RSS
Joe vs. the Volcano
This L.A. Times headline sez it all:
Alex Rose has our story here.
Meanwhile, last night on the Fox News Special Report panel, Tucker Carlson suggested the controversy could actually help Sestak in his senate campaign in so far as it distinquishes him from the White House ala Mark Critz in the 6th Congressional District. Mara Liason rightly disagreed. Critz, the Democrat who won John Murtha's seat in a special election ran to the right of his Republican opponent and away from the liberal agenda in Washington. Critz is pro gun, pro-life and anti-Obamacare. Sestak is none of those things in a state swinging back to the right of center.
Furthermore, Sestak is running to "stand with" with President Obama and his agenda. He says so explicitly. That he didn't follow White House orders to clear the field for Specter may suggest to some that Sestak has an independent streak, but to others it will only show he puts his personal ambition over the party.
As for his publicly mentioning the alleged White House job offer in the first place during a TV interview, Charles Krauthhammer attributes it to a "rookie mistake."
It brought some attention to him but it didn't really help get him elected. What elected Joe Sestak was his pointing out Specter's flaws as a principled politician and creature of Washington's unsavory political culture.
Sestak opened a can of worms for the White House with his allegation. Getting those night crawlers back in that can is proving more difficult for the White House, Sestak, and the Democratic party. Specter said during the campaign that if what Sestak says is true felonies were committed and that he should either put up or shut up. Now that he's a lame duck, it's doubtful he'll choose to quack about the matter. But we'll see.
Journalists and other members of Congress are watching the White House and its Attorney General stonewall the matter. The stonewalling is foolish to do so. This is not Watergate. This is politics as usual. Party members are frequently offered inducements, subtle and not so subtle, not torun for this or that by party leaders to clear the field for others.
What is unusual is that one of the players would pop off and tattle on his own party's leaders.
There are a lot of places it can go from here. Few of them good for Sestak or the man he wants to "stand with" next year as a U.S. Senator.
Obama White House probe of Obama White House finds no Obama White House impropriety on SestakThe rest of the story is here. The headline perfectly captures why the Obama White House won't be successful in deep-sixing the story.
Alex Rose has our story here.
Meanwhile, last night on the Fox News Special Report panel, Tucker Carlson suggested the controversy could actually help Sestak in his senate campaign in so far as it distinquishes him from the White House ala Mark Critz in the 6th Congressional District. Mara Liason rightly disagreed. Critz, the Democrat who won John Murtha's seat in a special election ran to the right of his Republican opponent and away from the liberal agenda in Washington. Critz is pro gun, pro-life and anti-Obamacare. Sestak is none of those things in a state swinging back to the right of center.
Furthermore, Sestak is running to "stand with" with President Obama and his agenda. He says so explicitly. That he didn't follow White House orders to clear the field for Specter may suggest to some that Sestak has an independent streak, but to others it will only show he puts his personal ambition over the party.
As for his publicly mentioning the alleged White House job offer in the first place during a TV interview, Charles Krauthhammer attributes it to a "rookie mistake."
It brought some attention to him but it didn't really help get him elected. What elected Joe Sestak was his pointing out Specter's flaws as a principled politician and creature of Washington's unsavory political culture.
Sestak opened a can of worms for the White House with his allegation. Getting those night crawlers back in that can is proving more difficult for the White House, Sestak, and the Democratic party. Specter said during the campaign that if what Sestak says is true felonies were committed and that he should either put up or shut up. Now that he's a lame duck, it's doubtful he'll choose to quack about the matter. But we'll see.
Journalists and other members of Congress are watching the White House and its Attorney General stonewall the matter. The stonewalling is foolish to do so. This is not Watergate. This is politics as usual. Party members are frequently offered inducements, subtle and not so subtle, not torun for this or that by party leaders to clear the field for others.
What is unusual is that one of the players would pop off and tattle on his own party's leaders.
There are a lot of places it can go from here. Few of them good for Sestak or the man he wants to "stand with" next year as a U.S. Senator.
posted by Spencerblog at
7:17 AM
2 Comments:
Watergate was a "third-rate" burglary, presumably designed to affect an election, made worse by a coverup at the highest levels, which exposed the arrogance and corruption of the President and his Administration.
Sounds like a pretty fair comparison to the present situation to me.
Joe Sestak, as an elected official as well as a supposedly law-abiding citizen, has a moral obligation to be thoroughly forthcoming about any information he has about the commission of a felony. He does not decide when he has said enough or when it is time to move on.
I can't wait to see Representative Issa grilling Admiral Shipwreck, "What did you know and when did you know it?"
My theory? Not that anyone cares, is that he said it, and didn't know initially it was a law breaking offer. He probably thought of it as a normal day in Washington. I would ask him did he know it, before saying it, was a felony for someone to offer that position to him. Does he also know he is aiding and abetting a possible felon?
HT to Jake:
"Joe Sestak, as an elected official as well as a supposedly law-abiding citizen, has a moral obligation to be thoroughly forthcoming about any information he has about the commission of a felony. He does not decide when he has said enough or when it is time to move on. "
Well said!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home