# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/81 "2010-05-27T16:50:23Z")
You said > [@](#): > > According to Axelrod it would be a serious crime if true Unfortunately, nothing in your quote supports that claim. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/82 "2010-05-27T17:22:36Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > All I did was post a quote but who better than you to correct the President’s Senior Advisor. You should send him an email pointing out the error. Might be a job in it for you. Can you provide the context for the remark? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/83 "2010-05-27T17:24:04Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You said > > Unfortunately, nothing in your quote supports that claim. I’m not making any claim, I quoted the President’s Advisor. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/84 "2010-05-27T17:31:30Z")
No, you’re quoting some blowhard in a second-string newsrag, as **Dio** already explained. What your own post says Axelrod said was “I have spoken with the people who looked into this, and they tell me nothing inappropriate happened.” NOT that it would be a serious crime if true. Which is what you said he said. Lawdy. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/85 "2010-05-27T17:32:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Hmmm. > > Well, I agree it’s pathetic. > > I don’t think Sestak’s claim is all that dubious, but I think the inference that there’s a crime here is beyond dubious – it’s downright absurd. Then why did you post the OP? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/86 "2010-05-27T17:58:12Z")
Teaching the controversy. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/87 "2010-05-27T17:59:06Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > No, you’re quoting some blowhard in a second-string newsrag, as **Dio** already explained. What your own post says Axelrod said was “I have spoken with the people who looked into this, and they tell me nothing inappropriate happened.” NOT that it would be a serious crime if true. Which is what you said he said. > > Lawdy. :rolleyes: I’m quoting what he said. Video [here](http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/25/axelrod-no-evidence-that-sestak-is-telling-the-truth/). The “blowhard newsrag” editorial simply pointed out that someone is going to take a hit on this, either it’s Sestak for lying or someone in the White House for making the offer as a condition of bowing out of the election. ---
**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:** [May 27, 2010, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/88 "2010-05-27T18:05:12Z")
No one is going to take a hit. Nothing happened. It is not illegal to offer somebody a job. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/89 "2010-05-27T18:09:45Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > …someone in the White House for making the offer as a condition of bowing out of the election. What “condition”? There wouldn’t have been the slightest need for a “condition”. The famous pundit Some Guy posited today that its kind of like asking someone to marry you, you don’t have to add the “condition” that they not marry somebody else, you pretty much know that already. We’ll know more once Slestak tells us what job was being offered, so far he seems rather coy about that. If the job offered had something to do with the Navy, that’s pretty kosher, he has considerable experience. If he was offered a chance to lead Environmental Protection, that would be something else entirely. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/90 "2010-05-27T18:42:53Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No one is going to take a hit. Nothing happened. It is not illegal to offer somebody a job. True, although maybe “hit” means political damage. For example, there has not yet been much analysis of my question concerning Obama’s commitment to transparency and how that commitment might factor in to this discussion. Acknowledging that it’s not remotely illegal, does the principle of transparency nonetheless compel the administration to reveal what, if any, discussion about jobs they might have with Sestak? ---
**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:** [May 27, 2010, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/91 "2010-05-27T18:47:04Z")
No. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/92 "2010-05-27T19:05:48Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No. I’d be more interested in the reasoning than the conclusion. ---
**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:** [May 27, 2010, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/93 "2010-05-27T19:09:21Z")
Because it serves no public interest. Is he supposed to publish transcripts of every conversation anyone in his administration ever has with anyone it’s interested in hiring? Why should there be this new rule for Obama that’s never existed for any other administration before? ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/94 "2010-05-27T19:10:19Z")
Well for all we know the conversation went something like this: SEStAK and RAHM talking SESTAK: Why shouldn’t I run? RAHM: Because we (BLEEP)ing working our (BLEEP)ing (BLEEP)s off getting Specter to switch. SESTAK: But he has been a Republican most his life. RAHM; (BLEEP) that noise. He helped us pass the Stimulus and Health Care. SESTAK: So what am I supposed to do, just drop out. RAHM: Yeah, you better (BLEEP)ing drop the (BLEEP) out, you (BLEEP)ing prick. SESTAK: C’mon man, calm down. I am just exploring my options. RAHM: Calm down? Are you (BLEEP)ing telling me to (BLEEP)ing calm down? Here’s an option, you can work (BLEEP)ing cleaning the (BLEEP)ing dog(BLEEP) on the White House lawn. _Quid pro quo_ ---
**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:** [May 27, 2010, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/95 "2010-05-27T19:24:23Z")
Was Sestack even officially announced as a Senatorial candidate at the time? If it’s a crime to offer even a potential candidate a job, then was every President whoever hired a sitting Congressman or Senator committing a crime? After all, they’re all up for reelection sometime. Wasn’t it Johnson who said he did this kind of thing because it was better to have some people on the inside of the tent pissing out than on the outside pissing in? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/96 "2010-05-27T19:30:29Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Why should there be this new rule for Obama that’s never existed for any other administration before? Well, presumably because he suggested, during the campaign, that his administration would be more transparent than any other administration before. That certainly suggests there would be a new rule, if not more than one, for his administration that never existed before, or else how could he keep the promise to be more transparent than previous administrations? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/97 "2010-05-27T19:31:49Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Was Sestack even officially announced as a Senatorial candidate at the time? > > If it’s a crime to offer even a potential candidate a job, then was every President whoever hired a sitting Congressman or Senator committing a crime? After all, they’re all up for reelection sometime. > > Wasn’t it Johnson who said he did this kind of thing because it was better to have some people on the inside of the tent pissing out than on the outside pissing in? I don’t know, but no one in this thread (I think) is arguing it’s a crime. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/98 "2010-05-27T19:56:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Acknowledging that it’s not remotely illegal, does the principle of transparency nonetheless compel the administration to reveal what, if any, discussion about jobs they might have with Sestak? I can see that Obama may have some things to explain in 2012 when someone asks about “the most transparent Administration in history” and yet there were some facts or discussions that the White House did not want in the public domain. Shocking, isn’t it? I’m not sure I can tell if this is the most transparent administration in history, but there is nothing whatsoever wrong about the White House having private political discussions with members of either party. There’s nothing wrong with possibilities of job offers being kept private – it isn’t like the public has a reasonable expectation to know of each person who may have been interviewed for an Administration position. I’ve said it before: the White House need not be totally transparent to be more transparent than previous White Houses. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/99 "2010-05-27T21:21:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t know, but no one in this thread (I think) is arguing it’s a crime. except for the Senior Advisor to the President who is calling Sestak a liar. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2010, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604/100 "2010-05-27T21:29:18Z")
There was a mention of the Sestak issue in [today’s press conference about the gulf oil spill](http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-gulf-oil-spill). > [@](#): > > Secondarily, can you tell the American public, sir, what your White House did or did not offer Congressman Sestak to not enter the Democratic senatorial primary? And how will you meet your levels of expressed transparency and ethics to convey that answer to satisfy what appear to be bipartisan calls for greater disclosure about that matter? Thank you. > > THE PRESIDENT: There will be an official response shortly on the Sestak issue, which I hope will answer your questions. > > Q From you, sir? > > THE PRESIDENT: You will get it from my administration. And it will be coming out – when I say “shortly,” I mean shortly. I don’t mean weeks or months. With respect to the first – > > Q Can you assure the public it was ethical and legal, sir? > > THE PRESIDENT: I can assure the public that nothing improper took place. But, as I said, there will be a response shortly on that issue. So there should be more fuel for this fire at some point. Enjoy, Steven [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-sestak-squeal/540604.md?page=6)