Sestak and the White House

[Embar Angylwrath]

@ Harlowe -

I think your post misses some of the points brought up in the thread (the liberal use of exclamation points are a dead giveaway). It really boils down to this... if there was nothing inappropriate about the offer, then why all the dodging, ducking and weaving by the administration? They only addressed it because they were beginning to get heat from their own party. Is it politics as usual? Perhaps. Was it illegal? Maybe, maybe not. But is this what you expected from the Obama administration when he promised a change in the way things were done? If you're honest with yourself, the answer to that would be no. One can't claim the moral high ground when engaging in the very same business as usual tactics one condemns on the campaign trail.

And if the Obama administration can't be beleived on one of its core campaign principles, why believe it on any other? Although it hasn't been brought up in this thread before, this isn't the first time the Obama administration has tried to bribe someone with a job in order to tamper with an election. Hint: Colorado. Also, its especially hypocritical of the Obama administration to stonewall and evade, when they cried bloody murder about election tampering vis-a-vis the McCain/Palin campaign coordinating with the RNC and White House.

Now, as to your comments about the oil-covered elephant in the room... yes, big news. Lots of finger pointing going on, and none of it is relevant to the response. I know BP is doing absolutely everything it can to shut down that well-head, and I know that all chest thumping aside, the United States needs BP to keep doing what its doing. If I was head of BP, I'd go to Salazar, tell him he's in charge, what does he want to do? And keep the cameras rolling on every interaction with every politician after that. Very few in politics have the courage to say "Look, we're the government. We can't do everything. There are other organizations that can do things we can't do. This is one of them. We have neither the resources nor the expertise, nor the courage, to deal with this, and therefore BP is the best we got."

Salazar would rather make statements about boots on necks and feet to fire. Nevermind that he had over a year to shake up MMS and nothing was done. He should resign. The MMS was notoriously in bed with the people they were regulating, and it was an open secret for the last two administrations.

[Lurker]

Me yesterday...

I think this is going to end up exactly where you're trying to steer it now... "sure, nothing technically illegal was done, sure this is an incredibly common form of horse-trading, but is this change we can believe in?!?" That's weak at best.

Hardly a bold prediction but it is nice to be right.

You never responded to a request for a legal scholar who thought what was done was improper or that the statutes cited by Issa apply at all to this type of political horse-trading or who think any of this amounts to "tampering with an election". The whole notion is absurd. I won't bother asking you to provide examples of Obama condemning attempts by a Party to clear a primary field, even though you think he betrayed a core principle by doing so.

Personally, I've never been a fan of Specter and I supported a primary challenge by Sestak. I was disappointed when Obama stood behind Specter, even though I understood the politics of why he did. I also understand why he wanted to prevent a primary challenge if possible. I don't think he abandoned any core principals along the way.

So we're exactly where I knew this would end up as the "scandal" fizzled out, with people who never supported Obama shouting "is this change you can believe in?!?" Soon you'll move on to the next ginned up nontroversy.

This got my curiousity though...

Also, its especially hypocritical of the Obama administration to stonewall and evade, when they cried bloody murder about election tampering vis-a-vis the McCain/Palin campaign coordinating with the RNC and White House.

Can you link to this story?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Lurker -

I gave you a legal opinion on the 600 statute. As for a legal scholar, I haven't really looked for one, but I can. And the link you requested is here. http://washingtonindependent.com/13548/ ... oter-fraud

[Lurker]

I don't see where Obama "cried bloody murder about election tampering" in the article you linked. That was hyperbole on your part. And there's a huge difference between the White House engaging in political horse-trading with a member of their own party, and the White House using law enforcement to go after members of the opposite political party. It doesn't make someone a hypocrite to think the latter activity is criminal and the other not.

I gave you a legal opinion on the 600 statute.

You mean this? I seriously thought you meant it "might help" Obama since OLC opinion doesn't support Issa's absurd reading of the statute and the legal scholar you quoted thinks Issa is wrong. That's probably why you didn't do a direct link.

And his latest post on the topic...

Mark Ambinder offers thoughts in line with my initial take: "It is hard to see, quite frankly, how this account implies any violation of criminal law, and how any law that governs the intersection of the executive branch and electoral politics would intend to criminalize routine and innocuous political horse-trading, especially since the President is dual-hatted, in our system, as the leader of his political party." He also links to these thoughts from Prof. Painter, the former Bush ethics adviser.

[Embar Angylwrath]

From Politico....

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm ... 99c78.html

Gibbs can't answer straight questions about Sestak. If there was nothing "improper", why all the dodging and weaving? Just answer the questions honestly and move on. I've never seen an administration be more secretive about actions that weren't improper than this one.

The truth still needs to come out. The administration is obviously resisting. Why? Hmmm..... well, it COULD be they fear that releasing the complete information would expose them as paragons of virtue, and enhance their reputation with Americans. And they certianly wouldnt want that, would they?

Until the entire truth is known, we can't know if criminal acts were made. And the administrations reluctance to be forthcoming with all aspects of the Sestak-Clinton-Emmanuel-Obama-Emannuel-Clinton-Sestak chain of events is indicative of bashfullness, or a result of wanting to avoid federal prosecution.

If there is nothing to hide, why keep hiding?

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38064.html

This time it was a paid position. I knew this would break out after Sestak. It got very little attention until the Sestak bribe. (No one took my hint, or if they did, they stayed complicitly silent) Once is a mistake, twice is a pattern.

@Harlowe - I would submit that trust in an administration is the keystone for building support for the administration's policies. It's exactly the reason you abandoned the Bush admin... lack of trust in the truth. Disparity in Actions vs Words. Will you (and others) apply the same standards here? Or just give the Obama admin a blind pass because, cough, he ain't Bush.

Will you hold him accountable to his campaign statements of transparency, and the ushering in of a new way of governing?

[Lurker]

ZOMG!!! How many times did Obama engage in this incredibly common, innocuous, and legal political horse-trading?!?

As I said here, I don't care if the position was unpaid or not. Nothing improper was done in either example. Nobody batted an eye when the exact same things were done going back to the Founding Fathers.

And since you like to babble on about hypocrisy and us holding Obama to a different standard, lets look at the facts. For Bush, there was an allegation that he used the Department of Justice to target members of the opposite political party, an action that legal experts said was highly illegal. For Obama, there was an allegation that he offered a member of his own political party a political appointment to step aside in a primary, an action that legal experts said is common and legal. You only demanded an investigation of Obama.

Transparency? That would be you.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Nobody batted an eye when the exact same things were done going back to the Founding Fathers.

Proof or it didn't actually happen, no matter how many times you claim it did.

[Harlowe]

@Harlowe - I would submit that trust in an administration is the keystone for building support for the administration's policies. It's exactly the reason you abandoned the Bush admin... lack of trust in the truth. Disparity in Actions vs Words. Will you (and others) apply the same standards here? Or just give the Obama admin a blind pass because, cough, he ain't Bush.

Lack of trust wasn't the only issue with Bush nor was "transparency" my primary concern with either administration. Personal liberties was and will always be at the forefront and the overall job they are doing. I didn't rate Bush his first term by a scorecard of campaign promises (that no elected official can ever keep). In fact I gave Bush an entire first term to judge him by. I didn't hop on every negative bandwagon that came along no matter how ridiculous, so my negativity towards Bush didn't begin until his second term. I see no reason to be more negative towards or judge by some harsher standard now.

So, sorry to disappoint, but Obama hasn't completed a first term for me to judge, and I don't hang onto any one issue of any president to judge them by. I judge them by the overall job they do. They aren't in the position to judge truly what they can and can not deliver at the time of campaigning. They don't even know what among their promises is doable or best until they are in office. We all know this. The best they (and we) can hope for is steering things the way they want to go.They need stick to the spirit of what they promised, but also be flexible.

I will take some transparency over ZERO any day. This whole Sestak thing is utterly ridiculous and seriously, if it's the best you can harp on, then damn, he must be doing a pretty good job.

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38065.html

Text of the email sent describing the positions offered to Romanoff. /wince

[Lurker]

Job descriptions make you wince?

Any luck tracking down a legal or historical expert who thinks anything improper or unusual was done? This sort of political horse-trading has been going on since the Founding Fathers.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Job descriptions make you wince?

Any luck tracking down a legal or historical expert who thinks anything improper or unusual was done? This sort of political horse-trading has been going on since the Founding Fathers.

No luck. The only ones that took a definitive stance were ones from political organizations that bent right. Most independent scholars were either of the "this isn't what the law means to address", or "the law doesn't draw a clear enough line" or "there's nothing to see here, these aren't the driods you're looking for" or "need more info on the details". I found no impartial scholar that siad it was a clear violation.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

This sort of political horse-trading has been going on since the Founding Fathers.

You keep stating this as though it were fact without providing any substantial evidence that it is.

[Lurker]

It is a fact. And I assumed you were joking. Nobody is that ignorant.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

If its a fact, prove it. Otherwise quit claiming it as a fact.

[Harlowe]

Nobody is that ignorant.

Well, you are wrong on that account.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Would you like to try and prove his 'factual' evidence too, Harlowe?

[Partha]

Well, I can't speak to 'Founding Fathers' (not my specific interest), but Abraham Lincoln's campaign gave Simon Cameron a cabinet post as SecWar in order to get Pennsylvania's electoral votes. He also gave Ben Butler a general's post and kept him long after he was proven bad at it in order to keep him from raising hell as a candidate or a campaign manager.

[Harlowe]

You're not actually looking for information Fallakin, it's just another play from your "Lazy Person's Guide to Arguing on the Internet". You think you can win an argument via a war of attrition.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

I am actually looking for information from Lurker or you, Harlowe. Its true I could go look this stuff up on my own, but since Lurker is the one stating it as fact I think the burden is on him to prove it.