Really think so? How is tarnishing Sestak? He seems to be the only portrayed as being willing to tell the truth in this matter. I've watched a lot of Fox News coverage on this situation and even they seem to be holding him up as the honest one. Other than by merely associating him with a scandal, I don't think he gets any negative press in this. The focus seems to be solely on whether or not Obama's people were doing something illegal at worst or not on the up and up at best.
Making sure all their efforts and resources are being put in, such as all their engineers, executives, etc. Right now they are obviously running business as usual at the same time. Like I said all their resources should be put on this.
Yeah I think that if maybe they took all of their executives and engineers who have never dealt with an offshore oil rig explosion/oil leak and had them all working together it would be much smoother. Maybe they could even pull the clerks at the BP stations and get them to work on it.
You'd think that 15 lawyers, one Democrat House Member (Senate Candidate), one Chief of Staff, one ex-president and one current president could come up with a better lie than this in 12 days.
you really think the GOP machine markets towards that level of sophistication and is going to restrain? hahahahahahahaha. Right. Oh, and as for it being illegal, via dailykos: Sestak is a better ally for the white house than Specter anyway, and a better candidate to boot.
I agree with this. It is crazy that they took this much time to formulate their "official" response and all it turns out to be is "we never offered a paid position, but even if we had it wouldn't be illegal because no action was asked to be taken only a non-action."
I detected some level of something in the post, but didn't see how it was supposed to be read. It certainly didn't insult me or demean me if that was your goal.
here's Sestak from February, before the spin took off: In the face of a White House denial, U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak stuck to his story yesterday that the Obama administration offered him a "high-ranking" government post if he would not run against U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania's Democratic primary. "I was asked a direct question . . . and I answered it honestly," Sestak said in a Fox News interview. "There's nothing more to go into." Sestak made his startling claim Thursday during the taping of Comcast Network's Larry Kane: Voice of Reason, a public affairs show televised on Sunday evenings. "Were you ever offered a federal job to get out of this race?" Kane asked near the end of the 30-minute interview. "Yes," Sestak answered. "Was it Navy secretary?" Kane asked. "No comment," Sestak replied. In response to follow-up questions from the host, Sestak said the job was offered by the White House. He also nodded when asked if the offer was for a high-ranking post. as Tom McGuire notes Bill Clinton is not "The White House" nor is he a "White House Official." and my own editorial: the idea they offered, or that he'd take, some unpaid advisory position, is risible.
Damn - that is some trenchant analysis right there. I'm glad you linked me to it. That is ****ing fascinating stuff brah-tha.
All these posts would be reversed in advocacy of one position or the other if the President were named Bush rather than Obama, the players named Carl Rove rather than Rahm Emmanuel and Sestak were a Republican rather than a Democrat. Regardless of the names involved, this smacks of the high crimes and misdemeanors that brought down Richard Nixon. Should Obama be impeached? It's a little early yet but he is on his way down that road. Sestak, innocent of all wrong-doing early, may now be incriminating himself by trying to retract/alter his political mistake in telling the world the White House offered him a job (something of value, paid or unpaid, to his political career) if he would drop out of the Senate race.
Nixon tapped the phones of his political opponents and then used official government resources to cover it up. Your statement leads me to believe you might need psychiatric or drug abuse treatment because the claim quoted above is utterly divorced from reality.
It isn't even apples and oranges, it is apples and submarines. The only thing that "smacks" here is the substance to which you are apparently addicted. You tried to equate the Sestak situation with Watergate. It really doesn't matter which comparison term you used, you tried to draw a comparison between the two situations.
Only time will tell whether there is an impeachment, especially next term. I would think you, more than most, would want the open and transparent government Obama promised. BTW, I neither smoke nor drink nor ingest any type of non-prescribed drugs. Caffeinated coffee is about as strong as I ingest.
Anything is possible, but it seems silly that you are really putting the idea out there that he might be impeached. I doubt there is a single member of the GOP who sees that as a real possibility.
