Sestak says federal job was offered if he would not run against Specter

Source: Phila. Inquirer

Rep. Joe Sestak (D., Pa.) said yesterday that the White House offered him a federal job in an effort to dissuade him from challenging Sen. Arlen Specter in the state's Democratic primary. The disclosure came during an afternoon taping of Larry Kane: Voice of Reason, a Sunday news-analysis show on the Comcast Network. Sestak would not elaborate on the circumstances and seemed chagrined after blurting out "yes" to veteran news anchor Kane's direct question.

"Was it secretary of the Navy?" Kane asked. "No comment," Sestak said. "Was it high-ranking?" Kane asked. Sestak said yes, but added that he would "never leave" the Senate race for a deal.

A White House spokesman this morning strongly denied Sestak had been offered yesterday. Before the spokesman issued the denial a senior Pennsylvania Democrat yesterday said Whitye House officials there were angered by Sestak's account.

After yesterday's taping, Sestak said he recalled the White House offer coming in July, as he was preparing to formally announce his Senate candidacy in August. He declined to identify who spoke to him or the job under discussion. Sestak also would not say whether the person who approached him worked for the administration or was an intermediary for the offer.

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

perhaps Sestak is not telling the entire truth. I am not saying that he lying is but we don't know for certain that he isn't. Certainly these things happen but who knows what the truth really is.


edited for left out word.

Saying this is a big risk for Sestak. Calling Sestak a liar is unlikely to cost Rahm his job. (Unlike some here, I don't think Rahm is some maverick who repeatedly does things that go against Obama's grain and wishes, but somehow keeps his job as Chief of Staff despite that.)

Then we WILL know for certain how people like Rahm Emanuel
deliver the goods.

A mockery of democracy.

of course, we've all had experiences where we think we know someone is telling the truth, then find out they aren't. But it would make no sense for hime to say this if it wasn't true, and in fact it was probably better if he didn't say it anyway. But he does tend to speak his mind.

The Dems were begging Sestak to run until Specter jumped ship, then they suddenly wanted Sestak to stand aside. I can't believe they came to him empty-handed. It only makes sense that they offered him a job somewhere to stand down and leave a clear field for Specter. Sestak said no dice and guess what? Specter has since moved substantially to the left in his votes. So even if Sestak doesn't win the primary, his run has had a positive impact for progressives.

MH1-
You wrote: "of course, we've all had experiences where we think we know someone is telling the truth, then find out they aren't."

Well, that was our experience with Sestak in 2007, after his 2006 victory.
Sestak voted to give Bush a blank check on Iraq, despite assurances during his campaign that he would hold the line and insist on timetables.
Sestak voted to fund Cheney's office, after Cheney mishandled secret documents and claimed the rules didn't apply to him because he was a 4th branch of government. Sestak had campaigned on accountability.

Joe promised to help local Dems in their 2007 races, and completely screwed them with one lame excuse after another. When I directly confronted his brother/campaign manager, Richard, I asked "Will Joe help with fundraising for county candidates by hosting fundraisers and or a house party, like we did for him?"
The answer was: "Why should he? It's not his contest. No one here did anything for him."

This conversation took place minutes after Joe gave a speech thanking all the assembled committee Dems for their hard work, making his election possible.

Sestak may have been a 3-star Admiral, but he's a 4-star phony.

People who know you KNOW that you have a personal vendetta against Joe Sestak.

As for Richard Sestak's alleged reply to you, 1) do you have proof? (I think not, and I bet a transcript would show a different context to the exchange then you are implying) and 2) Richard was not necessarily speaking for his brother.

I can also tell you that Sestak would NOT have won his first race if he had let the county party run it. Or if he had retained certain incompetent consultants who signed on to that campaign initially. Some people were shown the door for good reason.

MH1-
It was at the Pechin breakfast honoring Tony Campisi. It's a direct quote from Rich. There were others within earshot, but I don't what they heard. Plenty of candidates have gone to Sestak for fundraising help and been turned away.
I asked one of the current candidates for office in Delco if he had gone to Sestak yet for money. He said, "If I want to get rejected, I'll go to a bar.". It's that bad that people have stopped wasted their time asking him for help.

You need to take off your blinders and see Sestak for the self-serving ^&%^%^ he is.

It sounds like this was something that he did not intend to get into, but was pushed by the reporter.

It doesn't help his campaign and it likely means that they will be reluctant to appoint him if he loses either the primary or general election - which is bad, because he is good.

That's how one brings change.

and eventually succeeded at, which means that Republicans rule the state with little interference from Democrats. Because so-called "progressives" love the kind of intra-party fights that results in second-rate Republican candidates easily getting into statewide offices.

I'm not sure that Pennsylvanians are excited about that kind of "change".

sound just like their kind of change lol..

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

you obviously don't know what you are talking about..

think the national party doesn't know about this?

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/campaign-2008/story/159917.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=145x9300

who spend most of their time stabbing other Democrats in the back, or setting up disasters like 2008.

And the destruction predates Thurman by years, so don't lay it off on her either.

It was known that Rendell, Obama and others welcomed Specter as a Democrat and part of the deal is treating him like a Democratic incumbent. That means that most of them will overtly support him in this run. What they got was a 60th vote that was very necessary last year in passing the things that passed. Remember the Republicans filibustered everything.

Remember that every Democratic Senator supported Lieberman - with the exceptions of Kerry and Feingold, who both stayed neutral in the primary. This was after Lieberman really was against us on many important things. His comments on Kerry/Feingold might have led to those two not supporting him.

It was no secret that Obama was standing by his commitments to Specter. It was also known that they pushed Sestack to stick with the Congressional seat. It is not really a surprise that they would dangle a position - one he is WELL qualified for in front of him to get him out of the race. Had he bit, it would have been obvious that the Senate race was one reason.

Now, I would like Sestack to win. No surprise - at times he reminds me of Kerry, who was one of the people who pushed him to run for Congress and protected him when the Republicans tried to swiftboat him. Here, I just think that speaking out on that does not help him at all and overall it could hurt either Specter or Obama.

In general, I think the Democratic Party policies--Super Delegates, refusing to support someone like Lamont against a FORMER Democrat, even after he wins a primary, etc. become less Democratic and less democratic all the time.

I don't want my money spent on supporting a Lieberman or a Spectre in a primary over a Lamont or a Sestak. Nor do I want it spent having Super Delegates overrule a nation's worth of primaries. Or supporting Purple Snakes. That's why I stopped giving to the Democratic Party and never will again. I will give, and have given, to a Sestak or a Grayson (or to my Democratic Rep.)or a Franken any day of the week, though.

Lamont was the Democratic candidate. He had the Democratic line on the ballot and his campaign was run out of all the party offices. There was no "overruling" of the primary. Unlike some other states, CT allows a primary loser to run as an Independent and Lieberman did. The reason he won was the Republicans did not have a serious candidate - so Lieberman got all their votes and many independent votes.

After Lamont won, most Democrats backed him - some aggressively like John Kerry and Wes Clark. Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd both campaigned pretty hard for him. Hillary had a fundraiser in NY for Lamont - after she and Bill strongly supported Lieberman in the primary. A few Democrats, long time friends of Lieberman - including Biden continued to support him in the general election.

I don't think that DSCC or DCCC money should be spent on primaries for exactly the reason you give.

A few Democrats, long time friends of Lieberman - including Biden continued to support him in the general election.


Biden is a problem for me -- we wouldn't have had Clarence Thomas on the SC without his

hidden and deceptive assistance in betrayal of Prof. Anita Hill and the dozen and more EEOC

employees who were willing to testify against Thomas -- to tell the truth about his perversions

and how he expressed them at the EEOC to females there.

That's why we disdain the political --

In fact, some say "politics" is the shadow cast over government by corporations --

Truth should be appreciated -- it's something we need --

Specter's long and savage history as a right winger --

and his involvement in the cover up of the coup on JFK --

suggest to me that we should be working to defeat him in every way

rather than sheltering him in the "Democratic Party" -- !!!

Specter was complicit in the cover up of a Democratic presidents murder.

why is that $#@$$# being protected?

Honestly.. how can any real democrat answer that to themselves..and not know somwthing stinks to high fucking hell??

I would rather support the devil than Specter...well then..the devil may be Spec..

..well you know..

how come so many don't get it -- ??

Do they even know?

:)


Well, certainly Obama and Rahm know --

"Looks to me like they support what he stands for!"

as my now long past dad would have said..I remember my dad so angry at Specter..and his lies about the murder of Kennedy..he would rant about it every night at dinner..and he put lots of money into PA races to try to defeat that sob! My dad, a WWII vet hated Specter with every ounce of his soul..he would call him an accomplice to Kennedy's murder! And I could not agree more!

How can any dem look themselves in the mirror and support that man?????? How ..I just do not understand it..unless they are paid to do so! And have no conscience or soul!

Makes me want to spit with pure anger!

And it damn sure makes me wonder who is really running this party anymore and this country!..they are no democrats to me!

But then again Obama's ties to Kissinger make me sick to my stomach as well!

but, meanwhile, we still have to keep our fingers busy letting people know.

I'm amazed that so many Dems here are willing to settle for crumbs re health care, for one!

Coming back to JFK -- what we have to remember is that not only did the coup take JFK from

us and the administration and the changes he would have made -- he might have even taken out

the CIA! Who knows! -- but it also took our "people's" government from us --

and IMO it took the Democratic Party, as well.

If they were taking out JFK, they had to have a president in place -- LBJ.

And they weren't going to permit any Dems in office or the Democratic Party to begin to reverse

their coup or hold anyone accountable!!

That's why from now on I'm referring to the "Democratic Party" and to "America" --

I'm not saying that political violence began with the coup on JFK -- it certainly didn't and

I continue to be amazed at suspected assassinations -- from Dag Hammarskjold to Adlai Stevenson

-- even in fairly recent times. But the coup on JFK was an obvious sharp turning point for our

nation. A turning point torwards fascism and Arlen Specter has long been part of that!

Maybe he's trying to atone??? If true, IMO, he should do it elsewhere-!!




See you in Dungeon?

:)

its always the same cast of characters, if you know what i mean..over and over again..same MO as the Bushbots propagandists of old.

They make me sick.

PM from me --

Jay

The biggest DLC flunkie in the administration. RAHM "everything I touch turns to shit" EMMANUEL.

and most other issues that are important to the country

Because of what the Democratic party has become we are facing major problems in 2010, so much so that the Supreme Court is in jeparody

What a disappointment

:(

I've always wanted to be a crony...sigh~

I've always wanted a henchman for those odd jobs involving finding brains in a jar, passing on warnings, etc.

What are you willing to do?

Lie?

Bribe?

Sell your vote?

Learn how to fix engines on a small plane?

No? Sorry, Charlie, only souless tuna get Starkist.

(Apologies to the Starkist company and to tuna everywhere. Nothing personal meant.)

Still, it doesn't look good. I wonder why Sestak went public.

... if he was really credibly offered a job. He's sure short on specifics.

they needed to offer Sestak something when they pulled out the rug. He's VERY popular in his congressional district.

I have no doubt that some sort of offer was made.

Sestak's got no traction outside his district.

Within his district, he is despised by many party members who don't have the strength of numbers to oppose him openly.

At the county endorsement meeting, I spoke with people pretending to support Sestak, but who couldn't wait to vote for Specter.
One of them had even sneaked a packet of Specter petitions to get signed.

I was one of the few (maybe the only) there who actually signed Specter's petition. My name was the first on the sheet.

not where I was sitting, so you were sure quiet if you were there. Or didn't want to speak up in a room full of Sestak supporters?

And the other people you claim were there that didn't support Sestak, funny I didn't hear any of them vote against his endorsement either.

As for outside his district, I have seen A LOT of support for Sestak.

MH1-
I encountered plenty of people who can't wait to vote against Sestak. One friend of mine is dying to tell his horror stories about Sestak, but can't because it would jeopardize the candidate he's currently working for.

I've asked my friends why they don't stand up to Sestak, and the simple answer is that they expect retaliation within the party from Sestak and his supporters. One person referred to it as political suicide. Too few people realize how bad Sestak really is. You seem to be among them. Maybe someday you'll discover the real Sestak.

Try getting his campaign to give you a list of volunteers for your township committee or money for a candidate or do lit drops in a Republican area where he hopes to split the vote by abandoning other Dems on the ticket.

Anyone who is not aware that these sorts of backroom deals are made during candidate recruitment ... is not paying attention.

I study it ... so on.

and its damaging to democracy -- not enlarging it --

and the White House offer is an excellent example of the kind of conduct we sent Obama to the White House to change.

The person who made the offer should be fired immediately. This is an insult to hard-working people who don't get jobs because jobs are awarded as bribes, on the basis of connections or for other reasons that have nothing to do with being the most highly qualified person for the job.

This is an offer of bribery in a sense. It is disgusting. We need to know who made the offer and who authorized that it be made. This looks very much like an attempt to corrupt Sestak.

You can't corrupt the corrupt and you can't rape the willing.

maybe that is what is less usual..we have someone honest running for office as a democrat..In PA.

I have as much proof as he does for such a statement..

what has happened to real Democrats??

on a message board and a Democratic candidate running for the Senate in 2010 putting his own name, face and voice to a statement about a popular Democrat who controls both the country and the Democratic Party (money, endorsements, etc.) is bigger than the difference between night and day.

To hear that bribery is going on in politics.

Guess the self-proclaimed most transparent administration doesn't mind mind having things like this come to light?

Two related incidents: Sestak ask to run. Sestak offered Job.

Sestak's story was that he was offered to be "the establishment guy" in Jan 2009, but he declined.
Once Specter was in, Sestak claims he tried cashing in the offer, but it had been withdrawn.

1) Sestak doesn't bring up the offer until AFTER he gets rejected trying to claim it.
2) Sestak never mentioned the offer at the time it occurred, but only later when it fit into his "I'm against the establishment picking candidates".
3) Sestak wasn't "offended" the offer at the time.
4) Sestak wasn't "offended" by the idea when he when back to reclaim the offer.
5) Sounds like sour grapes.

Now, cut to Feb 2010...
Sestak claims that back in July 2009, he was offered a job to get out of the race.
1) Sestak sat on this until it was opportunistic to let it slip, since he's behind in the polls and dropping.
2) Sestak didn't complain about being bribed AT THE TIME.
3) How "offensive" or "insulting" was it, if Sestak kept quiet the whole time? Where's his railing against "machine" politics while he sat silent on this for 7 months?
4) Who want's to bet that he's so far down in the polls that he can't command the same level job offer?


BTW, Sestak claims he's running because he's so offended by Specter's votes (before switched).
1) How come Sestak didn't jump in back in Jan 2009?
2) ALL the votes Sestak complains about occurred years (or decades) before Jan 2009. Why didn't Joe run then? He had $3 million cash-on-hand.

Lot's of hypocrisy from Sestak and statements that don't add up.

This definitely seems the wrong issue to bring to the fore, no matter the degree of truth!!

However, if people see Specter as an Obama ally, he is likelier to lose.

in the Democratic Party primary in PA, which is what Sestak is immediately concerned with.

I'm certain Sestak is waking up today feeling sorry for opening this up.

Looks like Specter made a great deal for himself when he decided to switch parties. Since he had no hope of winning the Republican primary anyway, that kind of tells us the WH is not great at negotiating. But that was obvious well before this.

If the left wants to put its money where its mouth is......

http://joesestak.com/splash.html

:shrug:

Simple as that. And what Obama loves, "Democrats" love. Didn't you get the memo?

I never liked "Change Your Party from Democratic to Republican and Back Again Whenever Convenient Snake Specter." I don't understand why any Democrat would defend him now, except that Obama made a deal with him. (BTW, equating loving Specter with making a Faustian political bargain with Specter is very odd, IMO.)

So, it looks as though you may have confused me with someone who changes side whenever convenient, much like Specter himself.

"I don't understand why any Democrat would defend him now, except that Obama made a deal with him."

That was my point -- Specter is a POS who deserves to be replaced by a real Democrat, but we are being told to support him because he has been given the O blessing. To that I say, "Bullshit!" And fuck the Specter love here while we're at it.

:fistbump:

:grr:

If O does it/likes it, it is "good".

As in "Because it's Obama using drones to attack Pakistan and not GWB, it is good and I support it."

Or "Because it's Obama making a secret deal with the pharmaceutical lobby and not GWB, it is good an I support it."

Get the picture now? ;)

Disgraceful -- disgusting -- disheartening -- !!!

He's also a still active ingredient in keeping the JFK coup covered up --

I can, however, think that and still hope he beats Specter, who is overflowing with it.

:hi:

surprised or impressed that you did not side with Obama?

:shrug:

I'm talking about Sleestack. Who exactly are you talking about?

Sestak did that, too?

Quite a match-up

Try to keep up :).

BTW, trying to make a point by comparing apples and oranges has nothing to do with logic.

First, you obviously saw my question on this thread to you--and more than once. The first time I saw that post on the other thread to which you linked me was a minute ago, when I clicked on the link you just gave me.

Second, in that post on the other thread, you did not ask me a direct question. You simply added to my post.

Third, even if you had asked me a question on that other thread, your question would have been rhetorical since your post was about someone else's thinking, not about my own thinking. Contradistinctively, on this thread, I asked you about your own preferences.

So, no, my not answering a rhetorical question of yours on another thread that I never saw until just now really has nothing at all to do with your dodging a non-rhetorical question on this thread that you saw over and over.

Try again.

See how I did that? Oh, never mind. What was I thinking when I asked? Of course you see how I did that.

You can send me a message if you want to talk further. You're taking this thread off topic. I was talking about Sleestack. If you want to talk about Spectre, I'll be glad to talk about him in another thread. -

Please draw no conclusions from my not replying to posts I don't see while I am at lunch. Or from my not replying to any posts I don't see ever. I just don't reply to posts I don't see. I don't even reply to every post I do see,

I'm cool like that.

The joke doesn't really work unless the names are at least homonyms.

I thought it was a homonym or close though. Never heard it pronounced. :)

Yo, The Guy Sestak, did you kill my dog lie about this story? I believe him yo, I don't know why, but I do.

(first to name the movie wins a prize)

What did I win?

=P

:donut:

:hi:

But the WH probably had some deal with Specter when he switched to Dem.

Everything about this man points to integrity. Hard to believe he made this up.

it's hard to doubt him. If Specter had ANY intention of running again, part of the deal had to be that the DNC would clear the field for him. Specter didn't switch party because he "saw the light" after decades in the senate, he switched because his polling is telling him he wouldn't win a repuke primary. If Sestak stays in, watch to see a number of Dems either sit on the sidelines during the primary (the ones who might have normally supported Sestak) or come right out for Specter.

negotiator to give/promise Spectre very little for switching parties.

Spectre's only other choices were overdue graceful retirement or a humiliating primary loss as a Republican incumbent.

They didn't want to wait a few years and take the chance that he'd lose in the repuke primary, and/or that a dem would win, and they'd EVENTUALLY get that vote. That's where he got his leverage from.

him as much as they did. Besides, the morality and legality of a quid pro quo for a vote is questionable at the very best. So is the morality of throwing a Democrat like Sestak to the wolves, not to mention the preference of the Democrats of Pennsylvania.

It's deja Lieberman and Lamont vu all over again, and that one bore some bitter fruit for the Democratic Party, didn't it?

I'm in 100% agreement on the morality of it all, and question whether it was a good deal to make given that they didn't really have control of the blue dogs anyway, but Specter's bargaining position was only strong because they didn't want to wait for his replacement. And if he wanted to run again, this would have definitely been the sort of thing he would ask for.

Even worse than that, Specter's next term (if he were to win as a dem) would likely be his last anyway (since he'd be almost 90 by the end), and then you'll have a DINO in that senate seat for 6 more years without any reason to work with the Democrats. They traded in two years of votes now now for 6 years of dealing with horseshit and "legacy building" later.

and I'll certainly try to support his opponent --

but some people on the inside are going to have to abide by the deal. If there's one thing they (the party bigwigs) REALLY don't want it's to be seen as not keeping your word when you make an insider deal.

Over the years we've watched some Dems have to step back to make way for

Royal Dems -- HRC . . . wasn't Louise Slaughter/? is that the name from NYC

going to run for Senate -- she's the one that comes to mind, but the "deal" making

is large part pretense to smooth the path for the annointed one!

That kind of policy -- not quite as dirty as what happened here -- has to offend

some other Dems who may want to follow their own instincts and not have to step

aside for the Dem Royals?

I would have preferred Slaughter who I don't think is DLC?

A good deal is when the public benefits --

and I'm against any secret deals --

Specter was promised a clear field if he changed parties, so they are clearing the field.

Pardon me, but I thought that passing legislation was a good thing?

Besides, Specter is over 80. Trading a good Democratic candidate like Sestak was neither ethical nor a good deal in any other way for Democrats.

I have no idea whether Sestak is a "good" candidate because I don't live in Pennsylvania and don't have a handle on the best guess of political insiders about elections there.

So, I have no way of knowing whether a "good deal" was made with Specter. Or whether there was someone else that Pennsylvania people, who backed the current administration in its quest for the White House, wanted instead of Sestak.

promise. If anything, keeping such a promise is worse.

Assuming Sestak is telling the truth--which I do assume for reasons I've given on this thread--someone promised Spectre something for voting a certain way. That is the classic quid pro quo of corruption.

If the story about the deal made with that fired PHRMA lobbyist is true, the lobbyist promised "political support" for favorable treatment in legislation and the actions of the WH in immediately "showing leadership" on the drug reimportation bill (after so little had been shown on anything else) suggests that story is true.

If the Bush administration were engaging in this this kind of conduct, would DUers be defending it--and defending it as ethical (of all things) simply bc Bushco actually delivered on such promises?

Sorry, you and I obviously just see this so very differently. I think a few people should probably be arrested for political corruption and you think they are being politically ethical.

politicians think it unwise for him to run for a particular office? Really?

And for that you insinuate that I support political corruption. Really?

I spoke only about Pennsylvania politics--something that I'm not an insider about. And neither, I'm guessing, are you. But the article linked to in the OP indicates that political insiders IN PENNSYLVANIA WHO SUPPORTED OBAMA were not happy with Sestak's running against Specter.

Does it surprise me that the Obama White House tries to accommodate politicians in Pennsylvania who helped them get elected? No.

That's how politics works in the real world. One which is considerably different than the clearcut "This guy is good, that guy is bad" world of internet political experts. And I'm not quite sure where the illegality occurs. Specter wanted to avoid losing in the Republican primary, the Administration wanted his vote in the upcoming legislative session. That's illegal?

My assumption was that someone within the Pennsylvania political hierarchy didn't think Sestak a great candidate. And that's legitimate to me. Folks that have actually spent their time, money and energy worked 18/7 at getting elected often have a lot better judgment about who is electable than the average internet forum expert, in my experience.

To me, it's "politically ethical" to consider their opinions and concerns. Somehow I don't quite see how that translates to supporting political corruption.

already begun to campaign for Spectre's seat before the WH made the deal with Specter.

And, again, see Lamont v. Lieberman. Obama and other then popular Democrats campaigned hard against Lamont in the primary on behalf of Lieberman, then pretty much let Lamont twist in the wind in the general election, while Bush did the same for the Republican candidate. To show his gratitude, Lieberman campaigned for McCain against Obama and threatened to fillibuster the health care bill if the bill included any public option--after Obama publicly staked his second term on passing health care during his first term. Now, absence of a public option may torpedo the bill with the House and/or cost Obama the election. And, for that, Lamont and Connecticut Democratic primary voters were sold out.

made the deal with Specter. What I know about politics, however, is that deals are being talked about, considerations are given long before things are announced to the public.

Thus, I'm just not so able to make that call as you are.

Do you know, for example, that Specter didn't let his supporters know that they were free to vote for Obama, that he wouldn't expect them to turn out the vote for McCain?

Because that kind of thing has been known to happen in the real world of politics.

But perhaps that's illegal?

Which is mightily insane --

Lieberman has basically been running the "Democratic Party" if you listen to

Reid/Obama!!

What BS -- what major BS!

Specter switched, he was told that he would have the full backing of Mr. Obama. Additionally, the president would happily campaign for Mr. Specter and raise money for him if that was necessary.

The White House wanted that 60th vote, assuming Franken would be seated, and made a commitment to Specter. Is it such a stretch to believe that a deal would have been offered to discourage any competition for Specter?

It's not that it was wrong to offer him another job. These types of deals happen. But, neither was it wrong or stupid for Sestak to make it public. After all, shouldn't we know how strongly the White House supports Republican Light instead of a real Democrat? It says something to me, if not to the rest of you Democrats. The stupid thing was for the White House to lie about it, and deny it.

Transparency sucks, huh Rahm?

:)

And the denials are naive --

Same Obama who met privately with Big Pharma in the White House -- !!

And his enablers.

:thumbsup:

I believe he was offered something.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/2892

"Wealthy businessman Tim Mahoney, a self-described "fundamental Christian," was recruited by the DCCC to run against then-Congressman Mark Foley in Florida's 16th District. According to The Palm Beach Post, Mahoney switched his registration from Republican to Democrat in July of 2005. Mahoney did not support a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

David Lutrin, a school teacher, union activist and staunch supporter of immediate withdrawal from Iraq, decided to run against Foley before Mahoney entered the race. After Mahoney declared his candidacy, Lutrin was contacted by field organizers for the DCCC who asked him to drop out and let Mahoney run unopposed.

Lutrin said that he also met personally with Mahoney. During a three- hour breakfast meeting, Mahoney offered Lutrin a higher-paying job if he agreed to drop out of the primary. "Mahoney tried to get me to run in a different district. He offered me a job at one of his non-profit organizations where he said that I would make more than I was making as a teacher. He said I could campaign full time while working at his non-profit as long as I agreed to drop out of the race," Lutrin said. Lutrin declined the job offer.

According to Lutrin, when he refused to step aside, the DCCC shored up local political support for Mahoney. The local AFL-CIO chapter, of which Lutrin was a member, came out with an early endorsement of Mahoney's campaign. According to Lutrin, the union told him that "they would like to back a fellow union brother, but Mahoney has more money and more political support from the party." Lutrin eventually dropped out of the race when the local teachers' union decided to support Mahoney."

Rahm and Karen Thurman, state party chair, recruited Mahoney.

Lutrin was offered a job if he ran elsewhere, making more money that if he were a teacher.

SO to those who say Sestak is lying, do you think Lutrin lied also?

Come on.

insist every election in supporting a candidate that has absolutely no chance to win. And often, someone whose very candidacy will be very destructive to other candidates down-ticket.

After every bruising, contentious, split-the-party in two primary, "progressives" then rush to whine that Republicans have once again taken all the statewide offices.

Somehow, I don't think that so-called Florida "progressives" should say anything about Pennsylvania, which seems to elect Democrats to office with rather more regularity.

"Wealthy businessman Tim Mahoney, a self-described "fundamental Christian," was recruited by the DCCC to run against then-Congressman Mark Foley in Florida's 16th District. According to The Palm Beach Post, Mahoney switched his registration from Republican to Democrat in July of 2005. Mahoney did not support a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

versus ...

David Lutrin, a school teacher, union activist and staunch supporter of immediate withdrawal from Iraq, decided to run against Foley before Mahoney entered the race.

Because what we need in the "Democratic Party" are more Repug religious fanatics ... !!!

Why is Rahm in the White House other than because Obama wants him there?

Disgusting!!!

and the party sells them out running repigs against the great dems and the repigs get the DLC/DNC money!

We call them "Fake " dems ..

In fact our party leader..was getting paid by Repigs lobbyists while taking the FDP Chairmanship salary!

Oh and Rahm had his hands all over our state in the 2008 primaries and election cycle.

The whole thing sucks and stinks to high heaven!


see;

No wonder we can't win in Florida. Karen Thurman working for Republican lobbyist!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=145x9300

http://www.miamiherald.com/569/story/159917.html

POLITICS
The odd couple: Democrat is lobbying for Republican
Florida Democratic Party Chairwoman Karen Thurman is on the payroll of a prominent Republican power broker.
BY BETH REINHARD
breinhard@MiamiHerald.com

For strange bedfellows in Washington, consider the partnership between two of Florida's best-known partisans: Democrat Karen Thurman and Republican Al Cárdenas.

Thurman, chairwoman of the Florida Democratic Party, gets $3,500 a month from Cárdenas, former chairman of the Florida Republican Party, to help him lobby the new Democratic leadership in Congress on behalf of Miami-Dade County.

Party bylaws do not preclude Thurman from pursuing income outside her $100,000 annual salary. But some current and former leaders were surprised that the party chief charged with turning the state from red to blue in the next presidential election was on the payroll of a top advisor to Republican contender Mitt Romney.

(snip) Much more

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

oh and this is the same "lady" that set it up that our state would lose our votes in the primary!!..Her "ineptness" ..as some would call it..I call it a set up..for Rahm..

that won't bode well for him.

and since when?? did I not get the memo??

You only "bode well" by hiding truth..or lying about back room deals???????

Bad boy..he told the truth..bad bad boy!!

Wow..I need to go retrain my adult son..I must have fucked up..I taught him to always tell the truth..what a screw up am I????? I taught him truth will always prevail..and he would always >>BODE well by telling the truth..

stupid me..:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

never thought i would see this kind of bullshit on a dem board..:shrug: who would have thunk it??????:shrug: :cry: :cry: :cry:

it doesn't seem like anyone from Florida should be talking about "backroom deals" in the politics of other states.

repubs that infiltrate our party..with the blessings from DC and the top of the party!

count on that!

I'd love a high-ranking job in exchange for a promise not to run against Specter.

thank god you weren't offered the deal..just think..we would never get one ounce of truth........about the shitty back room deals getting offered out of this White House ..of "ours"

1. I'm ineligible to run, as I am a North Carolinian.
2. I wouldn't win, so there's no point in offering me such a deal in the first place.
3. I'm actually qualified for some sort of administrative job, but would make a lousy politician.

Whatever. Sestak's going to lose anyway, unfortunately.

and one who covered up the murder of a Democratic president to boot!!

wow it just warms the cockles of my heart..

We spend a lifetime working , voting, spending our money on democratic Prinicples and ideals and values..only to sell out our souls in the end ..FILLS MY HEART WITH..I WOULD NOT SAY THE WORD..JOY..:dilemma:

I WOULD SAY..WELL IT MIGHT BE TOO NASTY TO POST HERE...:blush:

WOWWWWWWWW.. why does that make me feel soo..sooo..SOOOOOOOOO

what dirty?? scummy..slimy..what is the word here..help me out will ya??
:hide:

FILTHY TO THE CORE OF MY VERY BEING..MIGHT DO..:puke:

MIGHT... IS A BIG WORD FOR ME HERE..

I SURE AS SHIT NO LONGER RECOGNISE THE PARTY I HAVE BELONGED TO FOR 38 YEARS..THAT IS FOR DAMN SURE!

:mad: :wtf:

I wouldn't want that guy as my senator. I hope he looses his butt and is never heard from again. It goes to show he can't keep a confidence. Do you think if he did win any ...and I mean...any...of his fellow senators could ever trust him................

Your supposition is exactly what is wrong with our government. Joe is being honest and you chide him for being a snitch? Look you are either on the side of right or the side of wrong there is no gray stop making shit up.

and you call yourself a good liberal?

LOL.

And no matter the nicieties of all of this -- it is bribery --!!

And, is for the benefit of a Repug who has played a large and important role

in keeping the JFK coup coverup going!!

AND HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS..YOU KNOW THAT ALL ILLUSIVE THING CALLED TRUTH?

like accountability for things like..say..torture..or lies to war..and back room deals to fuck us all on our health care..you are damn right i would vote for this "MAN"..

in fact he may be the only dem this year I send money to...because of his honesty!..and beause he is a real dem..not a fucker who was an accomplice to the cover up of the murder of a Democratic President ..and the fucker who slimed Anita Hill and assured the seating of Clarence Thomas..how is he working out for you?? You can thank Specter for that one!!.,Republican Specter.

represented a district that was 55% republican and that he would reflect the people of his district if elected, that is he would be a conservative democrat.

I did not care much for Specter,nor for the deal promised to him by Obama and Rendell that they would support his senate election if he would become a Democrat, but he has at least been a decent democrat for the time he has been one, and stated he will vote for a public option if one is in the bill.

He is my senator for many years, and I will probably vote for him over Sestak-just because Sestak is new does not mean he will be any good.


mark

until now because he needs something this year. If he is re-elected, who knows what he will vote like after that, when all bets are off?

I'd be more comfortable expecting someone who actually espouses Democratic principles to vote like a Democrat 2011.

BTW, would you expect any candidate for Congressional Rep of any Party in any district to campaign on NOT representing the people of his district?

Sestak said what he thought a Democrat had to say to get elected in a Republican, just as EVERY politician does, Spectre and Obama and Rahm (and Gillebrand and Ford) all included.

I thought he was in the House now.

how an you look yourself in the mirror and call yourself a dem with the garbage you are spewing?

Because what you are spewing it total bullshit and garbage!

were fulfilled completely.

We should remember the promises that were made to Specter, by the office of the POTUS. Political promises that are violated can cause big political problems down the road. They acted in good faith to fulfill their promise to Specter and he can not claim otherwise.

Also, this is not a give away office to someone like "heck-of-a-job" Brownie. No one is saying that retired Admiral Sestak is not a man superbly capable of any job they offered.

...Because we already have enough Republicans
in the Democratic Party.

Just say "NO MORE" to the Centrists/Corporatists
who want to move the Democratic Party even FURTHER to the RIGHT.

*Wonder WHY we are INCREASING Military Spending?

*Wonder WHY the perpetual WARS are expanding?

*Wonder WHY we are bailing out Wall Street and NOT Main Street?

*Wonder WHY we can't get a decent Public Option/Single Payer?

*Wonder WHY nothing CHANGES when we overwhelmingly voted for CHANGE?

*Wonder WHY we are getting MORE "Free Trade"?

*Wonder WHY EFCA was killed in the crib?

*Wonder WHY the Bush War Criminals are protected?

*Wonder WHY the Patriot Act and the Unitary Executive are being reinforced?

*Wonder WHY we have a Jobless Recovery?

*Wonder WHY the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party has been locked out of the administration?

Its because we have too many fucking REPUBLICANS inside the Democratic Party!

NO. MORE. REPUBLICANS!!!



You can donate to Joe Sestak, a REAL Democrat, here:
http://www.joesestak.com/Home/Home.html

Who believes a fraud.

Meanwhile . . . getting back to the "lesser of evils" --

is he better or worse than the Repug Specter who played a part in keeping

the JFK cover up going?


Ah, choices vs no choices!!

:evilgrin:

After reading several articles I,d go with Sestak

Here is the best info I could find

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/

lately he has been voting pretty solidly with the Dems.
and if memory serves he voted against FISA.

especially for going to the trouble of linking me to TPM . .

I like them and have now "faved" the link --

The story on Justice Dept today on TORTURE memos is yet another shocker !!

I'll try to give something to Sestak's campaign --

and fairly reliable on most everything else.

As a retired admiral he is pushing hard for repeal of DADT, for example. He knows very well how bullshit that policy is, and he calls bullshit on it every chance he gets. He has worked hard on veterans issues, small business issues, and resolving mortgage problems for his constituents.

He is not perfect but he is a damn sight better than Specter.

us ..Thank you ahead of time..

Dino or republican who wrote the bullshit magic bullet theory that covered up the murder of JFK..gee let me see..who would i support???????

oh yeah..not the fucking republican complicit in the murder cover up of My democratic President John F Kennedy!

And please do not forget the pitt bull Specter was with Anita Hill and how he brought us SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas ..

so can someone really tell me why a democratic president would support this pig??????????

For all his rhetoric, Sestak is Obama-lite, promising change without specifics. When I finally nailed him down on gay equality, he admitted to being anti-same sex marriage, although to his credit, he's willing to say he's adamantly opposed to DADT (and I believe that one; given his military background, he's much more credible on this than Obama). But I'm only voting for true progressives, which lets out both Specter and Sestak.

You don't HAVE to settle for whoever the Powers That Be put in front of you, you know.

the degree of voter apathy and the number of low info voters in this country.

For the first time in my life, I am beginning to understand the apathy. If you don't think your donations, effort and vote make a difference in the end, why donate, volunteer, activate or vote? (I simply cannot be that way. Just saying I am first beginning to understand it.)

As a candidate, it's the same story. Do you say what you really believe and possibly (probably?) lose, or do you run to get elected? Gillebrand could not have run in her conservative Congressional district the way she is running for the Senate. (If I am not mistaken, she was the first Democrat to win that district since 1979.)

Conversely, though, she is unlikely to win the Senate primary if she runs in NYC on the same pro-gun, not so pro gay platform she ran in her Congressional district. (Harold Ford, who last ran in Tenn., and Gillebrand are doing parallel flip flops, for similar reasons. I hope Gillibrand wins, though.)

Similarly, Romney claimed to be to the left of KENNEDY on some issues when he ran against Teddy for the Senate in 1994 in liberl Massachusetts. And he ran liberal for Governor. Only after Dummya and the other neo theos took over Washington did Romney's true colors bleed through.

As a leftie voter, am I better off voting for someone likely to lose (or staying home), thereby probably helping the Republican candidate win the general election? (See Coakley v. Brown, for example.)

On the other hand, does it matter if I do that, if Democrats think they can be elected and re-elected only if they campaign, govern and legislate to placate the right side of the political spectrum--and they never worry about placating the left bc I never give them reason to worry about my vote, donations, etc.?

It's hard, hard, hard. You have to be willing possibly to empower Republicans for a few cycles and I physically cringe just typing that.

Which is another word for "Right".

People who vote for Democratic candidates because they're scared of the Republican alternative are just enabling this fucked up shit we call business as usual in America.

However, I'll sleep like a baby, because I'll know that I didn't thow my vote away on someone who won't represent me.

One of the most arrogant things I see on so-called progressive discussion boards is the idea that if someone "votes their conscience" they will agree with YOU. Um not necessarily, if they are voting THEIR conscience. What you really want is everyone else to vote YOUR conscience. Sorry, no dice.

There are far, far more people in this country who vote for the lesser of two evils rather than vote FOR someone. And the only reason they do that is because they've bought into the lie that they have to select from the extremely narrow choice presented to them by the corporate overlords. If everyone who WANTED to vote for progressive ideals DID so, we could transform this country overnight, and bury this centrist/republican-lite bullshit once and for all.

Regardless, I absolutely DO want people to vote their conscience, even if it disagrees with mine. I have more respect for some jackass, ignorant redneck who votes for a Republican because he truly believes in that candidate, than for a "liberal" who votes for a DINO only because he's scared of the alternative. And the results of voting like that are exactly the same as if the Republican had been elected anyway. Giving away your voice is the stupidest thing you can do in a democracy.

Fear drives this country until we decide not to let it.

because you vote to prevent the debacle that occurs when the right wing monstrosity takes over.

Get more support in the country for your positions, then we will elect candidates that support your positions.

Meanwhile, please support a better electoral system than the current "two party must" system. Like IRV, or something, that allows people like me to vote our conscience AND vote for the person closest to our positions across the board. Because right now, anyone with a fucking clue that doesn't agree completely with one of the major candidates, CAN NOT do both. You are in dreamworld if you think the world will get better because you vote for a third party candidate and give power to the right wing.

Those two words are not synonymous.

I don't know what country you think you're living in, but the United States of America is no different in any meaningful way under Barack Obama than it was under George W. Bush. That's what happens when you vote for the lesser of two evils rather than voting for the person who will truly represent what you believe this country should be.

When I vote for a progressive candidate. *I* am not the one giving power to the right wing. When you vote for a DINO because you're too scared of the alternative, and you're too dumb to realize that the alternative is exactly the same as voting for the Democratic candidate, YOU are giving power to the right wing.

Haven't you DLC types caught on yet that your tired message of "Republicans! Boo!" - which is all the Democrats have had to offer for decades - isn't going to play anymore? Why don't you ask Martha Coakley how well that strategy worked out for her? I can assure you that you'll see a repeat of that scenario on an epic scale this November unless the Democrats stop letting their corporate masters dictate policy in this country.

The people who vote their conscience aren't the ones giving the world Barack Obama and Scott Brown. You "lessor of two evils" types are. Then again, I suspect you know that.

that covered up the murder of JFK..a democratic president????????

The more I see the more my suspicions that stink..of wtf is going on.. turn out to be true!

Why is any democrat trying to protect Spector??????????? especially a Democratic(??) president..

Then I think back to that "social call" GH Bush and his sonny Jebbie made.. showing up at the White House after Obama was on TV.. oh so dramatically... slapping the repukes at their meetings..and my suspicions just get all that more worked up.............

well i have no doubts any longer..............sad to say.

quid pro quo?

n/t

Did it every occur to anyone that Sestak "put the word out" that he would be willing to step down if he was made the right offer?

Maybe, the WH just didn't offer him what he wanted. :-)

Payoff for Specter moving from R to D.