# 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:** 16
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/301 "2010-06-04T20:03:06Z")
Maureen Dowd? Well, _now_ we’re doomed. ---
**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, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/302 "2010-06-04T20:15:57Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > If it were going to happen, it would have started already. Please. > > _Spike Lee?_😃 Do you have a reading comprehension problem? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/303 "2010-06-04T20:33:59Z")
I’m not the one who’s arguing against the data. Always a precarious thing to do, ya know. ---
**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, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/304 "2010-06-04T21:37:58Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > I’m not the one who’s arguing against the data. Always a precarious thing to do, ya know. Huh? Are you sure you are in the correct thread? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2010, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/305 "2010-06-05T01:33:45Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Do not make this a personal squabble. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2010, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/306 "2010-06-05T01:51:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That doesn’t make any sense. Even if we assume that Obama and his team were a cabal of criminal plotters, what did Sestak do that was wrong? Do you think that former President Bill Clinton arranged a meeting with Sestak because he looks like Lewinski? It takes 2 to tango. Sestak had to have known what was going on and willingly participated in the discussion. > [@Bricker](#): > > With all due respect, it appears you’re just grabbing at random bits of information that are tangentially related to the subject and posting htme here as though they form some coherent picture. It was in direct response to a question about it’s effect in the polls. It wasn’t a random post. I’m not going to get into a “my poll is more accurate than yours” but Rasmussen showed Sestak with a 4 point lead 2 weeks ago. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2010, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/307 "2010-06-05T14:28:23Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Do not make this a personal squabble. > > [/Moderating] Nothing personal. I used the future tense twice in reference to the fallout. **ElvisL1ves** is apparently not reading my posts. Hence, the question. Nonetheless, I will try my best to refrain from using remarks like this regardless of the response to my post. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2010, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/308 "2010-06-05T15:22:37Z")
You’re predicting something will happen that the data contradicts, based on, well, nothing at all other than hope. You need to do better than that, pal. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/309 "2010-06-06T12:18:13Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Do you think that former President Bill Clinton arranged a meeting with Sestak because he looks like Lewinski? It takes 2 to tango. Sestak had to have known what was going on and willingly participated in the discussion. There’s absolutely no evidence of that. And there’s inferential evidence against it: but for Sestak’s revelation, we (the public) would never have known about the offer in the first place. So you would have me believe in a Sestak so conspiratorial he agrees in advance to meet with Clinton, knowing the subject will be a job offer (an illegal job offer, by your lights) and then is struck with an attack of conscience and reveals the event? But his conscience does not nudge him any farther than a bare statement of the existence of an offer, and so he says the details will have to come from the White House? Again respectfully… that just doesn’t seem likely. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/310 "2010-06-06T14:10:08Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > May I be the first to say, “cite?” You mean “ask”, not “say”. He said “if”, not “is”. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/311 "2010-06-06T18:09:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There’s absolutely no evidence of that. And there’s inferential evidence against it: but for Sestak’s revelation, we (the public) would never have known about the offer in the first place. > > So you would have me believe in a Sestak so conspiratorial he agrees in advance to meet with Clinton, knowing the subject will be a job offer (an illegal job offer, by your lights) and then is struck with an attack of conscience and reveals the event? But his conscience does not nudge him any farther than a bare statement of the existence of an offer, and so he says the details will have to come from the White House? > > Again respectfully… that just doesn’t seem likely. I would have you believe that Sestak new why a former President of the United States set up an appointment with him. I suggest the offer wasn’t sweet enough to conduct business and the “attack of conscience” was an unintended answer to a question. What is the debate here? Should Sestak burn more bridges with full disclosure? That’s like asking if Geitner should pay his taxes for the years not audited. ---
**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 6, 2010, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/312 "2010-06-06T18:50:29Z")
You’ve already gotten full disclosure. Nothing noteworthy happened. Nothing remotely illeal or unethical happened. This is a dead story. You’re desperately performing CPR on a rotting corpse. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/313 "2010-06-06T19:19:54Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You’ve already gotten full disclosure. HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/314 "2010-06-06T20:15:37Z")
You might have been better served to specify which information you have been denied. Mind, this refers exclusively to information that exists outside of your imagination, and will require a citation, your skills at telepathy notwithstanding. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/315 "2010-06-06T20:30:07Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You might have been better served to specify which information you have been denied. Mind, this refers exclusively to information that exists outside of your imagination, and will require a citation, your skills at telepathy notwithstanding. The debate of the thread is whether or not Sestak should “squeal”. The idea that he has fully disclosed the details of the offer is naive at best. If you want to forward the opinion that it’s not in his best interest (or the party’s) that’s fine but a carefully crafted letter from a group of WH lawyers is not transparency. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/316 "2010-06-06T21:20:08Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The debate of the thread is whether or not Sestak should “squeal”. The idea that he has fully disclosed the details of the offer is naive at best. If you want to forward the opinion that it’s not in his best interest (or the party’s) that’s fine but a carefully crafted letter from a group of WH lawyers is not transparency. To you, perhaps. But it’s completely consistent with Obama’s campaign promises, which is the only thing I ever thought was at issue here. When I opened this thread, Sestak had spoken out but the White House had not, which i thought was fair ground to question the commitment to transparency. Now the White Hose has spoken out, and that closes the matter. You are, of course, free to continue to discount what they’re saying, but it’s unclear what kind of evidence you WOULD consider sufficient. I am convinced that the White House has, acceptably if a tad belatedly, fulfilled their promise. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2010, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/317 "2010-06-07T03:14:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > To you, perhaps. But it’s completely consistent with Obama’s campaign promises, which is the only thing I ever thought was at issue here. When I opened this thread, Sestak had spoken out but the White House had not, which i thought was fair ground to question the commitment to transparency. Now the White Hose has spoken out, and that closes the matter. > > You are, of course, free to continue to discount what they’re saying, but it’s unclear what kind of evidence you WOULD consider sufficient. > > I am convinced that the White House has, acceptably if a tad belatedly, fulfilled their promise. That’s fine, if you think someone can issue a statement and that settles things it’s your prerogative. There are past presidents who wished it was that easy. I don’t see anything transparent about a WH letter with no detail regarding what transpired between Clinton and Sestak. It isn’t worth the money to investigate it and unless they’ve left a paper-trail it would be tough to prosecute. ---
**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 7, 2010, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/318 "2010-06-07T03:24:15Z")
It didn’t lack any details, nor did anything happen that was relevant to the public anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2010, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/319 "2010-06-07T03:28:09Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It didn’t lack any details, nor did anything happen that was relevant to the public anyway. If Nixon were alive he’d marry you. ---
**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 7, 2010, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/320 "2010-06-07T03:29:48Z")
What details do you think you’re entitled to that you didn’t get? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604.md?page=17)