News & Politics

Rant

Why True Reagan Conservatives Should Back Obama on This One

Posted 24 months ago|23 comments|871 views
Written by
thePoliticop
Long Beach, CA
Did the Obama Administration put their legacy at risk by demonstrating "high crimes and misdemeanors" in offering Sestak a "bribe" to leave Specter alone?

If you listen to Conservative media, the Obama Administration has crossed the final barrier, the ultimate threshold, the end all of all ends. In other words, the President would have been better off engaging in a salacious act with a male intern, during a White House Briefing on national television.

The President of the United States has committed an "impeachable offense" and should be held to answer. This is an exact quote from the Conservative talking point literature that Sean Hannity, Rush, Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Mark Levine, Laura Ingram and others have committed to. Make the American public as outraged as we are, about this felonious act.

Now that you have the political spin, let's look at the details:

What crime are we talking about: Legal experts have said that Federal Statute concerning bribery and interfering with an election may have been violated if the WH made a job offer as a quid-pro-quo for Sestak to abandon the primary election against Specter. The exact definition of the statute can be found here: http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/uscode/18U...

The problem is (again)... the burden of proof. Sestak agrees that an offer was made to him some time ago by the Obama Administration. But what NO ONE knows is the context of that "offer".
It is irresponsible and inciting to "assume" that the offer was made in regards to the election. Although, many conservative pundits have come out and alleged that it can be "inferred" that the comment was made in regards to the Pennsylvania elections. And it can be "assumed" that it was made by an administrator under a quid-pro-quo context. And its a "guestimation" that he President was directly behind the offer. Therefore we "shall" initiate impeachment hearings against the President.

In laymen's terms:

"Hey Joe, listen we were looking over your package and have determined that you would be a great addition to the position of Secretary of the Navy. Is that something that you would be interested in? LEGAL

But...

"Hey Joe, President Obama here, (or Rahm Emmanuel here, on behalf of the President) I am deeply concerned that you are going to clean Specter's clock in the primary elections this May, and we have already engaged in a quid-pro-bro between Arlen and my office to ensure that he is re-elected if he switches parties. In that respect, I would consider it a personal favor if you would consider bowing out of the election and take a cushy job down here in Washington as...Secretary of the Navy. And Joe, er, uh, if you act now, Michelle and I will let you pet Bo!" ILLEGAL

Problem is, there is no tangible evidence to support or refute either conversation has happened. However, members of the Judicial committees have advised that they looked into the matter and no concerns have been identified based on their investigation, and furthermore, no special counsel shall be sought to further this baseless allegation.

In the meantime, Conservatives insist that the actions taken by the Obama Administration are "impeachable offenses" and action shall be taken.

"The performance of President Obama and his administration during this election cycle are irresponsible at best and criminal at worse, this is why we need to take America back and put a true Reagan Conservative in the White House" Conservative Talk Radio 5/25/2010.

Which brings up a good question....What Would Reagan Do?

Hmmm, let's put some batteries in the DeLorean's Flux Capacitor and get this puppy up to 88 miles per hour. Set our time dial to November 25, 1981...

Reagan adviser reportedly offered CA senator a job with the administration "if he decided not to seek re-election." An, Associated Press article reported that President Reagan's political adviser Ed Rollins planned to offer then-California Sen. S.I. Hayakawa a job in the administration in exchange for not seeking re-election.

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. (Excerpts from MediaMatters)

So, I guess with the assistance of Doc Brown and Marty, we have again learned that "Politics is the Lovechild of Hypocrisy and Irony".


Nothing More, Nothing Less
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
24 months ago: Uh, High misdemeanor? Is that not written in the constitution which you support? Is not, maladministration of high office considered a high misdemeanor? Uh? Can't have it both ways unless someone in the oval office wants to fall on the sword for Barry.

But the it would still not be believable as Barry is running the world and has contact and hands on everything.
Pike4
Pike4
Commack, NY
24 months ago: Reagan did it? That's the justification? Isn't this like the "But Clinton" defense Republicans used to use for Bush when the left used to criticize him? "But Clinton did [insert similar ethically questionable/possibly illegal thing here]!"

Is this really proper justification for a president that promised unquestionable accountability and transparency, but instead has his press secretary dodging questions on the issue?

Of course there's no "tangible evidence" on this issue because there's not going to be any investigation. Most of the stories I see qualify the rhetoric with "if". We won't find out the "if' if no one looks into it. Evidence doesn't just fall out of the sky...unless the issue at hand is a possible meteor strike...someone has to actually investigate and uncover it, which is obviously not going to happen, aside from the White House verifying that it's own lawyers say it's in the clear. Phew...thank god for that.

I'll flip it around on you...if Bush did this, would a statement by the press secretary saying everything was on the level and a reference to a 30-year old administration satisfy you?
thePoliticop
thePoliticop
Long Beach, CA
24 months ago: Pike
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you have a very valid point. I too am not a fan of the "predecessor defense", and that is not the gist of what I am saying here. The purpose of the post was and is to point out the vitriol and anger from pundits from a hypocrisy point of view.
If you noticed in my post, I agree that if a quid-pro-bro did occur then yes, it is illegal.
But at some point you gave to trust that the proper authorities have exhausted some sort of investigation into the matter.
This here is the beauty and comfort of NOT being the representing party of government. You can spend all the time picking apart small inconsistencies and turn them into the crime of the century.
Contrary to what you are saying, I do not think there is an issue here. I DONT TRUST the mouth pieces that broke the story, obviously there is an agenda here for them to be correct. So they are going to spin the output to us so we believe that what they are selling is not the fake tonic.
The foundation of this post outlines the time and energy that the (not so) Right will put into the "sausage making" on the Democratic side and the blind eye they pay to their own.
And my evidence is this....Every single action that President Obama has carried out since his inauguration has been spun with ill intent. From the shooting and killing of the Somalia Pirates after the kidnap of that captain to the reduction of nuclear weapons throughout the world thru a joint agreement with other world leaders. If you listen to your Conservative spin doctors, they have managed to strum up controversy against each action. Fair enough, but for every action, there is an equal yet opposite reaction.
And understanding that this is their intent, every time they open their mouths, I am more inclined to believe the opposite of whatever crap storm they are peddling.
And as far as his lack of "unquestionable accountability and transparency" that you guys so readily like to throw out there...
I think it is a smart move that he is holding his cards closer to his chest. Conservative dingbats have made the mistake of showing their hand, "be the party of opposition and challenge everything this administration even thinks about, by lobbing truths, half truths and outright lies into the constituency before the plans are initiated and this will generate the 'majority of America oppose' mantra."
So in essence, the President has decided that most Conservative mouth pieces can not handle being a part of American progress, so he shut off the spigot of information and told those not willing to listen to "Get in, sit down, shut your mouth, and enjoy the ride."
And quite frankly, I am impressed
But like the kids that they are, your conservative representatives just keep tapping on the backseat and saying, "where are we going, where are we goin, how come you won't talk to me?"
Pike4
Pike4
Commack, NY
24 months ago: The "mouthpiece" who broke the story was Democrat Joe Sestak. And he stood by the comment when repeatedly asked about it by the press back in Feb. Now that he has won the primary, and is being supported by the WH, he is still standing by the claim, but is not discussing it further, as per CBS. Yes, Conservative outlets like Fox News have predictably seized on this, and like everything they take it to volume 11 and the Nth degree. But does that automatically make it untrue? Other journalists are inquiring as well - the White House press corps is pressing the issue and getting stonewalled by Gibbs, including Jake Tapper at ABC, who I'd hardly call a conservative hit man.

To play the previous administration game again, left-leaning outlets seized on the Valerie Plame deal a few years back for partisan reason. But just because outlets on the left jumped all over the story, that did not make it untrue. To the contrary, the left's persistence on the issue was a service to us all, shining a light on what would have stayed in the shadows.

I don't agree that a person in a position of power should get the benefit of the doubt when a reasonably credible source brings an accusation. It's not Rush Limbaugh making the accusation; it is a U.S. Rep in the President's own party. It deserves a bit more investigation than a dismissive everything-is-fine statement from Gibbs.

On the issue of trusting the proper authorities, I'd say I don't trust an Obama appointee at the Justice Dept, Holder, to properly investigate Obama anymore than I trusted Gonzalez to properly investigate Bush, or Janet Reno to properly investigate Clinton.

No, I am not screaming "impeachable offense!" from my rooftop. But I do think the charge is serious enough to warrant further attention.
thePoliticop
thePoliticop
Long Beach, CA
24 months ago: I'd say good argument.
The tint and curvature of political lenses can contribute to the vex of opinion towards a predetermined position. (my college debate professor)

I agree that the introduction of this controversy was brought to the lime light by Sestak himself, when he was going against the Machine. But I still haven't heard him say, I was offered the job, in exchange for my agreement to withdrawal.

And in all honesty, I'm not saying that this shouldn't be investigated because SOMEONE else did it on the Right side, I'm saying it should not be made into a big issue because it happens every day in varying degrees on all three sides. If you read some of our older post, you'll see this is not a concession response, I have made this point in the past.

What I would like to see, although I know it is wishful thinking, is fairness and accountability in persecution.
If you have no problem with intimidation on the right, you shouldn't overreact to it on the left.
If you have no issue with missing a Memorial Day wreath laying ceremony on the left then don't say a word when it happens on the right.
If you have no problem with Pro Life advertising on the Right then you shouldn't have a problem with Pro Choice advertising on the left
If you don't complain about voter intimidation on the right then chill out when you "uncover it" on the left.
If you support boycotting anti Az Immigration bill activities, then you have to support boycotting pro Immigration bill activities..
My line for the last three months has been, "Politics is the Lovechild of Hypocrisy and Irony."
As for my other points.... I still stand by my positions.

Thanks for the lively debate tho
24 months ago: I have questions about what you have offered here as any good cop should.

This is a direct quote from you post...

"An, Associated Press article reported that President Reagan's political adviser Ed Rollins planned to offer then-California Sen. S.I. Hayakawa a job in the administration in exchange for not seeking re-election."

Really being the investigator that you should be?

What is the 13th word in your quote?

PLANNED?

Oh, your into justice and all being a cop which will search anyone because you think the wind is blowing easterly today as opposed to the normal westerly.
thePoliticop
thePoliticop
Long Beach, CA
24 months ago: Nice try Cypress,
But you are arguing my point for me.
While President Reagan' administration did demonstrate the INTENT (which every red blooded American should know is 1/2 of the crime, with ACT being the other) to carry out this action, they didn't actually do it, hence there were no repercussions.

Conversely, without the act of Sestak dropping out of the race and taking the job, there is only hearsay, no actions and no need for CONTRIVED repercussion.
24 months ago: Great discussion. I'm with Pike when he says that the ball is really in Sestak's court. His sudden reluctance to discuss the matter is odd and means he either embellished the details in February, or has now decided that it's not worth pursuing and does not want to make an enemy of the President.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
24 months ago: Honestly, I don't think Obama was that involved in it, as he really doesn't have the political savvy. He's definitely not a Reagan, or even a Clinton. And truth be told, he probably helped with the demise of Specter's political career. I say give him a pass on this one.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
24 months ago: Hey, we're in agreement except I think Obama might be like Reagan in that he's on pace to quadruple the national debt like your conservative hero did.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
24 months ago: Nah, not even close. Even adjusting Reagan dollars for inflation, Obama is light years ahead of any other president living or dead on running us into the poorhouse. Or debtors prison, whatever you want to call it. You can talk about doubling, tripling, whatever. When you talk actual dollars, see what you end up with.
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
24 months ago: good article, thanks.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
24 months ago: Good Post!

Hate radio is always coming out with outrageous nonsense. The Republicans and the Democrats are always making unsavory political deals. Ain't Politics Grand!

Obama has enough on his plate without having to get down in the trenches and micromanaging. He has lots of troops to do that stuff for him.
Billyberoo
Billyberoo
Cedar Park, TX
24 months ago: Yeah, enough on his plate...too badd he is micro managing. The auto industry, health insurance industry, energy industry, the possiblity of the carbon credit industry, the banking industry. All this president does is micro manage industries, why not add the political bribery industry to the list.
24 months ago: Hate radio? Last time I looked CNN and Rick Sanchez were not on that list.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1...

SANCHEZ: Your point is very well made. And I think it's one that is reverberating all over the country.

Let me ask you about the president of the United States. There's a lot of talk out there that he was, after all, the big loser in all of this, because he was supporting Arlen Specter. He -- there's even a lot of talk...

SESTAK: No.

SANCHEZ: ... that you were offered a job as secretary of the Navy.

Let me -- let me stop there. Did the president of the United States, did the White House approach you and offer you the secretary of the Navy position?

SESTAK: I was asked the question about two months ago about something that happened last July.

No one ever had asked me the question, did someone offer you something to get out? I answered it honestly yes. And then I said, stop. I'm not going to get into what was a deal offer, because I'm not going to get out for a deal. I would only get out if it was something that was right to do.

And here's what I believe. This kind of deal-making in Washington is kind of what soured Americans and quite frankly soured me, but...

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: But, Congressman, you're not...

(CROSSTALK)

SESTAK: I honestly believe this.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Hey, look, you know I appreciate you being here, and you know that I love having you on my show. But I just asked you a very direct question. Give me a direct answer.

Did the president, did the White House offer you the secretary of the Navy gig?

SESTAK: And the answer is, I have said I was offered something. I don't have to go beyond that. I don't think it helps anybody.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
24 months ago: Or, he's just too busy playing golf and basketball. Either way, I still say give him a pass on this one.

24 months ago: From what I understand Sustak was perfectly qualified to be Secretary of the Navy. So the way i see it playing out is Sustak saying he misinterpreted the offer and the WH stating that they offered him the position because they thought he was qualified and not because they wanted him to drop out of the race.

true? I doubt we will ever know.
thePoliticop
thePoliticop
Long Beach, CA
24 months ago: Harshaw,
you are coming at it from a totally political point of view. And when you come at it that way, painfully I have to agree with you. No one will EVER know the truth.
On both sides, it has been a long time since a politician willingly and under his own moral discretion has cone out and said.. "You got me, I'm sorry."
so what you proposed is a realistic approach.
Smart money says that the defense will be, "it was an unfortunate communication inference and implication"
that is probably the only way this goes away, short of unsheathing the sword and falling gracefully on it.
It's always hard litigating hearsay
24 months ago: Come on guy. You know as well as I that if your a party to the conversation it is not hearsay. It might be a differnce of opinion but not hearsay.
24 months ago: OMG, is this example typical of the convoluted, cross-double-thinking a politician goes through, before he takes a job? No wonder our government gets little done and even those results are washed out with compromises.
thePoliticop
thePoliticop
Long Beach, CA
24 months ago: You guys HAVE to admit. That was a true "card up the sleeve" moment with President Clinton.
If there was any question about this being politics or not... There is your answer.
Clever yet sneaky and kind of confusing if I like it or not.
Hmmm
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
24 months ago: The position Clinton offered was a voluntary position that would involve more work and more responsibility with no pay, so how is that bribery?.

It sounds like the administration was really trying to get him to stay in the race. They never really liked Arlen Spector anyway.
24 months ago: You know this to be fact? Money does not have to be involved for it to be a bribe.
Something of value? Prestige can be considered value. Especially in D.C. Besides the crime is not bribery.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.