|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency |
flpoljunkie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 09:36 AM Original message |
It may be a 'big deal' to you, Luke Russert, but Sestak's 'job offer' is way down on our list |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Botany (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 09:37 AM Response to Original message |
1. "They" are making this stuff up in order to hurt Obama re Sestak Bribe |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cha (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 10:52 AM Response to Reply #1 |
15. Just like White and Ayers..and the birfers. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jezebel (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 09:45 AM Response to Original message |
2. They are working themselves into a froth over it. I have heard it called "Obama's watergate" and |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Peacetrain (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 09:47 AM Response to Reply #2 |
3. Damn they can't even give it 10 minutes can they.. Impeached? oh vey |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Deep13 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 09:49 AM Response to Reply #2 |
5. Answer: no. It's not a crime or even unethical. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
harkadog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 12:29 PM Response to Reply #5 |
25. 18 US Code 211 says differently unfortunately. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Deep13 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 01:11 PM Response to Reply #25 |
29. I realize the Fed. law doesn't actually require a quid-pro-quo... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
harkadog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 02:21 PM Response to Reply #29 |
30. I am originally from Chicago and was involved in politics there for 30 years. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cleita (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 09:51 AM Response to Reply #2 |
7. They would love to get him impeached over nothing, like they |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
karynnj (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 09:55 AM Response to Reply #7 |
8. The difference is that Clinton, though not quilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Zoeisright (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 10:31 AM Response to Reply #8 |
13. And that justified spending $40 million and hamstringing an administration? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
karynnj (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 11:23 AM Response to Reply #13 |
20. I didn't say that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Proud Liberal Dem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 11:32 AM Response to Reply #2 |
22. Media Anchors=Republicans (or at least Republican-enablers) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Deep13 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 09:48 AM Response to Original message |
4. It's not a bribe. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
flpoljunkie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 11:33 AM Response to Reply #4 |
23. You make a great point here. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Captain Hilts (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 09:50 AM Response to Original message |
6. That's correct. Let's get ahead of it and not let it become Big. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
craigmatic (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 09:55 AM Response to Original message |
9. This maybe technically illegal but administrations have been doing this for a while now. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ShortnFiery (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 11:18 AM Response to Reply #9 |
19. Yeah, so what Blago is getting prosecuted? When OUR GUYS do it, it's LEGAL. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jenmito (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 10:08 AM Response to Original message |
10. He said, "Some Republicans are calling this 'Obama's Watergate.'" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cha (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 10:53 AM Response to Reply #10 |
16. Whereas most republicons are so full shit.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hepburn (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 10:14 AM Response to Original message |
11. Luke Russert... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
WI_DEM (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 10:30 AM Response to Original message |
12. Luke Russert is a bloated example of nepotism at its worse. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
goclark (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 10:46 AM Response to Reply #12 |
14. "Son of Tim" was his entire resume |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 11:13 AM Response to Original message |
17. If this is against the law, why so? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
harkadog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 02:26 PM Response to Reply #17 |
31. The law (18 USC 211) is intended to prevent a government official |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 04:46 PM Response to Reply #31 |
35. Anyone else could run against your candidate though |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
harkadog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 06:05 PM Response to Reply #35 |
36. It applies and David Axelrod agrees |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ShortnFiery (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 11:16 AM Response to Original message |
18. Luke Russert = MSNBC's nepotism program at it's most VILE. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Phx_Dem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 11:26 AM Response to Original message |
21. Sestak really screwed himself and may have hurt his chances |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
flpoljunkie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 12:15 PM Original message |
Specter's not gone yet. Though, no doubt Sestak wishes he'd kept his mouth shut. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
treestar (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri May-28-10 09:16 AM Response to Original message |
38. Maybe Spector could pull a Lieberman |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
flpoljunkie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 12:15 PM Response to Reply #21 |
24. At least Sestak hasn't said he said it to get 'e-lec-ted' like Specter! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Phx_Dem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 12:49 PM Response to Reply #24 |
26. Yep, and that dumb and selfish remark did him in. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kiranon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 12:49 PM Response to Reply #21 |
27. Sestak may be the Democrats Rand Paul. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
totodeinhere (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 12:53 PM Response to Reply #27 |
28. It's totally unfair to compare Sestak to Rand Paul. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
IndianaGreen (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 02:28 PM Response to Original message |
32. Well, Obama did not 'lay this to rest today.' He let it fester. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
flpoljunkie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 02:38 PM Response to Reply #32 |
34. It will be put to rest shortly. Assume that means sometime today, or perhaps tomorrow at the latest. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TwilightGardener (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 02:31 PM Response to Original message |
33. Honestly, it's not even ON my list. It's politics. Job offers and appointments |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
JoeyT (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-27-10 09:36 PM Response to Original message |
37. It's pretty much a non-issue. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Thu May 23rd 2024, 10:39 AM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC