Dan-
How interesting. The White House offered a actual job in a low profile race no one was paying attention to. But for the highest profile race, the offer was (supposedly) an unpaid advisory position, which (depending on some suggested positions) also may have required Sestak to quit Congress to be on the board.
Yeah. That sounds plausible.

Many of the more liberal posters on this blog seem to be totally uninterested in the potential ethical implications of these job offers. Having just elected a president who promised to change politics as usual, it’s curious that they poo-poo this issue as “something that is always done in politics and is not unusual.”

EVEN IF this is just “politics as usual,” that does not mean that it is above scrutiny and should be part of the “old system” that we ought to scrap. This is what ‘change’ means, and it’s disheartening to see so many self-proclaimed “real Democrats” so willing to simply ignore the bigger picture. I guess 2008 didn’t really have as much an effect on them as they thought.

The fact that this practice is being perpetuated by either the WH or the Sestak campaign should, at the very least, pique a discussion of whether or not this is a practice we want to continue in our politics, and as such, is perfectly legitimate fodder for public discussion.

I should also add that I am a registered Democrat in Delaware County and voted for Obama in 2008, and plan to do so again in 2012.

No “republican rat” here.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201006040040

Matt —
Maybe not a “Republican rat.” But if not that (which I tend to doubt), you are certainly a Democratic one. What in world are you looking to accomplish by constantly pounding this ridiculous line of trash? You are echoing Hannity, Limbaugh and Fox News talking points, all of which have been discredited and debunked countless times. What on Earth is your point and your intent?

Or like the other troll on this site, are you simply looking to even some sort of personal score with Joe Sestak?

In a month, FitzFlop will side with the Palestinians.

Fitzpatrick is a solid right-of-center conservative who supports our important allies (unlike the Obama leftist Democrats)

“Anonymous” is either a sore loser left over from the primary, or a member of the dwindling Patrick Murphy circus, and I do mean dwindling.

Heck, Murphy is being laughed at and mocked by Democrats of all stripes.

RA – It’s becoming my favorite saying around here, something Satchel Paige once quipped: “Sayin’ it don’t make it so.”

I detect a lot of wishful thinking in what you posted. Fact is, Fitzpatrick had a conservative challenger in the primary because he wasn’t “right enough” for the Beck-heads and fringies that make up a sizable chunk of the Repubs these days. So I can understand how he now wants to remake his image as a “right-of-center conservative” (aren’t ALL conservatives right of center?). That’s actually helpful to Patrick Murphy, so I hope this works out for Fitz.

Meanwhile, let me assure you – Democrats love Patrick Murphy. Even progressive Dems like me, although Murphy is, on fiscal matters, a self-identified Blue Dog moderate. Doesn’t bother me in the least, he’s a strong, confident Democrat and I wish I lived in his district so I could vote for him.

Two pathetic choices in PA-08. Socialist versus flip-flopping career politician. Probably bodes well for Murphy as non-active constituents will stay home instead of coming out to vote and supporting either one of these duds. Because there are more active Ds than Rs in PA-08, Murphy likely wins.

Races like PA-08 are why people are frustrated with the political process and explains the record low voter turnout on primary day.

I like how the Teabag movement has advanced the art of Republican name-calling: instead of using “Democrat” as a slur (“Patrick Murphy, the Democrat candidate” instead of “Democratic”), they now have totally skipped right past that and automatically label any Democrat as a “Socialist.”

Beautiful in its simplicity, no?