• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sestak alleges WH offered him a job to drop Senate bid

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
44 - Sestak alleges WH offered him a job to drop Senate bid

The lawmaker challenging Sen. Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania's Democratic primary claims the Obama administration pushed him to get out of the contest, even dangling the possibility of a plum job in return.

Rep. Joe Sestak has been running hard for several months to oust Specter, who has had the support of President Obama and much of the Democratic establishment since he left the Republican Party and helped give his new party a temporary supermajority in the Senate. The White House's backing of Specter has long been clear, but did the administration actually go so far as to offer Sestak a job?

As reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer Friday, Sestak was asked Thursday during a taping of a local television news show, "Larry Kane: Voice of Reason," whether the White House had made such an offer. Sestak responded, "Yes," but declined to provide any further details.

Asked whether the position in question was Secretary of the Navy, Sestak said, "No comment." He did allow that the job was "high-ranking" but made clear that he would never have abandoned his campaign for such an offer.

...

This isn't the only Democratic primary in which the White House has been accused of such behavior. In September, the Denver Post cited "several sources" in reporting that White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina had told Andrew Romanoff he could get an administration post -- specifically at the U.S. Agency for International Development -- if he dropped his primary challenge to Sen. Michael Bennet. The White House denied that Romanoff had been offered a job.

This type of thing is by no means unprecedented, but what is unusual about it is that it's coming out at all. This definitely doesn't make the white house look good.
 
Specter ought to be frog marched out of Washington.
 
that they had to go to those lengths to save him in a primary, i think, indicates that he's toast against Toumey.

which, of course, i am all about. I think it will be hilarious if he changed parties solely to save his seat and then loses it.
 
This type of thing is by no means unprecedented, but what is unusual about it is that it's coming out at all. This definitely doesn't make the white house look good.

You mean because we're seeing politicians acting like... politicians? Oh my! :roll:

They have a lonnnnng way to go to compete with your buddy Bush when it comes to political shenanigans, doncha think? I mean, no one's been convicted of a felony yet so, they're way ahead of the game.

Go Sestak!
 
You mean because we're seeing politicians acting like... politicians? Oh my! :roll:

ReadingOPfail

They have a lonnnnng way to go to compete with your buddy Bush when it comes to political shenanigans, doncha think? I mean, no one's been convicted of a felony yet so, they're way ahead of the game.

Which is obviously the way we should judge every action for the rest of time. So long as it's not as bad as Bush, it's a-okay.
 
You mean because we're seeing politicians acting like... politicians? Oh my! :roll:

They have a lonnnnng way to go to compete with your buddy Bush when it comes to political shenanigans, doncha think? I mean, no one's been convicted of a felony yet so, they're way ahead of the game.

what a terrible benchmark to use to evaluate what political practices are acceptable

Go Sestak!
and screw that opportunist arlen specter
steele got it right this time:
Arlen Specter Left GOP To "Further His Personal Political Interests"
Steele: Arlen Specter Left GOP To "Further His Personal Political Interests"

and no, Obama. this is not change i can believe in

i hope Sestak embarrasses you further with more of these disclosures of the smoke filled rooms in the white house where the good ole boys divvy up the political patronage
 
Which is obviously the way we should judge every action for the rest of time. So long as it's not as bad as Bush, it's a-okay.

Well. had I compared Obama with say, that other lying, treasonist President, Reagan, then I would agree with you because he was prez too long ago. But, your hero Bush, is the previous President. Considering how all you conservatives genuflected at his every misdeed, yeah I'd say he is the most appropriate comparison. It would seem logical that as long as a President is better than his predecessor then he is a... success.

So, FAIL right back atcha.
 
Well. had I compared Obama with say, that other lying, treasonist President, Reagan, then I would agree with you because he was prez too long ago. But, your hero Bush, is the previous President. Considering how all you conservatives genuflected at his every misdeed, yeah I'd say he is the most appropriate comparison. It would seem logical that as long as a President is better than his predecessor then he is a... success.

So, FAIL right back atcha.

So if Obama invaded Iran, you'd refrain from criticizing him solely because he only invaded one country whereas Bush invaded two?

It's impressive to see how even-handed you are with these things. A weaker man might be opposed to all bad things, regardless of their magnitude.
 
Last edited:
You mean because we're seeing politicians acting like... politicians? Oh my! :roll:

They have a lonnnnng way to go to compete with your buddy Bush when it comes to political shenanigans, doncha think? I mean, no one's been convicted of a felony yet so, they're way ahead of the game.

Go Sestak!

Just because Bush had shenanigans doesn't make it right for the Democrats to have them too. Wasn't it Democrats who decried Bush's shenanigans? To now turn a blind eye to their own is very hypocritical.

But we have LESS shenanigans in our party, you say? Maybe, and maybe not. One thing for certain is that Bush administration officials claimed "We only torture a little", and you went ballistic. Where is your outrage now?
 
You mean because we're seeing politicians acting like... politicians? Oh my! :roll:

They have a lonnnnng way to go to compete with your buddy Bush when it comes to political shenanigans, doncha think? I mean, no one's been convicted of a felony yet so, they're way ahead of the game. Go Sestak!

"Slick Willie" Clinton...........:doh
 
So if Obama invaded Iran, you'd refrain from criticizing him solely because he only invaded one country whereas Bush invaded two?

Do we really have to argue like children? I mean, your question is ridiculous.

It's impressive to see how even-handed you are with these things. A weaker man might be opposed to all bad things, regardless of their magnitude.

If you guys are going to attack Obama for every little thing, after ya'll defended his crimes, I have to set you straight.

I'm not as happy with some of Obama's decisions as you think. But, his direction and mindset is honest and honorable. He has the good of the country in mind. Bush & Cheney are crooks, liars and treasonists. Their ONLY concern was always for themselves and their rich friends/corporations, just like Reagan was.

I won't play your silly games of nit picks and looking to highlight minutia that you think supports your arguments. If Obama did something as stupid as invading Iran (especially based on lies!) I'd be right next to you lambasting him.

In the meantime, watch a president who has morals and compassion for ALL Americans. Ya'll could learn much from him.
 
"Slick Willie" Clinton...........:doh

Once again you totally missed the boat. Do you actually read what we write or do you just see one or two words and fire away? :doh
 
Just because Bush had shenanigans doesn't make it right for the Democrats to have them too. Wasn't it Democrats who decried Bush's shenanigans? To now turn a blind eye to their own is very hypocritical.

But we have LESS shenanigans in our party, you say? Maybe, and maybe not. One thing for certain is that Bush administration officials claimed "We only torture a little", and you went ballistic. Where is your outrage now?

Outrage over what? The idea that a Democratic president wants a particular Democratic Senator to stay in office so he offers a rival another job? That's politics. If it were illegal or immoral you would hear from me on that also.

Grow up folks. Politics can be nasty. It's when it gets illegal that you should complain. You know, like when the president orders the outing of a CIA spy! When you guys defend THAT kind of politics your argument carries no weight demanding proof of non-criminal actions.
 
Sestak (D) Penn. makes WH accusation

MSNBC reports that Representative Joe Sestak (D) Pennsylvania was offered a federal job in return for not running against Sen. Arlen Specter to the Philidelphia Inquirer in an interview on Friday Feb 19th with local newsman Larry Kane.

Philidelphia Inquirer said:
Rep. Joe Sestak (D., Pa.) said yesterday that the White House offered him a federal job in an effort to dissuade him from challenging Sen. Arlen Specter in the state's Democratic primary.

The disclosure came during an afternoon taping of Larry Kane: Voice of Reason, a Sunday news-analysis show on the Comcast Network. Sestak would not elaborate on the circumstances and seemed chagrined after blurting out "yes" to veteran news anchor Kane's direct question.

"Was it secretary of the Navy?" Kane asked.

"No comment," Sestak said.

"Was it [the job] high-ranking?" Kane asked. Sestak said yes, but added that he would "never leave" the Senate race for a deal.

If true and a deal was offered and can be proven to be offered by a representative of the White House, such a deal would constitute a Federal Crime under Title 18, Chapter 11, Section 211 of the United States Code which in part reads:

Federal Criminal Code Title 18 said:
Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution, or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. Whoever solicits or receives any thing of value in consideration of aiding a person to obtain employment under the United States either by referring his name to an executive department or agency of the United States or by requiring the payment of a fee because such person has secured such employment shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. This section shall not apply to such services rendered by an employment agency pursuant to the written request of an executive department or agency of the United States.


LINK to US Code
 
You mean because we're seeing politicians acting like... politicians? Oh my! :roll:

They have a lonnnnng way to go to compete with your buddy Bush when it comes to political shenanigans, doncha think? I mean, no one's been convicted of a felony yet so, they're way ahead of the game.

Go Sestak!
If Obama makes it 8 years without anyone in his administration committing a felony, you'll have a point. Besides, this may be a felony already.
 
This is an accusation of a felony punishable I believe with a two year prison term.

What's more interesting is that if the order to for this alleged action can be traced to Obama it is an impeachable offense that is every bit as bad and possibly worse than lying about a little Lewinskey action in a closet.
 
Yet another reason to see that all politicians, no matter what political affiliation, are scum and have no interest in the country, just interest in their side winning.
 
Yet another reason to see that all politicians, no matter what political affiliation, are scum and have no interest in the country, just interest in their side winning.

Sad but, true. I saw an interview with Sestak. Sounds like the "offer" was insinuated, not formal.
 
You mean because we're seeing politicians acting like... politicians? Oh my! :roll:

Funny...

I could've swore THIS politician ran a campaign and got elected in part due to a message of a "Change from politics as usual", change from backroom deals, change from lack of transparency.

You don't get to fill your campaign with mounds of rhetoric about how you're administration will be a change from "Politics as Usual" and then turn around and defend your actions as "Just politics". You lose that right when you make it a fundamental campaign pillar.

All Obama's showing us is that Change in Washington is one of the things that seems to be forever unchanging.
 
Sad but, true. I saw an interview with Sestak. Sounds like the "offer" was insinuated, not formal.

but was this any different from the manner in which blagojevich was nuancing a quid pro quo offer of the senate appointment. the circumstance that Obama publicly chastized
 
Before anyone goes claiming my above thing was just hitjob or some other BS....

There are things I disagree with Obama on. Health Care is one of them. That said, you will not find me mindlessly bashing Obama as a horrible person, a evil socialist, the reincarnation of hitler, that wants to destroy america and enslave us all thorugh health care. You will generally not see me get extremely emotional about the actual law itself or Obama pushing it. Why? Cause he made it clear in his campaign that this was something he was going to push for. While I don't agree with it, and I will argue it on merits and political philosophy, I'm not going to go after Obama personally for it because he's doing what he said he was going to do, which is in part why people elected him.

My issue with Obama that I will go more personal is when he violates the very things he railed against, that he used as the very FOUNDATION of his Rhetoric and his campaign, the very things that he used to weave the fabric of the aura that was around him and drew so many to voting for him.

When he makes lobbyists are segment of the foundation of his rhetoric and then brings in lobbiests.

When he makes bipartisanship and post partisanship as part of the foundation and then almost immedietely throws it to the wind.

When he makes transparency a big portion but does that only when tis beneficial to him.

When he makes a change from politics as usual a center peice of his rhetorical platform and then does just the opposite time and time again.

Am I going to agree with this President a majority of the time? Hell no. We are ideological differences. I wouldn't expect liberals to have agreed with Bush the majority of the time either. However on much of the policy disagreements its just that, policy and ideology, not necessarily personal. But my true anger rather than disagreement comes when he does things that are very obviously counter to what he used to get elected. That is a huge pet peeve of mine; Left, Right, or center.

I still was annoyed at Bush disregarding his no national building campaign platform early in his tenure, but at the very least he had no reasonable reason to believe during the campaign that 9/11 was going to happen. Obama has no such gigantic, highly unexpected, event that has occured to justify his numerous turns from what he himself campaigned on.
 
This doesn't surprise me. Look at all the special deals in the stimulus bill. Obama is highly corrupt, the only difference is that the media likes him and he is a slick lier. It's bad enough many of his appointees are corrupt, but he is just like them. Impeach the sucker :lol: Whatcha know Barry O?
 
Once again you totally missed the boat. Do you actually read what we write or do you just see one or two words and fire away? :doh

Boy aren't you the holier then thou one this morning......you are taking a shot at everyone......:roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom