This issue should be relatively easy to kill. All Sestak needs to say is “I had a discussion with the WH, this is exactly what was discussed and when, and the discussions proved fruitless. If I over-represented what took place, I was unclear and apologize for the confusion.” Then we can drop this and move on to substance.

To your larger point, it is difficult to see how the WH and Sestak camp missed the obvious implication that most people on the outside would see this as a bribe, and potentially afoul of election laws. I doubt either saw it that way, and they probably just envisioned it as an open-ended discussion. Both sides can forever kill this impression by specifying, in heavy detail, what happened.

Yes, they did say they would do things differently:

Like not torture people.

Like not lie about getting us into a war.

Like not coddling the ultra-rich and call them “my base.”

Like not employing a gutter-level propaganda czar like Karl Rove.

Like not saying things like “You’re either with us or you’re with the Terrorists.”

Those kinds of things.

As George Will (arch-conservative George Will!) said yesterday, in the Sestak matter, Obama was simply acting as the leader of the Democratic Party should act, by trying to clear the field for the candidate he thought (incorrectly) was strongest.

That’s all. And it’s not dirty, or unethical, or even undesirable. It’s just politics, which is how we elect our leaders.

And to try and play it up into something sinister is just laughably wrong.

Nobody elected Obama and expected there wouldn’t be politics attached. We just don’t want George Bush-Dick Cheney-Karl Rove politics.

And this certainly isn’t that.

Let’s be clear. The unsolicited offer was made TO Sestak, who turned it down immediately. To try to blame Sestak for whatever occured is like blaming a driver whose passenger dared him to run a red light, but who said “no”.

Lee Levan-
Let’s be clear, there are contradictions about whether there was one conversation or a series of conversations over June/July 2009.
We don’t know if Sestak send a “signal” that he’d be interested in an offer, and just couldn’t get his “price”.

Also, Sestak is certainly to blame for this issue going on for months. Sestak wasn’t even eligible for SecNav, but permitted (and clearly encouraged) speculation that he was offered that particular job. Sestak stated he was offered a high ranking federal job, and is now trying to claim that description matches an unpaid advisory position?
Get real.

Michael,

Just to address a few of your points. First, I believe that the Obama era has been a failure thus far for a number of reasons. He promised something different, but has instead presided over the Bush Third Term:

1) The “surge” in Afghanistan and the administration’s lack of ability to end two trillion dollar wars that are continuing to destroy the economy.

2) Their inability to push for any roll-back on Bush-era executive branch powers as promised during the 2008 campaign.

3) Lack of interest in fixing bad trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA that have resulted in the death of the American industrial base (candidate Obama hit Hillary on this in 2007 and early 2008, but there’s been no follow through at all).

4) No attempt to restore the right of privacy to the American people by ending warrant-less wiretapping and the Patriot Act.

5) Monday’s Washington Post story about covert plans to strike Pakistan is a sign that the Obama Team is comfortable with reinforcing the Bush Doctrine.

Aside from these five items, the real political concern for the Obama administration regarding the alleged Sestak job offer is that they lacked the juice necessary to get Sestak to say “yes.” His refusal and his choice to stay in the race shows how politically weak the Obamans really are. I’m with George Will here. Obama was trying to do what he thought was best. However, he couldn’t pull it off since Sestak decided to stay in the race and Obama’s guy was defeated.

On another note, while I too am disappointed that Mark Singel and Barbara Hafer (two great candidates with outstanding records) were obviously discouraged from the Congressional race, it is clear now that someone had enough political sense to push hard for Critz to be the Democratic nominee in the 12th District given his large margin of victory over Burns on May 18th.

David-

Speculation aside, what’s your source for your claim of contradictions? I haven’t heard a word about that. In fact, all reports have been to the contrary.

Nathan —
I’m curious. As “a former political director of the Westmoreland County Republican Committee,[and] a political strategist in Philadelphia,” were you similarly concerned about these matters during the eight years of the Bush administration? Or is this some new-found concern that you’ve just discovered since Obama was elected?

I sense a bit of snake oil in your presentation so-called failures in the Obama administration, but please, feel free to explain.

Bruce,

No snake oil here. Part of why I supported Ron Paul in 2008 was because he was the only GOP candidate willing to say what had to be said. I never worked for the Bush campaign (for the recrod, I didn’t support him in 2000 but I did in 2004 against Kerry).

The GOP’s greatest failures are on issues of war and peace, civil liberties, environmental concerns, and failing to call the Democrats out on their support for policies that export American jobs abroad which have left communities where mill workers once made $30 an hour with jobs at Wal-Mart that pay minimum wage. Unfortunately, the Obama administration hasn’t done much to fix any of this and have gone along with the Bush program. I even recall the Obama folks trying to tamp down the language in the “American Made” provisions in the stimulus bill.

Both parties ought to be held to the same standard instead of having those of us who are strategists and operatives just spewing the talking points, which is my main objective here and at my web page. Thanks to Dan’s work, PA2010.com is a good place for all of us, regardless of party, to engage in (sorry to throw out this worn out McCain gem) a little straight talk!

Nathan

Except, Nathan, I don’t sense your talk is very straight at all. I sense a lot of strategy and very little legitmate insight. And despite your protests, I believe a lot of your criticisms here would be of the IOKIYAR (it’s OK if you’re a Republican) variety.

The Republican Party is beholden to three major power structures: the financial/corporate hierarchy; the top several percent of wealth-holders; and the fringe conservative/fundalmentalist/reactionary elements that see the party as their best hope to accomplish whatever particular ends (abolish a woman’s right to choose, bring prayer back to schools, end affirmative action, etc.) they desire.

As long as the Republican party represents these three pillars, it can never be seen as anything other than a failed political cult that holds no answers for our nation or our economy.

If you want to hold the Obama administration at fault because the world economy has impacted traditional industries here at home, be my guest. But I think your real problem is with a corporate mentality that won’t be changed by any White House edict.

The real fault here lies in just how much real and extensive damage to the country was done during the previous administration. Virtually every fault you find can trace its origins to the Bush-Cheney years. The fact that Obama hasn’t cleaned these up in the 18 months since he took office isn’t a failure; it’s simply a matter of tackling things in order.

I like our country a hell of a lot more today than I did in the fall of 2008, and I’m certain I’ll like it even more two, four and six years from now.

Coming from your perspective and calling this administration “a failure thus far” just tells me you aren’t interested in seeing it succeed.

Lee-
Friday Sestak stated in a interview that he had only one conversation with Clinton, where the “position” was mentioned. Sestak said the conversation lasted 30-60 seconds.

The White House account makes it clear there was more than one conversation during the period June/July 2009. They refer to discussions, options, efforts, advisory positions, and alternatives. All in the plural.

Also, Sestak claimed for months that he was offered a high ranking federal JOB. This unpaid advisory position does NOT match Sestak’s claims of a JOB.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37934.html

BTW, Lee, it’s not clear either way whether Sestak did or did not solicit an offer, but multiple discussions imply a negotiation.

Also, does ANYBODY really believe that Sestak actually said to Clinton: ‘Mr. President, I am going to decide to get in this or not only depending upon what’s good for Pennsylvania’s working families, not an offer’
Seriously? Who talks like that in phone conversation?

Bruce,

I sense that you’re trying to pull the “you can’t trust what that guy says because he’s a Republican” card. That’s fine if you want to do that, but I want more than anything for the president–whoever he is and what party he is a member of–to be met with nothing less than success. The country’s future depends upon it.

We’ve got to get beyond this sort of thing where what I say isn’t trustworthy because I’ve got an “R” on my registration card or for example, that your arguments should be viewed with skepticism because you have a “D” on your card.

My criticsm of Obama is that he escalated Afghanistan rather than beginning to draw down, has failed to reverse the wire-tapping ability of the federal government (and the Patriot Act), and has not rolled back the abuse of presidential power (like signing statements). All that could have been started on day one.

Aside from that, there are some improvements from the last administration and I concur that the intelligence level of the person occupying the White House is far superior today than it was two years ago.

I’m working to rebuild a Big Tent, inclusive Republican Party that moves beyond the three pillars you detailed above. We’ll see if any of this work is worthwhile or not or if my party continues to build up Beck, Rush, and Palin at the expense of reason and normalcy.

I’m in this for the meaningful discussion and not to play partisan politics. In my column about Sestak/Toomey I said that the best thing that can come out of this race is a serious debate over issues, ideas, and policies if we can stop the silly fight over things like an alleged job offer or the usual boilerplate talking points. I stand by that comment.

NRS

Admirable goals, Nathan, but my read is still that your ultimate aim is to prop up the candidacy of Libertarian extraordinaire Pat Toomey, and this fault-finding with Obama is just a backdoor way to do that.

Excuse me if I’m wrong about your motives, but the Republican “big tent bipartisanship” football has been pulled away too many times for me not to be suspcious. Toomey is an extremely dangerous guy(with the accent on “extreme”) and every effort is going to be made over the next six months to have him appear as cute as a puppy dog. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Pardon me if I assume your efforts here are part of that process.

Bruce,

Sorry you feel that way. Perhaps there will be a time when hyper-partisans such as yourself are willing to be reasonable. I’m glad I don’t have time to be as fixated on partisanship in my life as you must be with yours.

NRS

Maybe if you can succeed in your stated goal of changing the Republican party first, then we can talk about whether partisanship is still needed.

Sestak is entirely innocent in this, and David, the Secretary of Navy job was already filled. I’m sure Sestak would be eligible for that position if offered, but he turned it down flat.

I give him a lot of credit for bucking practically the entire Dem party and running. If he hadn’t run, there would have been no primary, and Specter the candidate.

Enough of this distraction! It’s time to move on to the real issues.
Nothing to see here folks, move along………

Bruce Bailey = asshole

Hope that made you feel better. And smarter.