The Sestak Bribe - Who in the WH made the call?

[Toot La-Rue]

I did not write "legal bribery" If you cant even get a quote correct, how can you figure out politics?

You're rght - I put the quotation mark in the wrong place. To quote you properly, I should have written "legal" bribery, not "legal bribery." My bad.

 

[JustOneWay]

You're rght - I put the quotation mark in the wrong place. To quote you properly, I should have written "legal" bribery, not "legal bribery." My bad.

thanks. I am for eliminating lobbying altogether because it is a form of bribery, not much different than your topic. My point is that the whole system walks a fine line between SOP and bribery. This topic will go away, and in a few months there will be a report stating no laws were broken. Disguising as that sounds, it will happen....

 

[DaisyDay]

thanks. I am for eliminating lobbying altogether because it is a form of bribery, not much different than your topic. My point is that the whole system walks a fine line between SOP and bribery. This topic will go away, and in a few months there will be a report stating no laws were broken. Disguising as that sounds, it will happen....

The right of people to lobby their legislators to address their grievances is in the Constitution. I don't know if you could do away with this altogether or if you should.

I'm with the stricter regulations crowd on this.

 

[Toot La-Rue]

thanks. I am for eliminating lobbying altogether because it is a form of bribery, not much different than your topic. My point is that the whole system walks a fine line between SOP and bribery. This topic will go away, and in a few months there will be a report stating no laws were broken. Disguising as that sounds, it will happen....

I've given a lot of thought on the lobbying issue in general - and to be honest, I don't have a concrete solution. I think as long as there are people in power there will be those who seek their favor.

The ONLY solution I can see is more concept than anything else. If it's potency that draws the flies to poo - the only way to mitigate the number of flies is reduce the potency of the poo.

In my opinion, the power of the federal government is way out of hand - and inordinately so. I don't think the power of the political lobby is the only indicator of this - when the power and privilege of public office, particularly at the federal level becomes what it has, the tendency of those who run for such offices is less and less to represent their constituencies and more for their own personal gain (which of course sets them up for lobbying...). It's a vicious cycle. But careerism in federal office is a key indicator of the power and privilege that such office brings.

It's high time we, at the grass roots level, regardless of our political leanings, took this situation seriously and did everything in our power to not only limit the size of the federal government, but drastically CUT it back to levels at which the sort of abuses we're talking about here become (with any luck) "non issues."

 

[Toot La-Rue]

The right of people to lobby their legislators to address their grievances is in the Constitution. I don't know if you could do away with this altogether or if you should.

I'm with the stricter regulations crowd on this.

Addressing grievances is another aspect of this, for sure - and I'm glad you brought it up. We absolutely NEED to be able to do this, and are guaranteed the right to do it in the Constitution, I agree.

I guess when I think of "lobbyists" I tend to think more in negative terms of those who are addressing their selfish "interests" as opposed to "grievances" of more positive self-interest - addressing wrongs done to them, etc. Both admittedly are generalizations. Anyway - I agree.

 

[MattLangley]

Addressing grievances is another aspect of this, for sure - and I'm glad you brought it up. We absolutely NEED to be able to do this, and are guaranteed the right to do it in the Constitution, I agree.

I guess when I think of "lobbyists" I tend to think more in negative terms of those who are addressing their selfish "interests" as opposed to "grievances" of more positive self-interest - addressing wrongs done to them, etc. Both admittedly are generalizations. Anyway - I agree.

America is about the freedom to go for your "selfish" reasons or your non-selfish ones. You may view certain lobbying as negative, but everyone is always lobbying for their own interests and their almost always positive to themselves, it's very much a matter of perspectives.

As for the topic, I don't have much of a problem with this, CNN in fact has a video about this (that whole no left covering it is bs) and in it they are disapproving of it even.

Personally it seems like a commonly used business strategy, recruit your competition. We can call many things a bribe if you want to, and when we get further information I may call this as well, as far as what we know now I simply see someone from the White house offering someone a job based on political motives... No politician or political group ever does anything for political motives right lol. If they broke a law then they should get hammered, if they didn't then they shouldn't. This nation is about freedom as long as you don't break laws and I'm for that freedom. Now said WH person could be fairly criticized, we do in fact have freedom of speech, heck people criticize people for things that don't even make sense so at least this is a perspective most people should be able to understand from both sides.

 

[DaisyDay]

As for the topic, I don't have much of a problem with this, CNN in fact has a video about this (that whole no left covering it is bs) and in it they are disproving of it even.

Disproving or disapproving?

 

[MattLangley]

Disproving or disapproving?

Disapproving, corrected the typo.

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

 

[ZephyrWiccan]

Well, yeah it is - when the job is contingent on not running for office against another candidate (Arlen Spectre) the administration wants to win.

You find that funny? You find humor in this administration bribing a sitting member of congress?

FWLIW - the administration doesn't think it's funny. In fact they're finding it quite "mumming," - at least they know what they did was not only wrong, but criminally so.

No, that's called politics, and every sitting president has done so. Why the sudden urge to attack it when it is Obama in power?

 

[ZephyrWiccan]

You apparently acknowledge he was offered a job (i.e. your first post), but don't think it was a "bribe."

Just as Hillary Clinton was offered a job and it wasn't a bribe......

 

[Toot La-Rue]

America is about the freedom to go for your "selfish" reasons or your non-selfish ones. You may view certain lobbying as negative, but everyone is always lobbying for their own interests and their almost always positive to themselves, it's very much a matter of perspectives.

I agree, and it is, which is why I only generally addressed it [lobbying] - not wanting to make an issue out of what people's motives are for lobbying. The primary point was about "undue" lobbying in general - nothing more.

As for the topic, I don't have much of a problem with this, CNN in fact has a video about this (that whole no left covering it is bs) and in it they are disapproving of it even.

Personally it seems like a commonly used business strategy, recruit your competition. We can call many things a bribe if you want to, and when we get further information I may call this as well, as far as what we know now I simply see someone from the White house offering someone a job based on political motives... No politician or political group ever does anything for political motives right lol. If they broke a law then they should get hammered, if they didn't then they shouldn't. This nation is about freedom as long as you don't break laws and I'm for that freedom. Now said WH person could be fairly criticized, we do in fact have freedom of speech, heck people criticize people for things that don't even make sense so at least this is a perspective most people should be able to understand from both sides.

My post #40 goes further into the specifics of why I want to see this sort of stuff stop. Is it "illegal" to do what they did? If it isn't, I think it ought to be - but that's just me, just my opinion.

The US statute (18 USC 201) might apply, depending on interpretation. I think it refers more to bribes for "official" acts, acts that the member of congress might do in their official capacity. But that's not for me to judge, legally.

For me, the issue is more one of a Constitutional violation of the intent behind the established checks and balances, their purpose being to check (and balance) the employ of power and influence by the federal government. When one branch, the executive, seeks to influence the makeup of another branch, the legislative, they are (imho) bypassing the constitutional order wherein the people, from whom the government derives its powers in the first place, are no longer "in the loop" regarding who determines ought to represent them. In effect, the executive branch is influencing who runs and who doesn't - not the citizenry.

In a nutshell, that's my problem with all this...

 

[ArteestX]

I would support a Justice Department investigation of these practices in general. I wouldn't support ONLY an investigation of the Cheney affair (and not, say of the Sestak affair) - but if the investigation looked into what both parties are / were doing, I would support that, yes - because I think it needs to stop.

So you don't want an investigation of Sestak specifically, you want an investigation of the practice as a whole. Fair enough. I personally don't support an investigation in either case, but at least you're consistent.

I don't want the White House attempting to influence the legislative mix with these sort of practices. I'm fine if they want to speak on behalf of this candidate or that, or voice their support for - but offering compensation to a candidate so they won't run against "their" candidate is imho wrong because it unduly influences candidacies by bypassing the citizenry of the individual states who would otherwise determine, via the caucus process who they want to run for office.

I hear what you're saying. But I think the expectation that the White House shouldn't influence elections around the country is an unfair expectation. The president shouldn't care who wins anywhere else? The president shouldn't try to get the best candidates that support his position and give him more leverage in Congress? The president should have no say at all? Should the president not campaign on anyone's behalf? The notion that the president should be uninvolved and uninfluential in nationwide elections isn't realistic, I don't think. I think there are problems in our democracy, but I don't think "too much White House influence" is one of them.

 

[JustOneWay]

none. Bill Clinton made the call



White House Asked Bill Clinton To Talk To Joe Sestak About Senate Run

 

[Toot La-Rue]

I hear what you're saying. But I think the expectation that the White House shouldn't influence elections around the country is an unfair expectation. The president shouldn't care who wins anywhere else? The president shouldn't try to get the best candidates that support his position and give him more leverage in Congress? The president should have no say at all? Should the president not campaign on anyone's behalf? The notion that the president should be uninvolved and uninfluential in nationwide elections isn't realistic, I don't think. I think there are problems in our democracy, but I don't think "too much White House influence" is one of them.

I have no problem with the president stumping for specific candidates, I really don't. As individual citizens themselves, they have every right to be able to do that, whether they're president or not.

But understand, there is a big difference between campaigning for a specific candidate whom the voters put forth, and influencing behind-the-scenes who the voters get to vote for in the first place.

If the citizens want to put forth A, B, and C as candidates for congressional office, and the president campaigns for B, I'm fine with that.

But if the executive branch exerts its influence such that only B and C are available to run, because it got A to step out of the race, I'm not at all fine with that. The executive branch has neither the right nor the privilege to determine what my choices will be for whom to vote.

Do you see the difference? I'm trying to articulate it as best I can, because I think the distinction is a very important one.

I was a little peeved, to be honest, when I took part in the caucus process a few months ago in my state and realized the candidates for whom I could cast my vote were already determined for us. Where did that process start and why wasn't I able to be part of it? I found out, and will get involved sooner next time, because I want to have a say in who my party elevates to candidacy.

I suspect this isn't an issue for many, as in general I don't think we're nearly as involved in politics as we should be - that on the basis of the pathetic few who actually showed up for the caususes, being content to cast our ballots for whomever is put forth for us by whatever process our party deemed appropriate. And perhaps it is this very apathy for politics at the precinct level that allows situations like the one being discussed here at the national level.

Regardless, I think it wrong and worse, dangerous to our republic to have anyone decide for us whom we may vote for.

 

[Wirraway]

none. Bill Clinton made the call



White House Asked Bill Clinton To Talk To Joe Sestak About Senate Run

The offer was made by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel through a prominent intermediary -- former President Bill Clinton -- during the months of June and July of 2009. The White House initiated the conversation, which occurred over phone. It would have allowed Sestak to remain in the House of Representatives while advising the president

Mr. Hillary was the message boy for obambi.

 

[ArteestX]

If the citizens want to put forth A, B, and C as candidates for congressional office, and the president campaigns for B, I'm fine with that.

But if the executive branch exerts its influence such that only B and C are available to run, because it got A to step out of the race, I'm not at all fine with that. The executive branch has neither the right nor the privilege to determine what my choices will be for whom to vote.

Do you see the difference? I'm trying to articulate it as best I can, because I think the distinction is a very important one.

I see the distinction, but I think it's an artificial one. To me, the analogy of president selecting candidates is like a CEO selecting products. I can lobby Pepsi to offer me Grapefruit-flavored soda, but the CEO ultimately decides what choices I'm going to get. And then I can vote (with dollars) whether to buy what they give me or go to Coke or Dr Pepper or whoever. I can lobby a singer to do the songs *I* want him to play, but ultimately he/she decides what album to put out, and I vote yea or nay on buying the album.

I can try to influence what candidate runs for the Democratic seat, but ultimately NDCC, the President, the state Democratic party, and others are going to whittle my choices down, possibly to one and only one person, and then it's up to me to decide whether to vote for that person, for someone else, or stay home. I just don't see it as a crisis of democracy that a Democratic president has more influence over a state Democratic candidate (or Republican president on a state Republican candidate) than I do. If Democrats and Republicans were acting to prevent people, willing to jump through the necessary hoops, to get on a ballot as an independent, to me THAT would be a problem. But Democrat officials deciding Democrat candidates that I then choose to support or not? Nothing wrong with that to me.

 

[Toot La-Rue]

I see the distinction, but I think it's an artificial one. To me, the analogy of president selecting candidates is like a CEO selecting products. I can lobby Pepsi to offer me Grapefruit-flavored soda, but the CEO ultimately decides what choices I'm going to get. And then I can vote (with dollars) whether to buy what they give me or go to Coke or Dr Pepper or whoever. I can lobby a singer to do the songs *I* want him to play, but ultimately he/she decides what album to put out, and I vote yea or nay on buying the album.

I understand the analogie but I don't think any of them are apt - each is an apples-oranges comparison in my mind.

The United States isn't a corporation and our president isn't a CEO (or artist) and we aren't its' customers. And if it puts forth a product or service we don't like or want, we can't simply choose not to "buy" it.

WE are the government, you, me, all American citizens. The government exists because we consent to its existence, because we consent to electing people to it we want to represent us, in our absence.

I can try to influence what candidate runs for the Democratic seat, but ultimately NDCC, the President, the state Democratic party, and others are going to whittle my choices down, possibly to one and only one person, and then it's up to me to decide whether to vote for that person, for someone else, or stay home. I just don't see it as a crisis of democracy that a Democratic president has more influence over a state Democratic candidate (or Republican president on a state Republican candidate) than I do. If Democrats and Republicans were acting to prevent people, willing to jump through the necessary hoops, to get on a ballot as an independent, to me THAT would be a problem. But Democrat officials deciding Democrat candidates that I then choose to support or not? Nothing wrong with that to me.

This year I decided it was time to get involved in the process. I went to the caucuses, I went as a delegate to the county assembly, and then I went as a delegate to the state assembly. I had opportunity to vote at each level for the candidates my precinct (the 3 of us who showed up) wanted to run.

Other than missing the straw ballots prior to the caucuses, we decided who we wanted to be on the ballot for Senate, Congress, and the various state offices - not the state party, not any individual of influence, not the national party.

For all those who did not take part in this process, I guess you could say it was us who decided for them - we decided for whom they would get to vote in the primaries come August. From there, all of us will get to decide among those choices who we will vote for in November.

That's the process as it should be, I believe. And that's the process for every office but president. I think what you're describing is more descriptive of the process we have for who gets on the ballot for president - something the national parties have more weight determining than anything else. At some point, I want to understand that process better myself, to see where an individual citizen's involvement truly has place.

But for congress and senate, the republicans in my state at least, followed the process I described. Perhaps it's different for Democrats, I don't know - though their caucuses and state assembly pretty much mirrored ours, so I doubt it is.

But I remain firm in my belief that neither the judicial, legislative, or executive branches should be telling us, or determining for us for whom we should vote.

Perhaps we just need to agree to disagree...

 

[DaisyDay]

The funniest thing about this so-called bribe is the pay involved - $0.00 annually.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Mr. Hillary was the message boy for obambi.

Change we can believe in!

 

[Saving Hawaii]

Wow, that Ronald Reagan was super corrupt, right?