commissioned officers while serving as president. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Battenberg Cup

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Joe Sestak article has this:

On August 30, 1991, Sestak took command of the guided missile frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts, which was named the Atlantic Fleet's best surface combatant in the 1993 Battenberg Cup competition.

The USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG-58) article has this:

On 30 August 1991, Joseph A. Sestak took command of Roberts, which was named the Atlantic Fleet's best surface combatant in the 1993 Battenberg Cup competition.

But the Battenberg Cup article lists the 1993 winner as USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71), which is also listed as the winner for 1991.

The USS Theodore Roosevelt article has this:

On 10 March 1994, Theodore Roosevelt received its third Battle "E". Then on 3 June, Theodore Roosevelt was awarded her second Battenberg Cup as the best ship in the Atlantic Fleet.

Presumably Theodore Roosevelt won the award for 1993 and received it in 1994.

Although the Battenberg Cup goes to the best all-around ship of the United States Atlantic Fleet based on the basis of crew achievements, perhaps Samuel B. Roberts and Theodore Roosevelt were in two different categories of the 1993 competition. But both ships are surface combatants, and an implication may be gained from the Sestak and Samuel B. Roberts articles that Samuel B. Roberts won the Battenberg Cup outright in 1993, meaning that Battenburg Cup and Theodore Roosevelt articles are mistaken.

Can someone please clarify?

Rammer (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Were are they even getting the info from? I don't see some kind of record at tne Navy website? You'd think they would have a formal winnner list somewhere.Whatzinaname (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting Chronological Sequence in the Article

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sestak was at the Naval Academy from 1970 to 1974, a period which includes some of the hottest years of the Vietnam War. Sestak could have enlisted in the Navy in 1970, served in the war, and become an officer at that time or later. Perhaps he was following in his father's footsteps regarding the Naval Academy, but it is worth noting that millions of American boys who did not want to be career officers were fighting in Vietnam while boys like Sestak who did want to be career military people were sitting safely in classrooms at the Naval Academy, West Point, etc.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an unfair characterization. For one thing, Naval service of any type was/is understood to be safer than foot-soldiering. For another, Mr. Sestak had an unusual affinity for Annapolis, having had a legacy there. The commenter obviously is working a grudge to suggest that enrollment in USNA was a draft-avoiding ploy. In 1970, the Vietnam war was in full swing, and there was no way to have predicted that one going to a service academy would not be one day on the front lines. A male high school student of the caliber of Mr. Sestak could have gone to any school, gotten a draft deferment as a student, smoked pot and hung out at UC Berkley while West Point graduates were fighting and dying in Vietnam, as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.238.237 (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Bribery comments

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

After the original incident where he mentioned being offered the quid pro quo, he upped his rhetoric and specifically said that "they"(ostensibly the white house) tride to "bribe me out of the race. Originally I didn't think this needed inclusion, but now I'm thinking this should added. as now there is debate if this was in fact "bribery" or just horse trading. The differences are subtle but is another posssible felony. I think I'll track down a quote and add it later if no one can think of a valid reason not to include it.Whatzinaname (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it was some kind of a misquote. I didn't see anything in goggle, though I could have sworn I remember him saying that. I suspect someone else interpreted his statement as bribery and attributed that to him and that's what I'm remembering.Whatzinaname (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

"claimed"

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is claiming something less certain than stating or asserting something? Is the article suggesting that Sestak didn't really understand the nature and substance of what was being offered him? Is Sestak supposed to be a little confused or befuddled while Obama in his grandiloquence is masterfully defining the issues with his customary searing, ineffable brilliance?

"Claimed" doesn't even appear in this wiki. So I have no idea what you are going on about here. Whatzinaname (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It has been changed. The problem with "claimed" is that it implies purpose or intent and frequently implies some kind of formal action. It suggests, to me anyway, a strongly held but not completely established opinion. OK, I was being snarky about Obama. My point was to depoliticize the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.164.148.45 (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Whitewash of naval career

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The portion concerning Sestak's Naval Career is a complete joke and is an obvious whitewash of his record. The very same article cited for data concerning his daughter's cancer indicates that Sestak was removed because he created, according to the Navy, a "poor command climate"; such information should quite obviously be mentioned in an entry that is supposed to be encyclopedic. The article also indicates that multiple subordinates under Sestak's command complained about his leadership. Yet there is not a single word of this in the entry. Instead we get a bunch of unfounded speculation that Sestak was removed because he was disliked by the Bush administration. Moreover, we are treated to a quote that reads like it was taken straight from Sestak's campaign website. The whole section on his Naval Career is a farce that reads as if it was written by Sestak's PR people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.197 (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Bipolar disorder

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This WP article reports, under the subheading "Treatment of staffers", that Joe Sestak works "18 hours a day" and "sleeps only 2 to 3 hours a night". Does anyone know if he has ever been diagnosed as having, or received treatment for, bipolar disorder, formerly known as "manic depression" or "manic-depressive illness"? I'm not a psychiatrist nor even a physician, but it seems to me that he certainly exhibits some classic symptoms.74.109.236.194 (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

He clearly doesn't meet the threshold for such a diagnosis. To whit; No evidence of any manic or hypomanic episodes; No evidence of any depressive episodes; No functioning impairment. Working long hours isn't sufficient. 94.193.220.27 (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The march on wall street

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The people who are marching on wall street should be spending their time interviewing for a job at one of wall streets fortune 500 companys or receiving government aid to go to school to qualify for one of the best jobs in the world. They are not 99percent but more like 99.99999999999999 percent. Have any of these people stopped to think of the negetive energy they are putting on a struggling economy of which the companys on the exchange encompass. We need someone to step up and say that for the most part the people that they are protesting are good and decent people. Realize that we are living in a free capitolist society. Free enterprise. How many of these protesters are supporters of goods and services produced over seas. They are the cause of their own problems in many cases, look in their driveways at the Toyota,s and Hyundia, and Chineese products all through their houses. To march on wall street is alikeing to flying airplanes into the world trade center without the horror. If they think that the wealthy should devide up their wealth among the 99 percent and start from scratch they are delusional. Why aren't any of our people in government reasoning with these people before this gets out of hand.. We need these people back to being productive citizens and to stop the destruction of Capitalism.

Sincerely Tony Franceschini certified Ford salesman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.179.116.178 (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Joe Sestak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100520075419/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/time/20100516/us_time/08599198895000 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100516/us_time/08599198895000

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Joe Sestak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070313030526/http://www.delcotimes.com:80/site/index.cfm?newsid=17280041&BRD=1675&PAG=461&dept_id=18171&rfi=8 to http://www.delcotimes.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=17280041&BRD=1675&PAG=461&dept_id=18171&rfi=8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV issues

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey everyone-- happy primary day! This article is seriously slanted in a pro-Sestak way. It uses a number of weasel words and has a very specific 'against the establishment' feel to it that reads more like a campaign piece than an encyclopedia article. I'm going to wait until the polls have closed before I add the tag for this so it doesn't seem like I'm trying to electioneer or something like that, but some examples:

"Sestak began laying the groundwork for a Congressional run in his home district in Pennsylvania as a Democrat. However, he was approached and told that he had to first receive the endorsement of the "DCCC." Confused, Sestak first thought DCCC meant his hometown's Delaware County Community College." (Not sure what this adds to the article)

Eventually, he was steered toward the correct DCCC, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and informed its head, Rahm Emanuel, of his run for Congress. Emanuel told Sestak he was not ready for such an election. Pennsylvania's 7th district is heavily conservative, as Republicans outnumbered Democrats 2:1. Sestak decided to run anyway and turned to his brother Richard and sisters Elizabeth and Margaret, who served as his campaign manager, top fundraiser and treasurer, respectively. (According to this source [3], he was added to the DCCC's list immediately)

"However, once Senator Specter switched, nationwide support mounted on a possible senatorial campaign. Most prominent was a straw poll conducted by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, entitled "Should a Draft Sestak movement be created to take on Sen. Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary?" Nationwide, almost 8000 votes were cast with 86% responding yes and 85% of Pennsylvanians responding yes." (The citation is the PCCC itself, not an independent news source)

"As the percentages stabilized, and it was clear Toomey was the eventual winner, Sestak conceded the race to a ballroom-full of his supporters at the Radnor Hotel. He lost by 80,000 votes out of the 4 million cast, a margin large enough to avoid a recount. It was the smallest margin of loss of any Pennsylvania Democratic candidate in 2010." (One of the sources for this is a picture of Toomey on election day from the campaign, which doesn't seem very relevant)

"Some critics were quick to cite Sestak's handling of his Congressional staff as evidence to solidify "the perception that he is a taskmaster with a prickly streak." During his first term in office, Sestak employed 61 people as staff in his official congressional office, while other comparable Congressmen employed a total of 28, 26, and 25 staff members, indicating that Sestak had a high turnover rate." (This is a mildly critical line, but the following line is a quote that puts a positive spin on it, much like a comms director on a race would do)

I think that this whole article needs a significant re-write and a solid culling of the spin inside of really all of it and some more neutral pieces should be added to flesh things out. Nomader (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joe Sestak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090731175057/http://boldprogressives.org/sestakpollresults.html to http://boldprogressives.org/sestakpollresults.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joe Sestak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208193742/http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=13&ElectionID=28&OfficeID=11#7 to http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=13&ElectionID=28&OfficeID=11#7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Joe Sestak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Joe Sestak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Joe Sestak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)