home

Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread

I'm off to the jail this afternoon. Our server was down for a few hours this morning, but all is fixed now.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Yoo On Kagan: Too Narrow A View Of Executive Power | Wed. Late Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    stale (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:42:43 PM EST
    um, I mean slate jumps in:

    Obama's Job Program

    What did the White House promise Joe Sestak if he dropped out of the Senate race, and why won't they talk about it?

    Apparently (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:49:11 PM EST
    Axelrod says Sestak is lying (h/t Hot Air from CNN):

    Senior adviser to the president David Axelrod said Monday evening that there is "no evidence" that White House officials tried to keep a Democratic congressman from entering the Pennsylvania Senate race by offering him a high-ranking government job.

    "When the allegations were made, they were looked into. And there was no evidence of such a thing," Axelrod said on CNN's "John King USA."

    Axelrod acknowledged that if White House officials dangled a job in front of Rep. Joe Sestak's face to keep him away from challenging incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter, that would "constitute a serious breach of the law."

    Axelrod also acknowledged that there were "conversations" involving White House officials and Sestak, but said that those had been "looked at" by White House lawyers and "their conclusion was that it was perfect -- the conversations were perfectly appropriate."



    Parent
    What else is a White House (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by coast on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:59:38 PM EST
    lawyer going to say.  Does Axelrod really believe that we're just going to take their word for it without getting all the details?

    Parent
    particularly (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:02:51 PM EST
    if I may say so, him.

    why they send that guy out is beyond me.  if ever there was a used car salesman in politics . . . .

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:02:59 PM EST
    If the WH says it, we should all swoon and bow down because they obviously know better than the peons.  

    I truly think these people believe that.

    Parent

    Really, though, could there be an issue of less (none / 0) (#136)
    by esmense on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:49:35 PM EST
    importance?

    Who cares if they tried to discourage him from making the run for the seat? All it proves is something that has long been evident -- their less than stellar political instincts. (I know, I know, we're suppose to believe that beating the first woman to come at all close, but not that close, to being taken seriously as a presidential candidate, with most of the Democratic establishment, Wall Street and the media on your side, was some astounding political miracle, but I don't buy it. And frankly, any Democratic candidate -- man, woman or box turtle -- that couldn't win in the midst of the financial melt down of 2008 would have to have been one of the most unlikely, unqualified candidates on earth. The Democrats probably could have run Kucinich, or brought Carter out of retirement, and won.)  

    Parent

    jesus (none / 0) (#139)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:52:40 PM EST
    I was hoping one thread would not go there.

    and whether or not you (or I for that matter) think it is a front burner issue is not really the point is it?  no offense.

    the fact is its a story.  with legs.
    it will need to be dealt with.

    Parent

    Legs (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:56:52 PM EST
    Several steps down from the "blue dress", imo, and $80 million was spent on that.

    So, what do you think, $45 mil... oh, forgot about inflation... $120mil should be set aside to keep the legs on this on life support?

    Parent

    dismissal (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:59:16 PM EST
    will not make it go away.

    and talk about strange bedfellows.

    Parent

    OK (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:03:38 PM EST
    knock yourself out. Seems to me that the only the GOP, and their allies, gain by putting Sestak and the WH on the chopping block.

    Politics, not law, is what this story is about.

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#154)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:06:50 PM EST
    excuse me if I get a bit titillated at the idea of the back room dealers getting caught stepping in it.
    they have had a bit too much free ranging for my tastes lately.  that does not make me a republican.

    in the long run this will not hurt either Sestak or the WH.  or our chances to take that seat in Nov

    why would it?

     

    Parent

    This is a silly issue (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by MKS on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:49:54 PM EST
    If Sestak was offered a job, of course he would be unable to not run for Senate.

    This deal stuff really is absurd.  All you have to do is offer Sestak a job, without saying anything about running for the Senate.  If he takes the job, he obviously can't run for the Senate....

    There would be nothing illegal in offering Sestake a job that would effectively prevent him from running for the Senate.

    That is how Obama got rid of Huntsman and the NY Congressman.....Perfectly legal.  And shrewd.

    Parent

    so (none / 0) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:52:08 PM EST
    why dont they just say that?

    Parent
    The "appearances" thing (none / 0) (#94)
    by MKS on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:59:13 PM EST
    Too clever by half.....

    Parent
    and (none / 0) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:53:13 PM EST
    while I dont necessarily disagree that it is a silly issue that doesnt mean its going away.

    Parent
    Alexgrease (none / 0) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:51:07 PM EST
    Sestak - Alesgrease, Sestak  

    hmmmm

    Parent

    man (none / 0) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:51:25 PM EST
    can I type or what?

    Parent
    Yup, (none / 0) (#80)
    by prittfumes on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:47:38 PM EST
    Greasy's been that axle the gitgo from.

    Parent
    But Sestak pulled the (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:02:55 PM EST
    "a military officer cannot lie and has a duty to remain ethical in all things" thing out and threw it on the table.  He said that with that face, and I've seen that face before, and Axelgrease is lying his arse off :)

    Parent
    Sestak is a pol (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:05:40 PM EST
    But I'd still take his version over anything Axelrod says.

    Parent
    I'm a sucker for that officer honor thing (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:08:02 PM EST
    They immediately get like five extra points from me for that.  One of these days some POS is really going to rake me over the coals too :)

    Parent
    Both statements can be true (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by MKS on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:58:08 PM EST
    Read Axlerod very carefully.  He is basically saying that Sestak was not offered a job in exchange for him not running for the Senate.

    No, the job offer was just a flat job offer--and it was just a coincidence that taking the job would effectively prevent Sestak from running for the Senate....

    It is not illegal to offer Sestak a job when he was running (or considering a run) for the Senate.  I would be shocked if anyone in the Obama administration would be ham-handed enough to say anything about the Senate run with Sestak at all.  It didn't need to be said.  You can't be in two places at once.

    Parent

    That is the scenario I believe also (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by ruffian on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:02:35 PM EST
    I'd be surprised if it was done in an illegal quid pro quo way.

    But I've been surprised before.

    Parent

    on this (none / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:06:26 PM EST
    we are in complete agreement

    Parent
    Axelrod (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:10:24 PM EST
    and Gibbs should never, ever go on tv in support of the administration. They do more harm than good.

    Parent
    personally (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:13:08 PM EST
    I dont find Gibbs any more or less annoying than most people in that job.  but Alexrod . . .

    I can barely stand to watch the guy.  and when I do I always feel I need a shower.


    Parent

    Glad I Have No Teevee (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:18:28 PM EST
    I highly recommend un plugging..

    Parent
    Where is your outlet, pray tell? (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Anne on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:45:04 PM EST
    Speaking of unplugging, that is.

    With our luck, you are in wireless mode, so there goes that option.

    Parent

    Once Again (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:52:05 PM EST
    The TL Queen who takes pride in, and lectures others about, never making personal attacks, makes a personal attack.

    Surprise, not..

    Parent

    Oh, come on, now, (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Anne on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:03:03 PM EST
    where's your sense of humor?  Oh, goodness - maybe you ran out of lol's - you poor thing, and here it is only 5:00 pm.

    Here - take some of mine:  LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

    And I'm sure others here will also be happy to contribute, because what would a squeaks comment be without your trademark "lol?"

    :-)

    Parent

    shaaaady (none / 0) (#31)
    by CST on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:09:17 PM EST
    this is one of those situations where it doesn't take a genius to figure out who is lying.

    Why would Sestak lie about this?  There's really no upside for him.  Why would the Obama admin lie?

    hmmmmm....

    Parent

    Why Would Sestak Lie, Or Even Bring It Up? (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:17:19 PM EST
    Now to Rep. Issa (R-CA), being very clear that this situation makes it seem "crimes" and "felonies" have been committed, at which point he says a Special Investigator should be assigned. Specifically, there are federal laws against offering federal jobs in return for political favors.

    Maybe because he thinks it will help his campaign, by appearing to be in opposition to this administration. Just like the GOPers do. Mid terms usually favor the opposition party.

    Parent

    I dont believe that for a second (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:22:22 PM EST
    they wanted him out.  everyone knows that.  they tried threatening him and that did not work so they tried bribing him.  and that didnt work either.
    and now this may finally be the occasion when the backroom dealers finally get a t!t caught in the wringer for one of their slimy attempts at a backroom deal.


    Parent
    Impeach! (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:30:10 PM EST
    I have to say, I can see why Issa et al are stirring this up to be a cause célèbre, and I can see why Sestak would think that outing the WH, would help his bid for Senate seat, but I do not see how this is anything other than business as usual.

    The WH wants to retain as many D seats as possible. The WH believed that Specter would be a stronger D candidate, so they supported Specter.

    I cannot imagine that anyone from the WH would be so stupid to provide Sestak with proof that the job offer was contingent on dropping out of the race.

    But, I am not surprised that some here would shoot themselves in the foot and stoop to Issa's level, calling for an independent prosecutor, with an eye toward impeachment.

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#55)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:33:12 PM EST
    Who said that?

    Parent
    Dick Morris (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:35:44 PM EST
    Send him some money, and Fox too...

    Parent
    So, you just made it up (none / 0) (#70)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:42:00 PM EST
    as usual.

    But, I am not surprised that some here would shoot themselves in the foot and stoop to Issa's level, calling for an independent prosecutor, with an eye toward impeachment.

    So, again - who here shot themselves in the foot and stooped to Issa's level, and called for an independent prosecutor, with an eye towards impeachment?

    Parent

    Didn't You? (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:55:37 PM EST
    Or is it just that you are not quite there yet...

    I have no doubt that you will jump on the GOP bandwagon, once it has enough steam to impeach Obama.

    Parent

    Nice backpedal (none / 0) (#91)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:57:53 PM EST
    Typcial diversion when you know you've been called out because you're wrong.

    Now you're psychic too!  Hope you have the lottery numbers as you think you know what I'm going to say and feel in the future!

    The delusions just get weirder.

    Parent

    Hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:00:21 PM EST
    A little hyperbole goes a long way with the cults...

    But again, I have no doubt you will be the first on board to call for a full investigation, special prosecutor and impeachment, in that order.

    Parent

    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#141)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:55:14 PM EST
    "Hyperbole"?  

    LOL - I was quoting YOU!

    Parent

    You Sure Did Quote Me (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:59:24 PM EST
    Proves that you have a future as a stenographer.  

    Parent
    OOH! (none / 0) (#182)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:36:38 PM EST
    You're so clever.  You really got me with that one!  I bow to your obvious superior rapier wit.

    Not.

    Parent

    well, note (none / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:36:11 PM EST
    I am not doing that but only pointing out that others surely will.

    it may be business as usual, its still a crime.  and no, the chances are slim to none that any "proof" exists that this happened but saying what Gibbs has been saying is not going to cut it.

    as far as why Sestak said it, he was asked.  and he, lo and behold, directly answered the question.


    Parent

    Hmmm... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:37:59 PM EST
    According to your Media Matters link, it is not a crime.

    Parent
    because it is (none / 0) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:39:04 PM EST
    not proven?  is that your threshold?


    Parent
    Did You Read Your Link? (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:56:29 PM EST
    Nothing about threshold, as far as I could tell.

    Hot air from the GOP, as usual.

    Parent

    heres Durbin (none / 0) (#97)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:02:19 PM EST
    "At some point, I think Congressman Sestak needs to make it clear what happened," Durbin said.

    Durbin, a close Obama ally, would not specify whether the administration should make a stronger case in denying Sestak's charge that the White House offered the congressman a job in order to end his primary bid against sitting Sen. Arlen Specter. Sestak ended up winning the primary last week.

    Durbin deferred to comments made by top Obama aide David Axelrod when asked whether the administration was guilty of any wrongdoing.

    "The only thing I heard Axelrod say was that nothing inappropriate took place," Durbin added. "Congressman Sestak raised the issue. And there's been some confusion. I hope he can make the facts as clear as possible. I'm sure they'll react to that."

    if they have not noticed yet Sestak does not respond well to pressure of this kind.
    not a good plan it seems to me.

    Parent

    Because Durbin knows there (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by MKS on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:06:46 PM EST
    was no quid pro quo......

    It was a plain job offer--or perhaps a discussion of a potential offer....As in Congressman Sestak would you be interested in the position of....

    Parent

    think it's a one-off? (none / 0) (#50)
    by nycstray on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:30:05 PM EST
    if it's true, or will there be more coming out of the woodwork?

    Parent
    also (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:11:30 PM EST
    exactly how difficult is it to believe that this happened?

    Parent
    not at all (none / 0) (#41)
    by CST on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:18:55 PM EST
    my guess as to how this plays out - eventually they find a Scooter Libby.

    Parent
    Not very difficult (none / 0) (#63)
    by Zorba on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:38:41 PM EST
    to believe this might well have happened as Sestak said, Cap.  After all, this is pretty much Standard Operating Procedure for the Chicago Way.

    Parent
    Nonsense--no one is lying (none / 0) (#116)
    by MKS on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:24:21 PM EST
    Both statements are most likely true....

    Parent
    the fact is (none / 0) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:14:38 PM EST
    eventually they are going to have to deal with this.
    either get Sestak to recant, which I can not imagine, or come up with a better story than the one so far.

    because it is in fact a very serious crime.


    Parent

    Serious Crime? (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:21:11 PM EST
    Just like outing a CIA agent...  Anyway, seems to me, that it is politics as usual, and one step below getting a bj... wait, isn't it the same thing..

    Impeachment should start soon. The buck stops with Obama..

    Parent

    no less an authority (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:24:02 PM EST
    Yes (3.66 / 3) (#56)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:34:24 PM EST
    Fundraising for the impeachment, can start here at TL. Ironic how strange bedfellows can coo and whisper into each others ear, when it comes to a shared enemy.  

    Parent
    Eh (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by lilburro on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:39:44 PM EST
    I don't think it's a serious crime.  

    Even those who used to prosecute public corruption cases agree. "Talk about criminalizing the political process!" said Peter Zeidenberg, a former federal prosecutor with the Justice Department's Public Integrity unit. "It would be horrible precedent if what really truly is political horsetrading were viewed in the criminal context of: is this a corrupt bribe?"

    And Melanie Sloan, a former federal prosecutor who as the head of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington isn't known for going on easy public corruption, concurred. "There is no bribery case here," she said. "No statute has ever been used to prosecute anybody for bribery in circumstances like this."

    (source)


    Parent

    of course (none / 0) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:48:25 PM EST
    and no one reading this is Im sure in any way shocked or surprised and are fully aware that it goes on all the time.

    the problem is Sestak didnt get the memo and told the truth.  not what usually happens.

    and from what I have read it is in fact a crime if it can be proven a bribe was offered.  which of course it can not.  which is not really the point.
    my only point is that I think they are going to come up with a different story and/or plan.


    Parent

    Truth? (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:58:42 PM EST
    the problem is Sestak didnt get the memo and told the truth.

    being offered a job is not a crime. I do not believe that Sestak was accusing the WH of committing a crime, although the fangs were out based on the questions.

    Parent

    It is interesting, however (none / 0) (#96)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:00:33 PM EST
    That Axelrod and Gibbs would make points to say they had the lawyers go over this with a fine tooth comb, and Holder is demurring from making a comment.  If they had just said the charge was ridiculous and left it at that, this might be a non-story, but the fact they keep hemming and hawing and talking about how they consulted lawyers, makes me think there is more to this story than is being told.

    Parent
    IMO (none / 0) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:03:46 PM EST
    they are afraid if they squeeze him Sestak will tell more truth.

    and no squeak being offered a job is not a crime.
    being offered a bribe is.


    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:05:55 PM EST
    There is no way that they offered him a bribe. He has never said that. The GOP is trying to make a case and their sycophantic "liberal press" is at the beck and call.

    Sells papers and soap.

    Parent

    Pretty amazing (none / 0) (#43)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:19:43 PM EST
    A Democratic WH accusing their candidate for Senate (in a year when Dems are poised to lose seats) of lying.

    Parent
    Not how I read it (none / 0) (#104)
    by MKS on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:09:31 PM EST
    Axlerod said basically no qid pro quo and nothing wrong happened.

    Sestak said he was offered a job which would have prevented him from running for the Senate.

    Both  can be--and probably are--truthful statements....

    Axlerod and Sestak are being less than clear because, although this kind of political sasuage making isn't illegal, it isn't pretty....

    Parent

    I dont have time to google (none / 0) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:11:53 PM EST
    but as I remember it, he was asked if you was offered a job to drop out and he said yes.

    asked again later he repeated it.

    Parent

    here ya go (none / 0) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:14:33 PM EST
    Rep. Joe Sestak, winner of the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary, is refusing to provide more information on what job he was offered by a White House official to drop out of that race, although he confirmed again that the incident occurred.


    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:19:33 PM EST
    Your link only shows that the Politico commenter editorialized and injected the reason Sestak was offered a job. According to this link Sestak only said that he was offered a job.

    Parent
    I have heard Sestak (none / 0) (#118)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:27:56 PM EST
    say the same thing.  almost word for word.

    Parent
    And here's the original (none / 0) (#110)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:18:59 PM EST
    Time he made the comment - back in February on the Larry Kane Report in Philadelphia

    February 18th 2010 -- Posted to News Flash
    It was just something I'd been hearing about from a variety of sources. Was it true? I didn't know , but I decided to pop the question.

    During the taping of my Comcast Network Voice of Reason show, which airs Sunday night at 9:30, I asked Congressman Joe Sestak: "Is it true that you were offered a high ranking job in the administration in a bid to get you to drop out of the primary against Arlen Specter?"

    Sestak looked a little surprised by the question. He said, "Yes."

    I asked him if the job was Navy Secretary. He said, "I can't comment on that." In the next few seconds, he admitted that it was a "high up' job, that it came from the White House, and that he didn't accept the offering. He proceeded to say that nothing will stop him from completing the race against Specter for the Democratic nomination.

    Was I surprised?  A little. After all, I was just probing.

    Two hours later, I called the White House press office. I played the tape, and asked for a reaction. They never called back. That didn't surprise me. If it did happen, and if they did try to get Sestak out of the race, how could they deny it?



    Parent
    That was the obvious implication (none / 0) (#114)
    by MKS on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:21:54 PM EST
    that a second grader would understand....

    But I doubt Sestak meant that his offer was expressly conditioned on his dropping out of the Senate race.  That was Sestak drawing the obvious conclusion about the administration's unspoken motives....

    Sestak wanted to play up his independence from the Obama administration, so he he explained the "why" of his getting an offer.....But Sestak made the error of saying something that could imply a quid pro quo....Hence, the Durbin comments....

    I would be absolutely stunned beyond anything if anyone in the Obama adminstration would be foolish enough to make en express link between the job and the Senate run.  There was no need to say it--it was obvious.  A moron would know to say nothing about the Senate run when talking about a job with Sestak....

    Parent

    See Feb 2010 (none / 0) (#115)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:23:28 PM EST
    During the taping of my Comcast Network Voice of Reason show, which airs Sunday night at 9:30, I asked Congressman Joe Sestak: "Is it true that you were offered a high ranking job in the administration in a bid to get you to drop out of the primary against Arlen Specter?"

    Sestak looked a little surprised by the question. He said, "Yes."



    Parent
    No Quid Pro Quo (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:30:30 PM EST
    Clearly Obama and the WH wanted Sestak out of the race because they thought Specter had a better chance to win in the general.

    Despite what you believe, one in the WH is stupid enough to have offered Sestak a job contingent on the fact that he drop out of the race.

    But you can continue to believe that Obama and the WH bribed Sestak, broke the law and should pay for their crimes, it is your way.

    You may want to send some money to Issa, he is going to need boatloads to keep this one afloat.

    Parent

    I doubt don't think it would be out of stupidity (none / 0) (#148)
    by coast on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:01:02 PM EST
    but I can certainly see arrogance coming into play.  Something to the effect of "take this job because your not going to f*&^ing win because we are backing Specter".  Lets see who in the WH is a bit arrogant and curses a lot?  If you can't see RE giving someone an ultimatum, well I suggest you go out and get a tv.

    Parent
    OK (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:10:11 PM EST
    Although I disagree. If the WH wanted him out of the race, which I believe they did, why would they act arrogant. Seems to me that the best strategy would be to offer him a job that they believed he would go for. Being arrogant would defeat their purpose.

    Simply offering a very attractive job, would be the simplest and most efficient way to meet their objective, that is if they really wanted him to drop out of the race.

    Parent

    Agreed, but (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by coast on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:18:32 PM EST
    I don't think that, given the reaction of the WH on this, that something more than that went on and they are trying to figure out how to handle it.

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:22:08 PM EST
    But considering that the WH more than likely sees this as pure oppositional politics, they are trying to get it right, so that the story dies the death it deserves.

    I do not think that the WH is remotely worried about having broken the law, just political damage control.

    Parent

    Oppositional politics? (none / 0) (#168)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:24:07 PM EST
    This is the DEMOCRATIC candidate for Senate they are accusing of lying.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:28:42 PM EST
    You are using this, just like Issa, as oppositional politics.

    You, not the WH have accused Sestak of lying.

    You, also made up the question:

    "Were you offered a job in exchange for dropping out of the race?"

    Which was never asked.

    These distortions are yours. Quoting the WaPo right wing editorial as support only strengthens the argument that you and the GOP are the ones involved with oppositional politics.

    Parent

    I dont really get the point (none / 0) (#178)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:32:17 PM EST
    "oppositional politics" exists.  the idea that this was not going to be jumped on is naive at best.

    ignoring it and trying to tut-tuting it will not change a thing.

    Parent

    No Question It Would Be Jumped On (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 05:05:23 PM EST
    My question is who is doing the jumping and for what purpose.

    Were you a big supporter of Starr?

    Parent

    I believe that was uncalled for (none / 0) (#198)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 05:07:30 PM EST
    and assuming aloofness will not make the story go away.

    Parent
    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 05:15:10 PM EST
    What is uncalled for?  

    Deciding that there was a quid pro quo, like Issa is doing, based on thin gruel, is a political hit job.

    Jumping on that bandwagon, is either because you want to score points against the Democrats, or you are extremely naive, imo.

    Seems to me, at least at this point, my questions would be less about the criminality of the WH, but of the agenda of those who are asking the questions, and framing this as a big deal crime.

    Parent

    Not my words (none / 0) (#179)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:33:05 PM EST
    Those would be Larry Kane's and Joe Sestak's:

    "Is it true that you were offered a high ranking job in the administration in a bid to get you to drop out of the primary against Arlen Specter?"

    Sestak looked a little surprised by the question. He said, "Yes."

    But I know you have trouble reading and understanding things without pictures.

    Parent

    Are You Having A Stroke Or Something? (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:37:52 PM EST
    If so call 911, or your doctor.

    Otherwise I cannot imagine how else you could imagine that the two quotes are the same.

    This quote of yours:

    "Were you offered a job in exchange for dropping out of the race?"

    bears little resemblance to this quote:

    "Is it true that you were offered a high ranking job in the administration in a bid to get you to drop out of the primary against Arlen Specter?"


    Parent
    well, I feel fine (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:41:17 PM EST
    I and I admit I dont see a ginormus difference in the two quotes except the number to syllables.

    Parent
    OK (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:50:10 PM EST
    Your grammar needs work.

    "In a bid" is quite different from "in exchange".

    The former translates "in the hope" that you would drop out, IOW it was the WH intention to try and get Sestak out of the race. It does not imply a quid pro quo, merely that the WH wanted Sestak out of the race for political reasons.

    the later jbindc version is pure quid pro quo.

    I guarantee you that were Sestak asked the question using "in exchange" he would not have answered yes.

    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#191)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:52:38 PM EST
    the grammar thing was generous

    Parent
    Squeaky logic (none / 0) (#190)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:52:07 PM EST
    Only makes sense in her head - that explains the large leaps in logic (or no logic at all).  No one else really understands.

    Parent
    My Head? (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 05:01:02 PM EST
    I have not distorted, or come up with a fantasy quote, you on the other hand have taken what was said and turned it into what you wanted it to say. Had Sestak admitted to a quid pro quo, aka exchange, there would be no discussion other than to the courts for breaking the law. Your wet dream.

    Parent
    But she does have a new fan... (none / 0) (#202)
    by Anne on Wed May 26, 2010 at 05:13:49 PM EST
    someone with the appropriately hilarious moniker of "pipsqueak..."

    That is just too, too cute.

    Parent

    A cultist? (none / 0) (#203)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 05:14:45 PM EST
    There is difference in language (none / 0) (#195)
    by MKS on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:56:53 PM EST
    "in exchange" implies a bargain--a quid pro quo.

    "in a bid to" carries more of a connotation of "in an effort to".....

    Parent

    I think that depends (none / 0) (#170)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:26:46 PM EST
    entirely on Sestak.  and I would bet they are currently wishing they had been a little nicer to him.

    and I would imagine Sestak is loving every minute of it and will eventually pull it out of the fire for them.  although he may decide to make a back room deal of his own along the way.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#173)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:28:44 PM EST
    He needs the money from the DNC, controlled by OFA.  I think that's why he's hemming and hawing now.

    I agree - Sestak will eventually back down so this little embarassing situation for the WH will go away.

    Parent

    I would imagine that's what (none / 0) (#174)
    by coast on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:29:31 PM EST
    Cheney and Libby thought as well.

    Parent
    excellent (none / 0) (#180)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:33:35 PM EST
    point

    Parent
    wait (none / 0) (#159)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:14:06 PM EST
    Being arrogant would defeat their purpose

    this is the white house we are talking about, right?

    Parent

    Certainly In This Case It Would (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:19:38 PM EST
    Imagine telling Nader that you would ruin him, if he did not drop out of the race... Of course a job offer as cover... Well, we would be hearing that story over and over, he would have ran his campaign on the quote.

    Parent
    That could happen (none / 0) (#171)
    by MKS on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:28:32 PM EST
    but your hypothetical still contains no quid pro quo....."Take this job because you won't get that other job"....no quid pro quo.....He isn't asking him to drop out--he is saying we will beat you if you do run....entirely different....

    But Rahm might say something like that....But, again, why?  You can be arrogant without being so stupid....The offer by itself is enough....

    Parent

    Of course, (none / 0) (#176)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:30:51 PM EST
    You and I don't know what was really said.  So my hypothetical is as plausible as yours.  Which is the whole point - WE DON'T KNOW.

    Parent
    Come on.. (none / 0) (#177)
    by coast on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:31:38 PM EST
    RE doesn't say two sentences without an FU in there somewhere :).

    Parent
    jb, you are missing (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by MKS on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:35:23 PM EST
    a step here.

    The offer was of course made in order to get Sestak to drop out--how could it not be?  

    But the question is not what were the administration's unspoken motives in offering Sestak a job, but whether the administarion actually spelled it out that Sestak would have to drop out of the Senate race in order to take the job.....That I seriously doubt.

    So, Sestak says, "I was offered a job to make me drop out of the race."....Most likely true.

    The administation basically says, "We didn't make him a job offer expressly contingent on his dropping out and we offered no quid pro quo.".....Probably true too.

    When Sestak says he was offered a job to get him to drop out of the race, he was expressing his opinion of why the offer was made to him, not what was actually said.....Any other scenario assumes you have an idiot talking to Sestak on behalf of the administration.

     

    Parent

    MKS (none / 0) (#132)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:45:39 PM EST
    I'm not taking a position - I'm posting what is out there about what Sestak actually said.

    So, Sestak says, "I was offered a job to make me drop out of the race."....Most likely true.

    That is actually illegal, which, if true, is what this whole stink is about.

    I'm not sure how you classify that statement as his opinion, and the WH statement as fact.  I just think as much tap dancing as the WH is doing leads me to believe there's more to this.

    Parent

    I would add (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:48:49 PM EST
    that the situation is complicated by the fact that Sestak is a very credible and reliable source.


    Parent
    There's Our jbindc (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:49:53 PM EST
    I'm not taking a position

    Hard to believe... because your main body of comments at TL have been to find fault with Obama and his admin.

    That is actually illegal...

    So much for not taking a position... lol

    Parent

    as someone once said about me (none / 0) (#142)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:55:25 PM EST
    just because I am overtly, even intentionally, obnoxious, doesnt mean I dont have a point.

    or something like that.

    Parent

    Self deprecation is a lost art. Props to you sir! (none / 0) (#152)
    by coast on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:04:44 PM EST
    Add to that (none / 0) (#140)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:53:21 PM EST
    The WH actually initially denied a job was even offered, then they eventually switched their story to "We looked into it and the conversation was legit and legal."

    The WaPo yesterday had an editorial that said, in part:

    Government jobs aren't mere baubles the administration may dangle in front of those it would like to distract from other pursuits; there is a difference between, say, offering to help raise money to pay off a candidate's debts and promising a taxpayer-funded benefit. At the same time, of course, political considerations play a role in political appointments. This would hardly be the first administration to use appointments to try to clear the field for a favored candidate.

    It would be awfully ham-handed if, as Mr. Sestak claims, an administration official presented the situation as an explicit quid pro quo: Don't challenge Mr. Specter and the Navy (or another job) is yours. Would it be illegal? Mr. Specter said so, but ethics laws do not seem designed for this circumstance. Ordinarily, bribery takes place in the opposite direction: Government officials aren't usually the ones offering something of value. Other statutes prohibit officials from using their power to interfere in an election, or to, directly or indirectly, promise a job as "reward for any political activity." But these have been understood to prevent official coercion, not criminalize horse-trading.

    Still, the White House position that everyone should just trust it and go away is unacceptable from any administration; it is especially hypocritical coming from this one. "I'm not going to get further into what the conversations were," Mr. Gibbs said Sunday. "People that have looked into them assure me that they weren't inappropriate in any way." This response would hardly have satisfied those who were upset during the previous administration about the firing of U.S. attorneys. If there was nothing improper, why not all that sunlight Mr. Obama promise



    Parent
    Your link does not (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by MKS on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:49:35 PM EST
    show a denial of a job offer--but of a quid pro quo.....

    You are being very fast and loose with language here....

    Parent

    And I doubt an official "offer" was (none / 0) (#157)
    by MKS on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:12:14 PM EST
    extended.....It was probably an inquiry by an administration official as to Sestak's interest in a particular job.....

    There could be no "offer" as there would be other contingencies such as vetting and Congressional approval.....

    The administration official, unless a complete idiot, would have said something like, "Congressman Sestak, are you interested in the position of Secretary of the Navy?  The Chief of Staff and National Security Advisor think that you are really well qualified for this position.  If you are interested, there are some things we would be required to do before we could nominate you for the position."

    They obviously do this all the time--get people lined up for government positions that require Congressional approval.  And the White House has very good lawyers to tell people how to go about this.....

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#162)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:18:19 PM EST
    But taking the WH word on faith is silly.  That's why both sides need to be more forthcoming. And you are not accounting for the fact that many WH officials, whomever they are, while not idiots, are arrogant and think they wouldn't get caught.

    A good lawyer would not just assume one side is telling the truth - they would want answers.  What good does it do for Sestak to make the charge in the first place if not true?  Angering the WH?  Yeah, that seems like good strategy, especially as he still would have been a Congressman if he lost the primary.

    I just don't understand why the WH (if they are so smart) would deny a conversation ever took place and then admit a conversation took place.  It's a stupid and unnecessary headache for them and red meat for Rep. Issa et al.  Why lie if there's no reason to?  You seem to forget that in your analysis.

    Parent

    No, jb, that is incomplete lawyering (none / 0) (#144)
    by MKS on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:58:20 PM EST
    What was said by the administration....That is the issue....

    Not what was the reason for the job offer.....

    If Sestak were being deposed, this issue would be resolved in 30 minutes.....

    Perhaps someone in the administration made the offer as a quid pro quo....but why would anyone with half a brain do that?  There was simply no need.  Of course, if he takes the job, he can't take another job....

    You do tend to always assume the worst about Obama--even when it makes no sense to do so.....Or maybe it is a bias of a prosecutor--taking a statement that could be interpreted in at least two different ways and drawing the inference that assumes criminal guilt.....   Hammers looking for nails....

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#153)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:05:46 PM EST
    Someone made a claim of criminal activity.  The question was "Were you offered a job in exchange for dropping out of the race?"  The answer was "Yes."

    The WH denied a conversation took place.  Then the WH said, "Well, we DID have a conversation, but we talked about it with our lawyers, and they said nothing bad happened.  Don't worry your pretty little heads about it."

    Rendell thinks both sides should be more forthcoming.  So does Anthony Weiner.

    This is a distraction, but as the WaPo editorial said - this is cr@p we would have hollered about with the Bush administration, but with Obama, it's "Keep moving, nothing to see here."

    If each side has nothing to hide - come clean.

    Parent

    Oh Well (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:15:08 PM EST
    "Were you offered a job in exchange for dropping out of the race?"

    And I though that you were at least a good stenographer..... So much for that idea.

    Parent

    No, Sestak did not make a claim (none / 0) (#160)
    by MKS on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:14:14 PM EST
    of criminal activity--that is your conclusion based on an inference that defies common sense....

    Parent
    Why not (none / 0) (#166)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:21:55 PM EST
    Check it out?  Your conclusion is that the WH is telling the truth - we know they have a history of lying, as all administrations do.  Why do you hold them above all others?

    Pols are pols.

    Sestak AND the WH need to come clean.

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:24:16 PM EST
    It turned out that Clinton lied, and after untold waste of money, and time, the truth came out. Feel better now?

    Parent
    Why not check out (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by MKS on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:36:27 PM EST
    Obama's long form birth certificate, too?

    You see, it never ends.....And, sure it is possible that the White House is lying--but highly unlikely....and even if they are, it is very highly unlikely that there was a quid pro quo.

    And, I didn't read the original Gibbs quote as saying there was no "conversation" but rather there was no "offer."

    You can create all kinds of scenarios that "might" involve criminal activity....The trick is to call for an investigation to keep the accusation up in the air as long as possible....That is how it is done....

    Parent

    Now you're just being crazy (none / 0) (#188)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:50:00 PM EST
    Listening to what a former three star admiral and member of Congress is equal to siding with birthers.

    O-kay.

    Parent

    Your interpretation of (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by MKS on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:55:21 PM EST
    what a three star admiral has said.....

    Parent
    My interpretation (none / 0) (#199)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 05:07:41 PM EST
    Is that Joe Sestak, when asked,"Is it true that you were offered a high ranking job in the administration in a bid to get you to drop out of the primary against Arlen Specter?"

    Said "Yes".

    That is the only thing we know for sure.  

    Your assumption is that nothing untoward happened, but of course, you have no facts to back that up.  My assumption is that the WH is too squirrely about this and should just clarify what did or didn't happen, and I don't have any facts other than Sestak's statement.  That's it.  I don't know if, in this case, laws were broken (hence the need to come clean and put it behind us).

    Personally, I always thought that's how everyone got their jobs here - but Capt Howdy is right - this thing has legs whether you or squeaky in her delusions - wants it to be otherwise.

    Parent

    i agree (none / 0) (#117)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:26:53 PM EST
    so it seems the only thing to do is get Sestak to say what you just said.

    which seems unlikely.  but maybe.


    Parent

    More (none / 0) (#119)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:29:08 PM EST
    After yesterday's taping, Sestak said he recalled the White House offer coming in July, as he was preparing to formally announce his Senate candidacy in August. He declined to identify who spoke to him or the job under discussion. Sestak also would not say whether the person who approached him worked for the administration or was an intermediary for the offer.

    "I'm not going to say who or how and what was offered," Sestak said in an interview. "I don't feel it's appropriate to go beyond what I said," because the conversation was confidential.

    Sestak, 58, a retired Navy admiral, has said that some Pennsylvania Democratic leaders have tried to entice him to drop his campaign with promises of support for other offices in the future. He also has said that Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, urged him to run when Specter was still a Republican, then tried to force him out after Specter switched parties.

    But Sestak has brushed aside talk of White House pressure.

    "He asked me the question, and I had to answer it honestly," Sestak said of his exchange with Kane. Sestak said he had declined the job offer immediately and added, "The person said, 'I knew you'd say that.' "

    Philly Inquirer

    Parent

    Wet Dreams... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:32:50 PM EST
    looks like you have the smoking gun... go get em..

    lol

    Parent

    Enter Durbin asking Sestak to (none / 0) (#129)
    by MKS on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:42:27 PM EST
    clarify.....and it was Durbin who was the one to ask Sestak because he is not part of the administration.....

    This is not rocket science...is everyone that dense that they don't get it???

    Good Gawd, Sestak, the whole thing has been outlined for you....on an engraved invitation.

    I am not sure which is more depressing--the idea that Sestak can't take a hint and clarify, or that someone in an administration would be stupid enough to expressly ask Sestak to drop his run for the Senate.....

    Are we so engulfed with incompetents?....

    Parent

    and (none / 0) (#131)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:45:10 PM EST
    do we really want to know?

    Parent
    Yup, that's what I was thinking (none / 0) (#156)
    by ruffian on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:10:53 PM EST
    Durbin is giving you permission to tell the story, Sestak. Do it. The issue is not going away and you will have to talk eventually. Get it over with.

    Parent
    Tooting my kid's horn (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Dadler on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:15:14 PM EST
    Waiting for audio capabiities... (none / 0) (#79)
    by kdog on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:47:13 PM EST
    to check out the spawn of Dadler blowing a horn...awesome bro.

    I remember the thrill of playing for my dad...he never attended a concert band performance, pops didn't attend any school functions except graduation...but he came to see some of my two-bit bands rock out dingy bars back in the day...he'd bring all his drinking buddies and scream "that's my boy" at the top of his lungs...best of memories.

    Hopefully your boy sticks with it and you get to see him blow for many years to come.

    Parent

    My mom ... (none / 0) (#103)
    by sj on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:07:19 PM EST
    ... didn't attend many school functions either (Dad couldn't. worked out of town during the week), but she always went to every band concert. I appreciated it in that distant sort of kid way, but didn't understand it until my nephew took band.

    Oh my, but those first concerts are a hoot!  Literally!  So many squeaks and squawks and missed cues!  All so earnestly done.  I nearly wet my pants with stifled laughter.  Thank goodness for darkened auditoriums or my sister and I would have had to sit on the floor. Or leave.  Pure entertainment, that.

    But then!  Over time, to hear as the students improve and become real musicians.  You feel such pride and wonderment at their perseverance and progress.  It's a beautiful thing.


    Parent

    I hear that... (none / 0) (#109)
    by kdog on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:17:32 PM EST
    my nieces first string orchestra concert was rough on the ears boy...but so warm to the heart.  

    This world needs music more than ever...and with all the budget problems all around its the first thing schools look to cut...what a shame that.

    Parent

    yep (none / 0) (#165)
    by sj on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:21:29 PM EST
    cutting the arts = shooting ourselves in the foot.  The students suffer.  And so will our society in the long run.

    Parent
    RIP Art Linkletter (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:46:02 PM EST
    aw... (none / 0) (#185)
    by sj on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:40:56 PM EST
    ...that's too bad.  World's a little dimmer place now.

    Parent
    website of the day (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:35:34 PM EST
    That reminds me---I need to prune my (none / 0) (#2)
    by observed on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:37:04 PM EST
    bonsai kitten.

    Parent
    WTF! Blogs on American Idol, American terrorists (none / 0) (#4)
    by rennies on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:43:51 PM EST
    getting out of Peruvian jail, but NOTHING on the monster catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico! C'mon people. Doesn't anybody here care? What about Obama's (non) response? This clearly can become his Katrina.

    We're Morans (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:48:20 PM EST
    anyway (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:48:56 PM EST
    who cares about oil when there are dogs to talk about

    Parent
    Top Kill will take ten hours to two days (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:51:54 PM EST
    What the hell am I to do in the meantime?  The upside down dog site is so funny though.  I went through about ten pages before I realized I was going to be there all day.  I did keep it open though in my browser.

    Parent
    so (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:54:12 PM EST
    they are definitely doing it?

    Parent
    They started an hour ago (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:59:50 PM EST
    It will take at least (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by ZtoA on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:11:04 PM EST
    a day, if not a couple of days, to see if this TopKill is a success or not. Nail biter.

    I really still think BP should stop using dispersants altogether. Read an interesting post at FDL . I highly recommend this. Its a bit involved for those of us (like me) who have not studied chemistry, but its still very informative.

    Evidently the EPA is not happy with Corexit or the vast quantities of dispersant chemicals being dumped onto the GOM.

    Ms. Jackson said that in theory, BP's deployment of dispersant directly onto the l well head, a novel use of the chemicals, would reduce the amount of oil on the surface and the need for application of dispersant there. She said the company could reduce its use by 50 percent to 75 percent, regardless of which dispersant was used.

    Rear Adm. Mary E. Landry of the Coast Guard said that while the government had approved the use of dispersant beforehand, "no one anticipated that it would ever be used at this scale and this scope."

    Admiral Landry said the preferred method of responding to oil on the ocean was to burn it or to soak it up with devices like absorbent booms. Dispersant applications should be a second line of defense, for when the weather is too severe to rely on other techniques, she said.

    It was not clear how the environmental agency would enforce the demand that BP reduce its use of the dispersant.

    "We are continuing to use Corexit while we're still working with E.P.A. on alternatives," Mark Salt, a spokesman for the oil company, said by telephone from Texas on Monday morning. Asked Monday evening about the request that the company at least reduce its use of the Corexit dispersant, he said he had not heard about the proposal and added, "Again, We're still working closely with EPA."

    Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, a leading critic of BP since the spill, and chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, welcomed the E.P.A.'s latest actions. "We know almost nothing about the potential harm from the long-term use of any of these chemicals on the marine environment in the Gulf of Mexico," he said, "and even less about their potential to enter the food chain and ultimately harm humans." link

    To my knowledge Corexit is still being used. Seems BP is completely running the show.

    Parent

    The dispersants... (none / 0) (#112)
    by kdog on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:19:43 PM EST
    remind me of methadone to the oil's heroin, replacing one poison with another...doesn't sound good to me either.

    Parent
    Add... (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by kdog on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:30:25 PM EST
    and something might be making the clean-up crews sick....the oil, the dispersants, lack of proper equipment, all of the above?  Link

    Parent
    Maybe it's because Jeralyn and (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by observed on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:50:55 PM EST
    BTD write what they know---which is a good thing.


    Parent
    maybe you should try (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:46:56 PM EST
    reading a bit before spouting off?

    hum?

    Parent

    You need to (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:47:02 PM EST
    Read through the many threads here.  Many commenters have done marvelous jobs chronicling the gulf spill up-to-the minute.

    Parent
    Can't speak for J (none / 0) (#102)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:07:11 PM EST
    But I have been as busy as all get out.

    You may not have noticed, but I have not posted on much of anything for the past few weeks.

    Not knowing much of anything about the Deep Water situation, I was not going to use mu very limited time to write something that would be less informed than a google search.

    Parent

    Do I detect a note of sarcasm? (none / 0) (#158)
    by ruffian on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:12:58 PM EST
    Holy War in NYC... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:50:51 PM EST
    Some town board meeting was held last night over the muslim community center planned near the WTC site...needless to say it got heated, but the plan has been approved. I, for one, got no problem with it.  Here's a well-written op-ed by the muslim dude behind the project...hopefully it chills people out a little.  Link

    Meanwhile, some lady from the UWS has bought a buncha bus ads to promote a website encouraging people to leave the muslim faith.  I, for one, got no problem with this either...glad the MTA hasn't cowered and pulled the ads.  

    Let freedom ring baby...it's a beautiful thing.

    it was (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:53:08 PM EST
    like, 29 to 1 or something, right?

    not much of a war then


    Parent

    Amongst board members... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:00:11 PM EST
    I guess not...but the people speaking at the meeting, in the letters to the editor pages of the papers, and around the water-cooler here...oh baby it's been a hot one.  

     

    Parent

    I can imagine (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:04:43 PM EST
    the topic seems to bring out the very worst in people.

    Parent
    Yeah... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:14:15 PM EST
    I was subjected just this morning to a inter-cube convo of why everything wrong in the universe is the fault of muslims and undocumented immigrants...my co-workers really need to lay off the Fox...they're f*ckin' shot.  

    Parent
    scapegoats and whipping boys (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:15:43 PM EST
    wonderfully convenient things.

    Parent
    Yep... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:26:46 PM EST
    we all got our boogey-groups...some of us just have better taste in boogey.

    I mean hello!  Goldman Grift, BP, IMF/World Bank, CIA, the police...

    Parent

    My son is reluctant to be done (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:58:33 PM EST
    with his occupational therapist at school because he confides in her about his clashes with his classmates.  Joshua is sort of Buddhish agnostic right now, but lately has been talking about how research on the brain indicates that we could be wired to need faith in a greater being.  One of his friends though told him that he was going to burn in hell (an overused Southern threat :) and he discussed it with her and she confided in him that she is Christian but will not join an organized church because they always start to lose it :)  He just loves her, they talk about everything.  

    Parent
    lucky kid (none / 0) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:00:32 PM EST
    everyone needs one of those.

    Parent
    That's cool... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:08:14 PM EST
    of you to let the little guy find his own way...was always grateful to my parents for not indoctrinating me into some nonsense...after first communion I was allowed to opt out, and opt out I did.

    I think if it had been up to pops I never woulda even been baptised...but moms was/is still a quasi-believer.

    Parent

    It is my way (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:19:36 PM EST
    I told both of my kids to figure out for themselves what they believe.  I explain to them what I believe and why, and their dad does too.  He's like even more strange than I am.  He has some pagan thing going on.  I challenge them though to read different philosophies and dig a little into who they are.  Look out for the salespeople too, they just want your tithe :)  God, one of my grandfather's was always howling that religion was for the weak minded too.  And I didn't have a clue what he was howling about until adulthood hit me and some of my friends cashed in personal accountability for religious addiction.  The local JW church stops by here regularly too.  I can't help it, I like them as people.  I got into one hell of a fight though with their minister when he showed up here last year.  I told him I was Buddhist when he was prodding me, he told me he feared for me, I told him I feared for him....it was just ugly after that :)  Oy, and when I told him that many Buddhists consider Christ a Buddha...though one of many, I might as well have called Christ a filthy MoFo :)

    Parent
    Great thing (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by CST on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:23:41 PM EST
    about Jehovas Witnesses - they don't believe in hell.

    I just tell them I am happy to become worm meat and they are free to enjoy their eternal paradise without me.

    Parent

    I love a good debate... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by kdog on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:30:41 PM EST
    on the front stoop with the Jehovahs...I do that sh*t for fun.  

    Though they haven't been around in sometime...maybe I'm blacklisted:)

    Parent

    yea (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by CST on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:39:31 PM EST
    my ex was jehova but also scientifically inclined.

    So he would come up with all these crazy ways to align the two ideas.

    Such as the idea that angels might have been aliens coming down from the "heavens".

    Also, his opinion about Judaism was that they had things right but they were behind the times and forgot to evolve and add Jesus.  When I pointed out Muslims might feel the same way about Christians and Mohammed, he conceded the point and I think I made him a little nervous...

    Heaven is a very alusive thing.  Much better to aim one's sights on this life.

    Parent

    We've had some past tensions (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:45:07 PM EST
    that have centered upon Joshua and his gene mutation.  I know they feel empathy for him, but damn it don't tell me about how in the afterlife he will be perfect.  His Buddhist mother and my whole family have spent ten years getting Joshua to understand that as far as the universe is concerned he is perfect.  He is exactly the way the universe intended him to be.  Yes, we've had some tensions :)  By God I'm waiting for the end to really start living!  I'm living now!

    Parent
    I think the Dot (none / 0) (#60)
    by nycstray on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:36:41 PM EST
    got me blacklisted. She saw them coming up the walk and did her big girl bark. They turned around so fast it was hilarious! They didn't even make it to the porch :)

    Parent
    Dot's got the devil in her! (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:38:00 PM EST
    Have you thought about a canine excorcism?

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by squeaky on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:42:24 PM EST
    I have told those folk that I worship the devil, and that has not fazed them one bit, had to close the door and tell them to go away.

    But, some folk, for good reason, fear dogs more than god or the devil.

    Parent

    I'm glad these ones feared dogs (none / 0) (#83)
    by nycstray on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:50:42 PM EST
    I really hate to be bothered with God speak.

    Parent
    Naw, I like the lil' Devil too much ;) (none / 0) (#75)
    by nycstray on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:43:40 PM EST
    It was funny as heck though. Looks on their faces was priceless.

    Parent
    You would think four German Shepherds (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:40:57 PM EST
    would deter mine, but nope. They stand in the driveway and bark at them and they just keep on coming :)

    Parent
    probably used to it. (none / 0) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:44:33 PM EST
    Good for you, MT (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Zorba on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:51:11 PM EST
    My husband is an agnostic/bordering-on-atheist.  I was raised Greek Orthodox and still go to church.  I took my kids to church with me until they reached about middle school, at which point neither wanted to go any more (except when their grandparents were visiting, out of respect for them), and I said "Fine."  Today, one is what I would describe as a Deist, the other an agnostic/atheist.  Both are humanists.
    Regarding the Jehovah Witnesses- they don't seem to come around here any more.  I had the habit of brushing them off until one day, my husband and I were out in the garden when two of them came up to us.  No escape!  Well, I had read some of their literature in the past, told them that I read Greek, including New Testament Greek, and that their translations of the New Testament were faulty, and gave them a whole bunch of examples.  They had nothing else to say, thanked me, and crept away.  (They never came back.  Not just them- I mean no JW's.  Maybe they put a skull and crossbones on my address or something.)  While all this was going on, my husband was getting beet red from suppressed laughter, which he let loose after they were gone.

    Parent
    Ugh. Some lady is Pamela Geller, (none / 0) (#99)
    by Joan in VA on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:03:59 PM EST
    Islamophobe, Obama conspiracy theorist, Ayn Rand acolyte, wingnut extraordinaire. She once said this in an appearance on CNN:"A liberal is someone who takes a limousine to get an abortion." She is demented.

    Parent
    Sounds like a real winner... (none / 0) (#122)
    by kdog on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:32:09 PM EST
    but luckily that is still allowed.

    Parent
    are you ready for (none / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 01:59:24 PM EST
    zombo.com?

    make sure you have sound

    Ruh Roh (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:29:15 PM EST
    You just knew we'd see him.  I was thinking about him the other day while Allen had the skimmers just sitting there.  Lt. Gen. Russel Honore has hit the media and he says the President needs to invoke the Stafford Act.  What the hell is that :)?  And he says we are just in the first quarter of this disaster :)

    I saw (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:32:35 PM EST
    a guy last night who had what seemed to me at least like an interesting idea.

    we have all these gigantic tankers that hold millions of gallons so why dont we mobilize every one we can lay our hands on and send them to this area and start sucking up the oil and water mix.  it should be possible to separate it, no?

    signed
    clueless and asking.

    Parent

    That has been done for other spills (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Joan in VA on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:12:23 PM EST
    so why not? Because BP says they can't do anything but deal with the gusher and the gov won't do anything without BP's okay. BP apparently only has one employee and he is busy. The President of Plaquemines Parish is on CNN every night, losing his mind, because he can't even get an okay to build sand berms.It would be comical if it weren't so tragic.

    Parent
    Former Shell Oil president (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by caseyOR on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:21:08 PM EST
    If it's the same guy I saw, on Charlie Rose, he's the former president of Shell Oil. The tanker thing was used in a giant oil spill in the middle east a few years ago. A formation of tankers swept the spill area sucking up the oil/water. This guy seemed to think it would work in this current Gulf crisis, and he didn't understand why BP and the government weren't trying multiple already proven methods to deal with this.

    Apparently, the middle east spill he spoke about was effectively kept out of the press. It was, he said, a major spill, very large.

    I, too, can't understand why everything isn't being tried RIGHT NOW to deal with this catastrophe.

    Parent

    BP says no (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:35:34 PM EST
    BP states there are too many vehicles in the way.  They displayed animated pictures with the ships and the lines and equipment hanging down and say there is no room.  Too busy.

    Others, getting more vocal, say the tankers should have priority.

    Parent

    well duh (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:40:02 PM EST
    move the damn ships.

    Parent
    also (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:40:58 PM EST
    I am so ready for someone to tell BP to STFU and push pull or get the hell out of the way.

    Parent
    The spill was a Saudi problem and the (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by caseyOR on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:46:56 PM EST
    tankers worked great. A man who was working for the Saudis at the time has been repeatedly blown-off by BP and the Coast Guard.

    Parent
    On their way (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:00:22 PM EST
    Visas are being expedited for people from Saudi and Brazil.  BP needs to go.  Nelson (FL) suggested Colin Powell?  A commentor at another site suggested Gore as a face.  I don't know about Gore but a face would be effective.  

    Might be nice to start looking like govt can do something.  Making BP stop blocking media so people can see what is going on might help.

    Parent

    Josh asked this too (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:35:37 PM EST
    I don't know. It can't be worse than the other remedies being used.

    Parent
    Shouldn't it separate (none / 0) (#68)
    by nycstray on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:40:01 PM EST
    on it's own? You would think they would have been out there on day one sucking up their precious oil . . .

    Parent
    Just add (none / 0) (#73)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:43:05 PM EST
    vinegar and water - that should separate it!

    Parent
    exactly (none / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:43:16 PM EST
    I was wondering when he was going to (none / 0) (#53)
    by nycstray on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:32:21 PM EST
    pop up :)

    Parent
    Several hours ago I posted a comment (none / 0) (#64)
    by rennies on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:38:48 PM EST
    that was not accepted. I'll try again. Why is Sestak, A the Gulf?merican Idol etc. more important than the monster catastrophy i
    the Gulf? Why isn[t anybody on this list interested in it, its politics (e.g. Obama's non response etc)?

    what do you mean (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:42:42 PM EST
    it wasnt accepted?  

    and can you read?  I assume you can if you can type.
    would you like us all to take a break and run around wildly waving our hands and screaming or what exactly?

    Parent

    Please, please (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by jbindc on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:44:26 PM EST
    Make a video of that!

    Parent
    Let me help you out. (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by coast on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:52:25 PM EST
    In the Menu sectionse select Home.  Once there, scroll down to the Tuesday Night Open Thread.  Open it and have at it.  Only about half the comments relate to the oil spill in one way or another.

    Parent
    Your other comment is here... (none / 0) (#84)
    by sj on Wed May 26, 2010 at 02:50:54 PM EST
    ...on this very page.  

    Apparently you didn't read the response to it.  

    Or the rest of the comments on the page.

    Or discussions on other pages.

    Parent

    Game 5 tonight (none / 0) (#128)
    by CST on Wed May 26, 2010 at 03:41:02 PM EST
    Celtics v Magic

    I have a secret fear that this year the angry sports karma gods are coming back in a wicked way.

    See, ever since Boston came back from down 3 to the Yankees to win the series and then their first title... being up 3 games in a series lost it's invincibility.

    Already this year the Bruins were up 3 against the Flyers and lost.  This has never happened in basketball.  But it had never happened in baseball either.  And it's hardly an every day occurrance in hockey.

    I'm hoping that by stating this fear the karma gods will recognize they have already won and let me off the hook for this series.

    Go Celtics!

    They are not sucking me into this one! (none / 0) (#175)
    by ruffian on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:30:32 PM EST
    Not staying up till midnight to watch the Magic come close in the last 10 minutes, then lose.

    I don't think being up 3 in the series has lost its aura of invincibility quite yet. :-)

    Parent

    honestly (none / 0) (#183)
    by CST on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:36:52 PM EST
    I missed most of the games because of conflicts.  Game 4 was the first one I saw in it's entirety.  I'm wondering if I should just skip this one and do the whole city a favor.

    Yes I am very superstitious about sports.

    Parent

    Rand Paul becomes Rand Pol (none / 0) (#192)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:53:41 PM EST
    Kentucky U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul has reshuffled staff and replaced campaign manager David Adams in the wake of last week's Civil Rights Act blow-up.


    It's only illegal if there's specific (none / 0) (#193)
    by Radix on Wed May 26, 2010 at 04:53:56 PM EST
    quid pro quo. If you drop out, I'll make you Secretary of the Navy,or whatever. If,on the other hand, the WH saw Sesstak running and just offered him the job, no harm no foul.

    ah little Stevie (none / 0) (#200)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 05:10:06 PM EST
    torn between (none / 0) (#201)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 26, 2010 at 05:13:26 PM EST
    horror and hilarity.

    Ardi Rizal Smoking VIDEO: Sumatran 2-Year Old Smokes 40 Cigarettes A Day

    you have to see the video to get the hilarity part.