The Washington Post

pa2012.com is proud to partner with The Washington Post in bringing our originally reported insider political news to a wide audience of decision makers and opinion leaders across the country.

Close it

send to a friend | print | comment

Odds and ends from a slow news week (Updated)

My colleagues in the press will come after me if this jinxes it, but what the heck: After the primary madness we just experienced, slow news weeks like this are a nice change of pace.

But there’s always news, so here’s a rundown of just some of what’s going on.

We already reported on the independent ad boosting Jim Gerlach. Now one of our correspondents reports that there’s an anti-Gerlach robo-call hitting homes in the 6th District. It doesn’t mention Gerlach’s Democratic opponent Manan Trivedi. But it bashes the incumbent for, and we’re paraphrasing here, working for Wall Street and predatory lenders. The group Accountable America, which claims a mission of discrediting conservative ideas, is paying for the robo-call.

The big news of the week is probably Congressman Patrick Murphy (D-8) taking the lead on moving forward with a legislative repeal of the military’s Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell policy that prohibits gays from serving openly. The Iraq War veteran is one of the lead sponsors, along with Senator Joe Liberman (I-Conn.), of a amendment to the defense authorization bill that would repeal the policy, and is hoping to bring it to the floor for a vote later this week. Murphy told Greg Sargent that he has the votes to pass it, despite the Pentagon’s desire to hold off for now.

“We are committed to repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, a policy that has forced thousands of gay men and women from serving openly in our Armed Forces,” Murphy and Lieberman said in a statement Monday. “It is our firm belief that it is time to repeal this discriminatory policy that not only dishonors those who are willing to give their lives in service to their country but also prevents capable men and women with vital skills from serving in the armed forces at a time when our nation is fighting two wars.”

Meanwhile, the nuggets of news keep on coming in the mysterious case of Joe Sestak’s White House offer. Politico reports that Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin is the latest Democrat to say more details need to come to light. “At some point, I think Congressman Sestak needs to make it clear what happened,” Durbin said. This after Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) called on the White House to clear the air, and after the Department of Justice shot down the idea of a special counsel to investigate. Even The New York Times covered the story, and editorial pages are starting to call for more sunlight here.

And newly-sworn in Congressman Mark Critz (D-12) got some of his first committee assignments, including posts on the House Armed Service Committee and the Small Business Committee, Roll Call reports. We also got more details about how longtime John Murtha supporters helped fund Critz’s victory in the special election, courtesy of CQ Politics.

Well, that’s it for now political junkies. Here’s hoping to news won’t pick up speed until next week.

UPDATE: Another pa2010.com correspondent reports that a similar robo-call by Accountable America is also targeting Congressman Charlie Dent (R-15). Click here to listen to that robo-call.

share001btn Odds and ends from a slow news week (Updated)

May 25, 2010 at 3:44 pm

--Dan Hirschhorn

comments

comments [4] | post a comment

  1. Bruce Bailey

    May 25th, 2010

    More on the Sestak-White House non-story:

    From Legal Ethics Forum, a blog honored by the American Bar Association covering law and politics:

    The allegation that the job offer was somehow a “bribe” in return for Sestak not running in the primary is difficult to support. Sestak, if he had taken a job in the Administration, would not have been permitted to run in the Pennsylvania primary. The Hatch Act prohibits a federal employee from being a candidate for nomination or election to a partisan political office. 5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(3). He had to choose one or the other, but he could not choose both…

    White House political operatives don’t like contentious fights in their own party primaries and sometimes suggest jobs in the Administration for persons who otherwise would be contenders. For the White House, this is usually a “win-win” situation, giving the Administration politically savvy appointees in the Executive Branch and fewer contentious primaries for the Legislative Branch. This may not be best for voters who have less choice as a result, and Sestak thus should be commended for saying “no”. The job offer, however, is hardly a “bribe” when it is one of two alternatives that are mutually exclusive…

    Voters should not be distracted by media generated sideshows having little to do with what goes on in Washington.”

    http://www.legalethicsforum.com/blog/2010/05/joe-sestaks-bribe-scandal-another-ethics-sideshow.html

    From Markos Moulitis at Daily Kos:

    “What’s this nonsense about Obama violating ethics laws by promising Joe Sestak an Administration job if he quit the Senate race? Sounds idiotic, and it is is. George Bush’s ethics lawyer agrees. And if he’s less than credible, given that he was, well, George Bush’s ethics lawyer, there’s the simple fact that offering a highly qualified person a job has never been illegal. And why should it be?”

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/5/25/868271/-Midday-open-thread

  2. Lee Levan

    May 25th, 2010

    The paramount point is that every day spent talking about this silly issue is another day that Sestak or PA voters are not talking about what Sestak’s campaign wants to discuss.

    For cryin’ out loud, Joe, get with the White House and put this to rest. There’s nothing to it; so stop acting as if there is. You’re being too cute by half.

    This is politics; not an ethics debate. Act accordingly.

  3. David Diano

    May 25th, 2010

    Bruce-
    Mutually exclusive has nothing to do with a bribe.

    If someone is bribed to vote on legislation, they can vote “YES” or “NO”. Two mutually exclusive outcomes.

    Also, there is no indication that the job offer was to take place immediately (after Sestak was only 6 months into his second term) or if the job was to begin after Jan 2011.

    The issue is improper interference in an election, using a tax-payer funded job to buy someone off from opposing the Administration’s preferred candidate. The Hatch Act violation would be by the Administration official offering the job, and then a subsequent failure by Sestak not reporting it.

    If there is “nothing inappropriate”, then be transparent and don’t cover it up.

    Sestak recently stated he would cooperate if there was a Federal Probe.
    Huh??
    1) Why won’t he “cooperate” now?
    2) Why would this need a Federal Probe?
    3) Rather than waste taxpayer dollars determining if a probe is required, why doesn’t Sestak just tell the full story and prevent further waste of time and money (as well as damage to Obama)?

    “There’s the simple fact that offering a highly qualified person a job has never been illegal”
    Whose to say that Sestak was qualified (highly or otherwise) for the job that was offered?

    BTW, since the White House has indicated that more than ONE conversation took place, it sounds to me more like a negotiation where Sestak couldn’t get his price. If Sestak really did absolutely refuse to quit the race under any circumstances, why would there need to be more than one conversation?

    (This is like in “A Few Good Men” where Col. Nathan R. Jessep is asked: “Why the two orders?”)

    Lee-
    I thought the Sestak campaign DID want to discuss how they are going to bring transparency and accountability to Washington.
    Gee, this topic seems like a great conversation starter. :-)

  4. Lee Levan

    May 26th, 2010

    Still fighting the last war, are you David?

Leave a Reply


- will not be published


pa2012.com blogs