Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Republicans continue to press White House on Sestak job offer

For the better part of the last week, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) has been under sustained attack from national Republicans about whether or not he was offered a job in the Obama Administration in exchange for ending his ultimately successful primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter.

"I think it's looking increasingly like there's something that they're trying to hide," said former Rep. Pat Toomey (R), who is running against Sestak for the Senate seat this fall, in an interview with Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity Tuesday night. "If Joe is going to be the man of principle that he says he's going to be in this campaign, I think he would be more forthcoming."

Regardless of his motivations, Toomey's comments are the latest in a barrage of rhetoric coming out of the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee that seeks to raise questions about a largely ignored comment -- at the time -- made by Sestak to a local television show in late February regarding White House involvement in trying to drive him from the race.

"I was asked a question about something that happened months earlier, and I felt that I should answer it honestly, and that's all I had to say about it," Sestak said on "Meet the Press" on Sunday. "Anybody else has to decide on what they will say upon their role. That's their responsibility."

The White House -- via press secretary Robert Gibbs -- has studiously stonewalled reporters on the issue insisting that "nothing inappropriate happened" but avoiding the more basic "what happened" question.

And, after roughly a week's worth of negative press, there was crack in Democratic unity on the issue on Tuesday when Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.), the second ranking Senate Democrat who also happens to represent President Obama's home state, said that "Sestak needs to make it clear what happened."

Then this morning came an editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer entitled "Fill the Blanks" that urged:

"Both Sestak and the White House should release full, detailed accounts of their conversations. These accounts should include offers made, if any; the names of those who made the offers; and the names of anyone in the chain of command who was aware of any deals and approved them."

These recent developments suggest that the issue, which Sestak and the White House almost certainly had hoped would disappear if they ignored it, appears instead to be gaining steam in the state and national press. (Evidence: Widely respected New York Times White House reporter Peter Baker penned a piece on Tuesday examining the job offer/no job offer issue.)

There are two competing issues that Sestak and the White House must deal with -- and deal with soon.

The first is a legal one. It is illegal for government employees to use their positions to influence the outcome of a political race. Specter actually raised that, um, specter during an interview with NBC's Andrea Mitchell in which he said: "There is a specific federal statute, which makes it a bribe to make an offer for a public office...That's a very serious charge. It's a big black smear without specification."

The White House has made clear that lawyers within the Administration have looked into the conversations with Sestak and concluded that no laws were broken and no ethical standards were violated.

And, privately political strategists on both sides of the aisle have noted that this sort of horse trading goes on regularly -- in Democratic and Republican Administrations. The Fix is, surprisingly enough, no lawyer and so we leave the specifics of the legal arguments to the experts.

The second issue is a political one that could have a lingering impact on the White House as the president prepares to run for a second term in 2012.

President Obama ran (and won) on a pledge to create the most transparent government in history -- a direct rebuttal to the perceived cronyism and raw politics that dominated the White House under George W. Bush.

"This issue goes to the heart of Obama's claims to have a different kind of White House and that he would usher in a new era of transparency and accountability," said Republican National Committee communications director Doug Heye.

Republicans know that undermining that pillar of the Obama presidency is critical to giving their party a chance to win in 2012. Put simply: The more Obama looks like every other politician, the better for the GOP.

For Sestak, the political problem -- in addition to the fact that it undermines his own outsider credentials -- is that rather than riding a wave of momentum following his toppling of Specter eight days ago, he has been put on the defensive by the allegations of wrongdoing.

Sestak, never one to clam up with reporters, has done just that lately -- refusing to go any further than his previous statements on the
matter
.

It's hard to imagine that either the White House or Sestak will now be able to keep up their radio silence in the face of a growing controversy over whether a job offer was made. The longer this stays in the news, the worse politically it is for both Sestak and the White House.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 26, 2010; 11:25 AM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Dino Rossi officially kicks off Washington Senate bid
Next: "Worst Week in Washington": The Nominations

Comments

Obama didn't win because of some "pledge" he made! Obama won by gaming caucuses and then getting superdelegates, like Kwame Kilpatrick, to endorse him. Cillizza needs to stop the Obama spin and begin stating facts like Hillary received more votes during the primary than Obama. Cillizza also needs to state that Obama was behind in the polls when Lehman collapsed.

Face it Cillizza, Obama was the establishment candidate backed by Daschle, Pelosi, Reid, and Clyburn and you failed to realize it, now you spin away on your blog and attempt to rewrite history according to Obama (much like Obama did with his ridiculous memoir which contains many exaggerations and half-truths).

The MSM behaved in an irresponsible and unethical manner during the 2008 election cycle, it is time for some journalists to take back the moral high ground--you can do that Cillizza.

Posted by: Susannah1 | May 28, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Hey Wash. Post,
Can you put Woodward and Bernstein on this or do they only investigate GOP presidents ? I mean, Clinton and Deep Throat, you'll kill the Times with that headline.

Posted by: roger241 | May 28, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Ignorance is no excuse: read the law.

http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/600.html

Posted by: neopatetic | May 27, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Clear things up for you?

•••

"@ broadwayjoe:
President Ronald Wilson Reagan is not in office. In fact, he is deceased."
_________
Say what?
Posted by: broadwayjoe

•••

@ broadwayjoe:
President Ronald Wilson Reagan is not in office. In fact, he is deceased. On the other hand, President Barack Hussein Obama is still alive and in office. One would think Congress' energies might better be directed toward the living, but others can make their own decisions about that.
Whether "previous Presidents have offered appointments, etc., to candidates to drop out of a race" or not (and for that one needs to look at the legislative history of the law as amended, not just at what one person says about one President), the current case is still the current case. Otherwise, as broadwayjoe and yuda apparently would, one is left to argue that because some get away with murder, bank robbery, Madoff-type crimes and impeachable offenses, therefore every murderer, bank robber, con man or President who commits a felony should get off without so much as an investigation, let alone a prosecution. That's not a tenable or legitimate position. It is, however, actually sad.
Posted by: neopatetic

•••

Great catch, yuda. Your post highlights why this is a smear and not a legit article.
If it were legit, Fix would have had his two interns do research and find out if previous Presidents have offered appointments, etc., to candidates to drop out of a race (of course they have, as yuda pointed out Ray-Gun did). As written, the Fix piece is just a re-typing of RNC talking points. Sad.
Posted by: broadwayjoe

Posted by: neopatetic | May 27, 2010 9:24 AM | Report abuse

The continued use of "Chicago Style Politics" by this administration will eventually come back to bite them in the butt. I can't wait. This Admin isn't transparent in any way... and the people are getting real tired of it. Even top Democrats are stepping up and complaining... it is just another crack in the wall that will lead to a colapse.

November can't get here soon enough. Jimmy II needs his teeth pulled so he can gum his way to 2012.

Posted by: dennispro | May 27, 2010 7:12 AM | Report abuse

What do you mean, " Fade Away " Why isn't it being brought out to the light, investigated and those responsible brought to pay for their crime. And it is a crime. Or will this be like the Dodd/Fwank debacle with Freddie/Fannie where both of them will skate. I'll never know why Imus has that crook on his show so often. But then again, Imus never did have any common sense, or any taste.

Posted by: puck-101 | May 27, 2010 6:38 AM | Report abuse

How about a deal cut, the Republicans can press Obama and Sestak for deal, only if Democrats can prosecute Dick Cheney and George Bush as war criminals?

Posted by: bflaherty5 | May 27, 2010 5:54 AM | Report abuse

Why isn't Obama doing more for the fishermen ???

Obama just approved expanded offshore oil drilling - so Obama SHOULD HAVE HAD A PLAN READY TO GO.


Sorry - but Obama JUST REVIEWED THIS.


So either Obama is completely incompetent - in which case he should resign.


Or Obama has no idea what he is doing, in which case he should resign.

WHICH IS IT ????


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 27, 2010 12:38 AM | Report abuse

I believe Sestak is telling the truth, because that's the way Obama's Chicago/White House operates. Just ask Blago, "Everybody swaps money for jobs and favors; why are they persecuting me?" Rahm Emanuel did not get the nickname of "Deadfish" without cause. You either play Chicago ball or you wind up in the fish wrapper. If Obama were a Repub, you bleeding hearts surely would be screaming for an independent prosecutor. Looks like Obama didn't cover his or his minions' tracks very well. Time will tell who pays. Probably Emanuel.

Posted by: RonKH | May 26, 2010 11:29 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


You probably wrote those comments in - they are so sterotyped you had to write them.

You just are desperate to sterotype the Republicans, aren't you ???

Why don't you go help Obama and go down to Louisiana and start cleaning birds?

At least you will be doing something useful.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 26, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

The word is...perception is everything in politics. There is no wiggle-room on the Obama-Sestak controversy for the Democrats. At a time when Americans are desperately looking for the good-guys in Washington, this smell will linger on till November.

The American electorate will reject any politician that even has a hint of corruption...it is called the anti-incumbent movement.

Unless President Obama has an epiphany, he will become a lame-duck president early in his third year, after the blow-out that his party will suffer this coming November. Even as the Democratic party is searching for its soul...there will emerge an opposition to the Obama presidency.

Hillary and others will challenge the failing presidency of the Obama machine...a political party in serious disarray.


Posted by: adamscar | May 26, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

The GOP just created an official blog to receive input from, er, "the base." As Fix coworker (and former Fix coproducer of Hillary tapes) Dana Milbank reports in the Post, the GOP may be reconsidering this idea based on their base's comments:

""End Child Labor Laws," suggests one helpful participant. "We coddle children too much. They need to spend their youth in the factories."

"How about if Congress actually do thier job and VET or Usurper in Chief, Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen in any way," recommends another. "That fake so called birth certificate is useless."

"A 'teacher' told my child in class that dolphins were mammals and not fish!" a third complains. "And the same thing about whales! We need TRADITIONAL VALUES in all areas of education. If it swims in the water, it is a FISH. Period! End of Story."

House Republicans, meet the World Wide Web."

LOL.

Pardon the interruption. Now back to the Sestak fake controversy.


Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 26, 2010 10:13 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues


What are you doing, tracking the number of comments ?


Hey, why aren't you out cleaning birds ???


Why isn't Obama doing more for the fishermen ???


Obama just approved expanded offshore oil drilling - so Obama SHOULD HAVE HAD A PLAN READY TO GO.

Sorry - but Obama JUST REVIEWED THIS.

So either Obama is completely incompetent - in which case he should resign.

Or Obama has no idea what he is doing, in which case he should resign.


WHICH IS IT ????

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 26, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

So your answer brigade is that you were totally unaware that Libby was actually convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice by a federal jury. At least Martha had the decency to do her time and not hide under Bush's skirt. Nice totally irrelevant response.

Posted by: leichtman1 | May 26, 2010 10:04 PM | Report abuse

One key to understanding this is the Blago case - they are prosecuting Blago for a very similar offense.


In exchange for an appointment, something was sought.


Well - the administration should know all of this because the Blago case was making headlines right before this.


I would STILL like to know if Obama's people were entertaining any kind of offer to Blago - just an offer would be illegal.

I have to wonder what happened there - with that union official - and Obama - one has to wonder because Peter Fitzgerald moved really quickly - WHY ? was it because Fritzgerald was concerned that Blago was about to get an offer from Obama's people ?

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 26, 2010 9:57 PM | Report abuse

President Ronald Wilson Reagan is not in office. In fact, he is deceased. On the other hand, President Barack Hussein Obama is still alive and in office. One would think Congress' energies might better be directed toward the living, but others can make their own decisions about that.

==

Sorry couldn't here you over that roaring whoosh sound of the point soaring over your head.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 26, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse

"This is not going away. ...
Posted by: greatgran1 | May 26, 2010 9:25 PM"
___________

Yeah, outside Drudge/Fix World, it already has. Nobody cares about these fake media-created controversies.

Do something constructive like hunting down the "whitey" tape or the long form birth certificate, or videotaping Reverend Wright's sermons.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 26, 2010 9:48 PM | Report abuse

"@ broadwayjoe:

President Ronald Wilson Reagan is not in office. In fact, he is deceased."
_________

Say what?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 26, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

This is not going away. I want to know who spoke to Sespak? What did he offer? Who gave him the authority to offer a a job? What job did he offer?
This is a serious crime. What role did Bob Bauer the private lawyer of Obama play in this?
This is disgusting Chicago underhanded play. I have had it up to my eyeballs with this corrupt administration. As as citizen of this great country, I am demanding an independent counsel to investigate this matter. I smell a rat. In fact I smell a pack.

Posted by: greatgran1 | May 26, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

@ broadwayjoe:

President Ronald Wilson Reagan is not in office. In fact, he is deceased. On the other hand, President Barack Hussein Obama is still alive and in office. One would think Congress' energies might better be directed toward the living, but others can make their own decisions about that.

Whether "previous Presidents have offered appointments, etc., to candidates to drop out of a race" or not (and for that one needs to look at the legislative history of the law as amended, not just at what one person says about one President), the current case is still the current case. Otherwise, as broadwayjoe and yuda apparently would, one is left to argue that because some get away with murder, bank robbery, Madoff-type crimes and impeachable offenses, therefore every murderer, bank robber, con man or President who commits a felony should get off without so much as an investigation, let alone a prosecution. That's not a tenable or legitimate position. It is, however, actually sad.

Posted by: neopatetic | May 26, 2010 9:08 PM | Report abuse

So far today, this thread has 189 comments. Tomorrow, there might be 50. The next day, there will be zero.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 26, 2010 9:08 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1 wrote,
"presumably you are aware that Scooter Libby
was indicted and convicted by a federal jury
that deliberated his supposed non offenses (i.e, nothing to do with the investigation), of perjury and obstruction of justice
for weeks, and the absolute only reason
he is not currently behind bars is b/c
Bush commuted Libby's sentence."

Tell us what you know about the John Adams Group and the ACLU and their GITMO attorneys who managed to get pictures and personal information about CIA interrogators into the hands of terrorists. If Scooter Libby should be behind bars, these traitors should be summarily shot. Agreed?

Posted by: Brigade | May 26, 2010 8:54 PM | Report abuse

The fact that Reagan did it is the point. If we don't despise Republicans for a reason, then who cares who gets elected? Is this just a spoils sport? I hope Obama did not offer a deal to Arlen Specter, "You come with me on health care and we'll try to keep you from getting primaried by Sestak." I hope I am right. If Obama is just like Ronald Reagan then I wasted my time and money.

Posted by: shrink2 | May 26, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Oh goody. ESL is back.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 26, 2010 8:52 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


An impeachable offense deserves a full investigation - not a characterization as smear.


But coming from you - who smear people everyday on this blog, you should know.


Obama should be IMPEACHED. Add to this several other charges which have been made - including FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM, WHICH IS A CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION.

See - if you start calling someone a racist, in an effort to intimidate them into NOT exercising their Freedom of Speech, then that is a violation of the Civil Rights Act.

Get it? I hope you do, next time you start looking under rocks for racism.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 26, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Why are you liberals calling this a "smear" and dismissing it as a right-wing obsession?

A "smear" implies that it's not true. We don't know what the truth is, because Sestak is being secretive, and the White House press secertary dodges questions about it.

Besides, last I heard, Durbin is not a Republican right-winger, and he wants Sestak to put up or shut up.

Posted by: Darlene_Jr | May 26, 2010 8:38 PM | Report abuse

presumably you are aware that Scooter Libby
was indicted and convicted by a federal jury
that deliberated his supposed non offenses (i.e, nothing to do with the investigation), of perjury and obstruction of justice
for weeks, and the absolute only reason
he is not currently behind bars is b/c
Bush commuted Libby's sentence.
Napolitano, Sebelius, and Secy of Interior Salazar were all facing tough re elections and were offered cabinet posts in exchange for giving up their govt positions and agreeing not to run for re-election.
Not surprised that the zealots in the GOP who have absolutely nothing to offer this country in the form of governance, would now whine about another Senate seat they will likely lose.
My guess is that they are more p.o. that Toomey will have to now have to face Admiral Sestak instead of Sen Specter, a much easier target for defeat.
Special prosecutors somehow will magically fix
the economy and plug the Gulf leak, in the delusional minds of the truly desperate GOP.

Posted by: leichtman1 | May 26, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Sestak is a great Dem candidate for the Senate, far better than former Repub Specter, far better for Pennsylvania. He was determined to win it from beginning to end. He'll cream right-winger Toomey. The Republican party, which is imploding daily in a truly astonishing fashion, is frantic about it. That's the story here.

Posted by: dudh | May 26, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse


What happens if Sestak loses, and then he wants to find a job with the administration?

dicey, huh?

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 26, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

".... That, not trying to entice a [politician] out of an election by offering a post for which he/she is qualified (see Obama appointment of Utah Governor Huntsman as Ambassador to China) would be real abuse of power. Cillizza and similar commentators should be sensitive to the difference, do some serious journalism/analysis instead of pursuing empty calorie stories like Obama/Sestak job offer based either on one political party's talking points or the personal pleasure the journalists derive from stirring the pot.

Martin Weil

Posted by: martinweil | May 26, 2010 6:48 PM"
____________

Cosign.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 26, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

@ yuda99:

I urge you to begin impeachment proceedings against President Ronald Wilson Reagan ASAP.

Posted by: neopatetic | May 26, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

This race is in the bag for Sestak. If Sestak or BHO go for this stupid distractive wingnut media-created bait, they are getting horrible advice. A total sucker play like the endless GOP demands for BHO's long form birth certificate that, er, doesn't exist.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 26, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Great catch, yuda. Your post highlights why this is a smear and not a legit article.

If it were legit, Fix would have had his two interns do research and find out if previous Presidents have offered appointments, etc., to candidates to drop out of a race (of course they have, as yuda pointed out Ray-Gun did). As written, the Fix piece is just a re-typing of RNC talking points. Sad.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 26, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse

This Hiyakawa article plainly states that Reagan (via an Ed Rollins interview) offered him a job to drop out of the California Senate GOP primary. Read it for yourselves:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19811126&id=ibcsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HhQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5060,5317656

So you think this is a crime? Reagan did it! How could it be illegal then? Ronnie could not possibly break the law, right? Plus, this offer was made in the press, because it was not illegal...

Posted by: yuda99 | May 26, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

This Hiyakawa article plainly states that Reagan (via an Ed Rollins interview) offered him a job to drop out of the California Senate GOP primary. Read it for yourselves:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19811126&id=ibcsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HhQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5060,5317656

So you think this is a crime? Reagan did it! How could it be illegal then? Ronnie could not possibly break the law, right? Plus, this offer was made in the press, because it was not illegal...

Posted by: yuda99 | May 26, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Imagine that simply because you are articulate and "clean" that the bar has been magically lowered for everything that you attempt in your life. Then one day you become President. Almost like being JFK on steroids without the talent or experience.

BTW, will you guys at the Post send my audit to me directly or should I just expect it in the mail like the rest who disagree with the PARTY?

Posted by: carolinadreams | May 26, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

This Hiyakawa article plainly states that Reagan (via an Ed Rollins interview) offered him a job to drop out of the California Senate GOP primary. Read it for yourselves:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19811126&id=ibcsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HhQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5060,5317656

So you think this is a crime? Reagan did it! How could it be illegal then? Ronnie could not possibly break the law, right?

Posted by: yuda99 | May 26, 2010 8:01 PM | Report abuse

This Hiyakawa article plainly states that Reagan (via an Ed Rollins interview) offered him a job to drop out of the California Senate GOP primary. Read it for yourselves:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19811126&id=ibcsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HhQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5060,5317656

So you think this is a crime? Reagan did it! How could it be illegal then? Ronnie could not possibly break the law, right?

Posted by: yuda99 | May 26, 2010 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Oh come on! Obama is exactly like every other, ultra-liberal politician, just more so. Only a drooling, Obama worshiping fool could think otherwise.

Obama is fooling fewer and fewer people every day now. By 2012, it will be down to Chris Matthews and Michelle Obama and I'm not sure about Michelle.

Posted by: battleground51 | May 26, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Let's place this wingnut anti-BHO fake controversy fronted today by Fix next to the 134 previous ones we've suffered through, including:

BHO's middle name
Reverend Wright
Bill Ayers
BHO's "Long Form" Birth Certificate (non-existent)
Ashley Todd racial hoax during the campaign
Michelle LaVaughan's biceps
Death panels
"He's a Muslim"
Flag pins
Skip Gates getting jacked-up for "living while black"
Michelle's whitey tape (non-existent)
Violation of (non-existent) WH dress code
_________________

This Sestak smear is beneath the Post. We know times are tough but did the Post editors get laid off, too?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 26, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

This Hiyakawa article plainly states that Reagan (via an Ed Rollins interview) offered him a job to drop out of the California Senate GOP primary. Read it for yourselves:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19811126&id=ibcsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HhQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5060,5317656

So you think this is a crime? Reagan did it! How could it be illegal then? Ronnie could not possibly break the law, right?

Posted by: yuda99 | May 26, 2010 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Oh come on! Obama is exactly like every other, ultra-liberal politician, just more so. Only a drooling, Obama worshiping fool could think otherwise.

Obama is fooling fewer and fewer people every day now. By 2012, it will be down to Chris Matthews and Michelle Obama and I'm not sure about Michelle.

Posted by: battleground51 | May 26, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

This Hiyakawa article plainly states that Reagan (via an Ed Rollins interview) offered him a job to frop out of the California Senate GOP primary. Read it for yourselves:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19811126&id=ibcsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HhQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5060,5317656

So you think this is a crime? Reagan did it! How could it be illegal then? Ronnie could not possibly break the law, right?

Posted by: yuda99 | May 26, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Obama must never be questioned. He won. Besides, the Sestak affair is Bush's fault.

Posted by: kash1 | May 26, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Why is the Sestak story relegated to blog status in The Washington Post? Is WAPO going to investigate this? Somebody's lying, and WAPO ought be pushing for a special prosecutor.

Posted by: Darlene_Jr | May 26, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Why are you fronting this anti-BHO nonsense? Take it to the Washington Times and leave it out of the Washington Post.
Who cares about this junk? BHO and Gibbs should totally ignore this idiotic baiting.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 26, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

With all the troubles this country has you would think this to be an non issue. The Republicans spend all their time looking for something so they can attack the Obama administration . For crying out loud...let's all try working on the important issues together.... like the oil spill, immigration...and on and on.

Posted by: softjazz41 | May 26, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Gee Thanks


Obama said to the Republicans that he would ENFORCE THE IMMIGRATION LAWS - in exchange for their votes on AMNESTY


wow - WHEN DID a President ever say he WAS NOT GOING TO ENFORCE THE LAW - and start negotiating whether he was going to do what he is Constitutionally required to do anyway ???

IMPEACH THIS GUY AND GET IT OVER WITH.


DO THE DEMOCRATS REALIZE HOW BAD OBAMA IS HURTING THEIR PARTY... FOR A LONG TIME?


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 26, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Clearly the Sestak situation is another IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.


Obama has got to be kidding.


I just hope they include FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM as one of the counts in the IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.

These FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM are AIMED AT INTIMIDATING PEOPLE NOT TO EXERCISE THEIR FREEDOM OF SPEECH - which is a CIVIL RIGHT.


And clearly, the campaign of FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM IS A CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION - THE SAME AS IF SOMEONE TRIED TO INITIMIDATE A BLACK FROM VOTING IN THE SOUTH.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 26, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

vwcat wrote,
"Libby and cheney and the rest of the oily men of the Bush administration outed a CIA officer."

Just as I suspected. You don't know what you're talking about. Richard Armitage outed the CIA officer. Cheney had nothing to do with it, and Libby was charged with perjury as a secondary matter. Typical liberal.

Posted by: Brigade | May 26, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

vwcat wrote,
"oh, give me a break.
The press fell asleep at the wheel during the Bush administration"

If you believe that, then you're the one who was asleep---for about eight years. Or
maybe strung out."

"and now they are egging on the nonsense by republicans.
It's simply stupid and destructive."

What nonsense. If laws were broken, it's stupid and destructive to enforce them?

"Why was no one in the press screaming and writing and nit picking when Bush started an illegal war, his administration outed a CIA agent, stepped on people's civil rights and tortured."

Now you really demonstrate your ignorance. The war was authorized by Congress. It was not illegal. And don't even bother with method or motive for our being "lied" into a war---as even the liberals here have admitted that the Halliburton/oil gibberish is believed only by drooling halfwits. Mistakes, yes? Lies and illegality? Offer proof or remain the fool.

It doesn't look like you even know who outed the CIA worker. Whose rights were violated? Yours? Torture? You mean waterboarding? Sorry about that. By, the way, Obama's "good war" is now in Afghanistan. Why don't you drag your limp
wrists and yellow belly down to the recruiters and sign up to support the effort.

"No. Now you in the press report the gop nonsense and their thinking they can do a Clinton on Obama."

Barack Obama wouldn't make a pimple on Bill Clinton's butt as a president.

"this is a political no brainer."

And you are a political low brainer.

"this is more gop antics and the press always indulges them but, when serious laws are being broken by republican presidents you guy go all lap dog."

Looks like your the lap dog---Obama's lap dog. How's that boot black taste?

Posted by: Brigade | May 26, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

@ OHIOCITIZEN

That argument, as valid as it may be in pointing out the relative import of two unrelated things, could have been used to avoid the impeachment of Presidents Johnson and Nixon, never mind Clinton. We simply have to be able to handle multiple things at once, and accusations of felonious behavior that may extend to and even include the President of the United States certainly fall within the ambit of that necessity.

Posted by: neopatetic | May 26, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Especially when the investigators and prosecutors work for the crook they're supposed to be investigating and prosecuting. Can you say "special prosecutor?" If they could charge Scooter Libby with something that had nothing whatsoever to do with the investigation, surely we can hang something on these useless lowlifes.

Posted by: Brigade
===========================

Libby and cheney and the rest of the oily men of the Bush administration outed a CIA officer.
That was illegal and was a law put in place by Boy George's daddy.
Sestak makes a vague allegation and the repubs, who have spent the past 18 months doing nothing legislatively or for the country or to help clean up after Boy George and their failures and ruin they did to this country, decide to make a big deal of nothing.
And they know how the lapdogs of the press will go after any democrat while failing to hold republicans accountable for anything or even fact checking them.

Posted by: vwcat | May 26, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

The Sestak matter's political impact pales in comparison to the Gulf BP oil spill. The President needs to establish control in the Gulf. Not so much with regard to plugging the gusher, as with the cleanup. More needs to be done immediately to control the impact of the spill onto the Gulf's shores throughout the region. Call out a flotilla of oil tankers to suck up the oil.

Put the screws to the entire oil industry who operate in U.S. waters and tell them this is a national crisis and it is their responsibility to this country, from which they reap their livelihoods, to help with the cleanup and get this national nightmare behind us. Exert leadership---let the oil companies know who is boss here. Act in the interests of the American people---not in the interests of Big Oil. That would be an exercise in Presidential leadership for which the President would reap electoral reward.

Posted by: OHIOCITIZEN | May 26, 2010 6:48 PM
--------

He's a COMMUNITY ORGANIZER, not a leader. You are asking the impossible, as some of us realized before the dope was ever elected.

Posted by: Brigade | May 26, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Because there is no evidence anything criminal or unethical happened in the first place.

Invesrigators and prosecutors have enough real work, no tme left to chase rainbows.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 26, 2010 5:41 PM
-------

Especially when the investigators and prosecutors work for the crook they're supposed to be investigating and prosecuting. Can you say "special prosecutor?" If they could charge Scooter Libby with something that had nothing whatsoever to do with the investigation, surely we can hang something on these useless lowlifes.

Posted by: Brigade | May 26, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

@ Noacoler:

The assertion that "there is no evidence anything criminal or unethical happened in the first place" is factually incorrect. Congressman, retired US Navy admiral and perhaps Senator-to-be Joseph Sestak has alleged he was offered a job to get out of the race, and that it was just that: a quid pro quo. He has said so on multiple occasions. That is, in fact, evidence that a crime may have occurred, let alone something unethical. I would also quarrel with the description of what may turn out to have been an impeachable offense as "rainbows."

Posted by: neopatetic | May 26, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

oh, give me a break.
The press fell asleep at the wheel during the Bush administration and now they are egging on the nonsense by republicans.
It's simply stupid and destructive.
Why was no one in the press screaming and writing and nit picking when Bush started an illegal war, his administration outed a CIA agent, stepped on people's civil rights and tortured.
No. Now you in the press report the gop nonsense and their thinking they can do a Clinton on Obama.
this is a political no brainer.
this is more gop antics and the press always indulges them but, when serious laws are being broken by republican presidents you guy go all lap dog.

Posted by: vwcat | May 26, 2010 6:50 PM | Report abuse

noVEMbernoVEMbernoVEMber .. waaaah!!

Posted by: Noacoler | May 26, 2010 3:13 PM
-------

Yes, that's exactly what the Dems will be saying come December.

Posted by: Brigade | May 26, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

The Sestak matter's political impact pales in comparison to the Gulf BP oil spill. The President needs to establish control in the Gulf. Not so much with regard to plugging the gusher, as with the cleanup. More needs to be done immediately to control the impact of the spill onto the Gulf's shores throughout the region. Call out a flotilla of oil tankers to suck up the oil.

Put the screws to the entire oil industry who operate in U.S. waters and tell them this is a national crisis and it is their responsibility to this country, from which they reap their livelihoods, to help with the cleanup and get this national nightmare behind us. Exert leadership---let the oil companies know who is boss here. Act in the interests of the American people---not in the interests of Big Oil. That would be an exercise in Presidential leadership for which the President would reap electoral reward.

Posted by: OHIOCITIZEN | May 26, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Cillizza's point seems to be that, since the Republicans are trying to make this tempest in a teapot which is nothing more or less than the practice of politics something that Obama and Sestak "must deal with", therefore they "must deal with it"? Is not "influencing the outcomes of Federal elections", trying (heaven forbid, through deal-cutting) to help their Party or their allies hold congressional seats something that all Presidents do at all times? Why except to further the goals of Toomey's campaign should Obama/Sestak give the story more life?

The matter would be different if, for example, the Administration abused its law enforcement powers through politically motivated prosectutions of politicians from the opposition party (see Alabama Governor Siegelman, Bush Administration), or removal of Federal District Attorneys for failing to respond to political pressures to embark on prosecutions of the opposition party (see Iglesias, New Mexico during Bush Administration).

That, not trying to entice a politicain out of an election by offering a post for which he/she is qualified (see Obama appointment of Utah Governor Huntsman as Ambassador to China) would be real abuse of power. Cillizza and similar commentators should be sensitive to the difference, do some serious journalism/analysis instead of pursuing empty calorie stories like Obama/Sestak job offer based either on one political party's talking points or the personal pleasure the journalists derive from stirring the pot.

Martin Weil

Posted by: martinweil | May 26, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Cillizza's point seems to be that, since the Republicans are trying to make this tempest in a teapot which is nothing more or less than the practice of politics something that Obama and Sestak "must deal with", therefore they "must deal with it"? Is not "influencing the outcomes of Federal elections", trying (heaven forbid, through deal-cutting) to help their Party or their allies hold congressional seats something that all Presidents do at all times? Why except to further the goals of Toomey's campaign should Obama/Sestak give the story more life?

The matter would be different if, for example, the Administration abused its law enforcement powers through politically motivated prosectutions of politicians from the opposition party (see Alabama Governor Siegelman, Bush Administration), or removal of Federal District Attorneys for failing to respond to political pressures to embark on prosecutions of the opposition party (see Iglesias, New Mexico during Bush Administration).

That, not trying to entice a politicain out of an election by offering a post for which he/she is qualified (see Obama appointment of Utah Governor Huntsman as Ambassador to China) would be real abuse of power. Cillizza and similar commentators should be sensitive to the difference, do some serious journalism/analysis instead of pursuing empty calorie stories like Obama/Sestak job offer based either on one political party's talking points or the personal pleasure the journalists derive from stirring the pot.

Martin Weil

Posted by: martinweil | May 26, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

If we can only make Obama look as sleazy as us. That is a tall order but we need to redouble our efforts! How can we compare him to sleazy and incompetent Bush one more time? Ah yes! Lack of transparency in politics!

Logical Republican Strategy via The Fix

Posted by: BobSanderson | May 26, 2010 11:45 AM
-------
Unfortunately, Bob, the hill isn't very high to climb. Just look at his record and "sleaze" is the first word that comes to mind.

Posted by: Brigade | May 26, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

noacoler
Typical Obama demo answer to include insults and sarcasm when the truth is revealed.
Get educated before you spew. IT IS A FEDERAL CRIME, 18 USC 600. Read, comprehend and wait a little longer. A few people will be going down for this. And after it happens, clean my sheets.

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt

Posted by: TRUTH20 | May 26, 2010 2:17 PM
--------

Truth20, it's way, way, way, waaaaayyyy too late for Noacoler. His place in the fool's hall of shame was secured long ago.

Posted by: Brigade | May 26, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1 wrote,
"don't usually agree with noacoler but she is 100% right. Why is CC carrying Toomey's water?"

You're both slightly to the left of Ho Chi Minh politically, so I don't know what your falling out was over. However, I detect a bit of gay bashing in your intro, as I seem to recollect noacoler has identified himself as a "he", not a "she".

And this from one so easily offended by the remarks of others. Or maybe you were using some of that famous leichtman1 irony.
I know the "s" key is nowhere near the "h" key, so it couldn't be a typo.

Posted by: Brigade | May 26, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Off Point News Flash
The American Red Croos is training and providing supplies to the taliban. Nice act of humanity but they can do so without my support.
That's like allowing a Mosque to be built across the street from 9/11 Ground Zero. That would be proposterous and an insult to those who died and their survivors. Oh wait, they are doing that.

Posted by: TRUTH20 | May 26, 2010 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Soliciting a prostitute (no act of sex) = crime.
Conspire to kill (no act of killing) = crime.
Offering a position to a person to not run in an election = crime.

Posted by: TRUTH20 | May 26, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Gallenrod
By law, just the mere offer and/or consideration is a crime. There does not have to be any "act" of physical action.
That's what the issue is or else it would not matter.

Posted by: TRUTH20 | May 26, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, we don't have enough problems to deal with. Give us more! Pull the Justice Department off the terror watch. I mean, who doesn't want terrorists to succeed in killing thousands of people?

And pull Holder away from the legal issues with BP so BP doesn't have to pay the people of the Gulf for the cleanup and the lost income from shrimping and fishing.

Geez.

Posted by: MadamDeb | May 26, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, we don't have enough problems to deal with. Give us more! Pull that Justice Department off the terror watch. I mean, who doesn't want terrorists to succeed in killing thousands of people?

And pull Holder away from the legal issues with BP so BP doesn't have to pay the people of the Gulf for the cleanup and the lost income from shrimping and fishing.

Geez.

Posted by: MadamDeb | May 26, 2010 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Why is no one investigating as to whether illegal activity actually occurred?

==

Because there is no evidence anything criminal or unethical happened in the first place.

Invesrigators and prosecutors have enough real work, no tme left to chase rainbows.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 26, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

If this is true this is bribery and at the highest level. Whoever offered that job committed a serious crime. I do not care if this goes to the top. Whoever made the call needs to be found.
If they think this is going to disappear, they are kidding themselves. I do not care if you are Democrat or Republicans, this sort of thing just should not happen. We should not stand for it.

Posted by: greatgran1 | May 26, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cillizza,
Why are you and most others only writing about Obama/Sestak in terms of the motivation of Republicans in flogging this story? Why is no one investigating as to whether illegal activity actually occurred? Would you and others be questioning the Democrats motivation in pushing the story if George W. Bush had done the same thing during his presidency? Or would you be trying to dig up the details? If you are honest with yourself, you know the answer.

Posted by: Buffal0Bill
------------------------------------------
Because Transparent Barry has shown a penchant for Chicago style politics ?

Posted by: leapin | May 26, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cillizza,
Why are you and most others only writing about Obama/Sestak in terms of the motivation of Republicans in flogging this story? Why is no one investigating as to whether illegal activity actually occurred? Would you and others be questioning the Democrats motivation in pushing the story if George W. Bush had done the same thing during his presidency? Or would you be trying to dig up the details? If you are honest with yourself, you know the answer.

Posted by: Buffal0Bill | May 26, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

As Gallenod proves, just the usual winger hysteria to try to pin something on Obama. Next....

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1: Excellent point. Not just campaign staffs and political allies, but donors, too. If the statue were enforced to the extreme, the only people you could hire for your administration would be those who were neutral or opposed to you during the campaign.

(Though for some administrations, it would have improved the outcome to have some dissenting views in the mix.)

Posted by: Gallenod | May 26, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse


Barry the incompetent boob Obama -- Mister open and transparent government -- turns out to be a corrupt thief covering up what is likely an impeachable offense.

This headless chicken in the White House is so "open" about his governance or lack thereof that he has gone 338 days without a press conference.

Miserable failure Obama


Posted by: screwjob15 | May 26, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Obama is in a box.. Sestak/Obama has put him in the box... There is no escape and stonewalling will not work.. Someone has committed a crime and that someone is a Democrat. We need a special prosecutor at this point..

McGruff says "Take a bite out of Obama!"


Posted by: 2010Rout | May 26, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

RE: "18 US Code - Section 600: Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity." It requires an intent of positive or negative action by the target of the job offer directed at a political candidate for office.

Offering someone a job for "activity" is illegal. However, you don't usually get the job until after you take the action (unless your hired to do something nefarious, in which case it's another type of fraud in addition).

However, withdrawing from a race to accept a government position is not activity, but making yourself "inactive" in the sense that you no longer are playing in that arena. Has the person who offered you the job broken the law? Maybe, but you'll have a hard time proving it wasn't just hiring a qualified person. Again, in this case, Sestak was not anywhere near Spector in the polls at the time the offer was tendered, so the defense would be, "we thought he was going to lose anyway so our intent at the time was to offer him a soft landing."

On another note, that attack that Sestak was removed because he was abusive is disingenuous. Charlie Vaughns, the Chief of Naval Operations who hired Sestak, hired his as an enforcer and told him to "clean house," a mission Sestak embraced with his usual gusto. However, he made some enemies in the process, apparently including Mike Mullen, Vaughn's succesor as CNO. So Mullen cleared part of his deck when he took over by firing Sestak. Vaughns has admitted he didn't give Sestak enough cover. So while Republicans may trot out that story every so often, I doubt it will get much traction with voters. It's ancient history at this point and from a world most people won't identify with. Most voters will just remember "retired Navy admiiral," so bringing it up will only serve to remind the electorate that the Democrat is a war veteran and the Republican isn't.

Posted by: Gallenod | May 26, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

If the statements by Sestak about the offer are true, a crime has been committed by law, no doubt.
However, it's not just Sestak who has admitted this offer. Even WH Press Sec Gibbs has made reference to an offer but undoubtedly, he has been directed to not say specifics.
There is something here folks and it is a crime in the WH.

Posted by: TRUTH20 | May 26, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Geez, bsimon1, you'd think a newscaster would be smart enough to not make a statement to the press without being absolutely sure of it.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | May 26, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

GJonahJameson writes
"If Sestak was not explicitly offered anything and then subsequently said he was, there's always the possibility that he just misinterpreted a comment or conversation from someone in the administration."

Something like that is going on locally, here in MN. Candidate for the DFL nomination for governor, Matt Entenza, has allegedly offered the position of Lt Gov to newscaster Robyn Robinson. At least that's what Robinson told the St Paul paper last weekend. Now Entenza says she wasn't offered the job & his campaign has been talking to several people, gauging interest & looking for the right fit. Robinson insists the job was offered. The only question left now is who will have the egg on their face.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 26, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

"Having said that, sverigegrab is correct that the WH should probably get out in front of this & clear the air. That they haven't makes me wonder if Sestak has had imaginary conversations with WH staff about his potential appointment to be Sec of Navy."

No. Gibbs commented last Sunday on Face the Nation. I watched him. He said, "I'm not a lawyer, but lawyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak, and nothing inappropriate happened."

He said that in response to a direct question about the job offer. He chose not to deny that a job offer was made, he said nothing to contradict or impugn Sestak, leaving the impression that Sestak is telling the truth.

There were no imaginary conversations. The White House will need to fix this and soon.

Posted by: shrink2 | May 26, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

truth20, your interpretation of that statute is so broad that nobody who ever works on a campaign could ever work for the government.

Which may not be a bad idea, now that you mention it.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 26, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

@ angie12106

What you cite are different fact sets. If the person being persuaded or offered a position is not already in the race, that is a different matter, in my understanding of the relevant code. Please cite any code or decisions you wish, in an effort to support your thesis, however.

Posted by: neopatetic | May 26, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

What high level government job was offered to Sestak not to run against Specter?
Who in the White House offered him the job?
What did the President know and when did he know it?
Hard to believe someone in his administration would do this without the Presidents approval.
And why the cover-up and stonewalling?
The DOJ is refusing a special investigator.
Something fishy here.

Posted by: joanz3 | May 26, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

What did the president know and when did he know it?

Posted by: gdodd414 | May 26, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Clearly the Sestak situation is another IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE.

Obama has got to be kidding.

I just hope they include FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM as one of the counts in the IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS.


These FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM are AIMED AT INTIMIDATING PEOPLE NOT TO EXERCISE THEIR FREEDOM OF SPEECH - which is a CIVIL RIGHT.

And clearly, the campaign of FALSE CHARGES OF RACISM IS A CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION - THE SAME AS IF SOMEONE TRIED TO INITIMIDATE A BLACK FROM VOTING IN THE SOUTH.

.

Posted by: 37thand0street | May 26, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

I eagerly look forward to the reactions of the many commenters here who are so insistent that a crime has been committed when Republicans in the legislature do not make any effort to pursue criminal charges against anyone. And by "reactions," I mean "silence," because the vast majority of them will never be seen on another post.

Once the news gets out that Joe Sestak could not possibly have been offered the position he was supposedly offered, I expect for most of the attacks to focus on Sestak rather than President Obama. And then it will be another opportunity for me to observe one of the many paradoxes of our political system in action. If Sestak was not explicitly offered anything and then subsequently said he was, there's always the possibility that he just misinterpreted a comment or conversation from someone in the administration. But oddly enough, despite the fact that so many of those inclined to attack Sestak are likely those who believe all liberals are boneheads, none will be willing to entertain the idea that he made a mistake.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | May 26, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

18 US Code - Section 600: Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment,
position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit,
provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of
Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such
benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any
political activity or for the support of or opposition to any
candidate or any political party in connection with any general or
special election to any political office, or in connection with any
primary election or political convention or caucus held to select
candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Posted by: TRUTH20 | May 26, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

And all that without promising another position as a bribe.

Maybe you can get this.
If someone pleads to you to not run for office and you don't, end of story.
If If someone pleads to you to not run for office and will pay you $10,000 it's a crime.

Posted by: TRUTH20 | May 26, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

@ Rhino22

It is you. Even if the White House was already "looking for someone to fill the position" — pure supposition at this point, by the way — Congressman Sestak has said he was offered the job to get out of the primary. Do you understand the quid pro quo nature of the offer? Even if Congressman Sestak was "a good candidate based on his experience," he was already an announced and filed candidate for the office of United States Senator. This is not as if he was just anybody. This is not as if his qualifications or lack thereof were the basis for the job offer at all. The specific allegation by Congressman Sestak is that the White House wanted him out of the election in which he was already running. It is a felonious violation of one or more Federal statutes to do that. Look up 18 USC 600. It does not matter what Congressman Sestak's reply was to whether of not the White House broke that law. It does not matter whether or not there was someone else already nominated for or serving in that position to whether of not the White House broke that law. Unless Sestak is lying, the evidence indicates that some person or persons in the White House has or have committed one or more felonies.

Posted by: neopatetic | May 26, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

"This offer is not "an appointment to a qualified individual" ... it is an attempt to influence a candidate to leave an election race in favor of the job ... hence changing the spectrum of the election. By removing a candidate from a race, that is influencing the outcome. Hence, a felony."


By that logic, it all depends on the timing. As ddawd notes, the WH had already nominated a candidate to be Secretary of the Navy prior to Specter's party switch, and thus, prior to there being a candidate to protect in that race. That fact alone would seem to moot the claim of a felony having been committed.

Having said that, sverigegrab is correct that the WH should probably get out in front of this & clear the air. That they haven't makes me wonder if Sestak has had imaginary conversations with WH staff about his potential appointment to be Sec of Navy.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 26, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

The Sestak thingy is soooo silly. It's called politics, People! and Karl Rove was the Grand Master of politicking...

Mar. 26, 2010
>>>...... after Rep. Ben Gilman found his congressional district eliminated by redistricting in 2002, the White House tried to persuade him from challenging another Republican congressman in another district by considering him for an administration position. Karl Rove repeatedly intervened in Republican primaries. And Tim Pawlenty is not a senator because Rove urged him to run for governor instead.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/issas-call-for-a-special-prosecutor-does-it-have-merit/38064/

Posted by: angie12106 | May 26, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Vanity Fair will do a photo spread of Sestak and his wife...

Posted by: 2010Rout | May 26, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Jason Voorhees (Friday the 13th). He keeps coming back.
Here's your nothing. Facts you cannot dispute.
Obama has orchastrated the most spending than every other President combined. In his first year.
Obama has lost OVER 4 MILLION jobs since he took office, the most since 1940
Obama has almost doubled unemployment (currently 9.9%) and projected to reach 11% before his 2 year point. Bush averaged 5.7% in 8 years!
Obama has formed the least transparant administration ever, not even allowing public press to do interviews
Obama has created the most partisan government ever
Obama has brainwashed misguided imbeciles who believe he is on the right track
etc, etc, @@

November, November, November
2012 Nobama, Nobama, Nobama

Posted by: TRUTH20 | May 26, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Offer someone a job with the requirement that they agree to serve at least two years. This naturally means that they can't look for another job, say that of a sitting Senator, in the meantime. Nothing explicit.

Wink wink. Nudge nudge. Say no more. Say no more. I bet she goes.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | May 26, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Liberal MO: If side-stepping and denial doesn't work, divert attention to Palin and Paul regardless of the subject.

Posted by: bethg1841 | May 26, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

This story is huge. We're talking Federal Criminal Charges. It is against federal law to attempt to change the outcome of a federal election either directly or indirectly.

==

Even if there were anything to this it would in no way be even unethical, much less criminal. A qualified man offered a Cabinet post.

Better get used to the fact that your precious party of liars and bedwetters is down for the count and the ref just got to ten.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 26, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

===========================================

Of course, the double standard of ethic for liberals. LOL! When a Republican commit adultery with an employee they are forced to resign. WHen it is a Democrat, it is a personal issue.

When a Republican commits a federal crime, they are tried and put in jail. When a Democrat does it, it is a question of ethics. LOL!!!

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | May 26, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

doesn't seem to be resonating well enough to win elections

you mean like in VA, NJ, PA, HI, FL, MA?

Ped is becoming more and more delusional. but keep up the chanting loon:

MMMmmmm Mmmmm mmmmmmm

I Pledge Allegiance
To Obama
And the Socialist State of America
And to the Collective
For Which it Stands
One Nation
Without God
Unexceptional
With Poverty
And Misery
For All

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 26, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

We need a special prosecutor

We need hearings

We need to explore this Democrat Culture of Corruption


Posted by: 2010Rout | May 26, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Quote IS actually from the 60's, the 1860's by Lincoln.

==

It's variously attributed to many different authors, Lincoln, Winston Churchill, and others.

And it's stale, as are you.

Milk this scandalette for all you can because you guys have nothing else. "Obama is a socialist-a" doesn't seem to be resonating well enough to win elections. Sorry.

noVEMbernoVEMbernoVEMber .. waaaah!!

Posted by: Noacoler | May 26, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Obama = Crime

Posted by: 2010Rout | May 26, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Where's the crime? He shot the man four times. That only incapacitated him. He died from bleeding to death not due to my client making him immobile from shooting him four times.

Folks, it's a federal crime to "bribe" someone to drop out of a federal election to make the outcome different. This is the accusation and a totally viable one.
And do not let this headline fool you again. Many democrats are demanding answers too. Your comments against republicans wanting answers is wrong is just reconfirming your and this administrations total ignorance.

Posted by: TRUTH20 | May 26, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

I love the frenzied liberal response... Gee Beaver... everyone is doing it! McGruff says TAKE A BITE OUT OF OBAMA!

Posted by: 2010Rout | May 26, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Funny indeed, when CC put Rand Paul on his list of most influential Republicans last week, "like it or not," he said, I thought to myself, "Self," I thought, "Who will be next? How crazy will they get?"

Orly, Orly, Orly...run Orly run! Sarah did it and she is so stupid she couldn't hit the ground if she dropped something. Rand did it and he is insane. C'mon Orly, the Republicans have a tent big enough, even for your ego.

Posted by: shrink2 | May 26, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone recall Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Well he fired Sestak for his abusive leadership.
anyway, the crime here is that Sestak was offered a job in the WH to NOT RUN for office. Fact is, that is a federal crime 18 USC 600. Point blank fact.

Posted by: TRUTH20 | May 26, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Is it me or this story more than it should be? Seems a simple explaination. White House was looking for someone to fill the position - Congressman Sestak was a good candidate based on his experience - approached him about the job - he said he wanted to run for Senate instead - end of story.

Posted by: Rhino22 | May 26, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

You know that this sort of thing goes on all the time. What do you think the Bush WH said to Spencer Abraham or John Ashcroft?

Darryl Issa, whose own past is hardly blemish-free, has been beating this drum for months, as have a lot of R. politicos, incl. Michael Steele.

It's all a storm in a teacup, but the WH would be well advised to give an explanation (and possibly find a scapegoat) soon. Sestak, whatever happened, is blameless except for indiscretion.

Posted by: sverigegrabb | May 26, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

crime = crime


Posted by: 2010Rout | May 26, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

the simpleton DDAWD has seized upon a sufficient answer for liberals.

good luck with that pea brain.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 26, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Again, people, Obama had nominated a Secretary of Navy a month before Specter switched parties.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 26, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Obama = Nixon

Posted by: 2010Rout | May 26, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

"Will you still think it is funny when Cillizza does a Republican Rising! puff piece on Orly's candidacy?

Posted by: shrink2"

Considering I find them funny now (ZOMG, MITCH DANIELZ IS SOOOO COOOL), yeah, I'd find this downright hilarious.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 26, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Canned Dem response:

If a Repub said it: It's a lie! (note this can be used right up until the blue dress comes back from the lab or the paternity test arrives. then you must revert back to the "consenting adults" approach.)

If a Dem said it: this situation is too complicated to decide, everyone does it anyway so no big deal, and if it were, Repubs did it first.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 26, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, drindl, it's tough to pin down his political ideology exactly, he covers the conservative movement, but is also a guy who appears on Olbermann.

But it doesn't matter what his leanings are. He's a good writer. I was disconcerted when he was hired by the WaPo, but he got so many positive mentions by other people that I decided to start reading him.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 26, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Give me a break. The guy is qualified to be secretary of the navy so you offer hime the job. If he takes it he has to drop out of the Senate race because you can only do one job at a time and it would be conflict of interest. He decied on the Senate. What is the big deal?

Posted by: bradcpa | May 26, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Gallenod,

Those examples (destroying ballots, vote rigging, stuffing ballots) are all voting fraud.

This offer is not "an appointment to a qualified individual" ... it is an attempt to influence a candidate to leave an election race in favor of the job ... hence changing the spectrum of the election. By removing a candidate from a race, that is influencing the outcome. Hence, a felony.

It does not matter if it helps or hurts the political party, it is still a felony.

Posted by: vmidurk | May 26, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 26, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Quote IS actually from the 60's, the 1860's by Lincoln.
It is so amazing that it fits the leftist dems of today. There's a reason why the Reps are called RIGHT. Stems from the French. Lefts (liberals) were revolutionaries and Rights (conservatives)were nobles.
We may never always agree and drindl us also but you said it best, "LOL. the responses to this column are so amusing."
Been a pleasure, looking forward to future "sparring".

Posted by: TRUTH20 | May 26, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Teeheehee, look who wants to run for SecState of Cali.

Posted by: DDAWD

Will you still think it is funny when Cillizza does a Republican Rising! puff piece on Orly's candidacy?

Posted by: shrink2 | May 26, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

No Gallenod, they don't have anything so they are continously grasping at straws. Unless they are busy trying to force taxpayers to pay for oil spills instead of oil companies...

Where are the rightwing comments on this? Is this why you elect your represenatives, so they can rip you off to please oil companies? ARe you really this stupid?

Defend this, you morons:


"You can always count on the Old Denier to step into the breach:

Republican Senator James Inhofe has stepped up to the plate yet again for big oil, pledging a Republican filibuster against legislation offered by New Jersey's Robert Menendez that would completely lift the $75 million liability cap currently protecting big oil companies from claims of economic damage from oil spills."

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

sanmateo wrote: What you call pessimism, Conservatives call realism! It is analogous to a parent - child relationship.
--------------------------------
Of course, you can call it whatever you want. But you guys are glum, glum, glum. I'm assuming you see yourself as the parent and the liberals as the children. Or, do I have that backwards?

Anyway, I still recommend chanting. You can add a curse:

NOVemberYOU'LL_be_sorry
NOVemberYOU'LL_be_sorry
NOVemberYOU'LL_be_sorry
NOVemberYOU'LL_be_sorry

if that helps.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 26, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

@ bsimon1

This reflects poorly on Representative (and retired Navy admiral) Joseph Sestak for several reasons. He may have made up the story, in which case he is both a liar and, for not coming forth with an admission that he lied, a coward. Being proven a liar and a coward would clearly destroy his image (that of an admiral with honor as untainted as his dress whites), and with it much of his rationale for becoming the next Senator from Pennsylvania. If he did not make up the story, he has a duty to tell the truth about the relevant events. He has that duty given that what happened, if he is telling the truth, apparently constitutes one or more felonies which may extend to the conduct of President Obama, as well as others such as Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and White House Counsel Robert Bauer. Ordinary citizens have that duty, but Rep. Sestak has also sworn three oaths which bind him to this day. As a midshipman at the Naval Academy, as an officer in the United States Navy and as a House member, Joe Sestak has sworn multiple oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Here is very relevant text from one:

""Midshipmen are persons of integrity: They stand for that which is right. They tell the truth and ensure that the full truth is known. They do not lie."

Note particularly the portion that compels all those like Joe Sestak to "ensure that the full truth is known." No one can honestly say he has done that in this case. Therefore, Sestak has not lived up to his oath. There goes his image.

If he is demonstrably willing to betray his sacred oaths, why would anyone think Sestak would not betray his oath of office as a United States Senator? For now at least, he seems plainly to have put what he apparently believes are the interests of his own career and those of his political party above the legitimate interests of truth, justice and his own sacred honor. That is incredibly sad, but also dangerous.

When a sitting Congressman, a candidate for the U S Senate, accuses unnamed persons in the White House of felonious acts, the people of this country have a right to know what actually happened. Beyond that, the people have a right to expect that when President Obama campaigned on the promise that his administration would be transparent, that he would ensure that. In this matter, at least, that promise has not been kept. C'mon, Joe. 'Fess up. It's good for the soul.

Posted by: neopatetic | May 26, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

my mind is spent and empty now.
Posted by: bumblingberry

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Maybe I'm missing something, but offering a primary candidate a job in an administration does not seem to fit the legal definition of government employees using their positions to "influence the outcome of a political race." Prosecutions in that area usually involve people who attempt direct interference in the mechanics of the electoral process (vote rigging, ballot stuffing, destroying ballots, etc.), not simply offering an alternative and appointed position. As Chris pointed out, that happens all the time.

It might be a different matter if, for example, the Obama admiistraton offered a Republican nominee for the Senate a job in the adminstration a month before the election. That would be difficult to defend as anything but an attempt to directly influence the outcome of the election.

But in Sestak's case, not only was he not an official nominee at that point, he was trailing well behind Spector in the polls.

However, as Sestak's district might likely revert to the Republicans if he were either running for Senate or working in the administration, you'd think the Obama administration would have wanted him running for his House seat unless he was clearly the best person for a particular job.

So yes, they could possibly have been trying to clear the field for Spector, especially since Obama likely realized long before most people that Sestak was a threat to Spector. But he had helped Spector defect and stood by whatever commitment he made to Spector as part of that deal both in endorsements and actions. In short, he showed the rest of his supporters (and any other potential Republican defectors) that he will keep his word if anyone else crosses the aisle. That's an important message.

The Republicans will milk this for all it's worth, though, and for as long as they can. (Though mostly because they don't have much else to work with at the moment.)

Posted by: Gallenod | May 26, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Dawd -- I take back what I said once about Wiegel. The truth is, he is a decent old-style conservative. But he is stuck covering a 'movement' that is degenerating, rapidly becoming both dumber and more insane. Too bad for him that he is beat is the sewer, the tragic manifestation of mental illness that is the rightwing today.

"High crimes and misdemanors" -- LOL. the responses to this column are so amusing.

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Time to retire that quote, it's gotten stale from overuse.

Posted by: Neocoler


People have said that to you a lot, haven't they?

How about we retire all your tired overused notions scavenged from the 60s era of liberal domination, before all the bills came due?

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 26, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

http://kabc2010.nextgenpols.com/HTML_QandA_1_KABC_0053.htm

Teeheehee, look who wants to run for SecState of Cali.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 26, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

well "truth" you certainly have removed even the smallest vestige of doubt.

Time to retire that quote, it's gotten stale from overuse.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 26, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

In drivl's world it is a non-story if she can't find anything positive to say about it from her liberal hate sites. It leaves her with nothing to offer.

Except the typical moonbat reply when confronted with facts:

LOL. You really ought to stop smoking that stuff.

Posted by: drivl

I think in Ped BINGO, that qualifies for a BINGO on drivl, her mind is spent and empty now. she will attempt to refresh over at Kos after a time.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 26, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

noacoler
Typical Obama demo answer to include insults and sarcasm when the truth is revealed.
Get educated before you spew. IT IS A FEDERAL CRIME, 18 USC 600. Read, comprehend and wait a little longer. A few people will be going down for this. And after it happens, clean my sheets.

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt

Posted by: TRUTH20 | May 26, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Drindl,

Weigel actually responds to some of the er...fan mail...he got as a response to what he wrote about Palin.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/inside_my_palin_mailbag.html

Posted by: DDAWD | May 26, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

You know when the Dems fought against a simple sex charge to impeach one of their own , they would surely fight against breaking the laws of our Constitution.
This is surely a crime.
To offer someone a job not to run against Sen Arlen S. in Penn(regardless if he took the bribe or not) is most certainly a high crime. Why,who and what is the holdup on appointing a special prosecutor to investigate this most egregious crime. Where is the transparancy we were promised
I am not accusing Sestak of anything, but the person who offered the bribe is guilty and should be brought to justice. also when and how much did the President know of this bribe. If he is guilty then impeach

Posted by: mothra82 | May 26, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Public office is termed just like that so everything going on should be made public.

I understand the "game" in politics, but the PEOPLE are always entitled to the truth and facts from public officials.

Posted by: vmidurk | May 26, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Once again, phony 'small gov' wingers want US taxpayers to foot the bill for oil company negligence:


" Republican Senator James Inhofe has stepped up to the plate yet again for big oil, pledging a Republican filibuster against legislation offered by New Jersey’s Robert Menendez that would completely lift the $75 million liability cap currently protecting big oil companies from claims of economic damage from oil spills.

Again, it would seem to me the free market solution is to lift the caps, and if it becomes more pricey to drill oil safely, then companies will just have to pass that cost on to the public, who will, as they did when prices for fuel skyrocketed during the Bush years, adjust their behaviors and purchases accordingly. Additionally, auto companies who have made advances in fuel efficient cars and companies which have already worked to lower their fuel consumption will reap the competitive advantage they deserve. And should deepwater drilling become prohibitively expensive, oil companies will re-examine fields they before thought were too expensive, but now are, by comparison, cost-effective.

Why do Republicans hate the free market?"

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

It's the responsibility of any journalist to know that there was already a nomination for SecNavy even before Specter switched parties. Over a month before Specter made the party switch.

And not just know it, but fu cking WRITE it.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/sestak_couldnt_have_been_nomin.html

Posted by: DDAWD | May 26, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

So pathetic seeing the various nutso wingers trolls trying so hard to pretend that there's a 'there' there in this non-story. But that is the fault of our pathetic and shoddy press corpse, always looking for another blue dress.

Posted by: drindl

----------------------------

Can you explain, drindl, why this is a non-story. Sestak has publicly said twice that it is. If Sestak's statements that he was offered a White House job to drop out of the race are true, then the Obama administration tried to use the president's office to bribe an election, and it is a crime under federal law.

If someone can prove Sestak's statements untrue, then it will be a non-story, but as long as it's a Democratic candidate for Senate driving this story, it seems to have some credibility in my mind.

Posted by: blert | May 26, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

This one, McCarthy said, would do nothing less than "change the course of history." The Web site filters out obscenity and the like, but it hasn't kept out hundreds of ideas: some serious, some offensive and some completely wacky:

"Let kids vote!" recommended one. "Let's make a 'Social Security Lotto,' " proposed another. "What dope came up with the idea of criminalizing a parent's right to administer corporal punishment?" a third demanded.

Some contributors demanded action to uncover conspiracies involving the 9/11 attacks and the "NEW WORLD ORDER." One forward thinker recommended that we "build the city of the future somewhere in a non-inhabit part of the United States, preferably the desert."

Some of the uglier forces of the Internet found their way to the House Republican site. "I oppose the Hispanicization of America," said one. "These are not patriotic people." Another contributor had parody in mind (we hope): "English is are official langauge. Anybody who ain't speak it the RIGHT way should kicked out."

But Republicans might want to take a hard look at the suggestion that "we need to reframe the discussion" about the BP oil spill to counteract the "environmental whackos" worried about wildlife. Republicans, this person proposed, should argue that "BP is creating a new race of faster dolphins. These fish are unable to compete against the fish of other countries, but now their increased lubrication will allow them to fly through the water. Faster fish = good."

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

This story is huge. We're talking Federal Criminal Charges. It is against federal law to attempt to change the outcome of a federal election either directly or indirectly.

==

Even if there were anything to this it would in no way be even unethical, much less criminal. A qualified man offered a Cabinet post.

Better get used to the fact that your precious party of liars and bedwetters is down for the count and the ref just got to ten.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 26, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

bribe   /braɪb/ Show Spelled [brahyb] Show IPA noun, verb,bribed, brib·ing.
–noun
1.money or any other valuable consideration given or promised with a view to corrupting the behavior of a person, esp. in that person's performance as an athlete, public official, etc.: The motorist offered the arresting officer a bribe to let him go.
2.anything given or serving to persuade or induce: The children were given candy as a bribe to be good.
–verb (used with object)
3.to give or promise a bribe to: They bribed the reporter to forget about what he had seen.
4.to influence or corrupt by a bribe: The judge was too honest to be bribed.
–verb (used without object)
5.to give a bribe; practice bribery.

New entry 5/26/2010 - bribe does not mean offering someone a job to get out of an election. that would be against the law and something that Obama would never do, even if he did.


Perhaps the word "offering" is the problem. When you say offering are you actually offering me the position or are you simply hypothetically considering whether I would succomb to your Chicago style power tricks?

A good etymologist could get this thrown out of court, especially in the Obama DOJ.

Look at recent word games:

murder is choice
warm is cold
saving is spending
terror is, what is that again?
War is overseas contingency
Islam is, unrelated to the topic
leadership is fingerpointing
lobbyists are not
bipartisanship is getting Dems against you too
transparency is opaque
oil spill is...what oil spill?????

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 26, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Sanmateo wrote: Liberals are funny.
-------------------------------
Yes, we do try to keep everyone's spirit up around here. The problem is with conservatives who are VERY pessimistic, I must say.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 26, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse
==========================================

What you call pessimism, Conservatives call realism! It is analogous to a parent - child relationship. The Parent (Conservative) have to keep telling the Child (Liberals) "no". The child doesn't understand and only gets upset at the parent, but when the child grows and matures they usually then understand what the parent was trying to teach them.

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | May 26, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Need anymore proof these folks are knuckle-draggers?

"GOP leaders seemed to have something else in mind as they rolled out their new site. "I would expect the ideas that come out of this Web site and the involvement of our members will lead to ideas that we can attempt to implement today," House Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) proclaimed. "We want to continue to offer better solutions to address the problems that America is facing, and we see this as a giant step forward, directly engaging the American people in the development of those solutions."

Such as?

"Build a castle-style wall along the border, there is plenty of stone laying around about there." That was in the "national security" section of the new site.

"Legalize Marijuana, cause, like, alcohol is legal. Man. Also." That was in the "traditional values" section.
ad_icon

"I say, repeal all the amendments to the Constitution." ("American prosperity" section.)

"Don't let the illegals run out of Arizona and hide. . . . I think that we should do something to identify them in case they try to come back over. Like maybe tattoo a big scarlet 'I' on their chests -- for 'illegal'!!!" (Filed under "job creation.")

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

"drindl
This story is huge. We're talking Federal Criminal Charges."

LOL. You really ought to stop smoking that stuff.

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

I find it amazing that the liberal posters have two sets of standards. Republicans would have been called liars and crooks. Apparently, Democrats get free passes because "that's the way it's done". Hypocrital.

Posted by: bethg1841 | May 26, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Democrats are wanting answers to include names and cannot understand why everyone has suddenly become silent.
Led by the Top Democrat Dick Durbin (D) IL. Guess it wasn't him.

Posted by: TRUTH20 | May 26, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Sanmateo wrote: Liberals are funny.
-------------------------------
Yes, we do try to keep everyone's spirit up around here. The problem is with conservatives who are VERY pessimistic, I must say.

We recommend chanting:
NoVEMbernoVEMbernoVEMbernoVEMber

(massive credit to Noacoler for the chant)

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 26, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

So pathetic seeing the various nutso wingers trolls trying so hard to pretend that there's a 'there' there in this non-story. But that is the fault of our pathetic and shoddy press corpse, always looking for another blue dress.

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse
===========================================

Liberals are funny. When the press reports on Republicans it is award winning jounalism. Yet, when it is reports about Democrats it is a witch hunt! LOL!! Silly Liberals! Your Presidents have no morals, commit crimes, and then waste tax payer money debating you in court on what the definition of "is" is. LOL!!!

I do like the post of now it will be your definition of "bribe"! LOL!!!

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | May 26, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

drindl
This story is huge. We're talking Federal Criminal Charges. It is against federal law to attempt to change the outcome of a federal election either directly or indirectly. It's not the nutso's or press. It's actually both sides of the most partisan administration coming together to get to the truth of a federal offense.
This has impeachment potential and/or others going to prison.

Posted by: TRUTH20 | May 26, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Conservative columnist Dave Wiegart:

"Sarah Palin took to her Facebook account today to inform her readers that Joe McGinniss, an award-winning reporter and author, had rented the house next door.

I saw Ben Smith flag this earlier today but did not really appreciate how strange and, frankly, immature Palin's post was until I read it.

Palin informs her readers that McGinniss is "overlooking my children’s play area" and "overlooking Piper’s bedroom." Alternately sounding angry and mocking, she refers to "the family’s swimming hole," which at first reference sounds like she's accusing McGinniss of checking out the Palins in their bathing suits, until you realize the family's "swimming hole" is Lake Lucille. And she posts a photo of the space McGinniss is renting, captioning it, "Can I call you Joe?"

Can somebody explain to me how this isn't a despicable thing for Palin to do? She describes McGinniss as the author of "the bizarre anti-Palin administration oil development pieces that resulted in my Department of Natural Resources announcing that his work is the most twisted energy-related yellow journalism they’d ever encountered."

Another way of putting it would be that McGinniss is an investigative journalist who wrote his first best-seller at age 26 and was shopping a book about Alaska and the oil industry when Palin was named John McCain's running mate. And another way of describing those "bizarre" pieces is that no one has ever challenged the facts in them."

She's just melting down -- fearing the skeletons in her closet will come tumbling out.

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Just another Liberal Spin headline from CC. So here is the question- Why are the Democrats not pressing the White House for answers??

Posted by: CayC | May 26, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

drindl wrote: So pathetic seeing the various nutso wingers trolls trying so hard to pretend that there's a 'there' there in this non-story.
---------------------------------
They write about this because there isn't a better scandal. Pickings are slim in tagging the President with scandal.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 26, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

I think zouk/Brigade/bumbling/puck/etc/etc/etc is sitting at his keyboard with tears streaming down his face. The dream is crumbling. He's been laying in bed rocking back and forth chanting NoVEMbernoVEMbernoVEMbernoVEMber but it's starting to look like all his lost.

Only Rasmussen keeps him going.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 26, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

one of the most laughable goons on the internet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
He writes for money, is respected and published, has several advanced degrees and has a life.

Drivl ,not so much. In fact, not at all.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 26, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

So pathetic seeing the various nutso wingers trolls trying so hard to pretend that there's a 'there' there in this non-story. But that is the fault of our pathetic and shoddy press corpse, always looking for another blue dress.

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2010 1:46 PM | Report abuse

I guess it all boils down to the meaning of the word "bribe" now doesn't it?

Why are liberal ethics always like this?

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 26, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Here is the sad reality of this situation. If the job offer is true, it shows just how corrupt Obama is, and that he could face charges of bribery. If the job offer is not true, then Sestak just ruined his chances of being elected. Unless the people of PA are stupid enough to elect an offical the outright lied about a job offer from the President in order not to run in an election.

And the reason the President is staying quiet on this is because there is some truth behind it. So I am sure there is a lawyer working around the clock building a defense for the President so he will not face criminal charges! LOL!!

And the house of cards will come crumbling down!

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | May 26, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Bless me, father, for I have sinned...

I have responded to the puck-troll.

I will say three Hail Mary's and three Our Father's, and beg my fellow bloggers to forgive me for my sin.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 26, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

behold the rightwing hypocrites:

"Back when the economic recovery package (i.e. “the stimulus”) was being debated, a handful of Republican governors garnered headlines by rejecting various portions of the funding. One of the loudest critics of the legislation was Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX).

At the time, Perry said rejecting the money “was pretty simple for us. … We can take care of ourselves.” “I am so concerned about the belief that has gained a foothold in our national consciousness that the best and only way to solve our nation’s problems is to drown them with taxpayer dollars,” Perry also said, adding that, with regard to the stimulus, Texas should “look a gift horse in the mouth.”

The Texas state legislature eventually pushed Perry to accept the money, but even in his official acceptance letter, Perry wrote that “I believe there are better ways to reinvigorate our economy and believe [the bill] will burden future generations with unprecedented levels of debt.” However, as the Wall Street Journal noted this morning, the stimulus is the reason that Texas currently has a balanced budget:

[T]he economic downturn is catching up with Texas. Sales-tax revenue started falling in February 2009 compared with the previous year, and only started to recover a bit in April of this year. Although Mr. Perry has railed against the federal economic-stimulus program, billions of dollars from that initiative helped Texas legislators balance the current budget.

Texas faces an $18 billion shortfall in its next two-year budget, which amounts to 20 percent of the total. And Perry’s refusal to consider tax increases is setting the state up for draconian cuts. “There is no way that they will be able to come up with $18 billion in cuts,” said Eva DeLuna Castro, a senior budget analyst at the Center for Public Policy Priorities. “They would have to shut down our prison system.”

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

News Flash: Many Dems are pressing for answers too. It's nice to see some cross the line and do what is right.
However, we may never get to the truth. There is far too much time to conspire. Also, the Dept of Justice is far to busy looking into Apple and the AZ Law that mirrors Federal Law. The DOJ is so busy and so biased that Holder alredy refused to allow ONE (1) DOJ official look into this. Makes one wonder who they are protecting. See a trend here?

Posted by: TRUTH20 | May 26, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Victor David hanson quotes -- one of the most laughable goons on the internet. More predictable garbage from the undemployed set.

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

So the welfare state is discredited. In the past, we used to be warned that static population growth, vast public-sector employment, early and generous retirement benefits, and high taxes were not sustainable. In recent years, those lectures were caricatured as partisan or hypothetical. No longer. The Greek meltdown — with Ireland, Italy, Portugal, and Spain on the brink — has shown that European socialism does not work. Bankruptcy, not politics, is the final arbiter: Individuals, firms, and nations either buy particular bonds or they don’t. And a nation like Greece, in turn, either pays what it has borrowed or it doesn’t. All the op-eds in the New York Times cannot change that fact

The new world order as envisioned by Obama in January 2009 was, I think, supposed to look something like the following: A social-democratic America would come to emulate the successful welfare states in the European Union. These twin Western communitarian powers would together usher in a new world order in which no one nation was to be seen as preeminent. All the old nasty ideas of the 20th century — military alliances, sovereign borders, independent international finance, nuclear arms, religious and cultural chauvinism — would fall by the wayside, as the West was reinvented as part of the solution rather the problem it had been in its days of colonialism, imperialism, and exploitation. A new green transnationalism would assume the place of that bad old order, a transnationalism run by elite, highly educated, and socially conscious technocrats — albeit themselves Western — supported by a progressive press more interested in effecting social change than in merely reporting the tawdry news.

Obama can still push that story, but more and more Americans disagree with his 21st-century vision. Stuck in the past, they instead believe that capitalism, not socialism, brings prosperity; that to reach a green future we need to survive for now in a carbon and nuclear present; that all, not some, laws must be enforced; that our country is different from others and needs to maintain the integrity of its borders; and that there are always going to be a few bad actors abroad who must be deterred rather than appeased.

We will hear all sorts of angry charges as these dreams die, but that will not mean they are not dead — even if we are lucky and they go out with a whimper rather than a bang.

VDH

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 26, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

I'll never know what's keeping the Republicans from impeaching this clown.

I'd throw his uppity Azz out just for his arrogant walk for a start.

Posted by: puck-101 | May 26, 2010 1:19 PM
----------------------------------
Guess we know where you're coming from, puck.

Maybe what's keeping the R's from impeaching "this clown for his uppity Azz" are the legal grounds for impeachment, to say nothing of failing to have the votes. Of course, the R's in Congress are WAY more careful (than you) to avoid looking racist.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | May 26, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

ESL

Can you do an analysis of the positions taken by the most recent winner of a Democrat congressional seat. Please compare their views taken with the usual Democrat/socialist agenda and report back. For example, do they support abortion, illegal immigrant open borders, Obummercare repeal, out of sight spending, etc?

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 26, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

In the land of transparency, the one-eyed man is king.

Posted by: andrew23boyle | May 26, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

The Obama White House did not try to bribe Sestak.

And Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.

Why won't anyone believe them?

Posted by: kitchendragon50 | May 26, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Ron Paul also opposes abortion and gay rights
which is diametrically in conflict with basic
Libertarian philospophy. Makes no sense
at all.

"Koch said Paul's views on a variety of subjects differ from the Libertarian Party, including his promised support for any measures to ban abortion and his opposition to same-sex marriage"

those positions may be good conservative R politics but definitely in conflict with Libertarian philosophy.

Posted by: leichtman1 | May 26, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Sestak's Toast anyway. He was just a stepping stone for the Republicans in November. But this story like all others about the Hussein Obama administration just piles one piece of corruption on top of another. I'll never know what's keeping the Republicans from impeaching this clown.I'd throw his uppity Azz out just for his arrogant walk for a start.

Posted by: puck-101 | May 26, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Sestak's Toast anyway. He was just a stepping stone for the Republicans in November. But this story like all others about the Hussein Obama administration just piles one piece of corruption on top of another. I'll never know what's keeping the Republicans from impeaching this clown.I'd throw his uppity Azz out just for his arrogant walk for a start.

Posted by: puck-101 | May 26, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

This is like crying rape then refusing to name the rapist. Does Sestak think he can shame the person who offered him the job into manning up? Politicians have no shame. Or does he think he can have it both ways: accuse the competition but refrain from naming names and be spared the onus of ratting out his opposition? If what happened was a crime then he is obligated to name names or else he should've kept his mouth shut. Politicians have been bribing for thousands of years - it's not right but it's the real world.

Posted by: jcaroleclarke | May 26, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

D.C. is full of liars, cheats and crooks and the current administration proves that. The country is still waiting on the magical "transparency" that the president promised to bring in. I guess in Chicago it's only crime if you get caught.

Posted by: stopthem | May 26, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

"Chicago has come to DC"

Wow! That is so smart! DC has become political now? If only Obama hadn't gotten elected it would have kept DC pure. Is that what you mean?

Posted by: BobSanderson | May 26, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

personal attacks, how very intellectual of you.

Posted by: leichtman1 | May 26, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

The story won't go away because something happened and we want to know what.

Did Sestak make it up? If not, what exactly was the position up for grabs? Was it something typical of a "patronage" job, like some cushy ambassadorship or was it something more serious, like an under-secretary?

This is going to come out sooner or later. A public figure can't make a statement like Sestak's without having to eventually elaborate and explain it. The longer Sestak, or the administration, or both wait to level with us, the more damage they do themselves.

Posted by: andrew23boyle | May 26, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Libertarians attacking Rand Paul.
Right wing politics sure are kooky.
Zany antics, madcap highjinks, pratfalls...
what a bunch of bozos.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/05/26/us/politics/AP-US-Kentucky-Senate.html?_r=1

Posted by: shrink2 | May 26, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Maybe you should concentrate on trying to learn how to write in English first.

We all knew that you were atrocious in math and law but your style of prose is revealing in so many other measures.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 26, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Blippy/Zouk whatever nonsense he calls himself
today apparently he didn't learn basic reading skills on his way to his PHD in brownie photo classes when he can't read the name Quinnipiac University.
Socialist, Barry, Chicago any other brilliant
words of wisdom to offer us.

Posted by: leichtman1 | May 26, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

I was sort of surprised that Sestak even said anything to anyone about the offer he received in the first place. That was as dumb move, as this could have been avoided if he had just kept his mouth shut. Now it's potentially a legal issue, and definately an issue for Obama who claimed to be a "different" type of politician. It's also an issue right now for Sestak, and for him to just clam up will likely be taken by the electorate as an admission of guilt. Sure, Sestak will still be able to hammer away at Toomey's past as President of the Club for Growth and an investment banker, but this is a major issue for him. To be a Washington insider as Sestak is, treat his staff very poorly and be absent from as many votes as he has to add this problem may be political suicide. In the GE, Sestak needs Obama to help him drive up the Philly vote. Being pitted against Obama is a bad sign for Dems. and Sestak specifically. Don't you know Obama is wishing a million times over Specter had won that primary!

Posted by: reason5 | May 26, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

And how does this differ from Karl Rove and Dick Cheney literally and figuratively breaking arms to secure their candidate of choice a primary-free path to the general election in places like Minnesota (Coleman) and Georgia (Chambliss). If you carry this to its logical conclusion, a President can't talk to anybody about any job in the administration without putting out a press release and full transcript. OK. Let's start by putting out a transcript of everything Judd Gregg said to the President when the goper New Hampshire Senator threw himself at the Commerce job.

Posted by: ImaDem | May 26, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

for the first time this year more Americans approve of the job he is doing than disapprove,

"First time this year". that is a rousing cry of support and fealty. Ha

Was this a MSDNC poll conducted by Olbermann down in the cafeteria? Even there they barely tolerate Hussain. In the real world, we are all pretty much doen with him, as the real polls and elections clearly show.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 26, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

finance whiz: we are confident that as Obungler continues with his socialist policies and wreck of the american economy and morality, that he will be able to compete with Bush on the measure you are interested in. He is already well on his way with the Pelosi congress as a guide.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 26, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

This is semantics, but I really don't think President Obama's administration would have to be all that transparent in order for it to be the most transparent in history. The bar isn't set all that high. Besides, transparency is an amorphous concept. 99.9 percent of people are going to judge Obama's level of transparency based on the words of people on both sides who are pushing really obvious agendas. It's just a buzzword; something voters want to see their candidates promise, but have absolutely no intention of gauging. Just like bipartisanship.

Similarly, I seriously doubt a thorough analysis of Joe Sestak's being offered an administration position would turn up any wrongdoing -- a person in politics gets offered a new job in politics for political reasons every 10 seconds -- but neither side is going to go for thorough analysis here. It's too much work for too little payoff when voters don't want to take the time to think.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | May 26, 2010 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Maybe it's time for the Arctic Grifter to stop bestowing her curse on teabaggers:

"Sarah Palin's candidates having bad week. Could darling of 'tea party' voters be losing her touch?


South Carolina Republican gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley gets get endorsement from former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin
During primary season, Sarah Palin's endorsement was seen as a gift from the heavens in Republican circles -- the seal of good housekeeping for "tea party" activists. Candidates who received the former Alaska governor's blessing soon soared in the polls, as money and volunteers poured in. Ditto the spotlight of national attention.

Now, it's easy to wonder if Palin's political Midas touch has turned to rust.

In Kentucky, the self-professed oracle for tea party anger has gotten himself in trouble with his mouth. First Rand Paul questioned the 1964 Civil Rights Act for forcing private businesses to integrate public spaces. Then he defended BP, the petroleum company that has been leaking thousands of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico for more than a month. As the White House escalated the rhetoric against BP for failing to cap the spill, Paul said criticizing business is "un-American." Finally, as the Ticket noted Wednesday morning, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell -- who, you may recall, backed Paul's opponent in the race -- virtually ordered Paul to cancel all national TV interviews, including one scheduled for Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

In Idaho on Tuesday, tea party congressional candidate Vaughn Ward lost the Republican primary. This despite Palin's endorsement but after disclosures, as Ticket reported Tuesday, that Ward plagiarized not only position papers but Barack Obama's famous address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, the one that launched the president's national career.

In South Carolina, gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley -- Palin's pick in a crowded field of Republican contenders -- is battling allegations from a former consultant that Haley, a married woman with two children, had engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with him."

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

"President Barack Obama’s national approval rating rose to 48 percent in May, and for the first time this year more Americans approve of the job he is doing than disapprove, according to a survey by Quinnipiac University.

The percentage of Americans who approve Obama’s overall job performance rose 4 percentage points from the level in an April poll; the proportion who disapprove fell to 43 percent in May from 46 percent a month earlier"

so tell us brilliant one Blippy how in R fantasyland how 19% is greater than 48%

Posted by: leichtman1 | May 26, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Sestak's higher education in politics begins.

His first lesson was "Don't give them the stick to beat you with." Rand Paul is working on this one, too.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | May 26, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Barry, Hussain, Chicago, socialism, Lewinsky,socialism, that is a lot of c*** even for you to throw into one trash post. We get it Blippy, you are a R hater who hates
all D POTUS. Again NO ONE CARES.

Posted by: leichtman1 | May 26, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

"The continuing implosion, better known as Rand Paul's post primary campaign, will be taking a break from self-immolation it appears.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is telling fellow Kentuckian Paul to shut his pie hole.

"I think he's said quite enough for the time being in terms of national press coverage," McConnell told CNN's John King on Tuesday.

McConnell is said to be one of the people who successfully convinced Paul to abort a scheduled appearance on "Meet the Press" Sunday following a string of interviews that kindly could be called Hindenburg-like.

Scoring a rare political hat trick in just a matter of days, Paul criticized the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and in the height of the gulf oil disaster, even stood up for BP.

What's next? An appearance at a Ben Roethlisberger sponsored barbeque?

His less-than-stellar performance led left-leaning political pundits and comedians to mention him alongside their favorite target.

"It's like Sarah Palin made it through medical school," Bill Maher said of Rand, an opthamologist."

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Rasmussen study: Obama's approval at all-time low.
56% disapprove.
Ties all-time record.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 26, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

This is funny -- FAUX news so wingernuts even Republicans can't stand it anymore:

This morning, Fox and Friends characterized Sen. Bob Casey’s (D-PA) Create Jobs & Save Benefits Act as a “$165 billion bailout” of union pensions. “It has been decades since you’ve seen an administration so prone to the influence of unions as this one is. I’m not going to say this is owned by the unions, but their influence on this administration is simply enormous,” Fox Business Network’s Stuart Varney claimed of the legislation, which is actually designed to partition “specific types of union pensions that are deemed to be insolvent.”

Later in the day, the network went after House Republicans for co-sponsoring similar legislation in the House. On America Live with Megyn Kelly, the network showed a chart of the nine Republicans supporting the measure and questioned their sanity.

This didn’t go over well with Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH), a co-sponsor of the House measure, who took to the floor this afternoon to criticize Fox for its coverage. “I think as a Republican, I’m supposed to love Fox News and hate MSNBC,” he began. “Now, I’m going to tell you, I do hate MSNBC, but something just happened on Fox News that compelled me to come to the floor”:

LATOURETTE: They’ve run this diagram and it really is a, I think, blaspheming my good friend Pat Tiberi from Ohio and indicating that there are nine Republicans supporting a bill that will bail out unions. Well, that’s nonsense and I don’t know who the pin head and weenie is at Fox News that decided to put that story together. But the true facts of this piece of legislation are as follows. This bill will save the taxpayers by saying to those corporations that have union pension plans, if you find yourselves in a bind, rather than thrusting that upon the taxpayer, it spreads out over five years the ability to bring those pension plans up to speed.

That’s good government, it’s a good bill. It’s a good Tiberi bill and I don’t know what they’re doing at Fox News, but they should stop smoking it and get to reporting the facts. "

This is what happens when you let rodeo clowns, disk jockeys and empty-headed wnger pundits set your party's agenda. Eventually they take you into the toilet.

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

brilliant deduction bumbly.The TeaParty and
Rs strongly dislike Obama. News flash NO
ONE CARES. Obama's overall approval rating
has consistantly been at or over 50%; 250% higher than Bush's.
When Bush left office his approval rating was a scant 19%. So now we will hear R logic that 19% is much greater than 50%.

Posted by: leichtman1 | May 26, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61gGsDR_XFI&NR=1

Even Big Bird has it figured out by now.

Liberals, being much less intelligent than birds or even puppets, will take another few years to get in the game.

whenever any intelligence is required in the Ped household, the birds get the assignment. In the drivl household, they simply laugh at themselves and move on, knowing full well the utter inadequacy.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 26, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

"It's hard to imagine that either the White House or Sestak will now be able to keep up their radio silence in the face of a growing controversy over whether a job offer was made."

Try harder. A job offer was made. A job offer was made!

The issue is whether it was made so that Specter would not get primaried (yes, primary has become a transitive verb).

Look, the administration did not go Blogo.
They did not say, if you take this plum job, will you agree not to run? Obviously if he took the job, a job for which he was qualified (unlike for example numerous crony (reverse affirmative action?) appointments of the Bush/Cheney administration), he would not have run.
But he didn't, Sestak said no.

Thus this should not reflect badly on Sestak, no matter what.

If someone did something wrong, it could only have been in the White House. If Obama for example, made a deal with Arlen on his health care vote to get Sestak out of the race. But Sestak can't know of deals the WH may have made. It is the administration that needs to talk, it is the administration that needs to fight this, not Joe Sestak, all he did was answer the phone and say no to a job offer.

Posted by: shrink2 | May 26, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

It's not that big a deal - sounds like the apologists for the Lewinsky affair all over again.

Everyone does it. I inherited this. Repubs always did worse. ETC. Fact is, Chicago has come to DC, but here there is actually a law.

I think we are beginning to see the "legacy" of Barry Hussain forming - a corruptocrat incompetent who skirted socialism and threw our entire country out the window before he was removed from office after one disasterous term.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 26, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

don't usually agree with noacoler but she is 100% right. Why is CC carrying Toomey's water?
Napolitano, Sebelius, Salazar were all provided
jobs in the Administration b/c they had tough
re-elections facing them and they were well
qualified for their appointed positions, precisely how Sestak was qualified to be S.O.N. How about Toomey is he qualified for a high ranking miliray job; not likely. Pathetic that this is the best that R have to discuss in Pa especially now that Harrisburg is in
deep financial debt and considering bankruptcy.
That should be Sestak's response: I am focussed
on the needs of the people in Harrisburg, not
this inside the Beltwat nonsense. The Gulf is bleeding oil and Greece on the verge of collapse and what do Rs want to discuss?
More R Faux Outrage; voters should be used to it by now since Rs are the party of no ideas and constant whining.

Posted by: leichtman1 | May 26, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

This is an impeachable ofense by Obama - he is trying to circumvent democracy! Look for impeachment charges to be raised this summer!

Posted by: Realist20 | May 26, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

The president’s ranks are thinning. With Sen. Arlen Specter’s defeat last Tuesday, he became the fourth Democrat in less than seven months to lose a race where Obama became personally vested and involved. An Associated Press analysis went so far to claim Specter’s defeat was perhaps the worst outcome, with the president’s pick losing to another, more liberal Democrat, casting doubts on his influence both in his own party and a key battleground state. Even moderate Democrats such as Sen. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) found themselves pushing back against Obama’s minions of Labor, and still she failed to come out victorious, forced to compete again in a June runoff.

To put it bluntly, the president has lost all remnants of coattails from his historic victory in 2008. In fact, I’m not sure he still has his jacket left. As the election soothsayer Stu Rothenberg put it last week, it’s only going to get worse for Democrats as the weeks drag on. Rothenberg told Washington Times reporter David Eldridge to expect more Democratic seats once considered “safe” to move into more contested categories. “[I] still think the House is in play," Rothenberg said. "I don't see indications of any great Democratic surge — in fact there are some 70 Democratic seats that are now contested or not safe, to some degree."

What the media is only starting to realize is last Tuesday’s elections (and the ones forthcoming) are reflecting several sentiments, but chief among them is a palpable anger towards this president’s policies

Williams

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 26, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

"It's not that big a deal."

Exactly. That's why we would like the press corps to do their job and report the news, rather than parroting Republican press releases.

Younger writers in DC apparently don't know how to do anything else -- this seems to be all they learn these days.

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

The Rasmussen poll, widely considered the most accurate in the business, found that only 25 percent of the nation's voters "strongly approve of the way Obama is performing his role as president," while 43 percent strongly disapprove. Notably, just 49 percent of Democrats "strongly approve" of Obama's performance.

Clearly, the mood on Wall Street, the wider business community and the nation at large has turned increasingly bearish on Obama's presidency. It is being driven by fear that we are in for a long period of slow economic growth that will keep the unemployment rate in the 9 percent range for the rest of this year.

Obama is not seen as leading the country, only reacting. We see that in his handling of the Gulf oil spill and in his persistent habit of blaming the previous administration for $1.5 trillion budget deficits. And when he does react, it is timid and uncertain, as evidenced by his line-item veto proposal to cut wasteful budget earmarks that wouldn't produce a thimbleful of savings, and that Republicans ridicule as "a day late and a trillion dollars short."

Meantime, trillions of dollars in wasteful spending, along with the cataclysmic Gulf oil leak, all continue to gush, awaiting someone who can effectively clean up the mess.

Lambro

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 26, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

zzzzzzzzzzoukzzzzzzzzzzz

Posted by: Noacoler | May 26, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Toomey was quoted, not Hannity. The fact that this was the subject of an editorial in the Philadelphia paper indicates that yelling at Cillizza won't make this go away.

It's not that big a deal. Specter would be in the Democratic primary and parties like to avoid contested primaries. Someone inquired if Sestak would be interested in a job. He said, yes, Senator.

Jake in 3D

Posted by: JakeD3 | May 26, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Oh look. the resident loons don't like the truth about their crooked and fraudulent incompetents in the WH.

If this were a Repub, the drumbeat would be pounding every day until the election.

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 26, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Why Did They Yank the Bitter Half's Law License?

Slick Willie Clinton isn't the only modern denizen of the White House to lose his law license. There's also the Bitter Half. Here's what can be found when you look her up at Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois-- "Court ordered inactive status" sounds like they effectively yanked her license. Why? Rumor has it she was indulging in extortion.

When we wake up from the nightmare marketed as Hope & Change, the media will rub the sleep out of its eyes and chase some of this stuff down. But in the mean time, it sure is hard to believe that such a nice lady would extort people

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 26, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

You should be ashamed of yourself for this junk, Cillizza. This crap belongs in those papers that grocery stores sell at the checkout counter. Republicans trading in gossip because they're out of ideas and they know Toomey doesn't have a chance, and there's Cillizza, panting with eagerness to carry their water. Despicable.

Posted by: Noacoler | May 26, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

"For Sestak, the political problem -- in addition to the fact that it undermines his own outsider credentials -- is that rather than riding a wave of momentum following his toppling of Specter eight days ago, he has been put on the defensive by the allegations of wrongdoing."


How does this reflect poorly on Sestak? He didn't take whatever job was [allegedly] offered, so he hasn't done anything wrong. The only way it does reflect poorly on Sestak is if he is making something up. Otherwise, doesn't it arguably boost his outsider credentials, as he didn't take the (alleged) job offer, instead mounting a primary challenge against the candidate backed by the WH?

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 26, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Some of the commenters at Gateway Pundit are speculating that the reason Chairman Zero hasn't given a Press Conference in almost a year is because his handlers are afraid he's on the verge of a breakdown, and a meltdown in front of the press would be bad for business, that is, the Revolution.

Apparently, Chairman Zero has been very bi!chy lately toward Republicans, toward his staff, and even toward his worshipful, fawning minions in the press.

Chairman Zero has been utterly in over his head. At first, I wasn't going to give him grief over the oil spill, but when I found out that he dithered over letting the state of Louisiana build sand berms to protect the shoreline, I decided to file it under "Obama's Incompetence," a file that's rapidly getting thicker than Keith Olbermann's psych profile. His incompetence has already led to multi-trillion dollar deficits, an utterly ineffectual response to the Euro Crisis, an overt hostility to border control, and utter failure to halt the Iranian nuclear program. Also, he can't close Gitmo, he can't shut down talk radio, and the stock market -- which many Obama fanboys had been pointing to as his success story -- has started going south.

This has got to be tough on a guy who has glided through life without ever facing any significant challenges or opposition.

Is he in over his head and starting to crack? What do you think?

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 26, 2010 11:48 AM | Report abuse

"Republicans know that undermining that pillar of the Obama presidency is critical to giving their party a chance to win in 2012. Put simply: The more Obama looks like every other politician, the better for the GOP."

If we can only make Obama look as sleazy as us. That is a tall order but we need to redouble our efforts! How can we compare him to sleazy and incompetent Bush one more time? Ah yes! Lack of transparency in politics!

Logical Republican Strategy via The Fix

Posted by: BobSanderson | May 26, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Flog that rightwing meme, chrissy.

I'm surprised you're not asking to see Obama's birth certificate. Someday maybe we'll get a press corps that reports the news instead of repubican talking points.

Posted by: drindl | May 26, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Chris,
When you are down to quoting Hannity you are bottom feeding.

Posted by: BobSanderson | May 26, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Obama to Take Questions, Announce New Drilling
Regulations Thursday
The WaPo will ask him how he's feeling. The New York Times
will ask him, "What's your sign?"
AP: How is Bo? Reuters: Wasn't Michelle's dress lovely?

Posted by: bumblingberry | May 26, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company