Talk:Joe Sestak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Initial section

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

[edit] Stuff moved from article pending citation

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." [citation needed]

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.

[edit] Endorsement

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

[edit] Contribuations


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

[edit] More stuff that ought to be moved

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)

[edit] References

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)

[edit] Battenberg Cup

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)

[edit] CAIR controversy

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)

[edit] CAIR "controversy"

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

This "mainstream Muslim lobby" was just named as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in an alleged criminal conspiracy to support a Palestinian Arab terrorist group. Further, "several former CAIR officials have been convicted or deported after being charged with fraud, embargo violations, or aiding terrorist training." Etc.Source Note also what its chairman, Omar M. Ahmad, said: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth." (San Ramon Valley Herald) BTW, I don't know the original poster of the information, nor am I Jewish or a member of any group related to this topic. A Different Unsigned, 2 June 2007

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)