CNN: Clinton acted as White House intermediary on Sestak offer

[Baculus]

I love the addition to the sig, Bac. :pfft:

They are my red badges of (dis)courage!

[Baculus]

Quid pro quo. The Chicago way. Given my reading of the statute and what info is in the public domain right now seems to me at least a crime has been committed. We'll see what happens but IMO what the WH says happened is not what happened. The cover-up is almost always more painful than the underlying crime.l

"The Chicago way"? Please explain further. Yes, and I know it is popular on the right to continually refer to Chicago whenever Pres. Obama is mentioned.

So, in reply to a post I made in which I demonstrated the Bush administration making a political appointment, stretching the legality of the federal code . . . you mention the Windy City?

Again -- shall we start proceedings to investigate the Bush administration? How far shall we make these investigations retroactive?

[Gibbs4Life]

I noticed you didn't have much to say in reply to my post. :-)

So, do you think an independent advisory should be set up to investigate all of the instances that this possibly happened under the last administration? Because the Bush administration has famously politicized a number of positions, virtually bringing back the "spoils" system (if that actually ever went away).

One of the best instances was Michael "Brownie" Brown being put in charge of FEMA when he was fired from his previous job and had no emergency management experience. His only connection? College, with George W. Bush, and Joe Allbaugh, who was involved with Bush's campaign.

If the GOP push for an investigation, this can get real ugly, because you can sure the Democrats will push to investigate all of the instances of GOP patronage that probably violated federal code. And then, it surely will become an interesting Capitol Hill drama!

LOL good luck with that, you have 0 evidence just alligations. This was live statement made my democrat about another democrat, not republicans pulling this up. Or fox news like people make it out to be. Theres a difference between the spoils system ( aka rewarding your friends, which obama has done in massive amounts, ie bailouts) and bribing a congressmen to get out of race, to reward a ex republican for switching parties and the money it saves the dnc by not having to fund a campaign

[Baculus]

The other thing I wonder here is does this make the appointment of every Ambassador and diplomat in the U.S. illegal?

Pretty much.

We know this stuff happens all the time. It stretches back a hundred and fifty years. Does it make it right? Not necessarily, but it is strange seeing the reaction from some folks, as if they had no idea this stuff happens.

As I mentioned before, the Bush administration was famous for its patronage system.

Take this particular story, which I had mentioned years ago (and at which that time, no Republican on this board had a single word of criticism to say).

"Ties to GOP Trumped Know-How Among Staff Sent to Rebuild Iraq."

" . . . To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration."

What was the result? Incompetence and billions of taxpayer dollars mishandled and lost in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/16/AR2006091600193.html

[Gibbs4Life]

Also you have nothing on bush and eric holder has nothing on bush. Do you honostly think for a second that if Democrats had something to impeach or put members of his adminstration in jail they wouldnt have tried?

[Baculus]

LOL good luck with that, you have 0 evidence just alligations.

Eh? Of course we have evidence. All we have to do is look at the background and the resumes at the people involved.

No experience + friends with Republicans = managing a federal agency = patronage.

Did you even spend one second of time looking into this? Or did you just wave your hand in dismissal because my so-called "allegations" are against the GOP?

This was live statement made my democrat about another democrat, not republicans pulling this up. Or fox news like people make it out to be.

I am sorry, but I am not really following you with this point.

The subject that I am touching upon -- Bush administration patronage -- is well know and well documented.

Theres a difference between the spoils system ( aka rewarding your friends, which obama has done in massive amounts, ie bailouts) and bribing a congressmen to get out of race, to reward a ex republican for switching parties and the money it saves the dnc by not having to fund a campaign

First of all, the "bail outs," more specifically, TARP I, took place during the BUSH administration. Second, the "spoils" system was supposedly done away a century and a half ago and after the civil war when a civil service system was supposedly implemented.

Also, here is the irony that you appear to have overlooked: The same allegations that you have out-of-hand dismissed against the Bush adminisration, you are now leveling against the Obama administration. And it's amazing how, in several paragraphs, you have virtually contradicted yourself.

Patronage by the Bush administration = allegations!

Patronage by the Obama administration = the spoils system Criminals!

Sorry, but this just makes you appear like a hypocrite.

Also, you probably don't even realize that Reagan was involved with this exact sort of bribery. But of course, being a right-wing hero, it's OK that he did it. I also wanted to add that the federal code, as quoted earlier by SS, doesn't cover just political bribery, but also political rewarding, what is exactly what happens when an administration takes office, and which is exactly what happened when the last administration assumed control.

Case in point, the Michael Brown appointment I mentioned earlier.

Let the witch hunts commence!

[Teller]

I noticed you didn't have much to say in reply to my post. :-)

I noticed you didn't mention what Bush was trying to keep Brownie from doing by offering that appointment.

[Hubbs]

And I just have to admit that everytime I read the name Sestak... I think Sleestak. Maybe it's just the geek in me.

Maybe? :pfft:

[Baculus]

Also you have nothing on bush and eric holder has nothing on bush. Do you honostly think for a second that if Democrats had something to impeach or put members of his adminstration in jail they wouldnt have tried?

ROFL. Are you kidding me?

One of the biggest criticisms by progressives against Eric Holder has been his unwillingness to investigate the Bush administration on a number of issues, even when there has been solid evidence. This doesn't apply just to Eric Holder, but also Democratic members of Congress who could very well start with committee investigations.

We would have had round-the-clock investigations on a number of issues if this were the case. The general thinking is that such investigations would be bad precedent, since every new administration would end up investigating the previous one.

Also, I would bet that you haven't spent much time researching this subject, judging by your statements, because there is plenty of evidence to find guilt in the Bush administration if the Democrats wanted to do so.

(And I am sure the same could be said of the Clinton administration as well, with folks from Arkansas joining him.)

Again, let me ask you this -- why do you think Michael Brown was hired? Why do you think Karl Rove was involved with the White House? Do you think he rose through the ranks as a humble, non-partisan civil servant? Or do you think he had connections to the GOP and to the Bush family?

You can ask this question of dozens of Bush appointees, whose only connections was to the party machine or to George W. Bush, on a personal level (especially if they knew him when he was governor of Texas).

I mean, really -- at least spend some time contemplating this issue before making your sweeping dismissal statements.

[Baculus]

I noticed you didn't mention what Bush was trying to keep Brownie from doing by offering that appointment.

This is about the wider subject of patronage, which is part of the civil code that you linked. Let's look at it again:

"Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment,

position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit,

provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of

Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such

benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any

political activity or for the support of or opposition to any

candidate or any political party in connection with any general or

special election to any political office, or in connection with any

primary election or political convention or caucus held to select

candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this

title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

Which means this: If you win the Presidency, and you say, "Hey, Karl -- you did a heckuva job on the campaign. You are now a White House adviser!" this sounds like you are breaking the law. Karl Rove was not a civil servant. He was a political functionary.

Let's briefly look at Karl Rove's Wikipedia credentials:

"He has headed the Office of Political Affairs, the Office of Public Liaison, and the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives"

"Prior to his White House appointments, Rove was a Republican political consultant and strategist."

Now, let's re-read the above quoted federal code.

But, yes, I know it is more convenient to narrow the meaning of this law just to apply to the Sestak-Obama issue, rght?

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/29/600

[Baculus]

Maybe? :pfft:

Now I have that show's theme song stuck in my head.

Darn you, Burgold!

[Bang]

Question.

How smart is it from the standpoint of the whole of the US and our interests to impeach a president during wartime?

Question 2.

How can we ever hope to win if we're more interested in advancing political ideology than American interests?

~Bang

[MEANDWARF]

"The Chicago way"? Please explain further. Yes, and I know it is popular on the right to continually refer to Chicago whenever Pres. Obama is mentioned.

So, in reply to a post I made in which I demonstrated the Bush administration making a political appointment, stretching the legality of the federal code . . . you mention the Windy City?

Again -- shall we start proceedings to investigate the Bush administration? How far shall we make these investigations retroactive?

I got a picture.

http://bobmccarty.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/chicago-politics-inked.jpg

[MEANDWARF]

Question.

How smart is it from the standpoint of the whole of the US and our interests to impeach a president during wartime?

Question 2.

How can we ever hope to win if we're more interested in advancing political ideology than American interests?

~Bang

1. nope

2. stop:beatdeadhorse:

[Baculus]

Now, here is the issue at hand -- whether or not the Obama interfered with a Congressional race, which could violate federal law. But now since we are talking about Rove and past possible Republican violations of similiar laws (OK -- now that *I* am talking about Rove), here is some fodder for debate.

"In January, General Services Administration chief Lurita Doan and Karl Rove deputy Scott Jennings held a video conference with top GSA political appointees, 'who discussed ways to help Republican candidates.'”

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/28/rove-powerpoint-doan/

Remember the Bush administration's purging of U.S. attorneys? Reading the Wikipedia article on it is like reading a small book. It's a real mess:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_07/019300.php

What about the politically motivated purging of "liberals" in the Civil Rights department of the U.S Justice Department? Do you think that violated federal laws?

"Federal law prohibits hiring based on political affiliations, but the report found that 63 out of 65 attorneys hired under Schlozman had Republican or conservative credentials."

http://www.newser.com/story/47839/purge-of-crazy-libs-by-bush-civil-rights-boss-broke-law.html

[Baculus]

I got a picture.

http://bobmccarty.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/chicago-politics-inked.jpg

Well, I guess that proves everything!

I do like their jalopy, though. Lucky gangsters.

[Zguy28]

Now, here is the issue at hand -- whether or not the Obama interfered with a Congressional race, which could violate federal law. But now since we are talking about Rove and past possible Republican violations of similiar laws (OK -- now that *I* am talking about Rove), here is some fodder for debate.

"In January, General Services Administration chief Lurita Doan and Karl Rove deputy Scott Jennings held a video conference with top GSA political appointees, 'who discussed ways to help Republican candidates.'”

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/28/rove-powerpoint-doan/

Remember the Bush administration's purging of U.S. attorneys? Reading the Wikipedia article on it is like reading a small book. It's a real mess:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_07/019300.php

What about the politically motivated purging of "liberals" in the Civil Rights department of the U.S Justice Department? Do you think that violated federal laws?

"Federal law prohibits hiring based on political affiliations, but the report found that 63 out of 65 attorneys hired under Schlozman had Republican or conservative credentials."

http://www.newser.com/story/47839/purge-of-crazy-libs-by-bush-civil-rights-boss-broke-law.html

President Bush and others didn't set the bar high like Obama. He has only himself to blame for this. You can try to say "well look what Bush did" all you want, it doesn't mean squat because it doesn't apply. If he hadn't set such a high standard for his admin with all of that idealistic talk (that obviously was just empty rhetoric), this story consisting of politics as usual wouldn't still be a story.

[Zguy28]

Question.

How smart is it from the standpoint of the whole of the US and our interests to impeach a president during wartime?

Question 2.

How can we ever hope to win if we're more interested in advancing political ideology than American interests?

~Bang

I don't think hypocrisy is an impeachable offense. Those advocating it probably are guilty of it as well.

[aREDSKIN]

"The Chicago way"? Please explain further. Yes, and I know it is popular on the right to continually refer to Chicago whenever Pres. Obama is mentioned.

Umm, Chicago politics has a LONG LONG history of CORRUPTION. It's WELL known and in the interest of helping an ES'er out here you go.

Illinois’ official slogan is the “Land of Lincoln,” but an equally apt descriptor would be the “Land of Greased Palms.”

The state, Cook County and its governmental seat, Chicago, have a long history of corruption by elected and appointed officials.

The culture of corruption dates back to the late 19th century, when a gambling-house owner named Michael Cassius McDonald created the city's first political machine, establishing a model in which officials would distribute contracts, jobs and social services in exchange for political support, according to a scholarly history of organized crime in Chicago by Robert Lombardo, a sociology professor and former Chicago and Cook County police officer.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28141995/

[Burgold]

I thought that was Louisianna?

or... Nevada

or South Dakota (Okay, I haven't heard that about South Dakota, but they never get any buzz. I thought they deserved some street cred)

[SkinsHokieFan]

I am loving the "well the other side did it too" argument that is flying through this thread.

Here is the big thing. These guys are a) in office now and promised to "change" things

This smacks as business as usual, even if it is honestly no big deal at all and just fodder for political junkies

Talking about Bush right now is as relevant as Cowgirl fans saying the Redskins will suck in 2010 because the Redskins couldn't find the endzone vs the 'girls in 2009

[Baculus]

Umm, Chicago politics has a LONG LONG history of CORRUPTION. It's WELL known and in the interest of helping an ES'er out here you go.

Oh, I know that, but folks such as Glenn Beck have gone overboard with this whole "Chicago corrupt politics" thing (which is why I suspect you are bringing it up), while ignoring the multitude amount of corruption outside of that city. There is evidence of corruption in many cities, at all levels, affecting both parties.

[Burgold]

I am loving the "well the other side did it too" argument that is flying through this thread.

Here is the big thing. These guys are a) in office now and promised to "change" things

Well, he didn't promise to change "everything"

Some say that when Michelle redid the garden that "change" was sufficient. Then, to top it off she replaced the windows, proving that this White House would be more transparent.

There have been some positives steps, but if anyone thought that favors was disappearing from Congress they'd be too broke to sell the Brooklyn Bridge to... again.

[Baculus]

President Bush and others didn't set the bar high like Obama. He has only himself to blame for this. You can try to say "well look what Bush did" all you want, it doesn't mean squat because it doesn't apply. If he hadn't set such a high standard for his admin with all of that idealistic talk (that obviously was just empty rhetoric), this story consisting of politics as usual wouldn't still be a story.

Are you kidding me? Did you even read anything I posted? The Bush administration is generally regarded as one of the the most politically "corrupt" administrations in recent history. Nothing the Obama administration has accomplished is even close to two terms of the Bush administration. (I looked at a Obama scandal list, and it was stuff like this: "Obama's drug use scandal," or "Obama's radicalism scandal."

The Bush list is LOOONG. Do you want to see some of it?

http://www.netrootsmass.net/hughs-bush-scandals-list/

http://www.sourcewatch.org

/index.php?title=Bush_administration_scandals

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-01-06/forgotten-bush-scandals/

There are tons of links for this stuff you can find via Google, if you are interested (which I doubt you are).

You seem to have a very short and selective memory.

And the Reagan administration, with the Iran-Contra investigation, among other scandals, was pretty bad, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_administration_scandals

If we are going to talk about malfeasance in high office, the GOP, over the past two decades, are the ones who have set the bar. After all, again, Reagan was involved with a scandal in 1981 when his administration offered a position for a Republican to drop one of the race.

[Major Harris]

http://www.netrootsmass.net/hughs-bush-scandals-list/

h

no dog in the fight here, but bac, you're better than this.