Obama Administration Bribery?

[NoScotsman]

Some of us just find it a tad disingenuous that this newfound zeal on the part of Republicans for "anticorruption measures" against things like this only appears during the Obama administration.

As a rationalist I'm against government corruption. I don't care who is responsible for it. Democrat vs. Republican pissing contests don't interest me much.

 

[Lurker]

Clinton offered Sestak a job that, if accepted, meant that Sestak couldn't hold a Senate seat, making a Senate run pointless (meaning that any kind of direct "if you don't run, I'll give you a job" offer would be needlessly moot, if not massively troublesome)

Rove, likewise, offered Nelson a job that, if accepted, meant that Nelson couldn't hold a Senate seat, making a Senate run pointless (meaning that any kind of direct "if you don't run, I'll give you a job" offer would be needlessly moot, if not massively troublesome).

Sestak was actively running (or about to run) for the seat. Further, Obama's rep from reports seemed stupid enough to say the job was available if he dropped his candidacy. Nelson was a sitting senator. He may have run in the future but was he actively running at the time of the request?

Let's be honest - Rove wasn't offering Nelson the Cabinet post because the Administration thought he'd do a bang-up job. He offered Nelson the post to get him out of the Senate and to ensure that the Republican appointed to replace him would be the incumbent candidate in the upcoming election, giving him an edge in both the primary and the general. In other words, the job offer to Nelson was just as much about "influencing" an upcoming Senate race as the offer to Sestak (and I use the word "influencing" skeptically, since in both cases the "influence" came before there was even a primary, much less a full election, making these efforts somewhat akin to trying to rig the World Series by offering a job to a pitcher during Spring Training).

By your logic a President could never offer ANY senator a job yet somehow we see that it happens all the time. It has to do with quid pro quo and the timing of the offer.

This is less about a defense of a "preferred party", and more about highlighting the inconsistency bordering on hypocrisy of Issa. Either what Rove did is just as bad as what Clinton did, or it's not. If they're both bad (or both perfectly acceptable), why did Issa stay silent when it was a Republican administration doing this, but is going on cable news channels now that it's a Democratic administration doing this?

But they are not the same thing. Sure, teh end result is about the same but the means to arrive at it are not. The means are under scrutiny, not the end result.

Me, I think both events are standard politics, and while I have no love for Rove or Bush, neither one of them would have deserved accusations of bribery and threats of impeachment over the offer to Nelson any more than Clinton and Obama deserve them over the Sestak thing.

I tentatively agree. I think they need to flesh out the intent of hte law a bit better. I find it hard to credit that offering someone a job should be all that wrong.

 

[leftysergeant]

Corrupt politics is bad for democracy. Period.

Corrupt politics would involve putting a grafter in place. It isn't happening here.

...also, some Democrats actually want a hand in picking their candidates ... instead of Obama forcing the establishment stooge down their throats.

Nobody was trying to force a candidate on anyone. The Democrats wanted to keep the seat in Democratic hands, but did not want to torpedo a valuable public service to do it.

Contrast this to what an idiot like Mitch McConnel would do. He basicly threw the sitting Senator under the bus and now he has the rotting albatross of Rand Paul hanging around his neck.

 

[Unabogie]

Wow. Where did that come from? Alexander Hamilton had some questionable appointments, too.

The hoops some folks jump through in order to rationalize bad behavior never seems ceases to amuse me...

Corrupt politics is bad for democracy. Period.

...also, some Democrats actually want a hand in picking their candidates ... instead of Obama forcing the establishment stooge down their throats.

The problem is that there's nothing corrupt about this. As Bush's own ethics adviser describes it, it's "ginned up". I agree. And the point is that when Reagan and Bush did this, not only did hacks like Issa not find anything wrong with it, neither did Democrats. That's because there's nothing wrong with it. Offering people other ways to serve to avoid messy primaries is a valid form of party politics and should not be illegal (it isn't), or controversial (it wasn't until just this year, fancy that).

 

[MikeMangum]

The problem is that there's nothing corrupt about this. As Bush's own ethics adviser describes it, it's "ginned up". I agree. And the point is that when Reagan and Bush did this, not only did hacks like Issa not find anything wrong with it, neither did Democrats. That's because there's nothing wrong with it. Offering people other ways to serve to avoid messy primaries is a valid form of party politics and should not be illegal (it isn't), or controversial (it wasn't until just this year, fancy that).

So is that an argument that the law should be changed, or is it an argument that we should simply ignore violations of the law?

 

[Unabogie]

So is that an argument that the law should be changed, or is it an argument that we should simply ignore violations of the law?

It's not against the law.

 

[leftysergeant]

So is that an argument that the law should be changed, or is it an argument that we should simply ignore violations of the law?

I still have not seen a righty present a good explanation of how this is covered by any of the "applicable" laws.

Even if both parties did something similar, Obama still comes off looking better than the Shrub because he is not trying to appoint useless excuses for huiman beings to important posts just for partisan considerations.

 

[MikeMangum]

It's not against the law.

Hrmm... Are you sure about that?

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/29/600

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment,
position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit,
provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of
Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such
benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any
political activity or for the support of or opposition to any
candidate or any political party in connection with any general or
special election to any political office, or in connection with any
primary election or political convention or caucus held to select
candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Whoever promises any government position (or special consideration for that position) in return for any political activity related to a general or primary election...

 

[leftysergeant]

Whoever promises any government position (or special consideration for that position) in return for any political activity related to a general or primary election...

He was not offered money, nor was he expected to provide any support for the Specter campaign. Bu-bye.

 

[NoScotsman]

The problem is that there's nothing corrupt about this. As Bush's own ethics adviser describes it, it's "ginned up". I agree. And the point is that when Reagan and Bush did this, not only did hacks like Issa not find anything wrong with it, neither did Democrats. That's because there's nothing wrong with it. Offering people other ways to serve to avoid messy primaries is a valid form of party politics and should not be illegal (it isn't), or controversial (it wasn't until just this year, fancy that).

I agree on one point: political parties are under no obligation to run candidates in primaries ... they are free to choose them in back room deals (You know, 1930's Chicago-style politics). However, if you're going to offer people the illusion of freedom and transparency, you had better be competent enough to bribe somebody quietly, without having someone within your own ranks waving the dirty laundry.

Myself, I'd welcome the chance to vote for the more progressive candidate in these two races ... but alas, I have no voice.

 

[Unabogie]

Hrmm... Are you sure about that?

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/29/600


Whoever promises any government position (or special consideration for that position) in return for any political activity related to a general or primary election...

That's not about offering jobs to people to clear the field in a primary. That's about bribing people to vote a certain way. There's a really good reason no one's brought this up before even though it's been going on for 200 years.

And it ain't because people were just trying to be polite.

Did you miss Bush's lawyer on this? Did you think he was somehow shilling for Barack Obama? It's a sham, designed to score political points. It's not illegal. It's not bribery. And it shouldn't be illegal (it's not) because there's nothing wrong with it. It's not even unseemly. It's not even against the spirit of any law. It's fine. It's how it should be played.

Clear enough?

 

[NoScotsman]

Nobody was trying to force a candidate on anyone. .

What?! The whole idea in these two cases was to avoid a costly battle in the primaries where both candidates would get "unnecessarily bloodied."

Obama wants the party to save dollars for the general election...

I can't believe I have to explain simple stuff like this ...

 

[Unabogie]

I agree on one point: political parties are under no obligation to run candidates in primaries ... they are free to choose them in back room deals. However, if you're going to offer people the illusion of freedom and transparency, you had better be competent enough to bribe somebody quietly, without having someone within your own ranks waving the dirty laundry.

Hey, when did these goal posts get here? They weren't here a minute ago! Curious!

Look, Teabaggers love to talk about transparency. This, after eight years of a government so secret they wouldn't even tell congress what they were doing. And now all of a sudden Teabaggers care about transparency? Please. But let's talk about transparency. What did you think that meant? That they'd put their party playbook online? Post nuclear secrets? Really, what? It's perfectly clear to anyone not drunk on Lipton Tea that they were talking about putting bills online, passing laws forcing the government to disclose who they talk to, who gives them money, etc. This isn't that. This is about party politics and there's no reason them to make that transparent, any more than Republicans should.

But I'm glad to see you are all on board with transparency now. I think you should call your congressman and ask him to demand the minutes and participants of Dick Cheney's secret energy task force.

 

[NoScotsman]

Hey, when did these goal posts get here? They weren't here a minute ago! Curious!

Look, Teabaggers love to talk about transparency. This, after eight years of a government so secret they wouldn't even tell congress what they were doing. And now all of a sudden Teabaggers care about transparency? Please. But let's talk about transparency. What did you think that meant? That they'd put their party playbook online? Post nuclear secrets? Really, what? It's perfectly clear to anyone not drunk on Lipton Tea that they were talking about putting bills online, passing laws forcing the government to disclose who they talk to, who gives them money, etc. This isn't that. This is about party politics and there's no reason them to make that transparent, any more than Republicans should.

But I'm glad to see you are all on board with transparency now. I think you should call your congressman and ask him to demand the minutes and participants of Dick Cheney's secret energy task force.

Wow. If you had any reading comprehension ... you'd realize I'm a progressive. Can't Obama supporters talk about transparency as well ... seeing that was what Obama ran on?

Also, explain the bit about goalposts ... I don't see them moving.

 

[Unabogie]

Wow. If you had any reading comprehension ... you'd realize I'm a progressive. Can't Obama supporters talk about transparency as well ... seeing that was what Obama ran on?

Also, explain the bit about goalposts ... I don't see them moving.

Is it my fault you sound like a Teabagger? Firebaggers, Teabaggers, they all seem to gravitate to the same tired talking points.

As for goalposts, they constantly move from "IT'S ILLEGAL!" to "EVEN THOUGH IT'S CLEARLY NOT ILLEGAL, I WAS PROMISED TRANSPARENCY!". The OP is about bribery. It's clearly not bribery. Now, we're on to some sort of amorphous notion of transparency which conveniently has no definition and no boundaries. Unless you can point me to where Obama said he'd never conduct any business at all behind closed doors, you're simply trying to score points based on a straw man. I'll wait here while you fetch that.

 

[applecorped]

Is it my fault you sound like a Teabagger?

Yes, it's your fault.

 

[Unabogie]

Yes, it's your fault.

Good thing that's settled, then.

 

[BeAChooser]

Like when Reagan did it.

That's an outright lie. Reagan did not do what the Obama Administration did in the Sestak and Romanoff cases.

Here are the facts, courtesy of ABCNews:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...-he-agreed-to-not-run-for-reelection-in-.html

In efforts to defend President Obama from the controversies involving Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Penn., and former Colorado speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff -- Democratic Senate candidates whom the White House made efforts to coax out of their challenges to incumbent Democratic Senators -- the White House and its allies have argued that a similar offer was made by President Ronald Reagan's White House when trying to coax a weak incumbent out of his re-election race.

But the Reagan White House official involved tells ABC News that that's not true, and he’s supported by press accounts at the time.

… snip ...

Onto this scene in November 1981, enter Ed Rollins, Reagan's incoming political director.

Asked by an Associated Press reporter if President Reagan would offer Hayakawa a job if he decided not to run for reelection, Rollins, underlined that the White House was not negotiating with Hayakwa but said: "If the senator chooses, on his own initiative, not to run for re-election, I'm sure the president would be willing to offer him a substantial administration post."

Rollins told the AP reporter "it has never been discussed" so it would be "purely speculative to say" what job Hayakawa might be offered. "We are clearly not encouraging it," he said.

Asked to respond, Hayakawa said, "I'm not interested... I do not want to be an ambassador, and I do not want an administration post." In a statement, Hayakawa said, "I have not contacted the White House in regard to any administration or ambassadorial post, and they have not been in contact with me."

Hayakawa dropped out of the race in January 1982. Wilson went on to win the GOP nomination and defeat Brown. Hayakawa was never appointed to a position in the Reagan administration. He died in 1992.

Reached for comment today, Rollins told ABC News that the AP interview took place "when I was very inexperienced and didn't understand you don't answer hypothetical questions."

Hayakawa was facing a grueling primary, he noted, and "I was asked 'Would there be any place for Hayakawa if he left the Senate?'" And he gave his answer.

"The senator had many friends in the administration including the president," Rollins recalled. "We never made an overture to him, there was never an overture to anybody by Hayakawa personally, it was purely a top-of-the head answer. We did not get involved in primaries."

 

[Unabogie]

That's an outright lie. Reagan did not do what the Obama Administration did in the Sestak and Romanoff cases.

Here are the facts, courtesy of ABCNews:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...-he-agreed-to-not-run-for-reelection-in-.html

So it's ok to openly offer him a job in the press? "If the senator chooses, on his own initiative, not to run for re-election, I'm sure the president would be willing to offer him a substantial administration post."

And of course George Bush offered Ben Nelson a job, Reagan offered a job via the press, Nixon offered a job to a slew of folks.Funny how this suddenly became a scandal to the Teatards.Here's Nixon, with the sign-off of Don Rumsfeld.

In the memo, Malek wrote that he had worked up the plan with various other White House aides and notes that it was reviewed by Don Rumsfeld. "In sum, we are recommending offering jobs to only three men, all of whom are connected with 1972 Gubernatorial races," Malek wrote.


Those men were John Altorfer, who was considering challenging Gov. Richard Ogilvie for the Republican nomination in Illinois, Republican Gov. Edgar Whitcomb of Indiana, who was term limited but Nixon aides hoped to convince to leave office early and Jim Holshouser, who was contemplating a run for governor in North Carolina. Nixon aides assessed that he "could not run a strong race" and could drag down Nixon in the state.

So this seems to be, what's that phrase...horsepucky?

Yep.

 

[BeAChooser]

== froveexactly what Bush and Reagan did?

And the claim that Bush did the same thing as Obama is also a LIE. Nelson wasn't running for the Senate at the time, nor was he asked not to run in the future as part of any job offer. In contrast, both Sestak and Romanoff were actively running for office at the time (in races it looked like they'd lose) and both were told if they dropped out of the race there would be a job for them in the Whitehouse.

Under democrat rules are Presidents not going to be allowed to offer sitting Senators who aren't up for reelection jobs of any kind? Did you ever stop to think that Bush's administration may have just thought Nelson would make a good agriculture secretary? Afterall, Nelson is from an agricultural state and a relatively moderate democrat.

And note this (http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Ben_Nelson ) "when Nelson declined (BAC - the job offer), the White House instead nominated Nebraska Gov. Michael Johanns, a Republican who posed the biggest threat to Nelson’s reelection chances." That's an odd thing to do if Rove's job offer was merely an effort to get the Senate seat from the democrats.