[Montezuma58]

What is lost in all of this is that it's the people of Pennsylvania's job and right to pick their representative in the Senate. It is not the people in office in Washington to do so.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

No, you are missing my point. The process is the same (open, fair and competitive) regardless of the number of candidates. You are arguing that it is illegal to provide an alternative in order to convince someone to not run for office, but if that's the case then the NRCC and the DCCC are guilty of that thousands of times over. You have tunnel vision here for some reason.

Not at all. They ARE guilty of it thousand of times over. They get away with it because no one ever confirms publicly the unethical "quid pro quo" and therefore it's hard to prove. Sestak came out and outright told everyone that the Obama administration offered a bribe as part of an effort to influence the race in Pennsylvania. At this point, we can go forward and prosecute or essentially just admit there are no rules and no laws and bribes are legal and acceptable.

[Big Mac]

You know, I was going to go to the trouble of crafting a fully-formed rebuttal to SpaceMonkey's apparent dense denial of specific facts involved in this case. But then i recalled that I have been told I spend too much time in political discourses around here that may be gratifying to participate in for me personally but don't do much at all to further my struggle on behalf of truth. I think I need a political blog.

But while I'm here, the unpaid advisory council position they now claim Clinton talked about with Sestak doesn't sound like it's the type of high level administration job that Sestak was originally claiming he was offered. Sestak also did not deny to Geraldo months ago that he was offered a high level job to bail out of the primary; he only said that he had no further comment. If the inducement did not take place, he could have denied it outright. Additionally, if he thought there were no consequences to discussing it, he could have disclosed what actually happened in detail. He chose to say he had no further comment. Finally, the position the administration claims Clinton discussed with Sestak isn't even a position that a sitting Representative could accept, according to the NY Times. Looks like a substantial cover-up and obstruction of justice to me, in addition to the original misdemeanor that appears to have certainly occurred.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

But while I'm here, the unpaid advisory council position they now claim Clinton talked about with Sestak doesn't sound like it's the type of high level administration job that Sestak was originally claiming he was offered.

You don't think?

I really don't think anyone's buying the newly crafted story. Not anyone with an ounce of brains at least. Though, it really doesn't matter. If the administration believed that the offer might sway Sestak, then they believed that the position had value and it's a violation of the law. If they didn't believe it, they never would have offered it.

[Big Mac]

Yeah, it just doesn't pass the smell test, unless you're drinking Obama-Aid.

[ort888]

I just bought a kiddie pool for my son. It's pretty exciting.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You know, I was going to go to the trouble of crafting a fully-formed rebuttal to SpaceMonkey's apparent dense denial of specific facts involved in this case. But then i recalled that I have been told I spend too much time in political discourses around here that may be gratifying to participate in for me personally but don't do much at all to further my struggle on behalf of truth. I think I need a political blog.

I've been told the same thing!

But while I'm here, the unpaid advisory council position they now claim Clinton talked about with Sestak doesn't sound like it's the type of high level administration job that Sestak was originally claiming he was offered. Sestak also did not deny to Geraldo months ago that he was offered a high level job to bail out of the primary; he only said that he had no further comment. If the inducement did not take place, he could have denied it outright. Additionally, if he thought there were no consequences to discussing it, he could have disclosed what actually happened in detail. He chose to say he had no further comment. Finally, the position the administration claims Clinton discussed with Sestak isn't even a position that a sitting Representative could accept, according to the NY Times. Looks like a substantial cover-up and obstruction of justice to me, in addition to the original misdemeanor that appears to have certainly occurred.

Needless to say, the people of Pennsylvania will have no choice, but to put the (R) in office at this point. Sestak is tainted to the core politically. i.e. this whole thing backfired on the WH perps in every way imaginable. Sestak toeing the party line making him look more foolish serving only to drag him into the kind of BS that is driving voters crazy right now.

[OldManMac]

Some of you armchair legal experts might want to read (but probably won't) some real legal experts' opinions, on this issue you're trying mightily to make something out of.

Hannity devotes show to discredited claim that Sestak job discussion was illegal | Media Matters for America

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Some of you armchair legal experts might want to read (but probably won't) some real legal experts' opinions, on this issue you're trying mightily to make something out of.

Hannity devotes show to discredited claim that Sestak job discussion was illegal | Media Matters for America

Media Matters hires real "legal experts?"

Rush Limbaugh had on legal experts who said that the Media Matters guys didn't know what they were talking about.



I can read. You don't have to be a legal expert to read the law and see that both the spirit and letter of the law was violated.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I just bought a kiddie pool for my son. It's pretty exciting.

Are you a certified lifeguard?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Some of you armchair legal experts might want to read (but probably won't) some real legal experts' opinions

Real legal experts seem to be divided along partisan lines on this question, Old Man. Clearly there are far more important issues to be concerned with, but then again I don't think it's right to laugh off an obvious violation of federal statutes just because the offense seems relatively trivial. Obama sold himself as the most ethical guy around, but he's proven otherwise as president, a fact reinforced by this incident.

A question for Democrats: What do you think you'd be saying about this kind of controversy if it happened under George W. Bush or if it had happened under a McCain presidency?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

A question for Democrats: What do you think you'd be saying about this kind of controversy if it happened under George W. Bush or if it had happened under a McCain presidency?

We already know what they'd say and what they'd do. Even if it's already known that nothing illegal happened, they'd expect a special prosecutor, and the the special prosecutor needs to do whatever they can to convict someone.

How do we know? Valerie Plame. The people looking into this knew from the get-go who leaked what to whom, that Plame wasn't likely even covered by the laws in question, and still went on a wild stampede fishing expedition hoping to find someone to convict. No one was ever found to have done anything wrong in regards to releasing her name, but they did take down a token "trophy" on a technicality.

So, based on the precedent set during the Bush years, a full investigation must occur, and if anyone's stories are slightly differently, one of the people much be charged with perjury and lose their job at the very least, while this makes front page news day after day.

Of course in this case, there likely has been a real law violated, in order for a politician to game personally. I'm guessing in this case, more dire results for those involved should be put into play. At the very least, as a matter of staying consistent.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

A question for Democrats: What do you think you'd be saying about this kind of controversy if it happened under George W. Bush or if it had happened under a McCain presidency?

String 'em up!

- Who?

All of 'em, from Bush all the way to Haliburton!

- Haliburton? How is Haliburton relevant?

mmmgrrrrrFOXNOOZmmm

- Fox News?

Yeah! Dick Cheney to! lol I said dick hahahaha! You want proof?!? Here ya go Bushie Progressives.com - Bush = bad

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

String 'em up!

Absolutely right. Of course, by saying so, you're saying that the Republicans in this case are behaving no better than Democrats (which I agree with).

[BadKosh]

Except Sestak has admitted the offer and the white house legal mouthpiece has spun the story without taking Article 600 into account.

Obama Calls in Lawyer for Sestak Questions - The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times

[Big Mac]

Except that, it sounds like Sestak is covering up for the administration. It doesn't make sense that they would try to tempt Sestak to stay in Congress with such an insignificant promise that amounts to essentially nothing. They're claiming they sent Slick Willy to say to Sestak basically the following: "Hey bro, why don't you drop this Senate bid and Barack has promised he'll treat you to a beer in the future." They thought that would be a compelling reason for him to axe his campaign against an doddering old unpopular turncoat hack, A. Sphincter? And remember, we're supposedly talking about an offer of an unpaid presidential commission that a sitting Congressman can't even sit on - that certainly doesn't seem like it was the actual original offer, especially given that Sestak clearly thought the administration offered a high-end post to him to get out of the Senate race. It doesn't stand to reason, and thus it clearly points to a high-ranking cover-up. But if you think this new version of the story does make sense you really have to lay off the Obama-Aid.

[ort888]

Why is this being compared to the Plame scandel? Am I nuts and biased or was the entire Valarie Plame thing a million time's shadier then this current horrible offense.

You mean that a cush government position was offered as a reward for political reasons? Why, that's only been how it has worked for EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT FOREVER.

Is this really even news? If Bush had done something like this we would have moved on from it in a day or two. It's just not that interesting or scandalous. It's grasping at straws. Or is my bias just coming through here? Enlighten me.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Why, that's only been how it has worked for EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT FOREVER.

Names, dates??

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

We already know what they'd say and what they'd do. Even if it's already known that nothing illegal happened, they'd expect a special prosecutor, and the the special prosecutor needs to do whatever they can to convict someone.

How do we know? Valerie Plame. The people looking into this knew from the get-go who leaked what to whom, that Plame wasn't likely even covered by the laws in question, and still went on a wild stampede fishing expedition hoping to find someone to convict. No one was ever found to have done anything wrong in regards to releasing her name, but they did take down a token "trophy" on a technicality.

So, based on the precedent set during the Bush years, a full investigation must occur, and if anyone's stories are slightly differently, one of the people much be charged with perjury and lose their job at the very least, while this makes front page news day after day.

Of course in this case, there likely has been a real law violated, in order for a politician to game personally. I'm guessing in this case, more dire results for those involved should be put into play. At the very least, as a matter of staying consistent.

In the Plame case, PRAVDA outed her in the 1980's but the Dems ignored that fact. What makes you think the dems care about or know any facts at all?

[ort888]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Names, dates??

HERE is a list of the presidents who have given jobs in exchange for political favors.

[hyteckit]

Obama is acting too much like Ronald Reagan.

This is the kind of stuff only Ronald Reagan would do.

[hyteckit]

Sestak Scandal Is Business As Usual, Say Historians — Which May Be Obama’s Problem

President Reagan offered California Sen. S.I. Hayakawa a job in his administration if he dropped out of the Senate primary race in California -- an offer that Hayakawa, like Sestak, rejected.

Even Richard Painter, a lawyer in the Bush administration, wrote on Thursday that: "The allegation that the job offer was somehow a "bribe" in return for Sestak not running in the primary is difficult to support" in part because it is "nothing new."

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by ort888 

HERE is a list of the presidents who have given jobs in exchange for political favors.

Quid pro quo deals are different from illegally attempting to influence the outcome of an election. Even Anus Dwellers know that.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Absolutely right. Of course, by saying so, you're saying that the Republicans in this case are behaving no better than Democrats (which I agree with).

Actually no. I'm contrasting the sober, appropriate response of Republicans to a Democrat scandal with the average progressive (at MacNN) response to a Republican scandal.

Republicans are just asking for someone, anyone to give them a straight scoop on this deal. I don't think that's too much to ask. Then again... maybe it is.

* Prediction: Rahm gone by September.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Why is this being compared to the Plame scandel? Am I nuts and biased or was the entire Valarie Plame thing a million time's shadier then this current horrible offense.

Plame and her husband were probably just as shady, you are right. I wouldn't be too hard on them though. They were just playing politics and thought they'd get away with it too. Joe and Valerie used government resources to go on a partisan fishing expedition, used it to try to embarrass republicans (and failed in the end), was called on it, then they called out the dogs to do another partisan fishing expedition to get someone to pay for embarrassing them.

Unethical? Sure. Shady? I'd agree. Probably not criminal though. In the latest instance, we are talking about criminal bribery where there is a law on the books that seems to be clearly violated.

You mean that a cush government position was offered as a reward for political reasons? Why, that's only been how it has worked for EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT FOREVER.

Because no one every mans up and claims "quid pro quo." You can't prove it without either one side admitting it, or some kind of hard evidence. The law is on the book for a reason. Politicians shouldn't be allowed to use government resources to bribe other politicians into doing what is politically or personally in their best interests. That's the very root of corruption. Claiming "everyone does it" is part of the problem, and is totally lame, IMO.

I too think that someone (Rahm or Sestak) will end up paying for this lapse in the end. I'll put ebuddy's money on Rahm for the pool. I'm undecided at the moment.

[ebuddy]

There are many here who argue the historical precedent of such moves and question the criminality of it. Let's say for example that it is perfectly acceptable to break the law as long as many before you have also broken this law or better yet; let's say it wasn't illegal at all. All of this misses the point. In politics it is rarely the crime itself that brings one down, it is the subsequent, sloppy cover-up attempt.

Looks like that "change" mantra still has life left in it for the next Presidential election.

[ort888]

You guys are funny.

[Big Mac]

Great argument, ort.

[ort888]

Arguing is pointless. Several here have made up their minds that Obama is a mustache twirling villain actively trying to hurt the country. You can't get someone back from that once they've put that much mental stock in something being true.

At some point it just becomes white noise. Oh wait, what's that low hiss I hear all the time? Oh, it's the conservatives droning on and on about how everything this country stands for is being destroyed. Again. Just like it was last week. And the week before. Pretty much since around last January when something happened and now up is down, shock troopers are walking the streets, free speech is illegal, the sky is red, people are wearing pots and pans on their heads and the whole world is just wrong. I wake up in the morning, look out the window and I don't even recognize where I live anymore. Or something like that. I'm not really sure.

Obama could bring you back to life using mouth-to-mouth and you would complain that he had onion breath.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Obama could bring you back to life using mouth-to-mouth and you would complain that he had onion breath.

At first I thought perhaps your points were somewhat fair, but then I realized; wait a minute. This guy's been arguing about Bush as if he were a mustache twirling villain since what... 2001? What would you consider a fair criticism of the guy running our country?

Better yet, what did Bush do in 8 years that Obama hasn't either continued, doubled-down on, or worsened since taking office just last year?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

at first i thought perhaps your points were somewhat fair, but then i realized; wait a minute. This guy's been arguing about bush as if he were a mustache twirling villain since what... 2001? What would you consider a fair criticism of the guy running our country?

Better yet, what did bush do in 8 years that obama hasn't either continued, doubled-down on, or worsened since taking office just last year?

qft, ftw!

[ort888]

Let's be honest here. Yes, I hated GWB. He was on the exact opposite end of pretty much everything I believe in. I did not like him.

That said, I wasn't wearing some sort of tin foil hat or going on and on trumping up every little thing he did and acting like he was bringing on armageddon. I don't think he was an evil man, I don't think he was a part of some grand conspiracy... I just think he was a man who had very different ideas on how to run things.

Politics in this country has turned into something similar to sports fandom. You root for your team, get out the big foam fingers, and boo and hiss at the other guys... but the reality is that both teams are just two sides of the exact same coin.

Neither Republican nor Democrats have any sort of great claim to be the morally superior party. They both do this sort of stuff all the time. That's how the game works. That's how it's played. To get worked up into a tizzy because the other team does it just makes you look silly.

It's kind of like how every single fan thinks the refs are out to get their team, like it's some sort of conspiracy. It's not a conspiracy, you have a biased opinion.

I also have a biased opinion. I know this. We all do.

When I see a new news article, I want to read it wanting to prove that my feeling are correct... Ooh, was Haliberten behind the oil spill... that would be cool, because I don't like the Bush administration... Those stupid oil loving Bush cronies... we knew this would happen, them and their oil buddies and lack of gubment oversight... nyaaaa....

While you might read the exact same thing that talks about Obama's failing to deal with the problem, and how this occurred under his watch, and democratic/environmentalist policies made them drill in waters so deep that they can't fix it now and blah blah and you feel vindicated because of it.

The truth is always somewhere in the middle. This stuff is complicated and we need both parties to keep everyone honest.

[BadKosh]

This isn't a scandal, it's just part of the Obama "Jobs Program."

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Let's be honest here. Yes, I hated GWB.

Right and so most of the rest of what you said was unnecessary IMO. Bush "runs companies into poo"... or some such thing, "murdering marines", "less then stellar military service", etc. Yes, you hated Bush. That's being honest and in this spirit of honesty you should also acknowledge that you took any and all of the same opportunities to bash Bush that folks are taking here with Obama. Suffice it to say, the remainder of your statement seemed to assume some moral superiority and I disagree.

Neither Republican nor Democrats have any sort of great claim to be the morally superior party.

Of course. Who's arguing for moral superiority? There is mounting evidence against a despicable and illegal practice from the Federal government. What's with the cavalier attitude towards election impropriety at the Federal level? It always has been and always will be despicable. Is it the Bush Administration's fault that they were less sloppy than the Obama Administration?

They both do this sort of stuff all the time. That's how the game works. That's how it's played. To get worked up into a tizzy because the other team does it just makes you look silly.

Why would you post a complaint of fiery political rhetoric in the PWL? Isn't that kinda like complaining about all the damned slinkies in Toys-R-Us? This is how the game is played. The government ****s up in the most colossal ways imaginable and people pop online in a political forum to discuss.

It's kind of like how every single fan thinks the refs are out to get their team, like it's some sort of conspiracy. It's not a conspiracy, you have a biased opinion.

I'm still waiting for what in your opinion would be a fair critique of the guy running our country.

I also have a biased opinion. I know this. We all do.

I like this. I agree.

When I see a new news article, I want to read it wanting to prove that my feeling are correct... Ooh, was Haliberten behind the oil spill... that would be cool, because I don't like the Bush administration... Those stupid oil loving Bush cronies... we knew this would happen, them and their oil buddies and lack of gubment oversight... nyaaaa....

While you might read the exact same thing that talks about Obama's failing to deal with the problem, and how this occurred under his watch, and democratic/environmentalist policies made them drill in waters so deep that they can't fix it now and blah blah and you feel vindicated because of it.

... because it's true. Look, there's a difference between arguing policy and screaming "BLOOD FOR OIL!" and "BUSH IS A MURDERER!"

The truth is always somewhere in the middle. This stuff is complicated and we need both parties to keep everyone honest.

I wholeheartedly agree and would add that what we need more than anything else is a blood-hound media; the single biggest threat to power run amok. When the media rolls over as it has been proven to do time and again when their preferred ideology is in question, people like me get louder to compensate.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I wholeheartedly agree and would add that what we need more than anything else is a blood-hound media; the single biggest threat to power run amok. When the media rolls over as it has been proven to do time and again when their preferred ideology is in question, people like me get louder to compensate.

^

That was sort of my point. When the Valerie Plame incident flared up, the media and Democrats screamed bloody murder even though it's highly unlikely that the Bush administration even broke any laws. It was a huge scandal because it caused embarrassment for Democrats who were caught playing politics and it was thought that there would be some way to get revenge at Karl Rove who both the media and Democrats hate.

In this incident, it would appear that the Obama administration broke both the letter and the spirit of federal law (even if it's one that politicians normally get away with breaking due to a lack of any verifiable proof) and the media has tip-toed around the whole thing. They like Rahm, so they aren't going to sweat him on why it appears he was part of a conspiracy to violate federal law and bribe political officials.

The media did it's job back during the Bush years, and really, there wasn't that much of a need for political junkies to push it further. Now, the media ignores it's job for the most part or pretends to do it, and it needs a nudge to get off it's butt and find out the info our elected officials don't want us to know.

I think now more than ever, the Democrats should pray that the Republicans don't take over one or more houses. Obama might end up losing his job sooner, rather than later. I'm pretty sure you can't go around bribing elected officials and committing felonies and still stay in office.