Why the hell didn't Sestak just say this during primary

[bigdarryl]

Instead he let the media and rethugs run with this issue to the point where they were talking about Impeachment of Obama.You see what we have here with the rethugs when ever there's a Democrat President in office they try and find a way to Impeach him because they can't beat him fair and square . The Democrats better start taking November seriously or else this is what we are facing. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/05/28/2331452.aspx

[DrDan]

1. because, like Blumenthal, a bit of embellishment seemed like a good idea

let others think he was offered the SecNavy job - without saying so directly.

and it just got out of hand.

[MH1]

23. What did Sestak 'embellish'?

Link to primary source, please.

He gave a direct answer to a direct question, and wouldn't go into detail. Period. Why didn't the WH or Clinton come forward with the details sooner? Sestak did not introduce the problem, the WH did by making the offer. It was up to them to clean it up. And now they have. This stuff isn't going anywhere and will die down soon.

[DrDan]

50. wasn't he specifically asked if he had been offered the position of Secretary of the Navy?

why didn't he just deny it when asked?

[jenmito]

52. Yup-Joe Scarborough asked in a rambling question and Sestak didn't deny it...

and even said "yes" that one time, but after that, he refused to answer exactly what he was offered, only saying he WAS offered a job and he won't go beyond that. You know-because he served in the Navy and that service taught him to be honest-but not enough to "go any further" into the details. He tried to make himself seem more like a hero whose only interest was working for the people of Pennsylvania. :eyes:

[MH1]

54. it wasn't up to Sestak to go into details.

He answered 'yes' to a direct question and left it at that.

The WH should never have tried to get him out of the race, and they damn sure shouldn't have been trying any kind of enticements like that. And the only reason they did was because it's been going on through the history of politics and no one has ever called it illegal before. But that's their problem. AND I am quite sure they are capable of handling it.

[DrDan]

67. I agree completely - "tried to make himself seem more like a hero . . . "

[MH1]

53. because that would have continued the line of questioning

"ok if not that was it ..."

and friggin' 20 questions would ensue.

Why didn't the WH come out with the details right away and avoid the speculation? They're the ones that started it.

[Traveling_Home]

2. I think that they must still making the story up - there is no ....

possible logical reason for Sestak not to "just say this during primary". I mean either the whole of the Democratic/Obama political ledership is completely and totally incompetent or there MUST be more ....

[Bitwit1234]

3. I believe what Sestak finally stated about the situation

That President Clinton suggested he stay in the House, or there might be a position. He refused and Clinton let it go and that was all there was to it.

At least I understand he hadn't filed for the position yet. Cheney called Phewlenty after he had filed and asked him to drop out in favor of Coleman and Phewlenty did. That to me is more condemning than what Clinton asked.

[activa8tr]

4. You make an excellent point between the two. Thanks. Yup, I

believe the media is milking this for all it's worth, and that Sestak should have just stated the WHOLE truth before the election, mentioning how his situation is different in the ways you pointed out.

[Traveling_Home]

5. The latest report is that somehow Sestak was wasn't eligible to serve ..

on the President's Intelligence Advisory Board

"The Board consists of not more than 16 members appointed by the President from among individuals who are not employed by the Federal Government"

Now either this isn't the position he was offered .... so please clear up the story like everyone should have done at the beginnning. It WAS no big fucking deal. Make it that away again.

Come on folks - they/we are not supposed to acting like rank amateurs.

[Diamonique]

71. It's correct. He wasn't eligible.

You said: "Now either this isn't the position he was offered .... so please clear up the story like everyone should have done at the beginnning. It WAS no big fucking deal. Make it that away again."


It's my understanding that they wanted him to stay in the House and take the unpaid advisory position. But the rules are that if you are employed by the federal government, you're not eligible for the advisory position. So.. that means Sestak was ineligible.

I'm not saying that's why he turned it down. Just saying that's the explanation of him being ineligible for the position.

[AllentownJake]

8. He said it on a local TV broadcast

and I believe Joe is that stupid.

I saw the interview the day after, and I said at the time, this guy is a dumbass.

He loses to Arlen, Arlen has that around his neck the rest of the General Election, he wins, he has it on his neck for the media clamoring for more information.

This is no GOP plot, this is an idiotic statement during an interview...made twice.

[Traveling_Home]

13. and then Axelrod tells CNN...

... if such an offer were made, it would constitute "a serious breach of the law." *CNN's John King

[AllentownJake]

14. The administration has bungled their role as "Party leadership"

Their entry into primaries in PA, Colorado, and Arkansas have cost them more than it has gained them.

That being said, Joe Sestak was not exactly smart in handling them. He has caused a tremendous headache for the PA democratic party and he has wounded himself in the beginnings of his general election campaign trying to score minor points early in during the primary.

The whole episode is one of incompetence on both sides.

[MH1]

32. What's your evidence that Sestak ever raised this issue himself?

If he didn't raise it himself (and he didn't) then how can you say he was trying to score points?

[AllentownJake]

36. He volunteered the information

Listen you have my vote, I don't know why you continue to try to convince me this guy is smart or a progressive.

I took a look at him, I don't like him, he is better than the devil on the other side. He wins he has 6 years to prove my assessment of him wrong.

I'll be helping the Gubernatorial race because I actually like Dan. At the end of the day it is a joint effort so Joe gets votes from that as well. I will not be going to Sestak's campaign office or giving money though.

[MH1]

38. Evidence?

When did he 'volunteer the information"? unless you consider answering a direct question truthfully as 'volunteering the information'?

And I am not trying to convince you of anything, just trying to stop the spread of a false representation of what happened regarding this situation. Lord knows the republicans will spread enough falsehoods without the help of democrats.

[AllentownJake]

40. There it goes

I watched the interview. He volunteered the information, do you wish for me to link local news on DU.

He put it on the table, every objective source says that.

[MH1]

43. Yes, please link

I can't find the original Larry Kane interview but at the time I recall that Kane pushed him on the topic until he said yes to the question but then said he wouldn't go into details.

Here is the best link I have:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/20100219_Sestak_says_federal_job_was_offered_to_quit_race.html

Based on that and what I heard and saw at the time, Sestak did NOT volunteer anything, he answered a direct question.

And please give links for 'every objective source' that says Sestak put it on the table. Larry Kane put it on the table. 'It' would never have been there except for the White House. It's their problem, they started it, and they are the ones who are liable for any fallout.

[AllentownJake]

45. Rare when I'm a White House apologist

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AB2EoIRDce8

They offered me an unpaid position and there was no quid pro quo would have been a better answer.

The only thing more annoying than Philly dems in PA are Philly suburb dems.

[MH1]

46. That seems to be the wrong link

I just played it twice and the 'job offer' subject doesn't come up at all.

Also as far as I know, the Kane interview was the first it was mentioned, and that was on 2/18/10; the video you posted is from May '09.

[MgtPA]

22. I agree with you 100%. I said at the time that I found it hard to believe that this guy was

an Admiral.

[MH1]

26. He was supposed to lie? Or dodge the question?

[MH1]

25. Was he supposed to lie, or get hammered for dodging the question?

Sestak didn't create the problem, the WH did. Why should Sestak have faced a liability over his answer or non-answer to a question for something they started?

As to details, the WH initially denied it all. So Sestak was supposed to tell the story, thus getting into a 'he said she said" over it with the WH?

Sestak has done the right thing all along. You may think doing the right thing is "that stupid" but I appreciate it in a politician.

[AllentownJake]

35. He volunteered the information

It was a crass political move to show what an outsider he was...it fell flat, he repeated it several days later.

The action of offering a potential political opponent is as old as the Republic and will outlive both you and I. It is part of the system. It is always not a bad thing as it brings people with differing opinions into administrations.

He's a moron...a better moron than Toomey, but I have little hope with this guy of being a Great Senator.

[MH1]

37. He answered a direct question. Period.

What do you mean, 'he volunteered the information'? He had three choices: a) lie, b) stonewall and get hammered for it, c) what he did.

You think he should have laid down in front of the bus because the WH did something stupid?

[AllentownJake]

39. Joe created this problem

As did the White House by sticking their nose into our primaries.

[MH1]

44. No, he didn't.

You are right about the White House though. They own it.

[AllentownJake]

47. See now this is one of the reasons why I voted for Arlen

The Sestak supporters are slightly intolerable...half the reason I avoid any event you people are at.

[MH1]

48. I love you too AJ.

:evilgrin:

[AllentownJake]

49. You are harder to deal with than the Obama primary supporters

after Hillary losts.

I'm out trying to make peace and I swear...

[Cha]

59. You won't make "peace" by trying to insult Obama

primary supporters.:)

Oh, and by the way.. more than a few of us love SOS Hillary Clinton.

[JVS]

63. Stupid like a fox.

The party higher-ups tried to fuck him over, he just shit all over their desks.

[MH1]

24. Yes there is a reason.

Sestak didn't create the problem, the WH, Rahm, and Clinton did. Sestak was asked a direct question and answered it truthfully, but did not give details. WH, Rahm, or Clinton could have come forward with those details at any time, but they chose not to. Probably because they stupidly believed Specter would win the primary, which would mean they would never have to own up to it at all.

[Cha]

57. I don't think they're making anything up.

[AllentownJake]

6. Because Joe is a boob

and not a team player and unaware that every President sine Washington has offered to bring potential opponents into an administration to keep the fights private instead of public.

I'm voting for him over Toomey, that being said...I don't like him.

[wisteria]

11. I agree with your assessment of Congressman Sestak. n/t

[MH1]

27. You're entitled to your opinion but I kinda like the guy myself

and he's my congressman.

He works his ass off and has done a great job for this district. He will beat Toomey and make a good Senator. Even if some don't like his honesty.

[AllentownJake]

41. His honesty is not the issue

I'm not going to further trash Joe right now.

Hopefully he wins, not because I think he is a great guy, but because his opponent is crazy.

[Jennicut]

7. Since when do Rethugs not try to make every little thing a big deal?

That being said, Sestak thought it would make him look more anti-establishment against Specter and it sort of backfired on him. But he still is pulling ahead of Toomey in the latest polls so it does not seem to have hurt him with the voters, it is just the media and Rethugs that care.

[vaberella]

17. Actually to be honest on this board it seems to have hurt Obama more than Sestak.

He is basically unscathed in regards to this entire situation. When, by his actions, he inflamed the Obama hate rhetoric running around.

[Jennicut]

18. Obama did not do anything illegal and he will help campaign for Sestak.

I think it is time to let it go for everyone on DU...hopefully we get a Dem senator in PA.

[vaberella]

20. I completely agree with you.

However, Sestak let the implication float around long enough that people think he did from Media to the right-wing nutcases.

[MH1]

28. I agree with you, but I am getting tired of the smears

so when I see them I will post the truth.

There are some honest posters that have just been taken in by the lies. With those, posting the facts really does make a difference.

For the dishonest or blinded, I guess we will be dealing with it until the next shiny object grabs their attention.

[Jennicut]

34. Shiny object is right. The WH did nothing illegal, just

something maybe not so smart to appease Specter. Sestak fumbled around with his answers. But you know what? I like Sestak AND Obama and want Sestak to win. And I think he will. I have moved on already.

[ShortnFiery]

9. It's over ... let it go? eom

[TheDebbieDee]

10. Tell that to the republicants who made a mountain out of a blowjob!

[ShortnFiery]

12. Yes, agreed. But Mr. Megalomaniac - President Clinton should have admitted his error.

Instead I remember MONTHS attempting to defend the indefensible, i.e., his lying to the American people. No matter how small the sin, always tell the truth and you will be vindicated in the end.

Nobody is INNOCENT here. :shrug:

[vaberella]

15. Actually, it would seem President Obama is innocent here. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

29. He needs to LEAD. No he's not innocent. He should not have allowed this "reach out" to occur. eom

[AllentownJake]

42. Oh nonsense

The reachout isn't the issue. It is common practice. I think Sestak would be offended if it didn't happen.

[vaberella]

16. When I see backtracking like this---after a long wait. It makes me doubt the speaker.

At this moment Sestak is just an attention seeker and nothing more. I realize many people prefer him over Specter. But his actions of late don't make him that much more above Specter's showboating either.

[Gin]

19. IMO he wanted the attention and the votes....he got both..

now he has to live with the fallout.....it was a dumb move in my opinion....he seems like a novice and he isn't

[vaberella]

21. Agreed. I'm not cool with media whores. n/t

[MH1]

31. Sestak didn't want anything to do with this issue

He answered a direct question asked on a radio interview. Period. Show me when he brought it up himself as if he was trying to play it up?

[jenmito]

56. "Sestak Confirms White House Secretary Of Navy Job Offer"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3repOjKy0Is So, he lied.

[MH1]

69. The title is bullshit and not what Sestak stated

Sestak referred back to Kane's asking the question in February of whether he'd been offered A job, and he noted that he had simply said 'yes'. To turn that into Sestak saying he was offered SecNav is just trying to smear Sestak.

Which I'm not sure why anyone would want to do. The WH could have cleared this up in February but chose not to. Don't blame Sestak for that.

[jenmito]

70. No it's not. It says he CONFIRMS he was offered Sec. of Navy. He DID in that clip.

I watched it. Did YOU? He definitely confirmed Scarborough's question if he was offered Sec. of Navy.

[MH1]

72. I watched it and he definitely did not. He said he said 'yes' to Kane's initial question.

Which was about A job.

So what is your point, anyway? Do you want people to start looking for all the Obama statements that can be twisted into "OMG he lied!!11!"? They won't have to look far IF they use YOUR standards.

and I am a strong Obama supporter too ... but losing support for some of his supporters ....

[jenmito]

73. No-he wasn't asked if he was offer A job in the clip I posted...

he was asked if he was offered the job of Sec. of the Navy. I couldn't care less if you're losing support for some of Obama's supporters. Facts are facts. Maybe you need to watch the clip again.

[MH1]

75. Nope, watched it 3 times and just don't hear what you hear.

And I remember watching the show originally and I bet the full clip would be more clear, i.e. the one you chose is selectively edited.

You may be mad at Sestak (for why I don't know) but would ya do Pennsylvania a favor and not try to stick us with Toomey?

[jenmito]

76. Then you didn't listen! If you had listened, you would've heard Scarborough ask Sestak

NOT if he was offered A job, but if he was offered the job of Sec. of Navy. He rambled in his answer but did say yes in that answer. He must've realized he messed up which is why he did not answer yes to that question after that interview, only saying he was offered A job and he didn't want to "go beyond that." It wasn't edited at all-it went straight through. If you can find that interview in full which changes his answer, you should post it. All you said is you "bet the full clip would be more clear..."

The reason I'm "mad at Sestak" is because he should never have mentioned that he was offered A job, but he did, in order to make himself look like he's not "part of the Washington games" or whatever, that he's an "outsider," and that he's independent.

I don't want PA to be stuck with Toomey either, and I don't think you WILL be stuck with Toomey, but Sestak brought this on himself.

[MH1]

30. How is Sestak

an attention seeker?

The only ones who have exaggerated and blown things out of proportion are right wingers, Obama haters, and Sestak haters.

Sestak answered a direct question with a simple yes and refused to give details, because that was up to those who initiated the problem - the WH and Clinton.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/20100219_Sestak_says_federal_job_was_offered_to_quit_race.html


When did Sestak ever bring this issue up himself? Other than saying 'no comment" when someone asked about specific posts, what did Sestak to to 'exaggerate' or 'embellish' the story?

[ShortnFiery]

33. Well put.

:thumbsup:

[jenmito]

51. He wanted to make himself look like a maverick-he left it up to the media to blow the whole

thing up to what it ended up becoming-an offer of the Sec. of the Navy which he refused so he could represent the people of Pennsylvania. :eyes:

[Cha]

55. Good question.

[AtomicKitten]

58. Sestak used it as fodder during the primary.

Too bad he didn't think 5 minutes beyond the primary because now it appears he has stepped in shit. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when he grovels before the dem party machine for help in the GE.

[Cha]

62. Yes, ..not thinking just little bit

into the future as in the whole picture..but, everyone makes mistakes and the thing is to learn from them.

[AtomicKitten]

65. I worry that this bit of nothing will fuel impeachment proceedings if the Rs take the House back.

The Rs need very little provocation.

[JVS]

64. They'll give him money for the same reason they gave Specter support in the primary.

They want their 60 in the senate. Sestak may very well have learned the lesson of dealing with the democratic party: act like a bastard and get rewards.

[AtomicKitten]

66. The support was pledged payback for his vote to pass the stimulus and HCR.

Debt paid, candidate chosen. I think most dems are pleased to give the axe to the Magic Bullet Theory boy. It's a karmic reckoning for his shitty interrogation of Anita Hill.

[JVS]

68. Well for Sestak this bullshit is good payback to them for supporting his opponent.

And now they face the decision they tried to foist on PA voters: Cooperate or Get Toomey.

[Cha]

74. There ya go..

:)

[Cha]

60. "WHAT SESTAK WAS OFFERED"

"The year's thinnest, most vapid, most manufactured political "controversy" appears to be ending with a whimper.

President Obama's chief of staff used former President Bill Clinton as an intermediary to see if Representative Joe Sestak would drop out of a Senate primary if given a prominent, but unpaid, advisory position, people briefed on the matter said Friday.

Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, asked Mr. Clinton to explore the possibilities last summer, according to the briefed individuals, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the politically charged situation. Mr. Sestak said no and went on to win last week's Pennsylvania Democratic primary against Senator Arlen Specter.

The White House did not offer Mr. Sestak a full-time paid position because Mr. Emanuel wanted him to stay in the House rather than risk losing his seat.

When Sestak first claimed in February that he'd been offered a job, that was a bit of an exaggeration. The discussions apparently included a spot on the Intelligence Advisory Board, but even that was quickly dismissed as an idea because he couldn't serve on the panel while remaining in Congress.

So, what are we left with? Perhaps the dullest, most inconsequential White House "controversy" in a very long time.

The White House counsel's office prepared a memo, explaining the situation in a way that even Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.) can understand: "There have been numerous, reported instances in the past when prior Administrations -- both Democratic and Republican, and motivated by the same goals -- discussed alternative paths to service for qualified individuals also considering campaigns for public office. Such discussions are fully consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements."

Obviously. When the Reagan White House offered Sen. S.I. Hayakawa (R) a job in 1981 in the hopes of convincing him to drop out of the Republican Senate primary race in California, no one cared. When George W. Bush's White House approached Rep. Ben Gilman (R-N.Y.) about a job in the hopes of convincing him not to run for re-election, no one cared. Mundane political efforts like these fail to raise an eyebrow because they're the very definition of routine. As Ron Kaufman, who served as President George H.W. Bush's White House political director, said this week, "Tell me a White House that didn't do this, back to George Washington."

In this case, it's even thinner, since Sestak wasn't even offered a job, but rather an unpaid advisory position, which a) wasn't particularly enticing; and b) was quickly dismissed anyway.

Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, told Greg Sargent that this couldn't constitute bribery. "Beyond that, Sloan adds, the Federal bribery statute requires an offer of something of value in exchange for an official act. Sloan says that not running for Senate would not constitute an official act in any case, even if a paid position were offered in return for dropping a run for office."

The political world can now move on, hopefully feeling chastened for taking this nonsensical story seriously in the first place."

—Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com /

[Cha]

61. "WITHOUT PRECEDENT -- EXCEPT FOR ALL THE OTHER TIMES "

"..Obama's plans, in other words, are generating some criticism, but there's really not much new here. The president's Memorial Day schedule is a "story," despite being fairly routine.

Which, as it turns out, one of the defining trends of the political discourse over the last 16 months. Several months ago, Atrios noted, "When Dems are president, perfectly normally ways of doing things are rebranded as somehow odd."

Ain't that the truth.

* Teleprompters: This trend of characterizing routine developments as controversial started very early in the Obama presidency. Every modern president has used teleprompters, but Republicans and the media thought it was hilarious and wildly important when Obama did the same thing.

* Bowing: Several presidents have been photographed bowing to foreign heads of state, but Republicans and the media thought it was absolutely scandalous when Obama did the same thing when meeting leaders where bowing is customary.

* Talking to school kids: Presidents Reagan and H.W. Bush spoke to school children in national addresses, even taking a little time to push their political agendas. When Obama delivered a speech encouraging kids to do well in school, Republicans freaked out; Fox News compared the president to Saddam Hussein; and the New York Times literally ran a front-page story about it.

* Czars: For a half-century, presidents have relied on so-called "czars" for various policy areas. By one count, George W. Bush had 36 czar positions filled by 46 people during his two terms. No one cared. Obama's use of czars became the subject of months of media scrutiny, and even congressional hearings in response to Republican apoplexy.

* Oval Office attire: Several modern presidents have been seen in the Oval Office without wearing a suit jacket. When Obama did it, Republicans ran to the press to complain, and the media actually published pieces on the subject.

* Criticizing partisan media: White House complaints about unfair media coverage are as old as the republic. When the Obama White House noted what is plainly true about Fox News -- it's a Republican outlet -- the media went a little berserk, with the Washington Post and NPR characterizing the administration's criticism as "Nixonian."

* Reconciliation: Republican policymakers have relied on reconciliation to get around filibusters for decades. When Obama recommended the same tactic for health care, the GOP pretended it was an outrageous assault on the political process, and the media pretended Republicans' cries were legitimate.

* Industry bailouts: Government bailouts of struggling American industries and major companies have been common for decades. When Obama rescued GM, it was used as an example of his purported desire to a communist dictator.

* Campaign intervention: Every president has had a hand in campaign activities, with several presidents offering jobs to candidates to get them out of various races. When the Obama White House intervened in Pennsylvania's Democratic Senate primary -- offering a House member an unpaid advisory gig -- the media found it fascinating and Republicans called for the FBI and a special prosecutor to intervene.

* Memorial Day: Many presidents have not appeared at Arlington on Memorial Day. When Obama does it, there's a "controversy."

I'm all in favor of holding presidents to high standards. They have enormous power and leadership responsibilities, and it stands to reason that much will be expected of them. I enthusiastically endorse demanding the most of our leaders.

But for a year and a half, the political world seems to have created whole new rules for Obama, which aren't applied to others -- and haven't even been applied to other presidents.

This week's flaps over Sestak and Memorial Day plans only reinforce how truly ridiculous the phenomenon has become."

—Steve Benen 11:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com /
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/20...

All right here in black and white..mediawhoredom on parade.