The New Republic

No, we cannot, Jonathan. I say investigate and prosecute this normal practice to the utmost. If we allow this, what will be next, cash for votes? Oh, wait a minute, K Street already exists and has a huge footprint in DC.

- liberal reformer

May 27, 2010 at 12:58pm

I am having some fun on Frum forum on this issue, the Republican protestations are amusing. “The offer seems to have come after Sestak had already announced he was in the process of deciding to join the race.” “Sestak has already indicated that he thought the offer was directly because the White House wanted him out of the race.” Is what one poster claims is sufficient to indict someone. Of course he thought that but no one can prove it. If I ask a woman out on a date she can think I want to sleep with her and I can want to sleep with her, but unless I explicitly state that I am taking her out to eat with the expectations of sleeping with her she can not accuse me of it. This is logic. To Republicans every date is solicitation to a form of prostitution, I buy you a dinner, you sleep with me. To all the rest of humanity, it is simply a date. I have to imagine the conversation went something like this: Obama admin. “we hear you are not going to run for your seat again, we think you have unique talents and would like for you to join our administration, let us know soon.” Sestak: “No thank you, I am going to run for Senate.” Obama admin. “Ok, tell us if you change your mind.” By the way, I love the Republican objection is to the seeming impropriety of the offer. Do they even know the meaning of the word seems? Have you ever heard of Prosecuting attorney say: “Convict this defendant because he seems to be guilty?”

- blackton

May 27, 2010 at 2:13pm

Of course demanding 'special prosecutors' and investigations is absurd. But I am surprised Chait seems so willing to forgive the administration on this. No, nothing illegal happened here, but this story does put a lie to Obama's incessant claims about how he doesn't play 'politics as usual' and has 'the most transparent White House' etc. The fact that Obama is just another politician (albeit a particularly good one) should not come as a shock to anyone, but this doesn't diminish that what allegedly happened still constitutes double-talk and hypocrisy. The media is right to call him out on it. Moreover, the administration's "trust us" attitude about the whole affair (they consulted with White House lawyers and it all checked out!) should strike anyone who cares about good government as troubling. Again, ascertaining that nothing illegal or even immoral happened misses the point. Its another case of Washington perpetuating principle-less incumbencies -- and comes from an administration that says it's above it all. Jon should acknowledge that while not being illegal, it's at the very least, disappointing.

- josh_y

May 27, 2010 at 2:45pm

You guys are great-cherry picking the least persuasive arguments (as if that's the universe of arguments). I understand that Mr. Sestak has claimed, numerous times, that the communications were: we don't want you in the race and we have a job for you. If people told the truth, it'd be easy to figure out the process. Someone stands up and says: we had a opening in X department, Joe was uniquely qualified, and I recommended an offer be made. That person hasn't appeared. Or, is it uglier: some number of administration officials are in a room, discuss how to get Joe out, and say-we can get him a good job here or there. The intent is totally different. I think it's harder to appreciate the real story when the administration is dancing around the event. Blackton-your characterizations of Republicans are always juvenile, unsupported by evidence and almost too silly to take seriously-so I won't.

- lobosven

May 27, 2010 at 2:46pm

I wish that there were a miscellaneous comment section out here. But given that there is not, I feel free to break away from the given topic on occasion. Andrew Sullivan is being unintentionally hilarious over at the Dish again today. A reader writes in and asks if there is any conceivable Zionist/Jewish state that the Arabs will accept permanently. This is a softball question for Andrew; he doesn't run comments from readers at the Dish, so he parcels out what he wishes from those who write to him. Andrew shoots back that Egypt and Jordan have made peace with Israel. Ah yes, Andrew, but Egypt's "peace" is a cold peace and it is highly unpopular among the Egyptian people. The uninitiated would not know that from reading the Dish and Andrew certainly won't be informing them of such messy little realities. He also won't be telling them that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a hot seller in Amman and Cairo and Damascus. Any peace in such a climate in the region is a suspect peace, unless you have the widespread acceptance and toleration of a people. Capiche, Andrew? Also, mentioning "Saudi Arabia" and "peace" in the same sentence is hilarious. Yes, the Saudis fronted a peace initiative a few years ago because they want to be a regional player. Their sincerity is another matter. My view is that their hearts are attached to this matter the way my heart is attached to the Omar al-Bashir regime in Khartoum. And speaking of that ghastly regime in eastern Africa, there is something very amiss with a blogger who treats Israel with the scorn and anger and condescension that should be reserved for the likes of the Sudanese genocidaires.

- liberal reformer

May 27, 2010 at 2:47pm

This is all just a sign that Republicans learned their lesson from the Clinton impeachment: Don't wait until the second term. Today, the call is for a special prosecutor to investigate whether anything illegal happened. If tonight the White House released transcripts showing that nothing untoward happened, Republicans tomorrow would call for a special prosecutor to investigate why the White House stonewalled for so long. If Republicans can get a special prosecutor appointed, and if they win the House this fall, "grounds for impeachment" can be manufactured in time for winter 2011-2012.

- rhubarbs

May 27, 2010 at 2:48pm

Which is not to mention the ludicrous spectacle of Mukasky calling for a special prosecutor. Good thing there were no borderline illegalities committed during the Bush administration or it might've been necessary for him to appoint one. Words fail me.

- I Majorajam

May 27, 2010 at 3:06pm

thank you bubulobo, an insult from you is always a pleasure to me, it says I must have hit a real nerve and you must have yelped when you read what I wrote. Thanks, you made my day!

- blackton

May 27, 2010 at 3:18pm

I'm thinking that the White House should appoint a Republican candidate out there as a Special Prosecutor. You know, it get's them out of their race...

- tedski

May 27, 2010 at 3:26pm

without Sestak explicitly stating that the Obama administration offered him a job on those conditions, no crime can be alleged. Supposition is no cause for a fishing expedition. Fundamentally, the Republicans are presuming guilt and demanding the Democrats prove otherwise. That said, I still think Sestak should state (for his own political career) exactly what was said, but he should not be compelled to. If that were to happen, every job offer in the future would have to have the actual offering vetted, which would be a never ending nightmare.

- blackton

May 27, 2010 at 4:34pm

Karl Rove did this exact same thing in 2004-- tried to offer Democrat Ben Nelson Sec. of Ag to get him out of Senate. When Nelson refused, Rove instead awarded the post to Nelson's likely rival in the upcoming Senate Race, Mike Johanns, clearing the path for Nelson's reelection. Republicans then approached Nelson to see if he'd like to flip parties. When Republicans are in charge, this is just "smart politics." Also, the fact is that Joe Sestak is a smart and talented guy-- would it really be so bad to offer him a job in the executive branch? I mean, he's no Tim Griffin, but he was an admiral....

- corby_t_drone@yahoo.com

May 27, 2010 at 5:01pm

Suppose for a minute that things happened just as Sestak has suggested -- the WH offered him a position with the hope that he'd take it and thus drop out of the Senate race. And keep in mind that there's _no_ indication that anything worse than this happened. That is, we're assuming that the facts are as "bad" for the Administration as they could possibly be (based on what's been alleged). It seems entirely understandable that the Administration would not want to confirm that they offered Sestak a job -- aside from it seeming vaguely sordid and "political," they would then have to identify which job it was, which could embarrass whoever has that job now, and could also undermine his/her authority. At the same time, they don't want to lie and deny the story. So they say that nothing improper happened. And, for the reasons Jonathan has been saying, that seems to be true. But then the "why should we trust them" responses are senseless. Their "nothing improper happened" is not a _factual_ claim, to which the press might well make such a response. Rather, it's a _legal_ claim. What it amounts to, even though the Administration doesn't want to spell this out all the way, is, "Even if the factual allegations are correct, what happened was not improper." Put slightly differently, they're not saying "the offer never happened"; they're saying "nothing improper happened."

- TARFON

May 27, 2010 at 6:05pm

Just politics -- a field inhabitied by, and reported on, by amoral idiots. Washington (CNN) -- White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel used former President Bill Clinton as an intermediary last year as part of a failed administration effort to dissuade Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak from running for the U.S. Senate, according to a publicly released memorandum from the White House legal counsel's office. Top White House lawyer Robert Bauer conceded that "options for Executive Branch service were raised" for Sestak, but insisted that administration officials did not act improperly. He characterized the attempt to influence Pennsylvania's Democratic Senate primary -- ultimately won by Sestak -- as no different from political maneuvers by past administrations from both political parties.

- mr_rationale

May 28, 2010 at 4:42pm