txlonghorn
Senior Member
- Mar 9, 2009
- 3,042
- 400
- 48
GOP would rather try and impeach the President then do any bipartisan work for the American people.
Too bad that. We need both parties.
![lol :lol: :lol:](/styles/smilies/lol.gif)
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
GOP would rather try and impeach the President then do any bipartisan work for the American people.
Too bad that. We need both parties.
OK, let's read this part...
Sestak holds to story of job offer | Philadelphia Inquirer | 02/20/2010
July comes before August, yes?
We didn't even hear of this guy as being a Senate potential back in July 2009, when he was offered the job.
I'm not taking any sides yet; I'm further looking into the matter myself (and yes, I know the laws) and comparing it to what the Codes say.
Now here is where an interpretation by a judge will have to be made. If Sestak was offered a job in July with the express intent to get him to NOT declare his candidacy for the Senate in August that is an attempt to bribe a potential Senate candidate to NOT RUN. I believe that may be a problem. It is why the WH is silent on the whole matter right now. They realize this, in spite of the possibility that no legal wrongdoing can be proven, that it's not going to reflect well on this Administration in an election year.
The best thing they can do is get everything out in the open NOW and then attempt to regroup before November....or if there IS a problem then they need to fire the person responsible immediately.
This is a matter of party machinations, and the head of the party is Obama.
GOP would rather try and impeach the President then do any bipartisan work for the American people.
Too bad that. We need both parties.
I always have to laugh whenever a liberal uses the term "bi-partisan"
GOP would rather try and impeach the President then do any bipartisan work for the American people.
Too bad that. We need both parties.
I always have to laugh whenever a liberal uses the term "bi-partisan"
Why is that?
The country is stronger for the coopersation that occassionally happens. Liberals have a place at the table just as conservatives and moderates do.
A lot of heresay going on at thispoint. If true that the offer came in July and he announced in August, it seems reasonable to think he was actively deciding whether to run thirty days prior to August. That would be July. One of the key ways you figure if it makes sense to run is send out feelers into the public and political types and see what they say. It seems unlikely that the Democratic party would have been unaware of this activity.
On the other hand, 0bama had many unfilled positions at that time. You have an Admiral who has interests in serving in a political position. Making some inquiries doesn't seem to be a bad idea on the surface. Going from there to a plot to protect Specter would be hard to prove.
I think the adminstration needs to do some damage control and put out a reasonable and somewhat verifiable story soon. No smoking gun, I say move on.
A lot of heresay going on at thispoint. If true that the offer came in July and he announced in August, it seems reasonable to think he was actively deciding whether to run thirty days prior to August. That would be July. One of the key ways you figure if it makes sense to run is send out feelers into the public and political types and see what they say. It seems unlikely that the Democratic party would have been unaware of this activity.
On the other hand, 0bama had many unfilled positions at that time. You have an Admiral who has interests in serving in a political position. Making some inquiries doesn't seem to be a bad idea on the surface. Going from there to a plot to protect Specter would be hard to prove.
I think the adminstration needs to do some damage control and put out a reasonable and somewhat verifiable story soon. No smoking gun, I say move on.
No smoking gun---There is another thread on this board that Romanoff of Colorado was offered a position in D.C. to drop out of the race against incumbent senator Bennet--whom Obama campaigned for.
Once "maybe" twice---no WAY.
Sestak campaigned repeatedly that the WH had offered him a position--so "HE WOULD DROP OUT OF THE RACE."
Which is against Federal Law.
A lot of heresay going on at thispoint. If true that the offer came in July and he announced in August, it seems reasonable to think he was actively deciding whether to run thirty days prior to August. That would be July. One of the key ways you figure if it makes sense to run is send out feelers into the public and political types and see what they say. It seems unlikely that the Democratic party would have been unaware of this activity.
On the other hand, 0bama had many unfilled positions at that time. You have an Admiral who has interests in serving in a political position. Making some inquiries doesn't seem to be a bad idea on the surface. Going from there to a plot to protect Specter would be hard to prove.
I think the adminstration needs to do some damage control and put out a reasonable and somewhat verifiable story soon. No smoking gun, I say move on.
No smoking gun---There is another thread on this board that Romanoff of Colorado was offered a position in D.C. to drop out of the race against incumbent senator Bennet--whom Obama campaigned for.
Once "maybe" twice---no WAY.
Sestak campaigned repeatedly that the WH had offered him a position--so "HE WOULD DROP OUT OF THE RACE."
Which is against Federal Law.
what federal law was broken? ANYONE can answer this, if they know!
and also, some proof that sestak ''campaigned repeatedly on being asked to drop out of the race by obama''....otherwise, you are passing along a lie....but i suppose you know that, huh?
how could he drop out of a race, he had not entered yet?
and you are saying that sestak campaigned on obama offering him a high up job JUST TO GET HIM TO DROP OUT of the senator race...
WHY, if sestak did do this, would THAT be any kind of POSITIVE for him in his race against spector....? it is basically saying, I, mr sestak, AM NOT QUALIFIED for an administrative position on my own merits.
I can see him ''using'' being asked to take a high up position in the admin to garner support from democrats, but the other part seems illogical to repeatedly campaign on.....?
spector did not become a democrat till around may 1st....wonder when all ''this'' supposedly took place?
Don't forget to tell me, WHAT law would be broken by offering a high up job to someone very well respected in the House of representatives and as a new comer, and very qualified for a number of admin positions?
if he took the job btw, that would mean he would not run against spector.... NO ONE had to ask him to drop out of a race (he hadn't entered)....accepting the job offer, would mean such.....
there is no foul here.
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.
A lot of heresay going on at thispoint. If true that the offer came in July and he announced in August, it seems reasonable to think he was actively deciding whether to run thirty days prior to August. That would be July. One of the key ways you figure if it makes sense to run is send out feelers into the public and political types and see what they say. It seems unlikely that the Democratic party would have been unaware of this activity.
On the other hand, 0bama had many unfilled positions at that time. You have an Admiral who has interests in serving in a political position. Making some inquiries doesn't seem to be a bad idea on the surface. Going from there to a plot to protect Specter would be hard to prove.
I think the adminstration needs to do some damage control and put out a reasonable and somewhat verifiable story soon. No smoking gun, I say move on.
No smoking gun---There is another thread on this board that Romanoff of Colorado was offered a position in D.C. to drop out of the race against incumbent senator Bennet--whom Obama campaigned for.
Once "maybe" twice---no WAY.
Sestak campaigned repeatedly that the WH had offered him a position--so "HE WOULD DROP OUT OF THE RACE."
Which is against Federal Law.
what federal law was broken? ANYONE can answer this, if they know!
and also, some proof that sestak ''campaigned repeatedly on being asked to drop out of the race by obama''....otherwise, you are passing along a lie....but i suppose you know that, huh?
how could he drop out of a race, he had not entered yet?
and you are saying that sestak campaigned on obama offering him a high up job JUST TO GET HIM TO DROP OUT of the senator race...
WHY, if sestak did do this, would THAT be any kind of POSITIVE for him in his race against spector....? it is basically saying, I, mr sestak, AM NOT QUALIFIED for an administrative position on my own merits.
I can see him ''using'' being asked to take a high up position in the admin to garner support from democrats, but the other part seems illogical to repeatedly campaign on.....?
spector did not become a democrat till around may 1st....wonder when all ''this'' supposedly took place?
Don't forget to tell me, WHAT law would be broken by offering a high up job to someone very well respected in the House of representatives and as a new comer, and very qualified for a number of admin positions?
if he took the job btw, that would mean he would not run against spector.... NO ONE had to ask him to drop out of a race (he hadn't entered)....accepting the job offer, would mean such.....
there is no foul here.
EPIC FAIL on the part of the Obama apologists in this thread.
Priceless!!!!
From the LA Times most recently...
____
Actually, it's much ado about something. Yes, political factors often influence appointments in unsavory ways witness the practice of awarding ambassadorships to campaign contributors. But as Rep. Darrell Issa of Vista, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, points out, a federal statute makes it a crime, punishable by a fine or a year's imprisonment, to offer a job to someone "as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party."
We seldom agree with Issa, but in this case we believe his questions deserve a response. Sestak too owes Congress and the public a thorough explanation. After raising the issue when he was challenging Specter, he has turned coy. Now that he's the Democratic nominee, his position is that further details are "for others to talk about."
"Others" means the administration, which has been evasive about whether a job was discussed with Sestak, and if so, what it was and who made the overture. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has said that conversations between the administration and Sestak "weren't inappropriate in any way." If that's the case, why not describe those conversations in detail?[/I]
Joe Sestak and the phantom or was it? job offer - latimes.com
Therefore, the administration offered Sestak a position which he turned down. Gates--White House press secretary has refused to answer questions about this political pay-off that went sour for months. Sestak just spilled the beans. If found to be true, this is an impeachable offense on the POTUS.
November 16, 2005
"The task force's activities attracted complaints from environmentalists, who said they were shut out of the task force discussions while corporate interests were present. The meetings were held in secret and the White House refused to release a list of participants. The task force was made up primarily of Cabinet-level officials. Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club unsuccessfully sued to obtain the records."
A lot of heresay going on at thispoint. If true that the offer came in July and he announced in August, it seems reasonable to think he was actively deciding whether to run thirty days prior to August. That would be July. One of the key ways you figure if it makes sense to run is send out feelers into the public and political types and see what they say. It seems unlikely that the Democratic party would have been unaware of this activity.
On the other hand, 0bama had many unfilled positions at that time. You have an Admiral who has interests in serving in a political position. Making some inquiries doesn't seem to be a bad idea on the surface. Going from there to a plot to protect Specter would be hard to prove.
I think the adminstration needs to do some damage control and put out a reasonable and somewhat verifiable story soon. No smoking gun, I say move on.
No smoking gun---There is another thread on this board that Romanoff of Colorado was offered a position in D.C. to drop out of the race against incumbent senator Bennet--whom Obama campaigned for.
Once "maybe" twice---no WAY.
Sestak campaigned repeatedly that the WH had offered him a position--so "HE WOULD DROP OUT OF THE RACE."
Which is against Federal Law.
what federal law was broken? ANYONE can answer this, if they know!
and also, some proof that sestak ''campaigned repeatedly on being asked to drop out of the race by obama''....otherwise, you are passing along a lie....but i suppose you know that, huh?
how could he drop out of a race, he had not entered yet?
and you are saying that sestak campaigned on obama offering him a high up job JUST TO GET HIM TO DROP OUT of the senator race...
WHY, if sestak did do this, would THAT be any kind of POSITIVE for him in his race against spector....? it is basically saying, I, mr sestak, AM NOT QUALIFIED for an administrative position on my own merits.
I can see him ''using'' being asked to take a high up position in the admin to garner support from democrats, but the other part seems illogical to repeatedly campaign on.....?
spector did not become a democrat till around may 1st....wonder when all ''this'' supposedly took place?
Don't forget to tell me, WHAT law would be broken by offering a high up job to someone very well respected in the House of representatives and as a new comer, and very qualified for a number of admin positions?
if he took the job btw, that would mean he would not run against spector.... NO ONE had to ask him to drop out of a race (he hadn't entered)....accepting the job offer, would mean such.....
there is no foul here.
WASHINGTON — Not long after news leaked last month that Andrew Romanoff was determined to make a Democratic primary run against Sen. Michael Bennet, Romanoff received an unexpected communication from one of the most powerful men in Washington.
Jim Messina, President Barack Obama's deputy chief of staff and a storied fixer in the White House political shop, suggested a place for Romanoff might be found in the administration and offered specific suggestions, according to several sources who described the communication to The Denver Post.
Romanoff turned down the overture, which included mention of a job at USAID, the foreign aid agency, sources said.
Then, the day after Romanoff formally announced his Senate bid, Obama endorsed Bennet.
It is the kind of hardball tactics that have come to mark the White House's willingness to shape key races across the country, in this case trying to remove a threat to a vulnerable senator by presenting his opponent a choice of silver or lead.
Along with other prominent examples — including an effort to stop New York Gov. David Paterson from seeking re-election — the administration's tactics in the Colorado Senate primary show that Obama is willing to act as pointedly as his Oval Office predecessor, whose political chief, Karl Rove, was famous for the assertive application of White House power to extend the reach of his party.
Job "never offered"
The White House said that no job was ever offered to Romanoff and that it would be wrong to suggest administration officials tried to buy him out of the contest.
"Mr. Romanoff was never offered a position within the administration," said White House spokesman Adam Abrams.
Yet several top Colorado Democrats described Messina's outreach to Romanoff to The Post, including the discussion of specific jobs in the administration. They asked for anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.
Romanoff declined to discuss any such communication and said the only job he's focused on is "representing the people of Colorado in the United States Senate."
Posted: 09/27/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT
D.C. job alleged as attempt to deter Romanoff - The Denver Post
Therefore, the administration offered Sestak a position which he turned down. Gates--White House press secretary has refused to answer questions about this political pay-off that went sour for months. Sestak just spilled the beans. If found to be true, this is an impeachable offense on the POTUS.
***
We're (quite) obviously dealing with the simple-issue of Executive Privilege, here.....right, "conservatives"?????
[/CENTER]
November 16, 2005
"The task force's activities attracted complaints from environmentalists, who said they were shut out of the task force discussions while corporate interests were present. The meetings were held in secret and the White House refused to release a list of participants. The task force was made up primarily of Cabinet-level officials. Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club unsuccessfully sued to obtain the records."
I find this particular line of discussion amusing.
"Say Joe.... are you sure you want to go up against Arlen? You know... you could be of great value to your country in an executive position within the administration. SecNav would be a great fit, but there are no doubt a bunch of others as well. Give it some thought."
You all can try to spin that into being some heinous crime, but my gut says its just another desperate move by the GOP to discredit a guy they know they will have a tough time beating in 2012.
I always have to laugh whenever a liberal uses the term "bi-partisan"
Why is that?
The country is stronger for the coopersation that occassionally happens. Liberals have a place at the table just as conservatives and moderates do.
Pelosi: You had your chance, we are in charge now so sit down.
Unfortunately when you are locked out of meetings, have your ideas and amendments thrown in the trash it appears that the Democrats only embrace bi-partisanship when Republicans pay lip service to Democrat Bills and support them without changes.
Why is that?
The country is stronger for the coopersation that occassionally happens. Liberals have a place at the table just as conservatives and moderates do.
Pelosi: You had your chance, we are in charge now so sit down.
Unfortunately when you are locked out of meetings, have your ideas and amendments thrown in the trash it appears that the Democrats only embrace bi-partisanship when Republicans pay lip service to Democrat Bills and support them without changes.
Such bitterness. Yes, the current situation is less than ideal. You can't say the Republicans are trying to work with Democrats.
I'm speaking to what is ideal--bi-partisanship--both parties acting like statesman instead of school children. I urge the Democratic Party to work harder to find consensus with Republicans. I challenge Republicans to do the same. Grow up.