What did Obama have to promise Bill to take the fall on the Sestak Debacle?

[B_talltpaguy]

Even that makes no sense. I mean, Sestak stayed in and won, right?

Sure it makes sense... Specter switched sides, giving the Dems 60 votes in the Senate... Obviously, he wanted something for switching, and that 'something' turned out to be implicit support from the Dem leadership come primary time. It just so happened that such support wasn't enough, given his competition, his age and the mistrust many PA voters had for Specter.

 

[TomCat84]

Sure it makes sense... Specter switched sides, giving the Dems 60 votes in the Senate... Obviously, he wanted something for switching, and that 'something' turned out to be implicit support from the Dem leadership come primary time. It just so happened that such support wasn't enough, given his competition, his age and the mistrust many PA voters had for Specter.

At the very worst, it was stupid of the WHite House, knowing how much the GOP leadership was going to make hay out of it. They had to know that Sestak was likely to be better for the Democrats. Criminal? No. Criminally stupid? Definitely. It makes no sense.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

^Sure it makes sense... If the Dems could get Specter reelected in a 'purple' state like PA, it would be a HUGELY demoralizing blow to the Republicans not just in PA, but all over the country... Even so, it's still bad news for the Reps if/when Sestak wins this fall... This will mean that in consecutive Senate elections, the Republicans lost their incumbent Senators in PA. (trust me, I'm from PA and understand its politics extremely well... Toomey IS NOT going to win there. He's even more of a wingnut than Santorum was. Many PA voters don't even know this yet, and even so, Toomey's negatives are already in the 40s, and his support is stuck in the 40s)

Nope. Sestak already looked bad:



Admiral Sestak was relieved of duty! For poor command climate. And to top it off Sestak refuses to release his military records!

Sestak wasn't the leader he claimed to be by his 3 star admiral title AND now he impugned his own character by going along with this ridiculous tall tale that even Clinton won't answer a question on...

Hysterically shouting your remarks in bold and red, replete with an arrogant 'rolleyes' doesn't make your diatribe any more relevant to the discussion... It just does the same thing it always does when you act like this; makes you look like a nutjob.

Especially when your rant is full of shit... Joe Sestak's military awards include...

Sestak's decorations include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal, two Legion of Merit awards, two Meritorious Service Medals, Joint Service Commendation Medal, three Navy Commendation Medals and the Navy Achievement Medal.

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Obviously, plenty of PA voters love Joe Sestak, which is how he got elected to the HoR in the first place, is why he won the Dem Senate primary walking away, and is now set to beat the wingnut Republican he faces.

You know, I'm not a Dem and never will be, so I really don't care, but you suuure do seem to spend a great deal of your time hating on Dems, considering that you claim to be a Dem. Concurrently, I don't ever recall seeing you criticize Republicans, even when it's well earned... All you do is spew Republican talking points 24/7... With the Democratic Party having 'friends' like you, why would they need enemies? lolololololol

 

[Trinity]

Sorry but even Philidelphia newspapers are telling it like it is...
"The facts show that the Senate candidate's military record is tough to defend" The Philly Post

Joe Sestak's military awards include...

Sestak was a three-star admiral who, in 2005, was fired from his post as Deputy Chief of Naval Operations by then-Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Mike Mullen. (Mullen now serves as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff).
Of significant interest is that Admiral Mullen fired Sestak on the very first day Mullen started in his new post.
According to the Navy Times — a reputable source — the reason cited for Sestak’s dismissal was that he created a “poor command climate.” The publication went on to state, “Sestak was then shuffled into lower-profile desk jobs before he retired in January 2006 as a two-star admiral.”
In fact, many press reports quote another admiral familiar with Sestak as calling his leadership style “tyrannical,” and one in which he commanded “…by intimidation and fear.”
So let’s recap:
Sestak was a three star admiral.
Sestak was fired from his position as Deputy Chief of Naval Operations.
It is a reasonable assumption that Mullen was so disturbed by what he saw of Sestak’s command climate that he had no problem demoting Sestak.

The Philly Post

And Sestak refuses to release his military records. Toomey has the momentum and Sestak is on the ropes.

The following would be you:

Especially when your rant is full of shit...

 

[TomCat84]

talltpaguy, please I beg you, put Trinity on ignore.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

^It is on ignore... but this is sooo damn funny, and obviously the mods here don't care if this person serially trolls this forum, so obviously they won't mind if I keep entertaining myself by exposing Trinity for the troll he/she/it is.


lolol @ Trinity... So, I cite actual awards the guy earned for doing an excellent job during his career in the military...

And you cite some vaguely worded, mudslinging article, written by a known conservative partisan commentator who also writes for the National Review and the WSJ Editorial section, published in a local blog geared specifically towards wealthy conservative types in the Philadelphia area...lolol

The blog also boasts of having a section for Home Decorating and Wedding Planning... Maybe you can cite those sections of their blog as legitimate sources for political debate too? lolololololol

As usual, you have lied to readers here by misrepresenting questionable and biased sources for your 'facts'. And as usual, I've called you out on your bullshit.

ps... When Joe Sestak wins this fall, you were wrong, as usual.

 

[Trinity]

So, I cite actual awards the guy earned for doing an excellent job during his career in the military...

And you cite some vaguely worded, mudslinging article, written by a known conservative partisan commentator who also writes for the National Review and the WSJ Editorial section, published in a local blog geared specifically towards wealthy conservative types in the Philadelphia area

The article from the Philly Post cites the Navy Times. And Sestak's reputation is worse according to them:

Sestak has bad rep with staff, paper reports

By Zachary M. Peterson - Staff writer
Former Navy Vice Adm. Joe Sestak, now a Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania, has a reputation as a “temperamental and demanding boss,” The Hill newspaper reported Tuesday — qualities that led to his firing from a top Navy post two years ago.
Since he was sworn into Congress in January, 13 of his staffers have quit, including his chief of staff and three press secretaries — a high attrition rate even for time-intensive and stressful jobs on Capitol Hill, The Hill newspaper said. His staff members are expected to work seven days a week, including holidays, go months without a day off and “often” work 14 hours per day, according to the newspaper. The Hill article said staffers at Sestak’s Media, Pa., district office are required to work 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. during the week and work part of the day Saturday.

The Navy Times

The former 3 Star demoted to 2 Star with the poor command qualities and the stink of his tall tale job offer can't really run on his Admiral rep. because his bad reputation precedes him.

 

[Industrialsize]

Poll: Sestak Takes Three-Point Lead Against Toomey

The new Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll of the Pennsylvania Senate race has Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak, who defeated incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter in the Dem primary last week, jumping to a narrow lead over Republican former Rep. Pat Toomey.
Poll: Sestak Takes Three-Point Lead Against Toomey | TPMDC

Poll: Sestak Takes Lead Against Toomey

The new Rasmussen poll of the Pennsylvania Senate race shows Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak jumping into the lead over Republican former Rep. Pat Toomey, in the wake of Sestak's upset victory over incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter in Tuesday's Democratic primary.
Poll: Sestak Takes Lead Against Toomey | TPMDC

 

[Trinity]

Poll: Sestak Takes Three-Point Lead Against Toomey

Poll: Sestak Takes Lead Against Toomey

If you can't defend Sestak's military record...throw out some polls because a poll...as of today really means "case closed." Nope.

Clinton takes lead over Obama in Gallup poll -(Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has moved into a significant lead over Barack Obama among Democratic voters, according to a new Gallup poll.

Clinton leads Obama in poll of California Democrats - The Boston Globe

Clinton leads Obama in Ohio - barely: 47% to 43%


The Democratic battle was kind compared to what's coming. The battle against the Republican...let's just say that Mr. Former 3 Star demoted to 2 Star will have his hands full holding on to his lead.

The job offer tall tale further impugnes Sestak's credibility and character.

 

[ColoradoGuy]

Dont kid yourself for a second by thinking this didnt happen under Bush or any other Republican politician.

This has happened under one of the "greatest Republican presidents of all time" (their phrase, not mine): Ronald Reagan.

The story goes something like this: S.I. Hayakawa was seeking a second term as a Republican senator for California in the 1982 primary. Also running was Barry Goldwater Jr., Pete Wilson (then mayor of San Diego), Maureen Reagan (yes, Ronnie's daughter), and Bob Dornan. The White House was trying desparately to prevent the broad conservative field from splintering because that would give Pete McCloskey a good shot at the nomination and he was a perpetual thorn in the backsides of conservatives across California. So... the Reagan White House cooked up an offer which Hayakawa turned down. Although the job was not specified, the offer was widely reported. Hayakawa ended up dropping out of the race and Wilson, who won the primary, ended getting elected that November.

Now, the reason I bring this up is because:

1. Attempting to clear the field of potential candidates is not exclusively Republican or Democratic. It's done all the time by both parties. If you doubt that, get involved with the party process in your own State. Become a delegate to a convention, canvass for voters, or help with a campaign. You'll soon find out that politics is a lot more than a bunch of people showing up to vote once every couple years.

2. There is nothing sinister about the Obama administration using a third-party to present the offer. This is known as "floating a trial balloon". George Bush (or more appropriately, Karl Rove) used intermediaries to determine support for the Iraq surge among foreign and domestic political thinkers. It softened the ground for the policy and it helped the Bush White House understand where the critics were and how they would likely respond to the announcement.

3. If you want to criticize the Obama administration, please select a topic that you can support with facts and quit looking for something "scandalous". There's plenty to critique without having to always border on the sophomoric sensationalism that has made Glenn Beck so... uh... note-worthy.
​

Just so you don't think I made up the Hayakawa story, you can read about it on Twitter here (which contains the original article).

If you don't know who Hayakawa is, here's a few facts off of "The History Place":

American politician Samuel Hayakawa (1906-1992) was born in Vancouver, British Columbia. Remembered as the college president who climbed atop a sound truck at San Francisco State College in 1968 during student demonstrations, then disconnected the wires thus silencing the demonstrators. This made him popular among conservatives including California Gov. Ronald Reagan. Hayakawa became a Republican and was elected in 1976 to the U.S. Senate, serving just one term. In 1986, he led the successful California initiative to declare English the state's official language.

Peace.


Just to be clear... my admonitions are directed at the OP, not TomKat84. Although I started out just supporting what TomKat84 was saying, my mind wandered (as it does) and it could have been interpreted that I was slapping TomKat84 around. Not the case.

 

[TomCat84]

and it could have been interpreted that I was slapping TomKat84 around. Not the case.

Hehehe, slap me around all you want.......:tongue::biggrin1:

 

[B_talltpaguy]

If you can't defend Sestak's military record...throw out some polls because a poll...as of today really means "case closed." Nope.

The job offer tall tale further impugnes Sestak's credibility and character.

Obviously the voters don't give a shit about the Republicans' manufactured controversy. Considering the Republican candidate's sky high negatives, they obviously trust a military man over a wingnut.

Clinton takes lead over Obama in Gallup poll -(Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has moved into a significant lead over Barack Obama among Democratic voters, according to a new Gallup poll.

Clinton leads Obama in poll of California Democrats - The Boston Globe

Clinton leads Obama in Ohio - barely: 47% to 43%

Keep foaming at the mouth, it's highly entertaining!

 

[TomCat84]

Keep foaming at the mouth, it's highly entertaining!

Seriously dude, if you keep quoting her, I'll put YOU on ignore.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

^No problem... I'll just PM you everything I post. :tongue::biggrin1:

 

[TomCat84]

^No problem... I'll just PM you everything I post. :tongue::biggrin1:

And I will immediately report you to the mods for harassment

 

[D_Sir Fitzwilly Wankheimer III]

You may have a book in your hand, but too bad you still don't understand the language it's written in.



Um.... that's STILL not the message that TomCat was implying.



Ummmm, McFly... did you pay any attention to the 2008 election map? Obama only won one of the five gulf state to begin with. So if your brilliant assumptions come to life, he loses Florida which is a swing state. Wow. That means if everything else remained the same it still wouldn't affect his re-election as he would need to lose a lot more than 27 electoral votes.

But nice try... really, NICE TRY. I know you want to fling feces on everyone you hate, but you keep letting it fall out of your hands and into your mouth every time you wind up for a big swing. One of these days, I swear, you may hit something besides yourself. Don't give up now!!!



I highly doubt that.



I have my own ways for celebrating Memorial Day Weekend. My partner and I invited a bunch of our friends for a very suave brunch with all of the trimmings, including Ruby Tangerine Mimosas and homemade Cranberry Almond Bread with homemade Rum flavored frosting. At the end of the get together, we finished it off with a shot of Royal Opporto... a 40 year old vintage port that is exclusive to the country of Portugal. Believe me when I say that we know how to have a good time when needed.

But let me know how your wiener roast at Crystal Lake turns out, OK? :wink:

Once again eloquently dancing around the issue with substance resembling a loaded pamper. Hence the name Vinyl Boy. I spent what was left of my afternoon in my backyard. Went for a swim in the gulf (while I still can) then strolled a half mile down the beach to the tiki bar at the Outrigger for a few (Big E's) Don Julio Silver margaritas topped off with Grand Manier 150 and watched the sunset. Nothing special pretty much what I do everyday after work.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Once again eloquently dancing around the issue with substance resembling a loaded pamper.

You don't have an issue... just a pathetic rant.

Hence the name Vinyl Boy.

Actually, that name is due to the fact that I'm a DJ.
But if I had to guess your nickname, Big is because you're glutenous, and the E stands for "egghead". Am I close?

 

[Trinity]

This has happened under one of the "greatest Republican presidents of all time" (their phrase, not mine): Ronald Reagan.

Obama claimed that he was going to change Washington. Claiming that everybody does it is just sad for the man who was going to have the most upstanding administration.

Now, the reason I bring this up is because:

1. Attempting to clear the field of potential candidates is not exclusively Republican or Democratic. It's done all the time by both parties.
​

So what. If a crime is committed or ethical lines are crossed neither party should be doing it.

2. There is nothing sinister about the Obama administration using a third-party to present the offer. This is known as "floating a trial balloon".

Please. Bill Clinton signed the last update to the law in question as President. The White House clearly admitted that someone in the White House offered something of worth to interfere with a election. As the letter from the White House stated, there were other conversations over several months regarding a job offer. The administrations inability to answer questions and stone-walling appears to be a cover-up. The job offer should be investigated.

3. If you want to criticize the Obama administration, please select a topic that you can support with facts

There are several instances of quid pro quo by the Obama White House being examined by both Democrats and Republicans. If there is nothing criticize, the Obama Administration should be open to allowing the matter to be investigated.

Obviously the voters don't give a shit about the Republicans' manufactured controversy. Considering the Republican candidate's sky high negatives, they obviously trust a military man over a wingnut.

There was no Republican manufactured controversy...only Democrat Sestak's actual military record - that he refuses to release out of shame.

 

[TomCat84]

You don't have an issue... just a pathetic rant.



Actually, that name is due to the fact that I'm a DJ.
But if I had to guess your nickname, Big is because you're glutenous, and the E stands for "egghead". Am I close?

*snicker*

 

[ColoradoGuy]

Although I enjoy a good debate as much as any other legitimate member of this website, is there a way to automatically ignore a particular poster's ill-informed, infantile and seldom on-topic remarks? No names, but let's just say I thought "Trinity" didn't add value to the debate, can I block just her/his/its posts while continuing to enjoy all the others?

Enquiring minds want to know...