This is a very interesting situation. It would not surprise me if there was some form of quid pro quo, that is typical of the corruption of our government, and a hallmark trait of Chicago style politics.

None story.

Keep telling yourself that kam. Just becaue the media has largely ignored it, doesn’t make it a NON story.

As George Will said last week, politics is transactional. Every time a politician changes parties, these types of deals are sought out or made. The only story here is that the White House didn’t transcend traditional politics. More’s the pity.

Just becaue the media has largely ignored it, doesn’t make it a NON story.

—-

Geez, I’m afraid that is the very definition of a non-story.

Axelrod also acknowledged that there were “conversations” involving White House officials and Sestak, but said that those had been “looked at” by White House lawyers and “their conclusion was that it was perfect — the conversations were perfectly appropriate.”

I guess that puts it to bed.

And Issa spokesman, Kurt Bardella, listed the questions that the Republican would still like to see answered about the matter:

1. Do either Gibbs or Axe now know who spoke with Sestak and what, if anything was offered?

2. If nothing “inappropriate” or “problematic” happened, then why don’t they just answer these questions and move on?

3. Even if nothing technically illegal happened, does the implication in itself that they tried to maneuver Sestak out of the PA Senate primary effectively taint then candidate-Obama to change the business-as-usual attitude of Washington?

4. Or since Axe said he believes after talking to WH lawyers that the accusations are founded, is Joe Sestak lying?

5. Is he telling the truth and everyone is jumping through hoops to avoid answering questions directly because the person who Sestak spoke to is Rahm Emanuel?

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/05/25/top-obama-adviser-says-no-evidence-that-sestaks-bribe-charge-is-true/#ixzz0p8Xxno7T

The Real Royal King says:
May 27, 2010 at 9:35 am
Just becaue the media has largely ignored it, doesn’t make it a NON story.

—-

Geez, I’m afraid that is the very definition of a non-story.

Spoken like a true lefty that can’t stand that there are multiple places to get media now, even if the mainstream media decides to ignore something that doesn’t fit their template.

Indeed, Michelle, there is always Breitbart.

If something did happen, similar to the Blago scandal, then heads need to role. No matter if it’s a neocon or liberal doing it, it clearly undermines our democracy. Business as usual.

Yes a perfect example of someone the left abhores because he gets the truth out.

“Yes a perfect example of someone the left abhores because he gets the truth out.”

The answer to speech, press freedoms, that partisans don’t like is not less speech, but more.

The actual 18 USC 600 statute states:

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 not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

WOW…nice one MichelleF. This stops all the moral relativism, although I’m sure some partisan will throw out the whole “it’s just politics” claim. The best defense/ offense is to use facts. Thanks

I do agree LNR that “business as usual” undermines our democracy. To be sure, we have never been the pristine and perfect democracy, but something very ugly happened in American politics in the 80′s that seems to have changed us much for the worse. It’s beginnings are a bit fuzzy. As best I can trace it, the rebirth and legitimacy of the ugliness began with events surrounding the work of Lee Attwater. The blame is not his, but that of the politicians who sought him out. And, I think Attwater himself agreed with this prior to his untimely death. So, I can say, in a partisan sort of way, that I believe that the source was the modern Republican party. We could argue that, but to what end? The Limbaugh and Limbaughesque efforts to demonize the Clintons began in September 1992 when it was clear that the hapless Poppy was not going to win re-election. Then the acrimony was out in the open, and we have since had whatever side is in power payback those out of power and those out of power seeking not so much to oppose as to delegitimatize. It is a pattern which has become circular, and it is toxic. I can appreciate that someone has to give, someone’s feet need to be held to the fire. I can also understand that there is something inherently unfair in now holding President Obama to a far higher standard than Reagan or Bush II, Pelosi to a higher standard than Gingrich. Yet, the circle has to be unbroken, and I think the time to do it is now.

I am sure we can go back to Bush II making deals similar to the one with Specter/Sestak, and I am sure we can conclude, fairly, that Michelle has no problem with the former, but is incensed by the latter. Again, so what? The business of ribald, destructive partisanship clogging and corrupting our government needs to begin now. If we belatedly start holding people’s feet to the fire, so be it.

I am sure we can go back to Bush II making deals similar to the one with Specter/Sestak,

And you’re telling me that if Bush did do this, which is illegal, the Dem’s wouldn’t have been ALL over it? Nice try! Face it, Obama was caught with his pants down on this one. Spin it all you want, but it’s not going away.

Whatever, Michelle. Enjoy your self-righteousness, today.

Since the 80s? Are you kidding me, this goes back years before. Just look at the 60s and 70s, not to mention the 20s and 30s.

I don’t look for the “media” to start miraculously covering Dems any differently than they always have. Business as usual, if you’re a Dem you have life-time pass.

Yes, King. Your ‘two wrongs make a right’ defense in very compelling. But does Scarborough realize he’s skating on thin ice? Olbermann will never stand for going against the grain like this.

I agree with your historical perspective here, LNR. I was speaking more from an experiential perspective and one to which our largely ahistorical audience here could better relate. If I then framed an argument too narrowly, I apologize.

I’m not interested in your mindless tit-for-tat today, Righter.

I was speaking more from an experiential perspective and one to which our largely ahistorical audience here could better relate

Ah yes, the old, “I the king am smarter than the rest of you”. Why do you feel the need to belittle those who disagree with you king? Is it really necessary?

In other words, King, deflect attention away from the current story by bring up things that happened in the past, then use those past events as a defense.

Michelle, once to insult me, the King brought up the jobs of fork truck driver and janitor. He sees placing a person in a blue collar job as an insult. I don’t know where anyone would get the idea he’s an elitist snob who looks down on others.

King, it’s such a non-story that the WH is afraid to explain it.

Gibbs said the “lawyers” said nothing inappropriate happened and one of the lawyers is Antita Dunn’s husband.

That makes it suspicious right there.

The Real Royal King says:
May 27, 2010 at 10:02 am
Liberty – Not Redistribution says:
May 27, 2010 at 10:11 am (the later part is more for you, not the atwater part)
I was waiting on somebody to mention Atwater, here are his own words on the southern strategy and racism among Republicans:
You start out in 1954 by saying, “N****r, n****r, n****r.” By 1968 you can’t say “n****r” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N****r, n****r.”
But the modern situation goes back much further to the Conservative Coalition under FDR and the conflict which he created by trying to add more justices in addition to their natural opposition, I point you to the Conservtive Manifesto. It intensified under Kennedy with that same coalition trying to block everything that he did, and came to a head under Reagan when Robert Bork got…borked. This is part of what Madison feared with factions, that we would becoome such opposites that the nation would become too polarized to function. And yes, I would characterize both parties as factions because Madison stated that a faction denies the common good in favor of their own gain. Republicans want seats, Democrats want…I honestly don’t even know anymore. I know what my congressman wants though, and I have a good idea of what Obama wants, and the two are fairly consistent.

So reasonable, bringing up Atwater totally negates this story. Two wrongs make a right, and everyone should ignore this story because of Atwater.

Sure RL. Thanks for your racist rant.

“A few years ago, he (Obama) would be serving us coffee.” — Bill Clinton

” He (Obama) doesn’t sound like a Ne–o unless he wants to.” Senator Harry Reid

“He ( Obama) couldn’t sell watermelons to….” Dan Rather
“See, Barack’s been talking down to black people … I want to cut his nuts off.” Jesse Jackson

MichelleF says:
May 27, 2010 at 10:18 am
Based on what i’ve seen from you, he’s right. You never look at the entire history of things, only what you’ve seen. But part of that is human nature, we relate to things we’ve experienced, but you create this narrow convoluted view in which only conservatives have done anything good and liberals are the bane of society, which has not been the case.

writer says:
May 27, 2010 at 10:33 am
I simply said that I was waiting on somebody to bring up Atwater, f*ck the story, I was just waiting to use that for a while.

notsofast says:
May 27, 2010 at 10:34 am
That’s nice, but all I have to point to is David Duke who ran as a Republican. Conservative democrat Robert Byrd. Conservative Democrat Strom Thurmond. The switch of the south from Dem to Repub after Johnson’s open support for the civil rights act of 64. The fact that the states with more problems with race or a very small black population tend to vote more Republican. Or my personal favorite country singer Johnny Rebel.

Fair enough King. At least we agree, this type of behavior did not start with President Obama. It is WRONG either way.

“f*ck the story.” That’s what we were getting at. When the story doesn’t fit the media’s template, they say ‘f*ck the story.”

“The fact that the states with more problems with race or a very small black population tend to vote more Republican.” The New England states have the lowest minority populations of any area of the country, and they tend to be very liberal.

The switch of the south from Dem to Repub after Johnson’s open support for the civil rights act of 64. ”

nice lib lie.

You just wanted to use the N word like most libs!

Dixiecrats:

Notable members
Senators
*(D)VA Harry F. Byrd, 1933-1965
*(D)VA A. Willis Robertson, 1946-1966
*(D)WV Robert C. Byrd, 1959-Present
*(D)MS John C. Stennis, 1947-1989
*(D)MS James O. Eastland, 1941-1941,1943-1978
*(D)LA Allen J. Ellender, 1937-1972
*(D)LA Russell B. Long, 1948-1987
*(D)NC Sam Ervin, 1954-1974
*(D)NC Everett Jordan, 1958-1973
*(R)NC Jesse Helms, 1973-2003
*(D)OK Thomas Pryor Gore, 1906-1921,1931-1937
*(D)AL J. Lister Hill, 1938-1969
*(D)AL John J. Sparkman, 1946-1979
*(D)FL Spessard Holland, 1946-1971
*(D)FL George Smathers, 1951-1969
*(D)SC Olin D. Johnston, 1945-1965
*(D,R)SC Strom Thurmond, 1954-1956,1956-2003
*(D)AR John McClellan, 1943-1977
*(D)GA Richard B. Russell, Jr., 1933-1971
*(D)GA Herman E. Talmadge, 1957-1981
*(D)TN Herbert S. Walters, 1963-1964

Senator Strom Thurmond switched parties and became a Republican as a result of his support for the Barry Goldwater campaign in 1964. Former Democrat Jesse Helms also switched his party registration to Republican in 1970 and won a Senate seat in North Carolina in 1972.

In fact, MOST of the Dixiecrats did NOT join the Republican party, even though many of them lived long past 1964.

Yes, RL, the republicans supported the CRA bill, and the racists dems who abhorred it switched parties to the repub to show how much they hated it?

Talk about convoluted reasoning! Your talking points fail again.

ROTFLMAO!

Have to give LBJ props for running the most effective smear campaign in history, though. Goldwater was a war mongerer. If people voted for him, we could end up in Vietnam.

Goldwater was a war monger. If people voted for him, we could end up in Vietnam.”

No, no, no- don’t ya know it was Nixon who started the Vietnam war?

writer says:
May 27, 2010 at 10:40 am
Wow, way to single in on one thing, writer. Very well, I’ll address the story. I feel that is there is any merit to the story it will come out, like the Obama affair story. In the same way that many conservatives jumped over liberals for anything said about Cheney and Haliburton, liberals will jump over the white house and sestak, it’s natural to defend your side. I will say this; all Sestak said was that he was offered a job, so presently this amounts to a conspiracy theory. If I’m correct, there was no mention of when the job was offered. It could have been offered back when he was first getting his cabinet together, and Sestak wanted to pursue an elected position so he declined. One of my favorite public officials, Cory Booker, was offered a position but declined citing a commitment to Newark, New Jersey. So given that this presently is unfounded and amounts to a conspiracy, it is on the same level as the Obama affair story, pure speculation. The same way the media gave no ground to that, this shouldn’t either. If it had more merit to it then that wouldn’t be the case.

That’s okay, reasonable. Rachel Maddow does the same thing. Any time it looks like a dem may have done something improper, she starts bringing up past misdeeds of Republicans.

If I’m correct, there was no mention of when the job was offered. It could have been offered back when he was first getting his cabinet together,”

And what time frame would that be?

“The fact that the states with more problems with race or a very small black population tend to vote more Republican.”

Can you please post some facts to back up this claim.

Below is just a small shot of hate crime and below that is the list of black population by state.

California had 1 hate crime for every 28,000 people.
Texas had 1 per every 97,000 people.
Mass. had one per every 17,156 people.
Maryland had 1 per every 26,000 people

You can’t just make such false and unsubstantiated claims.

http://www.ipoaa.com/us_black_population.htm

State/ percentage of black population:
Alabama / 29.2 %
Alaska / 3.4 %
Arizona / 3.0 %
Arkansas / 15.5 %
California / 6.7 %
Colorado / 3.7 %
Connecticut / 9.0 %
Delaware / 20.0 %
District of Columbia / 60.1 %
Florida / 14.0 %
Georgia / 27.5 %
Hawaii / 1.8 %
Idaho / 0.4 %
Illinois / 15.0 %
Indiana / 8.3 %
Iowa / 2.1 %
Kansas / 5.7 %
Kentucky / 7.2 %
Louisiana / 32.4 %
Maine / 0.5 %
Maryland / 27.1 %
Massachusetts / 5.3 %
Minnesota / 3.4 %
Mississippi / 36.0 %
Missouri / 11.1 %
Montana / 0.3 %
Nebraska / 4.0 %
Nevada / 6.2 %
New Hampshire / 0.7 %
New Jersey / 13.3 %
New Mexico / 1.9 %
New York / 15.7 %
North Carolina / 20.0 %
North Dakota / 0.6 %
Ohio / 11.4 %
Oklahoma / 7.5 %
Oregon / 1.6 %
Pennsylvania / 9.9 %
Rhode Island / 4.4 %
South Carolina / 28.9 %
South Dakota / 0.6 %
Tennessee / 16.1 %
Texas / 11.0 %
Utah / 0.8 %
Vermont / 0.5 %
Virginia / 19.1 %
Washington / 3.1 %
West Virginia / 3.2 %
Wisconsin / 5.6 %
Wyoming / 0.8 %

And what time frame would that be?”

2-4 months after inauguration?

I gauarntee that it was Tinkerbell Emanuel who is the felon who offered Sestak the job…at Obama’s bidding.

The criminals now desecrating the White House will not doubt continue to lie and stonewall, but Sestak should be subpeonaed and forced to testify under oath.

If he doesn’t come clean..throw his corrupt ass in federal prison

Barney says:
May 27, 2010 at 11:00 am

I gauarntee that it was Tinkerbell Emanuel who is the felon who offered Sestak the job…at Obama’s bidding.”

BINGO!

Using reasonable’s lobic of minority population relating to number of Republicans, Mississippi would be the most liberal state in the country.

Has anyone mentioned that Republican Judd Gregg demanded that the White House force the Democratic governor of his state to appoint a Republican to his seat if they wanted him to be Commerce Secretary? Oh, and then he backed out. Should there be an investigation?

notsofast says:
May 27, 2010 at 10:46 am
Thank you for proving my point, genius. The majority of the dixiecrats fazed out in the 60s and 70s. Look at presidential votes before 64 and after. With the exception of Carter, no democrat has ever taken the south since then. Look at their local elections. Look at house elections, look at senate elections, overwhelmingly red. And as for Thurmond, it wasn’t his support for Goldwater, he had been at odds with the Dem since the election of Kennedy in 1960 and switched because Johnson openly supported the civil rights act and won the election in 64. Is this the same as when you tried to argue that the south had the largest african american populated cities according to the 2000 census only for me to point you to the government cite which showed New york and Chicago had the largest? Good job there. Those who switched did so out of opposition to the democratic agenda, genius. Not because they were for the other side but because they were against the other.

paulmdoro says:
May 27, 2010 at 11:06 am

Has anyone mentioned that Republican Judd Gregg demanded that the White House force the Democratic governor of his state to appoint a Republican to his seat if they wanted him to be Commerce Secretary.”

He said “a republican” not appoint Joe Smith.

I see that lib sites are posting this straw man argument for its minions to propagate it.

So what, reasonable? Didn’t blacks also switch parties? Do you see an evil conspiracy in that? If you relate to one party or another, and that party starts veering away from your beliefs, should you just stick with it?

paulmdoro says:
May 27, 2010 at 11:06 am
Has anyone mentioned that Republican Judd Gregg demanded that the White House force the Democratic governor of his state to appoint a Republican to his seat if they wanted him to be Commerce Secretary? Oh, and then he backed out. Should there be an investigation?

A for effort, but not even close. Keep digging.

The majority of the dixiecrats fazed out in the 60s and 70s”

LMAO- you tool- They could have changed party affiliation at any time!

ROTFLMAO!

Interesting point Writer. I find it hilarious that the most senior Democratic Senator is no other than former Klans man and anti-CRA is Senator Byrd (D).

Yeah that’s the reaction I expected. Thank you.

MichelleF says:
May 27, 2010 at 11:12 am
paulmdoro says:
May 27, 2010 at 11:06 am
Has anyone mentioned that Republican Judd Gregg demanded that the White House force the Democratic governor of his state to appoint a Republican to his seat if they wanted him to be Commerce Secretary? Oh, and then he backed out. Should there be an investigation?

A for effort, but not even close. Keep digging.

Paul,
Then I guess you would say, Obama offering Gregg the job to make way to replace him with a Dem would have to be illegal too? Follow your own logic.

I believe LBJ was indeed responsible for much of the shift. And it wasn’t because of the civil rights bill. It was because, for the most part, LBJ was a lying sack of sh**. Remember all those protestors at the ;68 Democratic convention? Those weren’t right wingers hitting the streets. LBJ ended up pissing everyone off, and a seismic change began in both parties. In trying to get people back, the dems went farther and farther left (resulting in the George McGovern debacle). The south, being conservative, saw the direction the party was taking and wanted no part of it.

Libs on blacks:

Some junior high n*gger kicked Steve’s ass while he was trying to help his brothers out; junior high or sophomore in high school. Whatever it was, Steve had the n*gger down. However it was, it was Steve’s fault. He had the n*gger down, he let him up. The n*gger blindsided him.” — Roger Clinton, the President’s brother on audiotape

“You’d find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they’d just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva.” — Fritz Hollings (D, S.C.)

“Is you their black-haired answer-mammy who be smart? Does they like how you shine their shoes, Condoleezza? Or the way you wash and park the whitey’s cars?” — Song from the show of left-wing radio host Neil Rogers

“Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.” — Former Klansman and current US Senator Robert Byrd, a man who is referred to by many Democrats as the “conscience of the Senate”, in a letter written in 1944, after he quit the KKK.

“I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” — Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler’s Book, “Inside The White House”

What law is it a violation of? And if it is breaking the law then Gregg should also be investigated.

MichelleF says:
May 27, 2010 at 9:48 am

The actual 18 USC 600 statute states:

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 not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

I love the karmic payback of this!

Camp obama hated sestak because he was a Hillary supporter during the PA primary and thought it sweet justice to screw him over when they backed Snarlin’ Arlen for the Democratic nod. (even though Dems owed Spector nothing but a fair chance in the senate primary)

The chitown thugs just oughta be thanking the Gods that the independent counsel law is no more – or there is no doubt in my mind that theyd be in the deepest of trouble over this . (these guys lie way too easily and not very well)

Looks like Judd Gregg needs investigation as well then, otherwise it is just selective outrage based on partisan politics.

paulmdoro says:
May 27, 2010 at 11:28 am

Looks like Judd Gregg needs investigation as well then, otherwise it is just selective outrage based on partisan politics.”

LOL

You are slow.

How is that a violation of ” 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?”

This person would be a replacement for Gregg – not someone in a election or primary election.

Ya know, kind of how the Dem. Gov.. appointed a Dem to temporarily fill Kennedy’s seat in Mass. Should the Mass Gov. be investigated?

From a piece in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Listen to Melanie Sloan, the head of CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics):

“There has never been a prosecution based on such facts and I find it impossible to believe there would be. I think this is really just politics as usual. Parties routinely do what they can to clear the field for preferred candidates.”

Listen to Richard Painter, chief ethics officer under the last President Bush, who says this “is nothing new and it hardly rises to the level of a major ethics controversy”:

Congress gives us plenty of genuine ethics concerns to worry about – particularly the role of campaign contributions which are de facto “bribes” (watch carefully what happens to the banking reform bill when it goes to House-Senate conference). Voters should not be distracted by media generated sideshows having little to do with what goes on in Washington.

Listen to Peter Zeidenberg, a former federal prosecutor with the Justice Department’s Public Integrity unit:

“Talk about criminalizing the political process! It would be horrible precedent if what really truly is political horsetrading were viewed in the criminal context of: is this a corrupt bribe?”

Listen to Melanie Sloan, the head of CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics):

“There has never been a prosecution based on such facts and I find it impossible to believe there would be. I think this is really just politics as usual. Parties routinely do what they can to clear the field for preferred candidates.”

Then why is the WH and Obama stonewalling?

paulmdoro says:
May 27, 2010 at 11:36 am
From a piece in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Enough said. That “paper” is a joke!

The following is a list of red states and their Republican election margins:
Utah (R + 30.768)
Idaho (R + 27.018)
Wyoming (R + 26.132)
Nebraska (R + 22.606)
Alaska (R + 20.946)
Oklahoma (R + 20.152)
Kansas (R + 16.892)
North Dakota (R + 16.484)
Alabama (R + 15.162)
Texas (R + 12.872)
Mississippi (R + 12.766)
South Dakota (R + 11.920)
South Carolina (R + 11.230)
Montana (R + 9.668)
Kentucky (R + 9.408)
Indiana (R + 9.398)
Georgia (R + 6.814)
North Carolina (R + 6.086)
Tennessee (R + 5.228)
Compare those to the populations in your table first off.
Now let’s take two of the state’s with the largest black population from your report; Mississippi 35% african-american, 12% Republican victory margin and Alabama 29% and 15%
Much of the civil rights movements took place in these states due to their enforcement of segregation and other Jim Crow laws I’m sure you know.
According to studies, hate crimes in most southern states go unreported: http://www.leftinalabama.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=765
All of Alabama’s congressmen voted against the local law enforcement hate crimes prevention act of 2009:
http://www.leftinalabama.com/diary/3845/local-law-enforcement-hate-crimes-prevention-act-of-2009-passes-house
Mississippi governor Haley Barbour on the omission of slavery from confederate history month in virginia: To me, it’s a sort of feeling that it’s a nit, that it is not significant, that it’s not a — it’s trying to make a big deal out of something doesn’t amount to diddly
Mississippi also has something similar to confederate history month.
First integrated prom in Mississppi: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/21/mississippi.prom/index.html
That was only in the last 4 years, so to say these issue don’t have a problem with race is just plain wrong, sorry there. And they do vote for Republicans.

Here’s more for you Michelle. (Also, just because you don’t like the source doesn’t make it untrue.)

“The practice that Issa objects to is common and not unusual.

Now, trading an administration job — a thing of value — for a political favor might well constitute bribery. It is also very common. A Nexus search turns up numerous examples. In 1981, President Reagan offered S.I. Hayakawa, then California’s senior senator, a job if he declined to run for reelection. We know this because Reagan’s chief political adviser admitted as much on the record.

(Remember when William Weld was nominated to ambassador to Mexico? Same reason, same motivation. Jesse Helms scuttled this, but for reasons having nothing to do with presidential political interference.)

More recently, after Rep. Ben Gilman found his congressional district eliminated by redistricting in 2002, the White House tried to persuade him from challenging another Republican congressman in another district by considering him for an administration position. Karl Rove repeatedly intervened in Republican primaries. And Tim Pawlenty is not a senator because Rove urged him to run for governor instead.”

paulmdoro says:
May 27, 2010 at 11:42 am
Here’s more for you Michelle. (Also, just because you don’t like the source doesn’t make it untrue.)

“The practice that Issa objects to is common and not unusual.

Then I guess you having nothing to worry about and they should just answer the questions. Why do you think they are avoiding that if they didn’t do anything wrong?

Paulmdoro,

If these criminal acts are “just politics” then I guess we need to investigate them. What you appear to be protecting is the status que.

The_Reasonable_Lib says:
May 27, 2010 at 11:41 am

The following is a list of red states and their Republican election margins:”

Thanks for that entirely irrelevant post on the subject of Sestak –you never disappoint!

RL,
You libs have jumped the shark on the racism charges. People use to be terrified of getting that label, but the left have pushed it so often, that it’s lost it’s sting.

So if the practice is common and if Republicans have done it, should there have been investigations back when they did it as well?

Paulmdoro said:
“More recently, after Rep. Ben Gilman found his congressional district eliminated by redistricting in 2002, the White House tried to persuade him from challenging another Republican congressman in another district by considering him for an administration position. Karl Rove repeatedly intervened in Republican primaries. And Tim Pawlenty is not a senator because Rove urged him to run for governor instead.”

Then these should be investigated and prosecuted. Also, thanks for pointing this out because it is just one more example of how these two parties are really no different.

That’s what I mean LNR. It’s either wrong no matter which party does it, or not wrong at all. It can’t just be wrong and worthy of investigation when one party does it.

Wait! I thought the subject was the Atlanta-Journal Constitution and why it was on the LDS Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

notsofast says:
May 27, 2010 at 11:22 am
Robert Byrd isn’t a liberal for starters. He’s very much conservative, a blue dog democrat as they’re called.
Your line from Johnson is unsubstantiated, one line from Johnson which you probably paraphrased it from it “we’ve lost the south for a generation”
Roger Clinton’s political affiliations are uncertain first off, supporting one’s brother doesn’t make them a liberal. Furthermore, the man is a felon and a drug dealer.
As for your Ernest Hollings quote, I’m going to assume you don’t know what a potentate is and discard it.

MichelleF says:
May 27, 2010 at 11:45 am

RL,
You libs have jumped the shark on the racism charges. People use to be terrified of getting that label, but the left have pushed it so often, that it’s lost it’s sting.”

It is now a badge of honor.

But I didn’t know until now the entire states can be racist! The libs are working overtime.

As for your Ernest Hollings quote, I’m going to assume you don’t know what a potentate is and discard it.”

I do, and you are a lib troll!

notsofast says:
May 27, 2010 at 11:44 am
I just love your spin. We’re having a conversation about something else that arose in the midst of that, dumbass, please stay out of it, that was for LNR.

RL:
“Much of the civil rights movements took place in these states due to their enforcement of segregation and other Jim Crow laws I’m sure you know.
According to studies, hate crimes in most southern states go unreported”

And that is why I didn’t use those hate crime stats today, or yesterday. Texas for example, a very red state, is often accused of being a bigoted state and (insert race hustler talking point). It even reports all categories with the exception of transgendered. Yet it has has 1 hate crime per every 97,959 people, yet California has 1 per every 28,575 people, Mass., that bastion of tolerance and love has 1 hate crime per every 17,156. My point, which I perfectly proved, is that you can’t make such blanket statements.

MichelleF says:
May 27, 2010 at 11:45 am
That’s nice, bu the fact of the matter is people who are racist are more likely to be conservatives or republicans, numbers reflect that.

he_Reasonable_Lib says:
May 27, 2010 at 11:54 am

notsofast says:
May 27, 2010 at 11:44 am
I just love your spin. We’re having a conversation about something else that arose in the midst of that, dumbass, please stay out of it, that was for LNR.”

ahhhhhhhh, the TRL is upset.

Quick, call someone a racist- call a states racist or a nation.

LOL

notsofast says:
May 27, 2010 at 11:54 am
Yet you are the one that posted the same thing over and over again in our last convo with nothing significant to contribute to the conversation once I had proved everything that you had to say false.

That’s nice, bu the fact of the matter is people who are racist are more likely to be conservatives or republicans, numbers reflect that.”

Oh, so they took a poll on “Are you a racist?”

LOL

ahhhhhhhh, the TRL is upset.

Quick, call someone a racist- call a states racist or a nation.

LOL

The_Reasonable_Lib says:
May 27, 2010 at 11:55 am
MichelleF says:
May 27, 2010 at 11:45 am
That’s nice, bu the fact of the matter is people who are racist are more likely to be conservatives or republicans, numbers reflect that.

You are ridiculous. Democrats have spent decades telling minoriites, that they CAN’T do for themselves, that the gov’t must take care of them, just to keep them in the Dem corner. Racism is way more rampant on the left than the right. Just as Robert Byrd.

“That’s nice, bu the fact of the matter is people who are racist are more likely to be conservatives or republicans, numbers reflect that.”

That is a very tough accusation. A person, although I’m not going to, could say that a person more likely to prison an/or commit murder is also more likely to vote democrat.

Liberty – Not Redistribution says:
May 27, 2010 at 11:55 am
I’m not saying that the entire south is racist, but I am saying that those states who tend to have problems with race lean towards Republicans, that was the crux of my statement. I’m not saying that they definitely will, but they definitely are more likely to. And as I said, most of them go unreported, not by the officials but by the victims themselves in the same way as rape victims are unlikely to come forward. The link which i posted also goes on to note that those states are more likely to report said crimes. It specifically lists California.

Wow this thread seems to have gotten a little haphazard.

notsofast says:
May 27, 2010 at 11:57 am
Case in point:
notsofast says:
May 27, 2010 at 11:58 am

In praising former KKK-member Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) for casting his 17,000th vote, Dodd claimed that “I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great senator at any moment.” Dodd went on to say, “He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of Civil War in this nation.”

Quick, trl call someone a racist- call Dodd a racist or call a state racist or a nation.

LOL

So reasonable, in essence you’re saying that a state like Vermont, where there are no blacks, is more liberal because familiarity breeds contempt.

RL:

So what you’re saying is that don’t trust the statistic…so where the hell is the proof? I can claim that a person more likely to commit murder is also more likely to vote democrat.

I mean I provide FBI statistics, although with a disclaimer, and you simply ignore them. I point out that the great State of Texas, which accounts for all “hate” crimes except for transgender, has a substantially lower per capita hate crime rate when compared to NY, MA, and Cal just to name a few and you ignore it. TX is red, while CA, NY, and MA are very blue. I concede that there are problems with all statistics, but at least acknowledge the proof I showed as well.

Either way, I applaud you on at least trying to use facts/ links to support your argument.

MichelleF says:
May 27, 2010 at 11:58 am
Wrong again. Under Clinton, unemployment among blacks (14.2 in 92 to 7.3 in 2000)and hispanics (11.8 10 5.0) reached it’s lowest level on record according to the bureau of labor. Welfare rolls were their lowest since the 60s under who again? Oh yeah, LBJ and Kennedy. They would rise under Bush. Robert Byrd is a democrat, but not a liberal, that’s why he’s called a blue dog democrat. Byrd joined when the democrats were social conservatives and remained as they shifted to social liberals.

Liberty – Not Redistribution says:
May 27, 2010 at 11:59 am
If the numbers reflect that then go on ahead.

Liberty – Not Redistribution says:
May 27, 2010 at 12:10 pm
And I provided proof which takes from a report from the Southern Poverty Law Center which states that many of those crimes go unreported in the states you listed, I dismissed them with cause. The FBI can only print what’s reported. In California and Massachusetts, they go they extra mile to make sure things are reported. Those other states do not as the link suggests.
And yes, i did support my point, thank you.

Southern Poverty Law Center

As racist as they come. I’m not surprised.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is anything but non-bias. It has a hate in the game of race hustling. You just don’t want to admit that Texas is more tolerant when compared to California or Massachusetts.

MichelleF says:
May 27, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Thank you for not addressing my dismissal of your claim and only going to what you think you can take down.

Liberty – Not Redistribution says:
May 27, 2010 at 12:21 pm
No, I simply trust the institution. To say that they are biased doesn’t disprove their findings. It is consistent with the findings that the majority of victims of crimes do not come forward, particularly in areas where they may feel underrepresented.

RL: I addressed your point. You are using a report from a clearly biased organization. I’m not going to sit here and use as proof, some report from David Duke as proof that the FBI statistics is are wrong. I laid out the proof, you diverted and distract by bringing up the Southern Poverty Law Center, a known race hustling organization.

I could have used Mississippi, which reports no hate crimes, as my proof. However, I used Texas which reports all categories but transgender.

SPLC? Even Morris Dees’ former partner says that while they started out with noble intentions, Morris is now mainly concerned with getting contributions to keep his ten million dollar estate going.

“It is consistent with the findings that the majority of victims of crimes do not come forward”

Minorities are defiantly not under represented in Texas. As just an example, 11% of the Texas population is black, California is 6.7% black and Mass is just over 5% black.

TRL, here are some libs, you racist.

“A few years ago, he (Obama) would be serving us coffee.” — Bill Clinton

” He (Obama) doesn’t sound like a Negro unless he wants to.” Senator Harry Reid

“He ( Obama) couldn’t sell watermelons to….” Dan Rather

“See, Barack’s been talking down to black people … I want to cut his nuts off.” Jesse Jackson

In praising former KKK-member Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) for casting his 17,000th vote, Dodd claimed that “I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great senator at any moment.” Dodd went on to say, “He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of Civil War in this nation.”

LNR: I hold the SPLC in the highest regard. Without it, much of the promise of the CRA and the VRA would never have been realized. However, the SPLC never came up with a template that really works in Texas. In part, that is because our demographics are dramatically different from the Deep South. Our Hispanic population is three times our African-American population, and our African-American population tends to be concentrated in the eastern 1/3 of the state. Generally, as one moved from west to east across Texas, the level of tolerance begins to decrease, and this continues as one leaves Texas and heads east across the South, with the level of racial intolerance reaching its highest points in eastern Mississippi and western Alabama. Simply put: Texas is not an environment in which the SPLC is likely to thrive.

Similarly, racial intolerance is not part of our political parties and institutions to the same degree it is in states to the east or in Arizona. Our approach to Hispanics has always been considered enlightened, no doubt because Hispanics have always been here, and have always been integrated into our society in the western 2/3rds of the state.

I don’t want to suggest Texas is a post-racial Nirvana. It is not. Things can get very ugly here. But, while one can say that the Arizona Republican Party is xenophobic on the Hispanic question, or that the Alabama Republican Party is racist, with great accuracy, you can’t say that to the same extent about the Texas Republican Party. Nor can you say that the Texas Democratic Party is without xenophobia and racism. The issues are simply more complex here.

Florida has a similar experience and circumstance.

Frankly, I find that hopeful and more post-racial than anything we can point to in the Northeast or the Midwest.

It’s odd how the left ‘thinks’ in an all or nothing way. If you’re against millions of people pouring into the country illegally, then you’re xenophobic, hate all Mexicans, and are anti-immigrant. There are no gray areas. And while stereotyping of minorities is wrong, it’s perfectly okay to stereotype southern whites as toothless hillbillies living in trailers. Since whites have never faced the ‘yoke of oppression’, it’s perfectly acceptable to hate the entire race and not consider it racism.

RRK, I’m not going to even tough the blanket statement about Arizona.

I hold the SPLC in the highest regard. ”

That proves you are a joke.

Even Dees’ own partner says Dees is a charlatan. Ten million dollar mansion, the whole bit. I guess there are some rich white men the King doesn’t hate.

The Real Royal King says:
May 27, 2010 at 9:35 am
Just becaue the media has largely ignored it, doesn’t make it a NON story.

—-

Geez, I’m afraid that is the very definition of a non-story.

Maybe in a few decades of careful study trrk will find out the difference between a non-story and a story that wasn’t told.

MichelleF says:
May 27, 2010 at 10:18 am
I was speaking more from an experiential perspective and one to which our largely ahistorical audience here could better relate

Ah yes, the old, “I the king am smarter than the rest of you”. Why do you feel the need to belittle those who disagree with you king? Is it really necessary?

For some reason this brings to mind my favorite Albert Einstein “If you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself.” I think of it when ever I hear or see an ass like trrk defend his misexplanation of something by denigrating his audience.

Writer both sides are guilty of thinking in “all or nothing” ways. The right has done it too. Remember you’re either with us or against us? It doesn’t get any more simplistic, all or nothing than that.

The Dailycaller? Isn’t that Tucker Carlson’s website? The same site where one of hs bloggers refers to Rachel Maddow as Mr. Maddow? Please! If you want some perspective read this article on Judd Gregg and the response from Darrell Issa when he was bitch slapped with the facts! Or, you could read Media Matter’s account of Regan, Clinton, Bush and Rove’s history on these kinds of deals. Or, perhaps you could simply wait for the details which will be released soon as the President stated. Either way this is a non story. Here’s a hint, for bribery to have taken place, money would have to be part of the deal. This means that even the promise of one job in exchange for not seeking public office doesn’t fit the bill. No pun intended. Oh, and Scarborough is full of shit! He’s just pissed because Blumenthal is now leading McMahon by 25 points, up from 15 points on Monday. He went on this rant about Blumenthal but, didn’t seem nearly as upset with Ron Paul’s position on a private company’s right to discriminate. He’s now found a new bone in the Sestak story. No adgenda there. Your party still sucks Joe! Deal with it!

http://www.salon.com/news/joe_sestak/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/05/26/darrell_issa_judd_gregg_joe_sestak

That’s Rand Paul’s position! Though he clearly got this nonsense from his father, the head Libertarian loon!

roxsteady says:

Here’s a hint, for bribery to have taken place, money would have to be part of the deal. This means that even the promise of one job in exchange for not seeking public office doesn’t fit the bill.

Bribery constitutes a crime and is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty. The bribe is the gift bestowed to influence the recipient’s conduct. It may be any money, good, right in action, property, preferment, privilege, emolument, object of value, advantage, or merely a promise or undertaking to induce or influence the action, vote, or influence of a person in an official or public capacity.

You are the dimmest of bulbs Roxsteady

Here’s more for you inbreds! The facts don’t change just because you don’t like them. Many of you are really sad and pathetic but, you should perhaps spend some time reading and less time posting your your garbage. There are 2 articles you should read on Media Matters about this Sestak non story. One is from CREW, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The other is from former Bush administration chief ETHICS LAWYER Richard Painter. Something tells me even this guy knows more about this than any of you!

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/05/critical_perspective.php?ref=fpblg

roxsteady says:

Black’s Law Dictionary is the most widely used law dictionary in the United States. It was founded by Henry Campbell Black. It is the reference of choice for definitions in legal briefs and court opinions and has been cited as a secondary legal authority in many U.S. Supreme Court cases.

When offered source and fact Roxsteady you repond with insult and second rate interpretation from third rate sources. I’d revise my interpretation of you from dimmest of bulbs, to functionaly retarded but I’m afraid that your would spin off from the Rand Paul , Disability Act, rant that would surely follow.

“When your 7-year-old resorts to back talk or name-calling, it’s easy to think she’s being nasty. “When a child insults us, we often decide ‘she did it to hurt us,’” says Peter Goldenthal, Ph.D., of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, author of Beyond Sibling Rivalry: How to Help Your Child Become Cooperative, Caring and Compassionate. “But kids that age are not thinking about the effect they have on their parents. They’re thinking about themselves and how they can get attention.”

Finally, roxsteady is explained

Who says libs can’t debate without name calling?

The Chicago THUG Ballerina, Rahmbo Emmanuel, will fall on his sword within the next few days and will be thrown under the Bus by Comrade Obama. Valerie Jarrett will take Rahmbo’s place until they are ALL booted from office in 2012. Unless they are IMPEACHED first. The most CORRUPT bunch of bozo’s ever to be elected to our nations highest office. Obama and his gaggle of Marxist Czar’s are a danger to our national security and to our Constitutional Republic. They need to GO ASAP!

Nearly all of these comments are a total waste of time, mostly a bunch of trolls with nothing better to do. I scrolled down to the bottom of the page simply to ask you all to just comment, rather than accuse one side or the other of “whatever”… It’s just not adding a thing. For crying out loud, it’s worse than listening to a married couple “he said, she said” argument, enough already, get some therapy, or get a room.
Now can we all just have a nice Memorial Day and give honor to our troops?
Please, pretty please?