job bribe from white house
primary challenge
sestak
specter
stacking congress
white house interference in local elections
White House Offered Sestak a Job to Derail a Specter Primary Challenge
By AnjaP
@Rollo1 (16676)
Boston, Massachusetts
February 19, 2010 3:29pm CST
Rep. Joe Sestak (D - PA) revealed during a radio interview that the White House had attempted to bribe him into not challenging Senator Arlen Specter in the 2010 primary by offering him a high-paying job in the federal government.
The revelation came as an answer to a direct question, and after having (perhaps inadvertently) giving an honest "yes", Sestak refused to give any further details.
Sestak said the offer came in July, and it was during that same time period that President Obama convinced Rep Steve Israel not to challenge Kirsten Gillibrand in New York. We know that the news-worthy election in NY23 which put a democrat in the congress from that district came about because Obama offered the republican who held the seat for a job in the Pentagon.
How much do you think the White House should interfere in local elections to stack the Congress in their favor? Do these kinds of backroom deals make you feel that the White House is conspiring against the voters by depriving them of strong candidates who might challenge incumbents?
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/84755387.html?cmpid=15585797
1 person likes this
4 responses
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
19 Feb 10
This happens a lot more than you think, and sometimes there is a motive, and other times it just makes sense. If you have someone who would do a great job in helping to keep this country safe, than doesn't you want that person keeping us safe, or do you think that politics should win? Don't we want more bipartisanship in Washington?
@Rollo1 (16676)
• Boston, Massachusetts
20 Feb 10
I bet it does happen more than we end up knowing about, and that's part of what's wrong in politics in this country. As much as I don't want someone trying to handpick the opponents a candidate will face, I don't know if I would want someone to run for office if they were willing to trade it all in for a cushy job. Somehow that doesn't make me feel they were inspired to be in Congress by a need to serve their country.
It isn't the offering of positions in the government to people of the opposite party that worries me. It's the idea that any administration would interfere in local elections in order to bolster their party's numbers.
1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
20 Feb 10
Rollo, don't you remember all of the state constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage? Do you think that that influenced local, state, and federal elections? Don't you think that Bush's faith based initiatives influenced how local religious groups voted? That happens all of the time in federal government, you just have to look around and see.
2 people like this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
20 Feb 10
Rep. Sestak most certainly didn't say "the White House had attempted to bribe him", he said he'd been offered a job in July. In the article you linked to it says Sesztak was asked if it was the Department of the Navy and he wouldn't confirm that. I recall there being rumors that he'd been or was about to be offered that position last summer, before he'd made up his mind about running for the Senate. He certainly is qualified for that position as a retired Admiral and veteran of over 30 years. I really don't see how the President, regardless of which party he's from, appointing or offering positions to those he considers to be the best people for the respective jobs should be considered "backroom deals" or "bribery". Regarding Sestak, according to the article he had said the person who offered him the job said, "I knew you'd say that" after he'd turned it down and apparently that was the end of it.
I happen to like and respect both Sestak and Specter and I'm still undecided about my own primary vote. I intend to do as much research as I can before making up my mind. I don't see either of them or anyone from the Obama Administration as being "villains" in this. The Republicans hate Specter now saying it's for changing parties, but they were already going to try to defeat him in the primary if he'd remained in the GOP because he'd dared to go against the party on the stimulus. I can tell you that throughout all of Senator Specter's career in the Senate he'd gotten a great deal of support from Democrats and Independents as well as Republicans. His changing from one party to the other will make a difference int he general election to only the most die-hard party loyalists.
Annie
2 people like this

@Rollo1 (16676)
• Boston, Massachusetts
20 Feb 10
I didn't say they tried to force him to take the job, just that they were offering one if he'd agree not to run in the primary. I don't know what else to call it but a bribe - an incentive? a stimulus? a quid pro quo?
The point to the job offer isn't about getting the best people for the job, although I am sure that Sestak is highly qualified for whatever job they offered him. I am sure that if the person relaying the offer knew Sestak well, he was not surprised that he turned it down. None of that changes the reason it was offered.
Neither does Specter's popularity with the Republicans have anything to do with it. The offer came from the White House to another Democratic challenger. I have no idea how "the Republicans hate Specter now" relates to the Democratic White House trying to prevent other Democrats from running against Specter. Are you saying that the White House wants Specter to win because Republicans hate him?

@dragon54u (31633)
• United States
20 Feb 10
I don't believe the White House has any right to interfere in our elections and there should be criminal charges of attempting to bribe public officials!
The longer we have this administration the more corrupt we find it. When the government sways the elections, we the people have lost what little power we have--which is next to nothing right now.
The longer we have this administration the more corrupt we find it. When the government sways the elections, we the people have lost what little power we have--which is next to nothing right now. 1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16676)
• Boston, Massachusetts
20 Feb 10
They're not satisfied with their majority because some of those democratic congressman won't vote the way they tell them to. Therefore, they will do what is necessary to keep guys they can control and to prevent incumbent loss in the 2010 election. I don't suppose it's illegal for the White House to try to lure people out of races, but it's certainly politics at its worst.
1 person likes this
@ATrain (56)
• United States
19 Feb 10
I don't think this is illegal because they were not explicitly offering him a reward for something. It is more like they are offering him a job because then they know he won't run. this sounds like business as usual. I suppose you could call it a conspiracy.
That being said, if this is business as usual that is kind of disturbing. I don't like the idea of the government trying to "stack" elections because it interferes with true democracy.
2 people like this




