# Should Sestak Squeal? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 24, 2010, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604 "2010-05-24T18:53:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/261 "2010-06-03T17:01:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > [Washington, June 3] White House sources confirmed again today that the President exercised his powers under Article II of the United States Constitution. > > Yes, what a story! Aren’t you clever! If there is no story here then I wonder why the media is even bothering with it. Since you seem unable to see this from any other angle than a strict legal interpretation I’ll explain it to you. Whether it is illegal or not, the fact that the president is trying in influence senate races by offering opponents of his favored candidates (i.e. those most likely to win and preserve the dem majority) positions to not run does not sit well with the public. The white house is, at the very least, aware of this. They have no other reason to lie about the job offers if they are not illegal. Since it’s such a non-story I wonder why the media even bothered to report that there was a second such offer of employment made to Romanoff. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/262 "2010-06-03T17:05:54Z")
Yeah, the media never chases bullshit stories. The media followed Paris Hilton’s car to jail. The media is stupid. I would not rely on media attention as a barometer of legal significance. Having said that, the media is , by and large, ignoring this non-story. It’s mostly only the right wing echo chamber that keeps trying to pump life into it. Sorry, but nothing illegal has been alleged. There’s no way around that inconvenient fact. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/263 "2010-06-03T17:10:15Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Aren’t you clever! If there is no story here then I wonder why the media is even bothering with it. Since you seem unable to see this from any other angle than a strict legal interpretation I’ll explain it to you. Whether it is illegal or not, the fact that the president is trying in influence senate races by offering opponents of his favored candidates (i.e. those most likely to win and preserve the dem majority) positions to not run does not sit well with the public. The white house is, at the very least, aware of this. They have no other reason to lie about the job offers if they are not illegal. > > Since it’s such a non-story I wonder why the media even bothered to report that there was a second such offer of employment made to Romanoff. If it does not sit well with the public, it is because the public either doesn’t remember or never knew that such offers have been _de rigeuer_ for presidential administrations stretching back before living memory. The media that is pushing this story now is mainly media that is historically hostile to the current President and his current party. Indeed, I am not known as a fan of the Democrats. But I have no trouble defending this practice, because it’s manifestly legal and manifestly common. You’re entitled to read, say, **elucidator** or **Diogenes** on this point and question their objectivity, but surely you’ll agree it’s highly unlikely that I have reached my conclusion through blind partisan support. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/264 "2010-06-03T17:12:54Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Aren’t you clever! If there is no story here then I wonder why the media is even bothering with it. Since you seem unable to see this from any other angle than a strict legal interpretation I’ll explain it to you. Whether it is illegal or not, the fact that the president is trying in influence senate races by offering opponents of his favored candidates (i.e. those most likely to win and preserve the dem majority) positions to not run does not sit well with the public. The white house is, at the very least, aware of this. They have no other reason to lie about the job offers if they are not illegal. > > Since it’s such a non-story I wonder why the media even bothered to report that there was a second such offer of employment made to Romanoff. The story within a story is the fact that Democrats are turning on the President as if he is political poison. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/265 "2010-06-03T17:24:05Z")
No they aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/266 "2010-06-03T17:31:11Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The story within a story is the fact that Democrats are turning on the President as if he is political poison. Please. The man still has approval ratings in the 48% range. When Lincoln was told that General Grant was a drunk, he supposedly considered all the battles Grant had won and observed that each of his other generals should get a barrel of whatever whiskey was Grant’s favorite. So that that vein… the GOP sure could use some poison like that. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/267 "2010-06-03T17:44:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Please. The man still has approval ratings in the 48% range. > > When Lincoln was told that General Grant was a drunk, he supposedly considered all the battles Grant had won and observed that each of his other generals should get a barrel of whatever whiskey was Grant’s favorite. > > So that that vein… the GOP sure could use some poison like that. [This](http://www.gallup.com/poll/139337/Obama-Weekly-Approval-Average-Dips-New-Low.aspx) is a good rating trend? I hope they don’t name any ships after him. Sestak and Romanoff are doing the President a great disservice with their public statements. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/268 "2010-06-03T17:53:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If it does not sit well with the public, it is because the public either doesn’t remember or never knew that such offers have been _de rigeuer_ for presidential administrations stretching back before living memory. There is a difference between “knowing” what’s going on out of sight and actually seeing the same thing going on. Both sides admitted to it in this case where, in the past, people assumed (probably correctly) that this sort of horse trading was occurring. > [@Bricker](#): > > The media that is pushing this story now is mainly media that is historically hostile to the current President and his current party. Of course. The same thing happened in reverse under Bush. Remember the the firing of the US attorneys? One side is always pushing the story. What’s your point? > [@Bricker](#): > > Indeed, I am not known as a fan of the Democrats. But I have no trouble defending this practice, because it’s manifestly legal and manifestly common. You’re entitled to read, say, **elucidator** or **Diogenes** on this point and question their objectivity, but surely you’ll agree it’s highly unlikely that I have reached my conclusion through blind partisan support. I certainly did not accuse you of blind partisan support. Either you or someone defending you seems to make that point in every political thread that you post. The point I was making is that you don’t seem to see this from a political perspective. My post that you originally responded to was mainly about the political fallout and you respond by saying nothing illegal happened with a very sarcastic tone. You DO realize that something can be completely legal and seen as completely wrong by the public? ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/269 "2010-06-03T18:25:48Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The story within a story is the fact that Democrats are turning on the President as if he is political poison. I think the BP oil spill is having much more of an effect on peeling off Dems from the administration but this story isn’t helping. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/270 "2010-06-03T18:26:18Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > [This](http://www.gallup.com/poll/139337/Obama-Weekly-Approval-Average-Dips-New-Low.aspx) is a good rating trend? Consistent 50% approval despite having to deal with ta double fronted military conflict and a recession is is very good indeed, yes. The year before Reagan was reelected, his approval ratings were in the 30’s. Don’t get too excited. Barack Obama is still, by far, the most popular elected politian in the US. No Republican comes close. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/271 "2010-06-03T18:27:44Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Consistent 50% approval despite having to deal with ta double fronted military conflict and a recession is is very good indeed, yes. The year before Reagan was reelected, his approval ratings were in the 30’s. Don’t get too excited. Barack Obama is still, by far, the most popular elected politian in the US. No Republican comes close. The only thing consistent about the graph I linked was a downward trend. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/272 "2010-06-03T18:28:43Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > There is a difference between “knowing” what’s going on out of sight and actually seeing the same thing going on. Both sides admitted to it in this case where, in the past, people assumed (probably correctly) that this sort of horse trading was occurring. > > Of course. The same thing happened in reverse under Bush. Remember the the firing of the US attorneys? One side is always pushing the story. What’s your point? > > I certainly did not accuse you of blind partisan support. Either you or someone defending you seems to make that point in every political thread that you post. The point I was making is that you don’t seem to see this from a political perspective. My post that you originally responded to was mainly about the political fallout and you respond by saying nothing illegal happened with a very sarcastic tone. You DO realize that something can be completely legal and seen as completely wrong by the public? The Sestak thing has had no political consequence at all. The only people trying to make something of it are the ones who already think Obama is a Kenyan-born, secret Muslim Antichrist anyway. It’s not actually moving anyone’s opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/273 "2010-06-03T18:29:47Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The only thing consistent about the graph I linked was a downward trend. It’s actually been flat for months. Keep getting your hopes up, though. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/274 "2010-06-03T18:34:34Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > I think the BP oil spill is having much more of an effect on peeling off Dems from the administration but this story isn’t helping. The BP spill is having no serious political effect either. It’s not like people are going to swarm to the “Drill baby drill” party because of it. If there’s any political effect on Obama, it’s only that people want him to appear more aggressive towards BP, but there isn’t really anything any President could do about plugging that hole. The whole BP disaster is yet another inherited disease from the previous administration. Attempts to spin it as “Obama’s Katrina” have not been successful outside the conservative echo chamber. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/275 "2010-06-03T18:38:33Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s actually been flat for months. Keep getting your hopes up, though. Looks like we’re both happy. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/276 "2010-06-04T01:54:27Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The BP spill is having no serious political effect either. It’s not like people are going to swarm to the “Drill baby drill” party because of it. If there’s any political effect on Obama, it’s only that people want him to appear more aggressive towards BP, but there isn’t really anything any President could do about plugging that hole. The whole BP disaster is yet another inherited disease from the previous administration. Attempts to spin it as “Obama’s Katrina” have not been successful outside the conservative echo chamber. Are you on the Obama payroll? Man, the blame Bush thing was old a year ago. Next you’ll be blaming Bush for the Gores’ divorce. I don’t think you have a firm grasp of politics. Nobody is talking about leftists all of a sudden becoming republicans. But, when people are frustrated with a politician, or a party, they just don’t show up at the polls to pull the lever for that politician or that party. And, yes, this is Obama’s Katrina. I personally don’t think there is too much that the Feds can do about this oil spill. But, people expect the president to solve all the problems so Obama is, and will continue, taking a serious political hit for this. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/277 "2010-06-04T03:00:32Z")
It hasn’t shown up in the polls yet. Obama is still at 50% in the Gallup today. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/278 "2010-06-04T06:13:44Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It hasn’t shown up in the polls yet. Obama is still at 50% in the Gallup today. [Gallup approval is 46%](http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/presidential-approval-center.aspx) which is the same as disapproval rate. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/279 "2010-06-04T13:14:26Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > And, yes, this is Obama’s Katrina. I personally don’t think there is too much that the Feds can do about this oil spill. But, people expect the president to solve all the problems so Obama is, and will continue, taking a serious political hit for this. I think this is true. And I think it’s absurd. There’s virtually nothing Obama could reasonably do that he hasn’t done. I’m sure he’s taking a (small) hit for this, and I’m equally sure it’s undeserved. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/280 "2010-06-04T16:24:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think this is true. And I think it’s absurd. There’s virtually nothing Obama could reasonably do that he hasn’t done. I’m sure he’s taking a (small) hit for this, and I’m equally sure it’s undeserved. That’s kinda the problem with expecting the federal government fix all that’s wrong in the world. The larger the nanny state becomes the more we expect, and the more upset we are when faced with its limitations. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604.md?page=15)