navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Sestak - Liar or Destroyer?
The Alley
Post A Reply Post New Topic Sestak - Liar or Destroyer? Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

0 posted 2010-05-26 01:21 PM


Either Sestak is a big Liar or the White House is in real trouble....and nobody's talking.

© Copyright 2010 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved
Mysteria
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada
1 posted 2010-05-26 02:04 PM


More research.  See email
threadbear
Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817
Indy
2 posted 2010-05-26 06:54 PM


This story has legs.

It will be huge down the road.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
3 posted 2010-05-27 12:16 PM


No doubt..
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
4 posted 2010-05-27 08:31 AM


Holder is doing a lot of double-talking to try to get out of appointing a special prosecutor...says he doesn't deal with hypothetical situations.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
5 posted 2010-05-27 09:14 AM


You KNOW that Blagojevich is following this one closely. it's looking like multiple attempts by the White House to "fix" things by offering bribes to it's own members.

Well, it IS Chicago....

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

6 posted 2010-05-28 05:29 AM




     Am I supposed to start talking about Texas Politics now?  Or Florida Politics?  Or is "Chicago Politics" supposed to be code for something?  How about Mississippi Politics?  I know, what about "Republican Dirty Tricks?"

     I tell you what, why not specify if you can, exactly what you mean by "Chicago Politics?" and try to differentiate it from any of the other kinds of politics I mentioned above.  What about Chicago Politics makes it meaningful to you folks?  How is it distinct from Georgia Politics? and Alabama Politics?

     I'd simply like to see how this sort of thing is distinguished from, say, a smear.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
7 posted 2010-05-28 08:09 AM


How about discussing the topic instead of trying to change it?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
8 posted 2010-05-28 08:20 AM


Jeff, the general consensus is that Sestak will come out saying he "misunderstood" the offer. (ref my Democrat dictionary to understand that one). I'm not sure that's gonna fly. Obama said yesterday there will be an explanation coming soon, which means they haven't worked out the kinks yet in what they plan to peddle to the public.

Long legs......

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

9 posted 2010-05-28 11:43 AM


It seems Rahm had Bill Clinton chat with Sestak about the possibility of a position for dropping out of the race and that the White House lawyers are describing it as a 'casual' conversation, unhinged from an actual job offer, since Clinton couldn't guarantee Sestak anything, being just an ex-president. Still seems corrupt to me if Clinton did it at the behest of Rahm and/or Obama. They may have skirted the law, managing to stay on the right side of it, technically, but it seems to me that attempts were made to rig an election, and I think Sestak and Clinton both need to be put under oath, to attempt to find out just how casual the conversation was.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/28/white-house-asked-clinton-urge-sestak-drop-senate-race/

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
10 posted 2010-05-28 03:44 PM


quote:

it's looking like multiple attempts by the White House to "fix" things by offering bribes to it's own members.



A "bribe" is an offer of something of value for an in-kind official act -- such as a vote on a particular bill before congress.

Being offered a job is not a 'bribe'.  When Hilary Clinton was offered the job of Secretary of State she had to resign her seat in Senate.  That's not a bribe -- nor is it interfering in the election of New York's Senate elections.

This is much ado about naught.

I'm shocked, shocked that there's gambling here!

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
11 posted 2010-05-28 06:05 PM


Lr, that's about as bad of a definition I have seen and the comparison to Hillary rather foolish. A bribe can also be a payment for an official INaction, as it was in this case. Sestak doesn't run against Spector, Sestak gets rewarded. That's a bribe in any dictionary you care to use.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
12 posted 2010-05-28 06:40 PM


Well, damage control has begun. Bill Clinton now says he's the one who acted as an intermediary with regards to Sestek, offering him an unpaid job on an advisory board.

Are these people real? A congressional participant would drop out of the race for an unpaid job? And who should we believe? Bill (I did not have sex with that woman!) Clinton. Riiiiight!!!

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

13 posted 2010-05-28 07:48 PM


quote:
18 U.S.C. § 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.


18 U.S.C. § 595 – Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments

Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States, or by any department or agency thereof, or by the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or any political subdivision, municipality, or agency thereof, or agency of such political subdivision or municipality (including any corporation owned or controlled by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States or by any such political subdivision, municipality, or agency), in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States, or any department or agency thereof, uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.



There's no doubt in my mind that they broke the law, and no doubt that they will get away with it.

The law doesn't stipulate that the position has to be a paid position, and I think using Clinton as the go-between, qualifies as an indirect offer, which is also illegal.


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
14 posted 2010-05-28 07:51 PM


quote:

A bribe can also be a payment for an official INaction



Certainly.  If I offered a police officer money not to give me a ticket -- that's a bribe.

The keyword here Mike is OFFICIAL -- as in -- pertaining to the office one holds -- the duties that fall within the powers of the officeholder.  If I offered a congressman money to write a book so that I might publish it -- say, Newt Gingrich, that's not a bribe -- it's a business deal.  If I offered him a "book deal" so that he would vote or not-vote for a particular piece of legislation -- that's a bribe.

Every person who works in the Obama administration was OFFERED A JOB! That's going to require a lot of special prosecutors.  

What happened here was simply political horsetrading.  

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

15 posted 2010-05-28 07:59 PM


Political horsetrading which happens to be illegal because its intent was to rig an election, L.R. It's spelled out quite clearly in the two statutes I listed above.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
16 posted 2010-05-28 08:24 PM


That's right, Denise.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
17 posted 2010-05-28 09:56 PM


WASHINGTON – Forced to disclose backstage political bargaining, President Barack Obama's embarrassed White House acknowledged on Friday that it enlisted Bill Clinton  to try to ease Rep. Joe Sestak out of Pennsylvania's Senate primary with a job offer.

The admission left many questions unanswered, however, and Republicans aren't likely to let the issue rest. For Obama, the revelations called into question his repeated promises to run an open government that was above back room deals.

Seeking to quiet the clamor from Republicans and some Democrats over a possible political trade, the White House released a report describing the offer that was intended to clear a path for Sen. Arlen Specter to win the Democratic nomination.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_pennsylvania_senate

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

18 posted 2010-05-28 10:27 PM


Perhaps the PA Attorney General will convene a grand jury to investigate and put these people under oath, as recommended by Dick Morris and Judge Napolitano:
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2010/05/27/penn-ag-tom-corbett-should-empanel-grand-jury-in-sestak-affair/#more-1026
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2010/05/28/sestak-scandal-grows-and-still-stinks/

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
19 posted 2010-05-29 08:54 AM


WASHINGTON — Forced to disclose backstage political bargaining, President Barack Obama's embarrassed White House said Friday it had enlisted Bill Clinton to try to ease Rep. Joe Sestak out of Pennsylvania's Senate primary by offering him an unpaid position on an advisory board.

Nothing wrong with that, the White House said. Oh, yes, there was, Republicans countered.

The administration admission — it said Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had asked the former president to call Sestak — left many questions unanswered, and it seemed unlikely the issue had been put to rest. For Obama, the revelations called into question his repeated promises to run an open government that was above back room deals. And for Sestak, they raised questions why he kept talking about up the offer — a 60-second conversation, he said Friday — in the first place.


White House Counsel Robert Bauer rendered his own verdict in a two-page report that said there was no improper conduct in the offer. No one in the administration discussed the offer with Sestak, Bauer said. The report did not say what, if any, contacts or promises the White House had with Specter on the matter. It also did not reveal whether Obama was aware of Clinton's role.


Obama not aware of Clinton's role? Billy just decided to do it himself? Or Emmanuel and company just decided to do it behind Obama's back?

Clinton and Obama shared a private lunch at the White House on Thursday, although White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said he was not aware the Pennsylvania primary was a topic.

Of course not. Just because it was a front page topic with criminal implications, why would Obama and Clinton discuss it?

Specter declined to comment. Clinton, campaigning in Little Rock, for Sen. Blanche Lincoln's re-election bid, ignored reporters' shouted questions.

Wonder why......
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-05-28-sestak-obama-specter-clinton_N.htm?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomWashington-To pStories+%28News+-+Washington+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo



Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
20 posted 2010-05-29 09:50 AM


The hassle with this is that EVERY administration, both sides of the isle, have done it.
Everyone here knows I have no love for this administration and would do just fine seeing it out of office (although, in order, Biden, Pelosi, and r are next in line... might have to re-think this for now); however, the White House Council has stated that they investigated it and there was nothing illegal done.
I know they were appoinged by Democrats, yet there is this pesky thing called the Bar Association that will annhialate them if they are covering up a felony.

While Mike and Denise are talking about the various Republicans demanding action, I figure we need some equal time:
quote:
Even some Democrats are sounding-off on the matter. On Wednesday, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell -- one of Specter's strongest allies during the primary fight -- became the latest high-profile Democrat to call on the White House to cough up information on the matter.

This is coming from the Huffington Post
quote:
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin and Sestak ally Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) also called on the the White House to provide an explanation for Sestak's repeated claims that he was offered a high-ranking position.

Also from the Huffington Post
quote:
Two top Democrats — party chief Tim Kaine and Dick Durbin of Illinois, the party’s second-ranking leader in the Senate — said during the week that the White House and Sestak needed to address the questions.

The Boston Herald chiming in.

If this is indeed "business as usual, then where is the "Change" we were promised... it certainly isn;t in my pocket (but that is another discussion)? Where is the "open government"? (well, to be fair, it is open to anyone willing to give them cash or to be involved in their back-room dealings, and to assist them with their agenda).

There are people from both sides of the isle requesting more information and a fullo accounting. If nothing improper was done- as was stated by White House counsil- then where in the name of Thor's Holy Hammer is the hassle in letting us know the full story?

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
21 posted 2010-05-29 10:14 AM


quote:

    Sen. S.I. Hayakawa on Wednesday spurned a Reagan administration suggestion that if he drops out of the crowded Republican Senate primary race in California, President Reagan would find him a job.  

    "I'm not interested," said the 75-year-old Hayakawa.

    "I do not want to be an ambassador, and I do not want an administration post."

    [...]

    In an interview earlier this week, Ed Rollins, who will become the president's chief political adviser in January, said Hayakawa would be offered an administration post if he decided not to seek re-election. No offer has been made directly to Hayakawa, Rollins said.

    Similarly, Hayakawa said in a statement, "I have not contacted the White House in regard to any administration or ambassadorial post, and they have not been in contact with me."  
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19811126&id=ibcsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HhQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5060,5317656



quote:

President Bush occasionally intervened in Republican primaries (including on behalf of Senator Specter in 2004).  The less partisan politics in the White House the better (I would like to see the President abolish the White House Office of Political Affairs).  This, however, is nothing new and it hardly rises to the level of a major ethics controversy.



The allegation that the job offer was somehow a “bribe” in return for Sestak not running in the primary is difficult to support.  Sestak, if he had taken a job in the Administration, would not have been permitted to run in the Pennsylvania primary.   The Hatch Act prohibits a federal employee from being a candidate for nomination or election to a partisan political office.  5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(3).  He had to choose one or the other, but he could not choose both.



The job offer may have been a way of getting Sestak out of Specter’s way, but this also is nothing new.  Many candidates for top Administration appointments are politically active in the President’s political party.  Many are candidates or are considering candidacy in primaries.  White House political operatives don’t like contentious fights in their own party primaries and sometimes suggest jobs in the Administration for persons who otherwise would be contenders.  For the White House, this is usually a “win-win” situation, giving the Administration politically savvy appointees in the Executive Branch and fewer contentious primaries for the Legislative Branch.  This may not be best for voters who have less choice as a result, and Sestak thus should be commended for saying “no”.  The job offer, however, is hardly a “bribe” when it is one of two alternatives that are mutually exclusive.

--Ron Painter (chief ethics lawyer to President G.W. Bush) http://www.legalethicsforum.com/blog/2010/05/joe-sestaks-bribe-scandal-another-ethics-sideshow.html



Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

22 posted 2010-05-29 11:39 AM


The practice still violates 18 U.S.C. § 600 and 18 U.S.C. § 595, no matter how commonplace the practice has become and no matter how many previous Administrations may have engaged in violating them. Pointing to the bad acts of others is not a valid defense.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

23 posted 2010-05-29 01:37 PM


Interesting. A little sloppy in their coverup story:
http://ht.ly/17xRmV

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
24 posted 2010-05-29 07:34 PM


Byron York is an idiot. (and so is Ed Morrisey) He's good for comic relief though Denise;

quote:

In a little-noticed passage Friday





By those who CAN'T READ!

The actual passage;

quote:

The White House did not disclose what those options were, but people briefed on the matter said one option was an appointment to the president’s Intelligence Advisory Board, a panel of prominent Americans outside government who provide independent oversight of the nation’s spy apparatus and advise the president. But White House officials discovered that it would not work because Mr. Sestak could not serve on the board while still serving in Congress.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/white-house-used-bill-clinton-to-ask-sestak-to-drop-out-of-race/



Looks like somebody's trying to do some 'gotcha journalism' in there Denise.  

Tbe 9/12 project...

quote:

Pointing to the bad acts of others is not a valid defense.



With this I quite agree Denise -- but these are not bad acts... merely politics.  We would have no government at all if the White House could never offer jobs to politicians, and there would be no political parties if coordination of candidates is illegal.

Sorry.  This is not your impeachable moment.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

25 posted 2010-05-29 09:20 PM


White House officials discovered that it wouldn't work? Now THAT'S funny! When did they discover that someone can't hold positions in two separate branches of the government at the same time, paid or unpaid? Sestak could not accept any position in the Administration while remaining in Congress. But we are to believe that that was actually the offer, an unpaid position on some board, any board, in the Administration, and that he would not have an income at all, since he would have to leave Congress in order to do so?  What kind of an inducement is that? Sorry, L.R. Obama needs a new Chief Counsel. Bauer should have been able to come up with a more believable story than that since February.

Offering someone a job in the Administration is fine, as long as it isn't done to manipulate an election.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
26 posted 2010-05-29 09:56 PM


Denise -- you're sourcing idiots m'dear.

The President's advisory boards are created by -- guess who?  The President!  By executive order.  He can put anybody he wants to on them.  He can make the qualifications and requirements whatever he wants them to be.

If he wanted Sestak to sit on the board and remain in Congress he could have facilitated that with a stroke of a pen, or forty -- however many they use at those signings.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

27 posted 2010-05-29 10:02 PM


quote:
But White House officials discovered that it would not work because Mr. Sestak could not serve on the board while still serving in Congress.



I don't doubt it, L.R., knowing how little he respects the Constitution and the separation of powers. Maybe someone should inform those ill-informed White House Officials that it could have worked after all!

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
28 posted 2010-05-29 10:55 PM


WASHINGTON – So much for changing how Washington works.

Crimping his carefully crafted outsider image and undercutting a centerpiece of his 2008 campaign, President Barack Obama got caught playing the usual politics — dangling a job offer for a political favor in the hunt for power.
His lawyer admitted as much in a Friday report. It detailed how Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, sent former President Bill Clinton on a mission: try to persuade Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., to abandon his primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., by offering an executive branch post. Sestak said no, stayed in the race and beat the incumbent.
"I can assure the public that nothing improper took place," Obama had told reporters at the White House on Thursday. True or not, Obama has a political problem.

Because what did take place was backroom bargaining, political maneuvering and stonewalling, all of which run counter to the higher — perhaps impossibly high — bar Obama has set for himself and his White House to do things differently.
The White House's reluctant acknowledgment of the chain of events shone a light on the unseemly, favor-trading side of politics — and at an inopportune time for Obama and Democrats as they seek to keep control of Congress.

This election year, angry voters have made clear they have little patience for politics generally and Washington politics specifically. And they are choosing candidates who promise to change the system — and ousting incumbents who fail to deliver.

But what may be even more troubling for the president is the question the episode raises: Has Obama become just like every other politician? The answer could have implications for him ahead of congressional elections this fall and his likely re-election race in two years.

The White House tried to blunt the media maelstrom by releasing the report on the Friday before a long Memorial Day weekend, when fewer people are paying attention to the news. White House counsel Robert Bauer said what transpired was neither illegal nor unethical.

But he also said: "There have been numerous reported instances in the past when prior administrations — both Democratic and Republicans and motivated by the same goals — discussed alternative paths to service for qualified individuals also considering campaigns for public office."

Fair enough.

But Obama has held himself to a different standard. By that measurement, and in this case, he failed to deliver.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100529/ap_on_an/us_politics_as_usual_analysis

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

29 posted 2010-05-31 09:44 AM


With this Sestak incident in Pennsylvania and a similar incident in Denver, it makes one start to believe Blago's claim that he was the one who was approached about the vacant Obama senate seat and not the other way around, doesn't it?

It was absolutely maddening to watch the local tv news this morning and have the commentators interviewing Marc Lamont Hill about how this is just politics as usual, no big deal, and NO ONE even mentioned the fact that it is a possible violation of 18 U.S.C. § 600 and 18 U.S.C. § 595, and to back up their point, 'why hey, Governor Rendell admitted to personally practicing 'quid pro quo on occassion'! Well, that must settle it then!

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

30 posted 2010-06-01 06:11 PM




quote:


But Obama has held himself to a different standard. By that measurement, and in this case, he failed to deliver.



     Where The President has gone wrong here, and I think he has slipped, is in failing himself to define that "different  standard."  By failing to do so, he has allowed the Republicans to assert, falsely, that it is up to them to do so.  Considering the Republican record on ethics in Government,  if Democrats  were to follow their lead, we would be in considerably worse trouble than we are in now, and if the Democrats were to allow Republicans to set a lead they think would be ethical for their opponents to follow, it would be unachievable by saints in heaven.

     I believe that we can reasonably expect this administration to shoot for higher standards.  I have no realistic idea of how to reach them without creating an amount of ethical squabbling that would obscure the issue itself.  Bringing up the issue in the first place was a way of talking about the ethical challenges the Republicans faced and did not begin to meet during the past two terms of Republican administration here.  Republicans bringing the issue up again here is an attempt suggesting that this sort of thing, horse-trading daily business in political business, is the equivalent of allowing the oil interests to set energy policy in the Bush White House, and to let the financial and banking interests to run the financial and banking policy of the country and produce a very serious recession we are still trying to fix and which the Republicans are still trying to prolong by voting against the financial fixes necessary to bring the credit industry under control and to separate the insurance and the banking industries.  The Republicans drove wooden stakes into the heart of Siegal Glass and now they want to cut off its head as well.

     This whole business is smoke and mirrors, and a distraction from Republican electoral strategy.  Pay no attention to the disasters we're trying to set up for you, folks, is what they're saying to us.  Pay attention to the way the horse-trading usually goes on, and listen as we scream about it through the amplifiers.  The shock troops we've got massing here on your border are none of your concern, it's really nothing.  Look over there!  Use your binoculars if you have to.  Two guys are talking about a horse.  That's real-l-l-y important.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

31 posted 2010-06-01 08:59 PM


Then they need to repeal the law, Bob, if everyone in DC considers it no big deal, and business as usual. And if it's no big deal, why is Blago facing trial on corruption charges? Is what he did any different? Just a quid pro quo, after all, initiated, he says, by the Obama Administration. Is it any different than the White House and Congressional leaders 'buying' the votes of Congress members to pass their health care monstrosity? Too bad the judge won't allow all the tapes into evidence, and too bad the judge won't allow a supboena of Obama. I guess when you are the most powerful man in the world, you pretty much get your own way most of the time.

Obama did define his standards. He was going to have the most open and transparent administration of all time. He has failed most miserably on all counts.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

32 posted 2010-06-02 02:42 AM




     Which law is the one that needs to be repealed, Denise?  Perhaps I'm shamefully unaware of a law being violated here, but I am not aware of a law being violated.  Which one is it?

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

33 posted 2010-06-02 07:16 PM




     I find The President a somewhat right-wing Democrat.  There are things that I have trouble with that he does, having to do with his lack of enforcement of civil rights, for example, and with his failure to roll back elements of the PATRIOT act.  These are elements, by the way, that folks on the right have begun to get upset about as well as they realize that these same laws could be turned against THEM and not simply against the occasional Islamic Terrorist.

     They are right to be concerned; or at least I believe they are, and I have been saying so for a while now.

     When you say that the man is wrong about everything, however, you are speaking out of generalized rage.  It feels right, certainly.  It reminds me of the line from one of the Danny Devito films when he says about his film-wife, Bette Midler, "I hate the way she licks stamps!"  

     A hate that large is simply difficult to credit.  If you hate everything about him, it drags you into territory that simply isn't yours.  I don't credit you with being racist, for example.  I don't believe that.  I don't believe you hate men; sorry, that just doesn't follow for me.  The fact that he breathes is something that I'm willing to bet you're willing to continue doing, even if he does it as well.  He has feet, you're not going to give yours up are you, or insist that he does, are you?

     And, as Sullivan says, "We're all more simply human than otherwise."  You've got to live with that.

     I realy really disliked our last President, but there were some thiungs he did that I thought were things that needed to be done, given the conditions.  We may disagree about them, actually, but I thought his bailout bill was necessary, even though my party was unhappy about it.  

     I think we need to repair the situation that created the need for it in the first place, mind you, but we needed to do it at the time.  Growl at me if you like.  I think he did the right thing.

     I think it's probably somewhat the same about President Obama this time.  He's a mixed bag.  I see him as being mixed more on the workable side.  I won't try to convince you that he's got to be mixed at all, I'm simply expressing my point of view for you as why it's possible to see him that way.  And to admit that he certainly does make his share of mistakes.

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Sestak - Liar or Destroyer?

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary