Obama '08?

but I believe Bush is an honest man,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

3, we know that the admin did in fact lie us into war in Iraq. This is a fact, not an opinion; they were duplicitous with both Congress and the Nation as a whole.

This is again an opinion, not a fact. As I said, I believe it was one of the biggest spin jobs and case of political backstabbing I have ever witnessed in the last few decades of politics. Again, my opinion, but the spin job that Bush lied us into war is also an opinion, thats all, nothing more. The head of the CIA in fact told the president that WMD was a slam dunk. This has been debated so intensely from every angle right here on several threads that it does no good to go through it again, but I believe Bush is an honest man, and speaking of honesty, that is an attribute that Obama has yet to prove that he has any. I think it comes down to character, and I believe Bush had it, but Obama does not.

The Left so intensely hates character that it will do anything to attack those that seem to have it. Have you heard about the creep that moved nextdoor to Sarah Palin in Alaska so that he could snoop and try to dig up anything from taking photos or overhearing conversations to write a hit book on her and her family? The Left hates Sarah because of the character that she has.

Your grandchildren certainly will be taught in school that my position is correct and yours is wrong. That's got to be galling.

Cycloptichorn

I don't know about the guy you are talking about, but I can tell you that I don't hate Palin, but pity her ignorance. She is deeply ignorant on practically every issue of substance she speaks of. How this translates to 'character' in your mind, I can't understand.
Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Your grandchildren certainly will be taught in school that my position is correct and yours is wrong. That's got to be galling.

Cycloptichorn

Yes it is galling, because I believe it is a lie, but until we get rid of the liberals running education, the educational system will continue to go downhill.

Right now, mark my word, every liberal will defend the guy in Pennsyslvania that said he was offered a job in exchange for not running for the Senate, the offer from the Whitehouse. If you are curious, cyclops, this is a crime, and a serious one. If you care about the Whitehouse lying, will you join honorable Americans in demanding who is guilty. I will predict you won't care, you will care more about your liberal agenda and Obama. It will prove you don't care about the truth, and you did not care in regard to Bush, if you could pin Bush for lying when he didn't, you would, as every other liberal in this country also tended to do. You have time yet to prove you have an ethical bone in your body. Try it, cyclops.

Joe Sestak’s “Bribe” Scandal: Another Ethics Sideshow

The press is reporting continued controversy -- and threats of a Congressional ethics compliant -- over the White House having previously offered a political appointment to Congressman Joe Sestak “in return” for his agreeing not to run in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary against Democratic (formerly Republican) Senator Arlen Specter. Whatever offer the White House made, it didn’t work, and Sestak went on to win the primary.

“Nice try” is what I would say to the White House. I would prefer if the White House were to stay out of Democratic primaries and focus on the tasks at hand. Then again, 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.

Some have suggested that Sestak disclose the details of his discussions with the White House about an Administration job. Generally, such discussions are highly confidential, as employment negotiations often are (the Bush Administration took care to prevent leaks about potential appointees and we were usually successful). Although Sestak has no legal obligation of confidentiality, he should get permission from the White House before disclosing further details. If the White House were to consent to disclosure, that would be the exception rather than the rule. At this juncture, disclosure would probably help defuse the controversy, but this is a call for the White House to make.

Sestak’s Republican opponent in the Senate Race is Pat Toomey. Toomey was a college classmate of mine and I think highly of him; he is a strong candidate with good ideas about reducing the size of government. Joe Sestak also is a strong candidate, although in a very different way. Pennsylvanians should vote for Toomey or Sestak on the merits if they believe one or the other to be the most qualified for the Senate, not because dubious ethics allegations are made against an opponent or against the White House. Congress gives us plenty of genuine ethics concerns to worry about " particularly the role of campaign contributions which are de facto “bribes” (watch carefully what happens to the banking reform bill when it goes to House-Senate conference). Voters should not be distracted by media generated sideshows having little to do with what goes on in Washington.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I don't know about the guy you are talking about, but I can tell you that I don't hate Palin, but pity her ignorance. She is deeply ignorant on practically every issue of substance she speaks of. How this translates to 'character' in your mind, I can't understand.
Cycloptichorn

It is you that is ignorant. Move out of Berkeley and you might still have a chance to be enlightened with reality.

Okie, for the love of God: don't comment on **** you don't understand.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Okie, for the love of God: don't comment on **** you don't understand.

Cycloptichorn

As predicted, cyclops goes into defense mode, and true to the liberal personality, accuses anyone that disagrees with him as being intellectually inferior. Sorry, cyclops, many things are infinitely understandable, and this is a very simple one to understand. Essentially, somebody is lying, perhaps more than one, and a crime has been alleged.

Your opinions keep adding to the reason why your opinions are not respected, certainly not by me, cyclops. Your credibility is near zero.

As I understand it

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.

And there are many legal experts saying this is a violation of the law, so you choose the ones that best fit your defense of Obama.

so that another person essentially receives the support in the election instead

To put it simply, there is no substance to these allegations at all. It is simply a nakedly political attempt to influence the race in PA by Republicans.

Cycloptichorn

Rendell is the latest among a growing list of people that include Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin and Republican candidate for Senate, Pat Toomey, who are pressuring Sestak to come out and say who offered the job and what it was.

Really? Who would they be? I'd love to hear you cite one who did, who wasn't a guest on Fox News or a Republican Congressman.Cycloptichorn

If sarah palin went to school with me, all the girls would have called her a slut.

When you have nothing to say, use red!

To put it simply, there is no substance to these allegations at all. It is simply a nakedly political attempt to influence the race in PA by Republicans.

Cycloptichorn