Obama didn't commit act GOP wants to impeach him over, BUT REAGAN DID!!!!

[WeDidIt]

:rofl:

Sestak tells it like it was:

Last summer, I received a phone call from President Clinton. During the course of the conversation, he expressed concern over my prospects if I were to enter the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate and the value of having me stay in the House of Representatives because of my military background. He said that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had spoken with him about my being on a Presidential Board while remaining in the House of Representatives. I said no. I told President Clinton that my only consideration in getting into the Senate race or not was whether it was the right thing to do for Pennsylvania working families and not any offer. The former President said he knew I'd say that, and the conversation moved on to other subjects.

There are many important challenges facing Pennsylvania and the rest of the country. I intend to remain focused on those issues and continue my fight on behalf of working families.

So Obama didn't even offer Sestak a paying job which was a base requirement in the allegations of the GOP!

But, the fucking hypocrites disregarded the fact that Saint Reagan DID OFFER A PAYING JOB!



:rofl:

Obama PWN3D the GOP!!!!!

[butterfly77]

1. K&R!

:kick:

[NJmaverick]

2. K & R!

[Oceansaway]

3. K&R...n/t

[maddezmom]

4. K&R

:kick:

[Laf.La.Dem.]

5. ALL LIES

Reagan NEVER did this - this is more liberal BS:sarcasm:

[SmileyRose]

67. Stickily lies.

:rofl:

[SpiralHawk]

6. "Smirk." - Dutch Chickenhawk Reagan (R)

"My astrologer could have told the RepubliBagger FAIL Freaks about this. But they are such KeesterBrains. There they go again. Sneer."

- Dutch Chickenhawk Reagan (R)

[SteppingRazor]

7. Er ... President Clinton?

Did I somehow stumble into some bizarro world where Hillary won the primary? :)

[jobycom]

10. Forget it, he's rolling.

:rofl:

I was wondering if that was a typo or a slip by Sestak. :)

[WeDidIt]

14. No, it as actually President Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton was Obama's go-between on this.

[jobycom]

16. Well, ruined a good movie reference, but I get it now.

:thumbsup:

[WeDidIt]

18. Great movie any way.

:evilgrin:

[WeDidIt]

11. Obama sent Clinton to talk to Sestak

He was willing to put Sestak on a presidential commission while he remained in the House, which is nothing more than an advisory position and is not paid, nor could it be paid so long as he remained in the House. The statute the Republicans have been quoting requires that there be a paid position involved.

So in other words, there as nothing even giving the appearance of impropriety, let alone actually being unethical or illegal.

Obama obviously holds himself to a very high standard, higher than any prior president. The Republicans underestimated Obama's level of honesty and propriety and it just bit them on their collective asses.

Now, Obama is clearly the victim of a Republican witch hunt, it's obvious for anybody to see, and the Republicans have tarred themselves wiht overusing the "impeach" word again.

[SteppingRazor]

21. Robert Gibbs, is that you?

;)


Kidding aside, I absolutely agree with you. This has looked like a teapot tempest from the get-go.

[sabrina 1]

25. True there is nothing illegal about this, just politics as usual,

But that is what we thought was going to change. Wasn't Rahm involved in something like this in his home state also?

Rahm wanted Specter, so he thought he could keep the man progressives supported out of the Senate. I am glad Sestac refused, but that doesn't change what Obama, Clinton and Rahm wanted.

Every day we get more verification of the fact that the party leadership wants a right-leaning party. This puts them out of line with real Democrats. If we wanted a right-leaning party, there is one already.

Fortunately now people are no longer blinded by any of this. Which is why we beat Rahm in the primaries and hope to do so again on June 8th. The people know that this administration doesn't want to hear from them, we got the message, and WE will decide whether or not the rightwing of the Democratic Party, which Obama apparently belongs to, remains in charge for much longer.

For Republicans this is a failed issue.

But for us, Democrats, it is very important information on what the leadership of the party is willing to do to stop a progressive movement to take over Congress.

[laurel46]

28. No, Sabrina, you got it wrong, nice try

There is nothing wrong with the party deciding, even into an election campaign, to try to influence their own members. That way, both parties have room to change and increase the chances of winning. What's wrong with the opinion he could make the party stronger in another position? What's wrong with other dems getting on his case if they think he could lose a seat. If both parties are playing by the same rules, then don't single one out for ridicule. Don't republicans value party loyalty and group strategy?

[sabrina 1]

31. What's wrong is that these methods are acceptable and that

the voters are not asked for THEIR oppinions. In fact, airc, the voters have been told to STFU by the current leadership of the Democratic Party. That is what's wrong.

As for what Republicans do? I am not interested in imitating what Republicans do. What I am doing is not called 'ridicule' it is called commenting on something that was revealed that was apparently not meant for the public to know. This disdain for the public is what is wrong.

Democrats want democrats representing them. Clinton, Obama and Rahm apparently have different ideas. Specter is a Republican. On the issues, he is far to the right of Sestak. That puts them out of step with the people who elected them in the first place.

We are no longer influenced by the party leadership. They lost the right to expect support when they excluded those who elected them from some very important legislation.

[OhioBlue]

32. Sorry... I disagree here.

Nobody told the voters to STFU. Party leaders were being party leaders and looking at strategy as they should. We don't always agree with them.. and then we vote.

My guess is Obama backed Specter b/c he figured he would be strongest in the General and he gave him the 60th vote on HCR. Not because he wants to move the party rightward. The rightward shift of the party is a valid debate IMO - but I don't think the Specter endorsements are a piece of that puzzle.

There is no disdain for the public. There is nothing outrageous.

[Arkana]

33. The agreement, I suspect,

was that Arlen would switch parties and play ball, and in exchange the White House would do everything they could to get him reelected.

Shitty? Yes. Illegal? No. Commonplace in American politics since like the mid 1850s? Unfortunately.

[sabrina 1]

35. Well, I have to disagree with you. Rahm certainly did tell

the base of the party to shut up. He consistently attacks the party's base. Which is fine. But if he thought that this was good strategy, he was wrong as the primaries and Mass demonstrated.

For years now we've been told 'we have to vote the right-of-center candidate' while the party leadership, Rahm to be specific, have backed people and still are, like Blanche Lincoln and Jane Harman and Joe Lieberman pushing aside good progressive candidates. We accepted that because anything was better than Bush, so we never tried anything else.

And look what we got. A Health Care bill that was more of the same, a shifting of public funds into the hands of private corporations. Sure, there will be a few who will benefit, but we still have a for-profit system that will leave many people behind, while the same people who made the system one of the worst in the civilized world, got bailed out, and are still in charge.

So the strategy of voting for Blue Dogs didn't work. Obama has flip-flopped on so many major issues, that it's clear what needs to be done now, and that is to start working to bring more progressives into the party. If what they say is true, 'we couldn't get the votes' with a majority? Then things have to be changed.

There is disdain for the public, but that may change when people like Rahm learn that a party needs its base and when you alienate the base, you don't win elections.

We now are free of Bush and scare tactics such as 'we can't win with a progressive' are no longer working. The base has decided to put its considerable power behind real progressives, or at least behind people who are an improvement over the Blue Dogs and DLCers who have dragged this party to the right. We don't need two rightwing parties, and that's what we have, with one occasionally throwing a few crumbs to keep up the appearance of a two party system.

[OhioBlue]

37. in 2005/2006 party leaders decided to back Sherrod Brown

for the Ohio Senate race over Paul Hackett. Sherrod is more progressive.

They felt Sherrod could win. I didn't like the politics at the time, freakin' hated how they forced Hackett out of the primary.. but in hind sight.. they were correct to back Sherrod.

It wasn't about who was DLC or Blue Dog - Sherrod is neither - totally liberal and progressive. He was a proven campaigner and fundraiser. He won. We have a fantastic progressive voice in the U.S. Senate. He had the support of Clinton, Obama and Rahm.

I also didn't like how Dem party leadership endorsed and paved the way for Lee Fisher over Jennifer Brunner in this year's Ohio Senate Primary. I disagreed, I backed Brunner, voted for her. Ohio Dems voted, Fisher won. I was never told to STFU. And...btw.. if you wanted to find a TRUE progressive candidate for the U.S. Senate to be all upset about - it was Brunner... not freakin' Sestak.

I'm not going into all your lateral complaints here. I'm focusing on the fact of the party backing one candidate over another. There is nothing sinister and it does not tell the public nor the base to shut up.

They backed Arlen... I'm sure they told him they would help him. they tried. PA Dems voted.. it is over. The Party leaders backed who they wanted, tried to help, ultimately left it up to the voters. done. Democracy. Not sure if PA made the right choice... but they voted and it is over. Sestak is the nominee. I hope he and Fisher both win in Nov.

[hfojvt]

40. what exactly is "the party"?

Is it a group of 1,000 insiders and bigshots, or is it a mass of registered voters and grass-roots activists?

Do we really have a democracy if a group of insiders decide who our candidates are by fiat and then voters are brought in to approve the selection? At least we get to pretend like we have a choice.

Are our elections supposed to be decided by "proven fundraisers"? That is, the corporations and rich people who can afford to donate $1,000 in an election get to decide who all the little people will be told to vote for. Meanwhile the party bombards little people with pleas for funds "support the DNC!" "Support the DCCC!" Or "Give us your money so we can use it to decide who your candidate is gonna be" and we are gonna pick Boswell over Fallon and Liberman over Lamont and Specter over Sestak and so on an so forth.

There's nothing sinsiter about a group of elitists controlling our elections? i guess that depends on if you like the idea of democracy or not.

[creeksneakers2]

41. Obviously they don't control elections

Or Sestak would have lost. If we want leaders we need to allow them some influence. If we don't want leaders we'll suffer the disadvantages that come with that.

[hfojvt]

59. obviously they control elections by preventing them from happening

Just buy off Sestak and there is no election. Their hand-picked candidate wins by default. And I do not want fuehrers. What I want is somebody who will represent me. Me - not the people who can donate to a candidate. Those so-called leaders are choosing candidates based on "who can raise more money". Thus, they want candidates who appeal to those well-heeled donors, who will serve and answer to the well-heeled donors.

What about the people? I guess they/we are just supposed to do whatever our imperious leaders tell us to do. "Here's your candidate, corporate approved - Joe Lieberman. Don't you see the applause sign?"

[sabrina 1]

69. Well said, hfojvt ~

The standing ovation from Democrats for Liebermann, after he lost he Dem. primary but refused to accept his party's decision, was stunning to me back then. But it did serve to open a lot of eyes. It helped me understand the frustration people often felt at Democrats during the Bush years who time and again voted for Bush policies.

Those so-called leaders are choosing candidates based on "who can raise more money". Thus, they want candidates who appeal to those well-heeled donors, who will serve and answer to the well-heeled donors.

You said it very succinctly, this is exactly what the leadership of the party who we are asked to respect, has done, then they USE those DLCers/Blue Dogs, as an excuse when they do not want to push a progressive issue, like the PO in the HC bill. Well, we can relieve them of that burden by never again donating to any pac that chooses where to spend OUR money. By donating directly to candidates like Marcy Winograd, eg.

[sabrina 1]

66. Rahm has a very bad track record of getting anyone elected

always backing the right of center candidate over good progressives. The Brown/Hackett race was just one which could be defended since Brown has always been a good progressive. The only one.

The DLC has attempted to take credit for Dean's strategy which was responsible for the majority win in 2006, NOT the DLC strategy as they falsely try to claim, which has a failure rate that ought to be embarrassing to them.


As far as me being upset over Brunner, she was not the subject of this discussion, Sestak is the topic. I AM upset about her loss. I am upset about the party not backing progressive candidates like Marcy Winograd in favor of another horrendous DLCers.

I am upset about the Hawaii race also and we can thank Rahm/Obama for that one also. Again, just like this race, they pressured the progressive to drop out. She too refused. But Case, who was the DLC, Obama/Rahm/Kaine approved, Republican lite, “I hate liberals” candidate, was not asked to drop out even when it became apparent that the progressive candidate was the most likely winner if she did not have her own party opposing her. This is so familiar now regarding Rahm Emanuel.

She will most likely win that seat in the Fall. Anotehr failure of strategy by the Rahm contingency. Fortunately this seat can probably be won back, but it didn't have to be lost either.

Either this party starts representing US, or the base will take charge of who gets primaried. Rahm doesn't like primaries. He called this Democratic process 'retarded'.

They should NOT have backed Arlen. His voting record should determine whether the party backs him or not.

As for PA making the right choice, Specter would probably have lost, like many of Rahm's candidates have. Sestak will win if Specter doesn't pull a Liebermann and this time the party leadership backs the candidate chosen by the voters, unlike what they did last time.

Dean's strategy has been a winning one. Rahm's not so much. I have a lot more faith in Dean than in Rahm,

[creeksneakers2]

43. We'll see if nominating a progressive is a good strategy in PA

Sestak's opponent, Pat Toomey, is already trying to define Sestak as a far lefty. Toomey himself is a far righty. It would be strategic for Sestak to throw that back at Toomey, but so far he hasn't, at least not that I've heard. Sestak says he wanted the campaign to be "about issues."

It would be interesting to see if the public chose the far lefty or far righty if they perceived the candidates that way. It doesn't look like that how the perceptions will come out though. If Sestak is seen as the one who is extreme he's likely to lose.

"Progressive" nominees don't do any good unless they win.

[unc70]

58. Well said, sabrina 1

Rahm is the poster boy for much that is wrong with politics and politicians in this country. I really dislike him on various levels, my opinion of his brothers are little better.

Just because "the Repubs do it, too" is not justification for Dems, particularly so-called progressive Dems. (Not that Rahm is really a progressive.)

[tekisui]

8. knr. This stupid show should be over now.

[LaPera]

68. Fox "news" will keep it going.

They have nothing else.

[yellowcanine]

9. And Reagan was trying to clear the way for his daughter Maureen!

How's that nepotism working out for you Daryl?

[WeDidIt]

15. I love how when you give the Republicans enough rope

they start shooting each other in the face.

[provis99]

12. that asshole Reagan should have been impeached right after swearing in

he's the dickhead who conspired against America by arranging for hostages to be held by Iran until he was sworn in. Reagan was ten times worse for the country than Nixon ever was.

[WeDidIt]

22. And his legacy of trickle on economics was fullfilled in September 2008. n/t

[clarence swinney]

52. Trickle Down

Reagan inherited a 600B Budget and added on 80%
A 1000B Debt and added on 183%

Gave top 1%
60% Cut in Earned Income tax
47% Cut in Unearned Income Tax
Cap on Payroll Tax
Transfer Revenue Sharing tax off them to middle class property taxes
Huge increase in Defense Spending enriched Rich holders of stocks

Gave Middle Class=s h a f t
biggest tax increase in history in Payroll tax Increase
tax one half SS income for elderly
5 cent gas tax
shafted workers Unions
Cut school lunch funding

[clarence swinney]

53. Trickle Down

Reagan inherited a 600B Budget and added on 80%
A 1000B Debt and added on 183%

Gave top 1%
60% Cut in Earned Income tax
47% Cut in Unearned Income Tax
Cap on Payroll Tax
Transfer Revenue Sharing tax off them to middle class property taxes
Huge increase in Defense Spending enriched Rich holders of stocks

Gave Middle Class=s h a f t

biggest tax increase in history in Payroll tax Increase
tax one half SS income for elderly
5 cent gas tax
shafted workers Unions
Cut school lunch funding
reduced Carter creation of jobs from 218,000 per month to 175,000 per month
Increased "real" Interest rate from 1% to average of 5% over his term
Had 10-15% Home loan Interest rates in first term
Had 16% College student loans in second term
Enriched Rich Japanese by changing value of Dollar to Yen from 260-1 to 120-1
In 1980 we had 10 Billionaires
In 1989 we had 51. Thank Ronnie

Call it FLUSH UP THE WEALTH trickle down the crumbs

[clarence swinney]

50. Most Scurrilous Administration in history

That was by Haynes Johnson in his book "Sleepwalking Through History"
Reagan had 137 investigated/charged convicted.
details
google:clarence swinney + reagan scandals

[marshall]

57. Still, don't forget all of Nixon's crimes

He's always useful. Anybody looks good compared to Nixon.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

13. --->

Dino Originus

:think:

[Scurrilous]

17. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Strelnikov_]

19. Good show, chap n/t

[WeDidIt]

23. Thanks n/t

[laughingliberal]

20. Rec. They're reaching and they got nuttin'.

Maybe they'd like to consider impeaching St. Ronnie retroactively.

[rocktivity]

24. The President was CLINTON, not Obama? I LOVE IT!!!

And it doesn't matter if the job paid or not, since there was no guarantee that Sestak would win the primary. Nothing was exchanged, because the Senator's seat isn't anyone's to give!

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Grassy Knoll]

26. Kick to the Big Dawg.....

[Bitwit1234]

27. AND more recent Bush and Cheney

Cheney called Phawlenty and asked him to drop out of the primary for senator of Minnesota. He wanted Norm Coleman to have a clear shot at the position. Phawlenty did and got support money from the republicans to run for governor. And I still think he got votes in the republican county of HennyPenny and Minneapolis that were questionable. You know like Bush did in Ohio. So when Issa says Bush's administration didn't do anything like that he lied. Phewlenty had FILED for the primary when Cheney called. Sestak had not filed when Clinton called him.

So if Issa keeps saying Bush administration didn't and Obama did isn't that slander and a legal matter for him.

[SpankMe]

29. GOP PWN3D? Maybe not.

Although this is overwhelmingly obvious GOP hypocrisy, the MSM is hardly bringing up the Hayakawa thing in their coverage. They seem to be focusing on whether or not such a quid pro quo is illegal. The consensus among all of the punditry is no (it's not illegal, or even close), and obviously so. But, continuously discussing whether or not it's illegal is keeping a Republican talking point alive. They aren't getting past the he said / she said; they should move on to some factual history and make the accusers (Republicans) respond.

I'm pissed that Reagan/Hayakawa question isn't the very first thing put to every grandstanding Republican at every interview on this subject.

The Dems aren't playing smart politics here. There should be hourly faxes to MSM newsrooms and the Dem spin machine should be kicked up a notch. As it is, I don't even hear our machine humming. (Must be a busted fuse.)

The Republicans and the compliant MSM have done an excellent job of keeping this total non-scandal at the top of the news as if it's a big deal (or ANY deal at all) when, in fact, it doesn't even register on the scandal meter when compared to the 8-years of serial Republican assaults on citizen and country under Bush.

[livingonearth]

30. Keep this on the front page!

It's great come back material to throw back at arguing wing nuts. Plus trolling Freepers need to see this.

[Skelly]

63. Just be prepared

to answer to the 'rest of the story'.
What this post doesn't show is the rest of the article. No offer was made to Hayakawa and wouldn't be made unless he decided to not seek re-election. It was a fine line, but they didn't step over.
The GOP has made such a fuss about this, it makes me wonder what they REALLY do not want us looking at. Keeps our focus off of more important things maybe?

[LaPera]

70. Exactly!

[Panorama]

34. Interesting. n/t

[pansypoo53219]

36. the republikkklans and the gnews are grasping at straws

this was an 'offer'. see arlen, i really tried. wink wink, nudge nudge.

[Enthusiast]

38. It doesn't matter.

Democrats are not allowed to govern. They just aren't. Now the media will shift to a "get Obama" mode as they were in the 1990s with their "get Clinton" mode.

[WestCoastDreamer]

39. Transparent

I don't recall Reagan' main campaigning focus (30 years ago)
being more Transparent.. 

[creeksneakers2]

42. Obama is transparent now

They've released the information.

[trumad]

45. Looks transparent to me...

I know the facts...

I do recall Ronnie claiming that he could get the hostages home--- but little did we know he already negotiated with the Iranians--- er terrorists... to get them home.

[trumad]

46. Looks transparent to me...

I know the facts...

I do recall Ronnie claiming that he could get the hostages home--- but little did we know he already negotiated with the Iranians--- er terrorists... to get them home.

[theothersnippywshrub]

74. "More transparent" is not the same as "100% transparent."

The Obama administration is far more transparent than any republican administration in history.

It also is far more honest than any republican administration in history.

And far more pro-American than any republican administration in history.

And far less criminal.

[spicegal]

44. I am so sick of the Republicans, the Party of Disgruntled Old White Men going

after Obama on every itty bitty issue they can manage to pull out of their ugly white arses. It doesn't matter how small, how ridiculous, or if it's even true, they're jumping all over him threatening whatever. These guys are off the deep end. We had to put up with their nonsense the entire time Clinton was in office but they're far worse now.

[theothersnippywshrub]

75. GOP stands for "Get Obama Party." They claim he is a Negro. n/t

[MrMickeysMom]

47. I'll add...

KICK!

[LaPera]

72. I Agree!

:kick:

[Democat]

48. Obama needs to go to war with the right wing media!

Kick their asses instead of kissing their asses.

[NYC_SKP]

49. Good find!

:rofl:

[Zambero]

51. Reagan: My daughter wants your seat!

And I aim to clear a path for her to get it. Kindly step down, Senator. I'll even find a cushy job for ya. And you can nappy-nappy any time you want. Heck, that's what I do during most of my "waking hours"!

:boring:

[Peacetrain]

54. K&R!! my friend K&R!!

[ejpoeta]

55. even if he did so what. why would that be illegal? they do that shit all the time

[clarence swinney]

56. Iran Leader Gets Weapons

Here are the gifts GHW BUSH promised when you agreed to keep our people captive until after my inauguration

Weapons Galore--Autographed Bible-Birthday cake YOU DA GREAT ONE OH AYATOLLAH MY PAL

Oh! I forgot to tell him I was also supplying Iraq with weapons

Win-Win Muslims kill Muslims

p.s I okd for Great One to get materials from out suppliers to build a nuclear Plant(bomb?)

What a pistol was he

cws olduglymeanhonest

[Kievan Rus]

60. Reagan = worst President ever

[Clintonista2]

61. Thank you for this! I've had a couple Republicons try to use the "Obama took a bribe" bullshit

And this thread has been very helpful in shutting them up.

[and-justice-for-all]

62. They are not impeaching anyone....nt

[anthroguy101]

64. Impeaching Obama is political suicide for the GOP n/t

[theothersnippywshrub]

76. It will be a strong fund raising point for them.

It was prior to the republican impeachment of President Clinton. I saw several fund raising letters saying essentially: "If you want us to impeach him you have to send money."

[GreenTea]

65. It's just slimy fucking republicans who have desperately been trying to put the word "impeachment"

out there...

The republicans have been trying from the moment Obama was sworn into office, to find any little, tiny, miserable thing to get that word "Impeachment" out there on the national airwaves, to tarnish and to hound the Obama presidency....

Remember "Whitewater"?

The republicans are also hoping to try and take away the spotlight from the stories in the news right now, (real stories) - the tragedy & incompetency of the corporations in the Gulf from being completely exposed....As well as the real stories of the republicans constant obstructionism in the Senate & House - always in favor of corporations and the rich...NEVER the workers and tax payers.

And the bullshit, despicable corporate wars for profit Bush/Cheney created, "never ending wars" for corporate profit, imperialism and empire for the non tax paying rich!

This Republican tidbit is nothing and the republicans know it's noting - But Fox will go on talking about it all weekend trying to blow it up like a "Whitewater"....

As always, the republicans slimy tactics are to lie, distort, smear and throw out bullshit smokescreens as there's something there that has has merit...

IT DOESN'T - and it will go nowhere, but the lost, groundless, sick exploitative corporate ideology of the republicans will never stop trying to keep throwing anything out there to see and hoping something sticks....Because the republicans have nothing else to offer the American people.

They prove that every single day!

[treestar]

71. Hypocritical as always

:kick:

[GreenTea]

73. Kick!