Posted on 05/29/2010 7:50:50 PM PDT by SilvieWaldorfMD
My in-box is quickly filling up with reactions and thoughts about what to make of the Joe Sestak "drop-out-of-the-Senate-race-and-we'll-get-you-a-job" story.
The mail is split between one side saying this is a non-story because it happens all the time, and the other side reminding us that President Obama promised "transparency" and that this would not be a "politics as usual" administration.
My own view is that both points are correct. It does happen all the time — and I'll get to that in a moment. That's not the view of Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who is saying this "could be President Barack Obama's Watergate scandal." Roll Call is reporting that Issa "posited that Obama, his aides and/or his emissaries could have committed multiple felonies and questioned whether 'corruption as usual is to be excused because it’s President Obama’s administration'”:
“Karl Rove would be — right now — in pretrial confinement if he had orchestrated this sort of a deal,” Issa added.
“This is punishable by prison,” Issa said. “It is a felony, and this is exactly what President Obama campaigned against, even the appearance of. In this case, there is a huge difference between rewarding a political supporter with an ambassadorship, which is done all the time and is legal, and a quid pro quo in which you make a promise for something — illegal — or the distorting of an election.”
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
So let them impeach Reagan and we’ll impeach Homie the president.
They’re so stupid that they’re capable to suggest that Reagan should be impeached posthomuously (sp?)
Well some of them are still seeking to impeach Bush and Cheney.
Nice try. Sorry but we are not letting this story die.
What is it with the comparisons to Reagan and these Leftists??
What about the way Lyndon Johnson used to act all the time? Will that make you forget about a felony that happened this year?
Takes a long time to explain, but it's all in "Rules for Radicals."
Did Reagan do as the article suggests?
That is what I have said.
If Dems feel that Reagan did something wrong, then let them call for an independent investigation alongside an independent investigation of the Obama administration in all of this.
If they say that Obama did nothing wrong then what is their beef with Reagan?
They can’t have it both ways.
If they then say that Obama, like Reagan, should not have an independent investigation started on him, then Dems should defend Obama against an independent investigation being conducted on his administration and not attack Reagan.
It is easy to destroy Democrat arguments in all of this.
Anyway, Obama himself destroyed the Dems defense of “everyone does it” when Obama stated officially that “Nothing improper took place” with or by his administration concerning Sestak and the contacts made with him.
darn, I hope not. if indeed this is correct....well, the ‘rats will def. use it.
They’ve been making the comparisons right out of the gate.
I wrote a vanity after Obama was elected dubbing him the “anti-Reagan” (which I believe he is) but I found it strange that the left was so EAGER to compare him to Reagan.
Just read "Rules for Radicals." They're hocking up some 28 year old bullsh!t charge in order to distract from the case. All it is is a misdirection. Try saying, "but all them other guys was speeding" when you get pulled over. The question isn't what Reagan did 28 years ago. It's what did Obama do less than four months ago. Did they promise Specter they'd plow the road if he'd switch parties? Who cares? What did a guy that's been out of office for 21 years and dead for six years do 28 years ago?
Sorry, Darkwolf, I like your posts and hope this isn't too harsh, but this tactic really cranks my wagger.
BTW, most Americans would laugh at Dems if Republicans said to them “Fine, start an independent investigation on Reagan in this matter” and Dems actually did just that.
Consider the source.
Yep, most Americans wouldn’t buy the Democrat argument of raising what happened a quite a few years back in an attempt to try to deflect away from Obama.
Just because it’s all over Google, doesn’t mean it’s accurate. If you Google Hayakawa’s name the first three pages are all within the past 2 days so their leftist slant is once again hanging out there. A reminder why I got rid of my Droid. I LOATHE the empire that is Google.
Did Sen. Hayakawa confirm this, or just a heard it through the grapevine reporting thingy?
It's important because we're supposedly the adults, the ones with high standards, who don't just change them to fit what feels good at the moment. Definitely bashing Obama feels good at the moment, but you're avoiding the real point of this particular piece. Certainly we're intelligent enough to take a break for five minutes to 'fess up to our guy doing it. If not, we are hypocrites--we say it doesn't matter when OUR guy does it, only when THEIR guy does it. I refuse to let the democrats dictate my ethical standards.
Sorry, Darkwolf, I like your posts and hope this isn't too harsh, but this tactic really cranks my wagger.
It's not a tactic on my part. Honesty and not having double standards isn't a tactic, it's the only way I know how to live.
It's got nothing to do with changing direction, it has everything to do with the question, did Obama do something illegal? If it's indeed true that Reagan did it, this story is over, whether or not we like it. And the reason it's over is because those of us around back then didn't denounce Reagan when he did it.
Sorry, but my ethics are more important than ANY party. This doesn't mean talking about Reagan will take OUR eye off the ball; it means the MSM and everyone in Washington can sit back and relax and say "Reagan did it" no matter what any of US think or say, and that's how they will wriggle out of this. And that won't be MY fault.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.