I don’t know why Joe Sestak initially disclosed that someone in the administration offered him a job. I assume he was trying to pad his anti-establishment credentials, which certainly needed padding considering he is a two-term congressman, and former three-star admiral, and former member of Bill Clinton’s National Security Council. He’s a Clinton-endorsed Rahm-recruit, so his “outsider” status had to be earned. And he did earn it. He earned it by rejecting that job offer and running against the entire Democratic Establishment. But, in disclosing the job offer and refusing to describe it, he’s created a problem.
The leader of a party (in this case, the president) moves pieces around as a matter of routine. Obama made Elena Kagan the Solicitor General to give her a needed credential before nominating her to the Supreme Court. He appointed John McHugh to be Secretary of the Army so that we could take over his seat in the House. He attempted to do something similar in the Senate when he tried to appoint Judd Gregg as Secretary of Commerce. Ellen Tauscher took a job working for Hillary at the State Department, opening up her seat for someone more progressive. Strategic deals are made all the time. Joe Sestak is qualified to be Secretary of the Navy (the rumor is that that was the job he was offered) so it wouldn’t be illegal to offer him the position unless the offer was made in a rather explicit quid pro quo fashion.
For example, they couldn’t say “Hey Joe, if you opt not to run for the Senate, we’ll make you Secretary of the Navy.” And it’s unlikely that anyone (Rahm) would be so impolite as to put the question in those terms. Rather, you just make the offer without inquiring about Sestak’s intentions. He can’t serve in both posts simultaneously so it’s not like there is any implied threat. If he chooses to run for Senate, he’s not eligible to serve as head of the Navy, so you can’t take the offer away as punishment.
Sestak won’t describe what was actually said, which a good indication that he has no intention of testifying about explicit quid pro quo violations of the law. The White House knows there is no legal liability, but they don’t want to talk about a typical backroom deal that will make them look like typical politicians. So, here we are. No one wants to talk about something that wasn’t a crime and they’re all making it worse than the truth would be. Is anyone seriously going to be surprised or outraged that the administration offered a three-star admiral and member of the House Armed Services Committee a post as Secretary of the Navy? We knew they cut a deal with Specter. We watched them throw all their support to him.
So, for the love of God. Just tell people what happened. Who offered him the job? What was the job? And did it happen before or after Sestak officially announced he was running for the Senate? It doesn’t matter what the answers are. They’re all better than looking like you’re trying to cover-up a crime.
Glad to see you finally acknowledging Joe Sestak’s stupidity. I said before the primary, and I’ll say it again…he’s boxed himself in and will NOT win in November unless Toomey self-destructs. He’s guaranteed that this will be the primary issue of the campaign. He’s pretty much guaranteed that the President can’t campaign with him, which in turn guarantees that the black vote will not turn out, which in turn guarantees he won’t win. And as bad as that all is, it may not be the worse to come. By all accounts he’s hated my his former military colleagues, which means we are likely to get a drip…drip…drip of unflattering stories of his days in the military until election day.
I disagree with you.
Sestak should win easily even as the Republicans win the governorship and possibly a couple of House seats on election night. Pat Toomey is a Wall Street stooge. He will be forced to eat his lunch many times over.
Lol, yeah right. Sestak won’t coast, but by November, Toomey will lose. The only way he won’t lose is if he’s able to pull a McDonnell of Virginia and completely hide and whitewash his record.
that’s a pretty funny comment. Sestak is going to drink toomey’s milkshake in so many ways.
“while i was at sea serving my country as an admiral, and tasked with fighting terrorists as the first director of Deep Blue, my opponent Mr. Toomey was living it up on wall street selling the very same derivatives that destroyed the nation’s economy.”
and that’s just for starters.
I’m unclear how Democrats can deflect a coverup if there is no crime to cover up. The news media work for the Republicans. The Times publishes right-wing oppo research on Blumenthal. The Post wants to make Sestak’s race more interesting by pretending something is being covered up. This kind of exaggerating and horse-trading happens in New York and Washington every day and has for centuries, and the Times and the Post know it. It’s bullshit. It’s election time, and the Republicans got nothin’ without their buddies.
We need news media – beyond our preaching-to-the-choir online outlets – of our own, so there isn’t a loud unified chorus singing the right-wing’s song to the general public. If we didn’t learn that during the Clinton Administration, for crying out loud, let’s learn it now.
You deflect a cover-up by not covering up. Admit something embarrassing to avoid looking like you committed a crime. It’s simple.
I agree with you that it doesn’t matter what the answers are. But I disagree that there is anything at all to be gained from swearing there is no fire when there isn’t even any smoke. When did an honest accounting of anything make Republicans admit they were wrong? They will take descriptions of innocent – or, God help us, guilty – conduct to further impugn Sestak and Obama and will push on. Republicans never feel compelled to tell the truth and the press never feels compelled to make them.
And they both need to go ahead and get this over with now.
..it’ll be the months of innuendo and rumour-mongering thaty they’ve given the opposition for free, with little new material to bring to the table in rebuttal before the election.
Sestak better come clean, and soon, before he loses the part of his future constituency he’ll desperately need to win this election and retain political viability for the immediate future
Of course there will be months of innuendo and rumor mongering. That’s what elections, American style, are all about. If the Dems manage to not make this an issue, there will be much juicier gossip that passes for news planted by both sides before election day. This will end up the tiniest of blips.
If the Dems were smart they could easily turn the whole thing around while taking it off the table: “The same outstanding leadership qualities that led us to consider joe for Secretary of the Navy [or whatever] will make him a great senator for Pennsylvania.” End of story.
Seems simple enough to me: “Yeah, [soandso] sounded me out about a job with the Navy Dept. What’s your problem with that?” and/or, “Yeah, [soandso] discussed the possibility of naming Sestak to a Defense Dept. post. Is there some problem with considering an extremely qualified candidate for an important job?”
I agree entirely about the media, but only the most inept Dem handling of this one could make it an issue.
from Information Dissemination:
What did Sestak say, exactly, and when/where did he say it? The only reason I can think of for the stupid silence now is that he exaggerated a preliminary feeler into a job offer.
Ding! Ding! Ding! that’s been my feeling the whole time.
Boo, you wrote:
“It wouldn’t be illegal to offer him the position unless the offer was made in a rather explicit quid pro quo fashion. For example, they couldn’t say ‘Hey Joe, if you opt not to run for the Senate, we’ll make you Secretary of the Navy.’ “
Just curious, but WHY couldn’t they say this? What criminal statue does it violate? It’s not like they offered him money in exchange for a vote.
Good question. But of course they wouldn’t have to say anything like that. If he was Sec of the Navy he wouldn’t be running. Besides, I don’t believe for a minute that Obama gave a shit about Specter — he was fulfilling a political obligation in as minimal a way as he could. He’d have no reason to go to anywhere near these lengths to knock out Sestak.
It’s a stretch:
But that doesn’t make any sense at all…Sestak wasn’t offered something of value in exchange for hiring someone.
As far as I can see, the situation is that political considerations came into play when making a political appointment. Where’s the crime?
It’s not about Sestak. Sestak didn’t commit a crime under any interpretation of the facts.
The point is, you can’t say to Sestak, “Hey, I’ll give you a million bucks if you don’t run for the Senate.” You can’t explicitly offer him a job for that purpose eiither.
to be clearer on this, the statute referred to above is tackling from a different angle, which is that the administration attempted to secure something of value in exchange for giving Sestak a job. So, technically, I have to turn my analogy around and say that the administration could not accept a million dollars in exchange for giving him a job. And, therefore, they are trying to make the argument that they couldn’t accept him dropping out the race as a condition of employment. However, that is a thin reed considering that it is rumored to be the administration that approached and Sestak (not the other way around) and that a condition of accepting the offer logically dictated what the administration got in return (rather than being optional).
There may be election laws implicated in this that are closer to my original analogy, but I can cite a statute for you.
But again, even if they really cared whether he ran, which is extremely doubtful, they didn’t have to attach any conditions. If he accepted he wouldn’t be running. I still don’t see any facts about when/where he made this claim in the first place, so there’s really nothing to talk about.
Right.
It’s a situation where the only way a crime was committed is if the administration was aggressively and pointlessly stupid. And the same would go for proving the crime.